User talk:Bigleaguer

Making comments on talk pages
I take it you aren't aware of the convention of signing any comments you leave on talk pages. Additionally do not change comments you have already left. If you wish to retract any statements then use the strike out tag. If you wish to add to a comment, then do so by adding a NEW comment. The current techniques you are using are contrary to accepted standards and make it confusing for people to keep up with topics. Thank you. WebHamste r 01:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Content blanking
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. RolandR 11:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a line concerning his experience of racism in Israel which was excessive and falsely generalized to 7 million Israelis and Beinin's whole career based on a single described encounter. The line did not deserve a whole paragraph of explanation (nor in my opinion did the one encounter justify Beinin's whole career "from the other side.")Bigleaguer 13:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * NO, you editorialized, adding under the passage, as though it were a part of the quote from Beinin:-


 * 'Many would argue that prejudice is endemic to all societies in all times and that nothing was unique about Beinin's experience on the kibbutz. However, it was to change Beinin's view of his world, as Beinin removed himself from his people.


 * Read the rules, there are about 7 violations just in this one line. p.s. A word of advice. If you are interested in contributing to the Beinin page, read his books, and not the global gossip column and smear circuit stuff, written by people who know nothing about his work, but are hostile at what, on hearsay, he appears to be saying.Nishidani 13:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Beinin smeared a whole country by describing one atypical encounter, so I attempted to make a reader see that what Beinin described as "Israel" is not "Israel" to many other people, ie. I don't think "Israelis" are like that. Maybe a few, but no more than in other countries. Deleting the whole paragraph was another way to accomplish the same thing. I don't see where placing the same content as a supposed reference accomplishes anything. The quote is not a reference, it is opinion under the reference heading where it does not belong. Regarding violations, if they aren't cited individually they did not happen. There is nothing wrong with saying that the experience changed your life, otherwise you would not have put it into your sanitized approved bio int he first place. By the way, the gratuitous insults you delivered, on the discussion section, Nishidani ARE violations (ie "sophomoric" "Stupid" etc.) although I recognize that is your modus from having already read your quotes on your other critics eg. Kramer and Pipes. They are not appropriate for wiki.Bigleaguer 16:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to see quite what you did, but it looks to me as though you removed some 60 lines of discussion, including even your own comments. RolandR 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * so I attempted to make a reader see that what Beinin described as "Israel" is not "Israel" to many other people -- It's not your place, or the place of any Wikipedia editor, to do that. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I am getting the hang of it. I did remove the name of someone whom Beinin brought in without permission. That was the only part of someone else's discussion that I deleted. I also tried to move a paragraph without deleting it (of mine) from one section to another, or perhaps it did not show up right away, and I tried again. Bigleaguer 16:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Learn to read, preferably books, not the internet. Beinin referred to his experience on a Kibbutz, where that remark was made. Recalling an experience of that kind does not constitute a 'smear' on the people of Israel. (It's not 'atypical'. I was reproved on my kibbutz by supervisors when I bungled a plumbing job for doing 'avodah aravit'. This opinion reflected in each instance, the mindset of the specific supervisor, and I found many Israelis on the same kibbutz who would never use that kind of idiom. To say there are antisemitic attitudes in Germany does not mean all Germans are antisemitic. To think so is to flunk the first lesson in logic, on what is or is not entailed).


 * If you trouble yourself to read Beinin's books, he is anti-Zionist, for the simple reason that he is aware, as all historians are, that there existed not one unified, consensual national Jewish identity, but a great plurality of Jewish identities, whose richness was destroyed by modernity, and the loss of which he laments. His critique starts from that of an American Zionist, who experienced delusions about the idealism inculcated into him from youth. Because he underwent a mental sea-change, that explains much of the direction his research then took, it is worth noting in full. Eliminate that personal experience, and you will not understand what motivates his work, just as eliminating the para on Norman Finkelstein's mother would make his own later polemical stance incomprehensible. That is why all editors, pro-Israeli or otherwise, accept it as pertinent background.Nishidani 16:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited this page, deleted it. If not allowed to edit one's own page, so be it. I don't think one can vandalize one's own page, but if so, so be it. However, Nishidani cleverly reinserted his own comments but deleted the response to his remarks. Basically, it boils down to the difference between formative experiences and psychobabble. He (Beinin) has a whole world view that is supposedly shaped by an encounter on a kibbutz that destroyed his ideals of his American Zionist youth. Now one can react to disappointment in one's broken ideals in many ways. One can become a realist. One can go over to the other side. Beinin became an anti-Zionist. Fine. However, the explanation for his world view is deleterious to his position as an historian. It means he is explaining why he dislikes Israel (that is an antiZionist's role, to dislike Israel). As someone reading history, I want someone who thinks clearly and dispassionately. Having read some of Beinin I can attest that his work is rot, at least some of it, and totally lacking in truth in some respects. He can present a Palestinian narrative, but not at the expense of leaving out difficult points that do not conform to his preset prejudices and hatred. That is what separates a professional historian from a politician (you expect the politicians to lie). Moreover, the intro might have explained why he likes history or something. Instead it explains why he hates Zionism. If that is truly why he became who he is, why he teaches history, then the problem is deeper than expected. I would then agree that proIsrael historians would want that introduction kept out there in Beinin's bio-- as A WARNING! 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You are simply documenting your hostility to the subject of a page you wished to edit. You are supposed, on that page, merely to provide reliable sources and NPOV glosses on them. Read the rules, before intervening, or blanking pages. ps. All the remarks you direct at Beinin reflect your own opinions, and therefore I suggest you create a page somewhere on the web for them, since what you say has little to do with Beinin, and much to do with yourself. Best wishes for your project.Nishidani 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. I have zero, no hostility whatsoever against Beinin. I wish him well on a personal level. However, his ideas are simply and plainly wrong, and he on top of that, presents things that are factually wrong as history. Since he appears to feel his position and his tenure allow him to promote nonfacts unchallenged, and no one has that right, I feel obliged to stand up to him. These are not my opinions, merely, and I don't care whether he is dissembling or making honest errors, but he is presenting his opinions based on childhood psychologic trauma as history. They are not history. They are CR*P. The Emperor has no clothes. What I don't want is for others who don't have the background I have, having read extensively on the subject, to take him at face value. They would be lemmings jumping off the cliff. Regarding your suggestions, thank you very much, but I decline your offer to leave wikipedia. Wiki has a role to fill, and I have a subrole within it.


 * 'Since he appears to feel his position and his tenure allow him to promote nonfacts unchallenged, and no one has that right, I feel obliged to stand up to him.'


 * If in his academic works he presents what you call 'non-facts' his colleagues and adversaries in peer reviews will seize on them and point them out. This happens to all historians. Perhaps you should borrow a copy of Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History vol.12, where he devotes some several hundred pages to his critics, who challenged his approach, methodology, opinions and often facts.


 * If you know so much about the subject, make a synthesis of any one of Beinin's books from a neutral point of view, and then tell us where he is wrong by citing material which is superior to, and controverts, his (on the talk page).

Nishidani 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

that is a nice idea but you are talking about a career-- and I prefer not to make a career of being Toynbee to Beinin. That is well beyond the time constraints I have for this. I have commented in general on public statements he has made that are available and not challenged as his. If he stuck to history books that would make him unassailable except by another historian but he has delved into the public realm. I am the unwashed public.

then the problem is deeper than expected

Beinen's alleged problems are not an issue to be addressed by Wikipedia editors. -- 70.109.46.5 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
if in trouble, keep it civil and consult with WP:DR and WP:HELP.

cheers.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  06:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning, October 2007
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'  RolandR 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Campus Watch
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. DodgerOfZion


 * If you have an issue with my edits, discuss it with me first, instead of just reverting. DodgerOfZion

Vandalism
You called my good-faith edits that removed your POV OR edits vandalism. Calling me a vandal or calling my editis vandalism is against WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I ask you again, please stop this type of behavior. My edits are not vandalism; you are largly mistaken. Thank you. 21:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not horsing around...
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. It does not apply only to this article, and being uncivil with editors will not help your case. DodgerOfZion

I would say that is POV don't you think?


 * Call a spade a spade, sir. By the way, you dropped these: ~ DodgerOfZion

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Faisal isn't worth quoting.
As best I understand it, Emir Faisal's contribution and agreement is irrelevant to the Palestine question, let alone the article on Arab Jews. He was attempting to be king of the new Syria, and Weizmann would help him. (He failed). Long before he said those words, Palestinians were starting to become very alarmed at the intention of the immigrants, which was clearly to seize all their lands. Lots of clips if you've not seen them. PRtalk 09:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Professor I believe the word is "ineptitude" although I could be wrong. Cheers
 * Faisal was trying to be king of Syria and failed. Yes. However, at that time, Palestine was/had been part of southern Syria and Faisal was the de facto leader of Arab nationalists. Later, the Mufti as a Palestinian notable became head with several titles of Palestinian nationalism, also on the strength of several appointments by the British. Palestine territory was defined, again due to the Balfour Declaration and the British delineation of Palestine. The reason the reference was put in, is that the previous editor made a point of declaring and contrasting the antiZionism of the Palestinians with their acceptance of "native" Jews (their term obviously). My point is that the statement is politicized, as the antiZionist movement was not in place at that time, and also not relevant to discussion of Arab Jews. In 1919 Faisal is as or more relevant than the Palestinian Arabs and to cite antiZionism is misleading. It is nonfactual to assume Palestinian Arab hostility to Jewish immigration at the time as the rule. BTW as you well know the 1922 deposing of Faisal was far from the end of the story. Faisal's brother became ruler of transJordan which had been eastern Palestine. Faisal became ruler of Iraq. The rivalry between the Hashemites and the various Palestinian Arabs at that time (term used to differentiate from Palestinian Jews) continues to this day. Bigleaguer 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't understand what you're saying, nor the point of including Faisal. His words are eye-catching, but they don't actually bear any relation to what was going on. PRtalk 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League
Glad to have you working on the article. Sorry if I disagree with you so much! I wanted to question the "one-time" or "former" designation for Goldstein. The alternative is not to state that he was still a JDL member, only that he was a JDL member: this seems to be what is true and cited according to the present citations. "one time" and "former" seems to be your own addition; perhaps Goldstein, "who had been a JDL member"? So that we are not stating, contrary to what we have cited, that he left the JDL? Cheers DBaba (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)