User talk:Humus sapiens/archive4

Golovinski
Humus sapiens,

I read the latest German and Italian (see below) studies on the "Protocols" or its publishers like Nilus as most books on the Protocols in German or English but it seems I can't remember of having ever read the name Golovinski as the "ultimate forger" before?

Unfortunately I can't read Russian. But so far - although it seem much more likely that the "ultimate" source(s) will never be traced - the main suspect seems to have been so far? No?:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mzionprotocol.html ..., Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky. The intent was "to strengthen the czar Nicholas II's position by exposing his opponents as allies with those who were part of a massive conspiracy to take over the world" (Skeptic's

Cesare de Michelis wrote an extensive study on the different russian manuscripts. Here too I unfortunately could not read the Russian part. That is the Russian sources:

The Non-Existent Manuscript A Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion

By Cesare G. De Michelis Translated by Richard Newhouse

Cloth: 2004,, , CIP.LC ISBN : 0-8032-1727-7 Price: $55.00 Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism

The origins of the infamous forgery, the Protocols of the Sages of Zion, are the subject of much vigorous debate. In this meticulously researched and cogently argued study, Cesare G. De Michelis illuminates its authors and the circumstances of production by focusing on the text itself.

De Michelis examines in detail the earliest texts of the Protocols, looking in particular at the historical and structural relationships among them. His research unveils the differing texts of the Protocols and the presumed date of the first forgery. It also yields a greater understanding of the milieu in which the forgery was produced and the identity and motivations of its authors.

This volume is a revised and expanded edition of the original, which appeared in Italian. Featured is an arguably archetypal Russian text of the Protocols, which De Michelis pieced together from several publications, based on careful textual analysis.

Cesare G. De Michelis is a professor of modern and contemporary Italian literature at the Università degli Studi di Padova in Italy

http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/bookinfo/4546.html


 * Barbara, I am hardly an expert on the murky question of the Protocols' authorhip. You are welcome to add relevant encylopedic info to make the article better. The article that I linked is in Russian (published by Judaica Institute of Kiev). It does not necessarily contradict those other hypotheses. If you are curious about its content but are unable to find a live translator, you may want to try some software such as . Best of luck!  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 10:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

OK enlightened spirit. So far I do not trust machines to get over the delicacies of language. True its a murky field, and I hope that was the main reason not much research on it has been done in my country. But as we all see in the world today this sick little forgery - that mirrors more the mind of the forgers, or those that are attracted to it, than the supposed conspirators - is a pretty flexible tool indeed. And that is why I think we should be very precise.

I am not asking you to translate the Russian article - but what about a summery two or three sentences: what evidence the author thinks points to Golovinski?

Don't you feel that the statement "murky field" which it no doubt is, and the definite author are a slight contradiction? I prefer the many hands in this, since it looks much more realistic. Plus the evidence points that way.

I wonder what arguments would pop up if there was ample documentation of how the protocols - and I am pretty sure that happened - were changed and adopted for the different countries. The one and only truth and it's apparent flexibility, where - this is my impression - everyone could add his own bits and pieces, according to his basic prejudices. Cesare de Michelis studies show that there were many modification going on in the different editions. Are you doing this to an authentic text that has been robbed and secretly brought to the world's saviors?

You might be right though - the protocols probably either make you sick or you swallow them and are pleased you finally have an explanation for the bad state of the world. It's a powerful myth. [No accident it fit in so well here: Sergei A. Nilus: The Great in the Small, or the Advent of the Antichrist and the Approaching Rule of the Devil on Earth] if I look at the discussion choir and on the net, whatever studies there might be, the "need" to believe it is true, probably will find a way around every evidence provided.

Concerning your invitation: I'll start with the German version and will come back later. I wasn't sure if I would find my way back here, but seems I have. What a pity I missed the Wikimedia introduction in Frankfurt.

but thanks for your answer HS! -b


 * Barbara, I don't have much knowledge about the details. Regarding the article in Russian language: in short, Golovinsky's father together with Fyodor Dostoyevsky was involved in the Petrashevsky Circle. The article describes ideological, textual and even stylistic parallels between 1) excerpts from Dostoyevsky's "Karamazov Brothers" (particularly the chapter on The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor), 2) his "Demons", 3) the text of the Protocols, and 4) Golovinsky-junior's other writings. It seems very convincing and encyclopedic. Cheers!  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 10:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Propiska
> ''cp-ed per request. Is this better?''

Yes, it is - thanks indeed!

Aelia Capitolina
This guy's edits are completely insane. I tried to be reasonable with him dispite his attacks on me in other fora. I even linked to Jebusites since he wanted so badly to have some non Jewish link in there. But it's getting out of hand. I think he's well over the 3 revert mark, in spirit if not in form. How should we proceed? --Briangotts (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Do I endorse it, or what?--Briangotts (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding! ;-) --Briangotts (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks
Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"there was never a country called Palestine"
Please see British Mandate of Palestine. There is no doubt that the country was called Palestine in that period. Palmiro 10:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * no, you're wrong. It wasn't independent, but that hardly means it wasn't a country. Or is England not a country either? The post-WWI treaties established quite a few mandates, including Syria and Iraq as well as Palestine in the Middle East, and it is entirely normal to refer to them as countries. The fact that it was established with a view to implementing the Balfour Declaration is irrelevant. Palmiro 10:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you reach that interpretation. I never suggested anything of the sort. Palmiro 18:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was, to be precise, talking about your statement "there was never a country called Palestine", quoted above. Palmiro 18:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The other half of this talk is at   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 00:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correction on
Nadezhda Mandelstam bad me abakharev 02:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Help with Image copyrights & Fair Use
Humus Sapiens, you uploaded this Peel map image and assigned it a fair use copyright tag. The source of the image and the copyright holder are not noted, yet no one has objected to its validity under Fair Use. As you may have noticed on the Israel unilateral disengagement plan article, I uploaded a map illustration showing the proposed phased withdrawal plans, and tagged it Fair Use and noted BBC copyright. It came from a BBC World on line article. It has been asserted that Fair Use does not apply, and that using the image is a copyright violation. I disagree, and believe, like your Peel map, it qualifies as Fair Use. What is your opinion? Please help out by contributing to the discussion. Any help sorting this out would be greatly appreciated. --AladdinSE 12:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

et al
and various other IPs has been editing for months now and refusing to get a userid. I've pointed out to the editor that I cannot keep track of exactly which IPs are him and which are not, and that his refusal to get a userid is bad faith on his part. Yet, he persists in editing via IP and, as you've seen, making silly and unjustified edits. I've made it clear to him I will no longer respond to him as long as he edits via a series of IP addresses, but will be more than willing to discuss matters with him once he gets a proper userid and sticks to it. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Who can tell? It's an anonymous IP. Jayjg (talk)  23:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

See the discussion at Israeli terrorism "alleged terrorist incidents" for the truth of this. Jayg is using this as a way to play games regarding his pushing POV. I know this is a frequently made claim - but read the discussion for yourself am make your own mind up. As an aside - shouldn't we be judging edits on their merits not "are they part of the little gang we support"? - just a thought. 62.252.0.7 10:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * More accurately, someone who refuses to get a userid after editing for months is using anonymous IPs "as a way to play games regarding his pushing POV". Significantly, there has been little merit to any of his edits. Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you claim that? - when you affect not to know which are my edits and which are not? 62.252.0.6 11:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dhimmi and Ger Toshav
Please see User:Heraclius latest edits pointing the articles to each other. You might want to also look at his edits at Israeli West Bank barrier. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * He's still at it; I've explained why it doesn't belong at Talk:Ger Toshav. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oy. Israeli West Bank barrier as well. Jayjg (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yesenin
He lived in the USA for two years, if he would not divorse Isadora Duncan he would probably live there indefinetly (at least it was her plan).


 * Removed Prokudin-Gorsky, he seemed to settle to France, only his photos some how moved to Library of Congress, that was the source of my confusion. 05:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense at Terrorism
Have you seen the latest nonsense at the Terrorism article? User:Zephram Stark has decided to enter his personal introduction again, and is being backed up by a legion of sockpuppets and IPs reverting. Worse than ever... Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up!!! :)

--Sebastian Kessel 23:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete
Since I have decided to retract my theory about Stalin's ancestry would it be all right to delete the whole "Stalin was Half-Jewish" section from the discussion on the Stalin article. FDR          |         Talk 6:41 AM August 24, 2005

Current Events
What I mean by wikipedia is not paper is that there is no reason not to include the statement from Israel's interior ministry. I don't see how that is anti-Israel or pro-Israel propaganda. If you want, add more to the current events section, but don't delete factual information, please. Pedant 00:26, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Jenin
You put RV Trolling - this is despite there being a long discussion in the "talk section" of the article which shows that it is not - so why not just cite a valid source? 62.252.0.6 00:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Category talk:Ashkenazi Jews
Hello Humus: Do you think it's reasonable to "categorize" all the Ashkenazi Jews etc. on Wikipedia? See Category talk:Ashkenazi Jews. Thanks. IZAK 05:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Muslim refusenik
Humus, the Muslim refusenik article is unacceptable as it stands. So far as I can tell, the only person using the term is Irshad Manji. She'd like it to catch on, of course, but the meme doesn't seem to be propagating. The article ignores her role as innovator and assumes that her neologism did catch on -- but I see no evidence anywhere that it has. You may WANT it to catch on, but you have to be honest about its real status.

That's why I edited out your link in Muslim -- I thought it was a link to a bogus article.

Now that I've done the research, I may rewrite your addition to Muslim and possibly the Muslim refusenik article. Please understand that I'm doing this out of my dogged Aspie respect for the truth, and not because I disapprove of Irshad Manji. If I were a Muslim woman, I'd be shouting "You go, girl!". Zora 12:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Gel'fand-Naimark theorem
I can't accept your reason for moving this page. Gel'fand is often written that way in the technical literature. Charles Matthews 20:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Respect
Hey, don't know what I did to deserve it, but I appreciate it nonetheless! :):):) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Edom
Thought you might be interested; I've done a major revision of the article Edom, including the latest research. --Briangotts (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration and Weizmann quote
"nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" [see Balfour Declaration]

Records of the Jewish Agency Executive reveal Weizmann's opinion after the Balfour Declaration of 1917: “with regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence.” Weizmann quoted by Arthur Ruppin [ Fateful Triangle, p481, see source: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140] )

Israel Map
I thought there is no room for politics in wikipedia, and saying the golan heights aren't a part of israel by law it's politics. Roeeyaron 08:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying the Golan Heights are a 'part of Israel by law' is politics. The Ha'ihud Ha'Leumi's position on this is irrelevant. What matters is what official policy the United Nations, The United States and the rest of the world community have - and it is that Golan Heights are occupied territory. Don't photoshop any more CIA maps. --213.89.188.42 08:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * All I've done was converting GIF to PNG. I wasn't the one who altered the image. See User_talk:Roeeyaron and assume good faith.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 04:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Kazan et al
I received the following query from a Tatar editor with whom I've worked on some articles:


 * Hi! Could you start a stub Hebrew edition of Kazan and Tatars articles. Some my friends are studing Hebrew, but thel level of knowlege isn't advanced as well... Please, note, that Semitic 'q' should be used in word 'Qazan'! Thank you, --User:Untifler 13:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to help him out but I don't have a Hebrew-typing program and I don't have the knowledge of Unicode necessary to do this efficiently; in any case my knowledge of day-to-day conversational Hebrew will probably not help much in a scholarly encyclopedia piece. Would you be interested in helping out and/or do you know anyone who would be interested? --Briangotts (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Palestine
Thanks for your last edits and cooperating in the discussion page. I think its improved the article. --Yodakii 10:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Khazars
Shana Tova!

If it's not someone insisting that the Khazars are ancestors of all Ashkenazim, it's someone insisting against all evidence that no Khazars were ever Jewish. I could use your help dealing with this fellow. See and. --Briangotts (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Briangotts (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

MEMRI
Just wanted to thank you for your edits in MEMRI. Much clearer and well done 2nd paragraph.

Question: Rather than get into a revert war with someone, what is the next step one takes? PS I am a new user and this is my first post to anyone's talk page.

Dajudem (talk)

Link
Humus, how's a link that has 2 paragraphs about "No gays and dancing" relevant to the Hamas article. And why did you say that I made a POV removal? I only thought it was irrelevant. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Humus, there was no POV intended by me. The link is irrelevant. Note how I didn't remove other links only that one. If I added a similar one to the Israel article would you support it?-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a very short article by any standards. Why do you want it there? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The other half of this discussion is at .  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 03:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)