User talk:Humus sapiens/archive1

RK re: Israeli-Palestinian conflict
cross-posted to user talk:Adam Carr

You might want to know about this. User:Danny and User:Zero000 (perhaps the same person?) are repeatedly deleting vast amounts of material in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. Danny has made hysterical and false claims it is a "right-wing" anti-Arab, pro-Israeli point of view...to allow an Arab point of view to be shown. (Yeah, you read that right. He thinks mentioning Arab points of view in public is pro-Israeli POV violations!) Please understand, this is not a difference of opinion on what to include or how to phrase something. Like you, I am flexible. The problem is that Danny refuses to even allow the issue to be discussed, and offers no alternatives or constructive criticism. He just is engaged in a vandalism campaign, and refuses to allow anyone to edit the article. That is a clear violation of all Wikipedia rules. Others have also spoken out against the vandalism of Danny, and labeled it precisely as such. RK 02:17, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I've put it on my watchlist. That plus talk is a lot of reading... Gosh, looks like this turns into full time job!

I have major problems with the very 1st para:
 * The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians revolve today around these two issues:

If this was true, then why total silence during Jordan/Egypt. occupation of 1949-1967? AFAIK, the conflict revolves around only one issue: Arabs' hope to destroy Israel, plus European antiamericanism and A-S. That's real reasons behind the 'refugees' rotting in camps, endless wars (open, guerilla, attrition, etc), demographic explosion, and all the rest. BTW, I've emailed you "thank you" msg a few days ago, guess you didn't get it? Humus sapiens 10:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * The fate of the West Bank and Gaza.
 * The fate of the Palestinian refugees.

re:VfD/Anjouli and views
Just wanted to say thanks for clarifying that you weren't meaning to be personal about Anjouli. I tried earlier, but the servers wouldn't let me.
 * Thank _you_ for understanding and bearing with us novices. I'll try to be even more careful next time. I've inserted it back here for ref, as this seems to be common practice here. Humus sapiens 07:22, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * (blah blah)
 * Delete this POV article. (And I was born Jewish!). Anjouli 05:32, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Note, this is &quot;NPOV&quot; from Saudi Arabia, the world's expert on anti-Semitism. Humus sapiens 10:05, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I am an American citizen of Jewish origin and I happen to be in Saudi Arabia because my husband is a diplomat who is posted here. Even if I were a Saudi, would that mean any comment I made was without merit? That point of view is called racial stereotyping. To be fair, the article is moving towards NPOV and I am close to changing my vote. Anjouli 13:22, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Racial stereotyping would be putting one's ethnic origin (which must be irrelevant anyway, and if renounced - doubly so) in front of their vote, thereby suggesting that all the Jews supposedly have the same opinion or some kind of conspiracy. A Jew can be an Antisemite, just as an American can be an Anti-American. Good example of Psychological projection. Humus sapiens 07:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that I thought it was a bit off to be trying to dismiss Anjouli's comments just because she lives in Saudi Arabia. That's a touch ad hominem, and here we like to focus on the arguments, not on the people. Accordingly, I've moved the above comments here: hope that's ok. You might want to chat to Anjouli privately to see if you can resolve this issue peacably. Martin 23:41, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant to focus exactly on the arguments. Humus sapiens 01:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your views on Isr/Pal are... wow, completely different to mine - perhaps more than anyone else I've met today. Hope we can work together regardless. Martin 23:38, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, as long as we all strive for making things better and resolving our diffs non-violently. BTW, sorry your views are wrong :)p Humus sapiens 07:22, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
If it is "facts" you want, most of the Anti-Semitism article should probably be deleted according to you. Fact: any criticism of Israel is called anti-semitism by some Israelis. Fact: many jews are opposed to Israel. Fact: Israel is treating the Palestinians much like Jews were treated by European governments during WW2. If it is indeed facts you want, rather than a POV soapbox, you should agree these facts must be present in the extremely POV article Anti-Semitism. I am aware for many it is easier to deny facts rather than change a limited world-view, but you really ought to read up on what is NPOV here. &#8212; Jor 21:07, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Fact: many jews are opposed to Israel" - if you try to claim NPOV here, you'll have to show me an article for any other country where you wrote many of its citizens are opposed to it. If you can't, with monsters like N.Korea, Iran, Saddam's Iraq, etc.: Consider "Bigotry-finder rule 101": Take a situation, change the race, religion, sexual orientation, or other aspect of the players' identities, and see if the same results apply... Listen to the criticism of any other country: It is always a political party, a program, a policy, or a person that is criticized, never the legitimacy of a society. Except for Israel. Why Campus Anti-Israel Activity Flunks Bigotry 101


 * "Fact: Israel is treating the Palestinians much like Jews were treated by European governments during WW2." - another typical Antisemitic propaganda cliche, deeply immoral and very untrue. The rest of your arguments are of the same nature, thank you for clearing out your position. I am afraid your contribution to the topic of AS is too... exemplary, if you know what I mean. In the future, try to keep emotions out of encyclopedia: see What Wikipedia is not. Sorry I don't have any more time for your education. Humus sapiens 03:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you refuse to see that your overuse of the term antisemitic is a cliché in itself, which is a real potential danger in that it diludes the term, and as such is deeply immoral and very untrue. The entire AS article is one boiling pot of emotion as it is, I believe that when it comes to this topic it is nearly impossible to keep a neutral point of view: it certainly is hardly at all present now. &#8212; Jor


 * Singling out Jews or Israel hardly makes it more encyclopedic or balanced. I didn't write the article. Your contribution was higly emotional, factually wrong and not constructive. Don't take it personal. Are we here to make encycl. better or to push propagandist agenda? This is not a political chat. This is my last reply to you today. Humus sapiens 04:25, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I accept that you see the facts from a different POV than I do. The discussion is moot now anyway, as the point I wanted to make in my edit is present now, despite your over-eager revert. Shalom Aleichem. &#8212; Jor 04:33, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the Anti-Semitism page. I have made some changes such as replacing "Jewish people" with "Jews", improving some English, and clarifying some points. You can reach me on my talk page or via email. User:OneVoice

Username mods
(Why do people modify their sig as MyRedDice -> Martin and Darkelf -> Jor have above? Is something gained by this? Some information conveyed?) -- User:OneVoice


 * You forgot to sign. Darkelf is a username, Jor is my name. I find it makes discussions easier when names rather than usernames are used. &#8212; Jor

Glad you liked my edits; it's quite a nice article, by the way. &mdash;MIRV (talk) 01:51, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia
Dear friend,

I have a guess that among other languages, you know Russian. May I ask you to help us in creating good articles for it, namely about such sesitive topics like antisemitism? Thanks! Drbug 12:32, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll try. But I cannot promise to keep away from other topics :) Humus sapiens 22:43, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I just didn't dare to ask you more, it's only welcome of course! Thank you!  Drbug 11:28, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vfd Comment
You wrote:


 * To educate those who call blowing up schoolbusses, discos and pizzerias &quot;a cat and mouse play game&quot; or try to justify the unjustifiable. Humus sapiens 04:20, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The inference is that Europeen, above, was calling blowing up busses a "cat and mouse game". However, that's not what sie said, and I feel your comment was unnecessarilly provocative. We have enough flame wars already, thanks. :) Martin 16:14, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention at all. I find the Europeen's article, comments and dirty voting games worth reprimanding. Will try to be more constructive and polite in the future. Humus sapiens 10:46, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject
I would like to formally invite you to join others at Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict to work with us toward resolving issues that have arisen and resulted in edit wars here at Wikipedia. Also, I would like to formally request that you agree, along with the rest of us, to refrain from editting each of the articles that are listed as currently under protection or subject to edit wars on that page till the issues regarding that particular article have been resolved and we have removed that article from the currently under protection or subject to edit wars list. OneVoice 15:44, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate the invitation. I've glanced at the conditions, they seem reasonable. Humus sapiens 21:05, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would you add your acceptance or acceptance with reservations at WP:AIC in the Project Members section? OneVoice 22:18, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your Name
I gotta say, I get a smile on my face every time I see your name. *grins* Perhaps you'd like to join WikiProject Primates? - UtherSRG 21:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You need to go to the page and vote regarding the changes some are trying to make there.

You are trying to treat me??! You seem to buy all Nazi propaganda lies. What you are doing is very dangerous. Example with early Christian writer is very inportant. Nazi claimed, that he was Anti-Semite as they were. You follow their lie, in utter attempt to compromite the Christian writer. Nevertheless, there can be a Christian follower, who reading your nonsenses, understand Chrysostom the same way as Nazis did. Practically, you are spreading Nazi hate propaganda. Cautious 10:42, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

'''I guess from your reverts of your own changes that you do understand the important difference between those two verbs. Thanks. --Humus sapiens 10:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) '''

The difference between those verbs was the reason I made the edits int he first place. I still think that using "murdered" where "killed" suffices is pov, nevertheless that article uses "murdered" in so many ways, it would need much more attention that I'm willing to give it. Maroux 10:47, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

Hi Humus. Thanks for the compliments.

On the question of the importance of Jerusalem in Judaism, I would advise you to try and put up a more concise version of your paragraph (perhaps with less direct quotations). Showing you are willing to compromise and accept criticism sometimes helps (but sometimes doesn't. and sometimes it's just not the right thing to do). If that too is reverted, I would try discussing it on the talk page - asking for explanations.

I'm sorry I've not directly supported your cause on this issue. It's difficult for me to argue on two ongoing issues on the same article simultaneously, and I think it might also not be the best thing to do from a tactical point of view. However, If you generate a discussion on the subject of the importance to Judaism on the talk page, I will probably participate. Still, please don't expect me to automatically support any particular formulation. Despite the fact that (as you probably know already) I am a Zionist - I also believe in making the Wikipedia NPOV, rather than just a collection of POVs. -- uriber 09:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. You're right that I'm not a newcomer; I have an account, I just don't use it. --67.71.79.45 17:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Jerusalem. I hoped that with the new limitations on Wik, there is some chance of making progress. Unfortunately we now have to deal with yet another "very persistent" user. -- uriber 19:27, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi from IZAK
Hi "Humus": Thank you for your words, and thank you for bringing to my attention the page about "List of Jewish topics". Be in touch. IZAK 20:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

"Comparing Israelis with Nazis is anti-Semitic"
Hello. I just saw an edit summary of yours that said "Comparing Israelis with Nazis is anti-Semitic". This is an assertion that I've never understood. Do you believe that there is some intrinsic quality of Jews that makes them incapable of the kind of evil that Germans are capable of? Or what? I'm genuinely puzzled, so please don't bite my head off. Thank you. GrahamN 01:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No it's not about the genes, it's about education and morality. From dryly arithmetic point of view, you have to agree that the atrocities of the Shoah cannot be trivialized and compared with anything Israelis have done or do. More importantly, from the moral standpoint, this accusation is _highly_ offensive when applied specifically to Jews. Pls. take a look at anti-Semitism. --Humus sapiens|Talk 01:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply, although I have to say it raises more questions in my mind than it answers. I appreciate that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a discussion forum, so I won't pursue this any further here. I may do some reading and then show up at anti-Semitism, if I feel brave enough. GrahamN 02:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As for reading, I'd highly recommend this to anyone: ISBN 0385509057: Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars by Y. Lozowick. Best of luck! --Humus sapiens|Talk 02:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. GrahamN 03:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Shebaa
You changed "Shebaa, a Lebanese village" to "Shebaa, a village", commenting that "We are not taking hizballah POV". I assume this was because you mistakenly thought that the village of Shebaa was part of the Shebaa Farms disputed area; it is not, and is securely part of Lebanon. - Mustafaa 05:57, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Doctor's plot
As promised, moved to the corresponding discussion page.

"apartheid wall"
Do any mainstream media outlets actually call it that? If not, do you think it really belong in the article? (Honest question--I'm kinda on the fence, as it were...) Wikisux 01:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Righteous Among the Nations
Hi Humus sapiens. Thanks for the note. The reason that I decided to capitalize your "Righteous among the nations" was that it's a proper noun, so according to Naming conventions (capitalization) it should stay capitalized, because anytime someone writes it in an article they would probably capitalize it. I was just worried that people's links wouldn't work correctly. Have a good one! =o)

reply
You have pretty flexible standards about ad hominems; it appears acceptable for you, for example, to dismiss a scholar such as Norman Finkelstein with the slur "self-hating Jew". Well, I understand entirely, of course; dissing him with that mindless cliche is far easier than actually taking the trouble to examine what he says and attempting to refute it on a scholarly basis; you might, after all, encounter some uncomfortable truths. As for the rest, that media article was absolutely atrocious before we started working on it; the worst article I've ever seen here. It reflected your beliefs, that is clear, and to which of course you are entitled, but why don't you start your own web site if you want to editorialize about Middle East issues? Wikipedia's NPOV philosophy is not all that difficult to comprehend; most people get it it pretty quickly, especially when you see it in action in day-to-day editing. But either you are cognitively incapable of grasping it, too blinded by fanaticism, or you are cynically taking advantage of the openness of Wikipedia to promote your pro-Israel/anti-Palestine agenda, which may not be violent but certainly is extreme. Well, you may win the odd battle here, but, I assure you, eventually you will fail, because the vast majority (>95%) of the people here are committed to the Wikipedia NPOV, and they won't allow the encyclopedia to be used as a soapbox for extremist POV, concerning the Middle East or any other topic. -- Viajero 18:59, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Issues of neutrality
Since when are issues of neutrality resolved by stylistic opinions alone? I'm glad that you put in the changes that people oppose the implementation of zionism, and not just the strawman of the objectives of zionism... I believe with you editing it it's unlikely to be deleted. So, while I appreciate what you have done, I would rather you address the issue of neutrality with the facts, instead of what you believe to be a proper introduction. Where I come from, an example after a definition is considered good style and is more instructive. Shalom. MShonle 05:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About Simonides and the anti-Semitism article
Could you check out the edit-war in anti-Semitism? Simonides has been bothering Adam Carr and others in other Judaism related articles, he is not just causing trouble with me in the anti-Semitism article.

Simonides' shtick is that he deletes the sources that people add, then cries "There are no sources; it is just the unproven opinion of the Jews". Then when I add back the deleted sources, and add yet more authoritative sources, he deletes most of the sources again, and basically claims "This is just opinion; there are no studies!" This kind of lying-to-your-face is unacceptable in any communal project, let alone an encyclopedia. We can't allow him to edit out sources, claim no sources exist, and then revert everyone else's edits! RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Here are some more sources I was going to add; I understand that Simonides would just have reverted the article again and remove them, but the sources we have added are not for him; rather, the sources were for anyone reading the article. I feel that it is important that when big claims are made, multiple sources should be used if possible. Interestingly, the resurgence in anti-Semitism that Simonides denies exist is a fact that the EU, the Secretary General of the UN, and the ADL all agree on. RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * The New Anti-Semitism in Europe and The Middle East: Threat is "Potent and Very Real" ADL Leader Says in Major Address

The Jewish magazine, Tikkun, ran a series of article on the resurgence of anti-Semitism across the world.
 * The New Anti-Semitism, by Miriam Greenspan. Tikkun Magazine


 * It was already locked. I agree with you here. His excessive reverts, sleazy tactics and ad-hom attacks (see e.g. his talk page) better subside soon, if he wants to stay. He's a new user, hope he will learn the ropes.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)