User talk:JohD

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk  12:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your edits
You appear to have a very perculiar edit pattern. Editing only Israel Shamir related articles. The content of the speach was what caused much of the controvercy, so I am repacing the remarks about the content.

Since the only verified evidence shows Shamir is a Swede I am changing that back too.

I hope you manage to broaden your interests. jucifer 02:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually Jucifer, I would prefer if kept the discussion to the discussion page. To address your comments left here. 1. I am interested in Shamir, that is what led me to wiki in the first place. 2. It is by no means proven that Shamir is a Swede. He might be, but all we have is the word of a 'private investigator', and an unverified copy of a passport. I am trying to verify the passport, but have informed by the Swedish consul that privacy laws in that country forbid providing personal information about citizens. The 'private investigators' report is suspect on several grounds: a. The passport copy does not have a stamp(seal) covering the passport picture. b. The photograph, while possibly resembling Shamir in another era, can also just as easily be someone else. c. I can find no corroborating evidence that Shamir did indeed change his name, what his name was changed from, and the date it was changed on. Reports vary as to the timing. d. The claim by the 'private investigator' that anyone can get a copy of Shamir's passport. Presumably 'anyone' would also include wiki editors, I can't get a copy. d. There are no reports existing that Shamir does not live in Jaffa. There is the extensively reproduce quote from Ben Dror Yemini who, after being called by Frontpages Stephen Plaut; confirmed that Israel shamir is an Israeli, and is a virulent anti-Semite. You may ask then why Shamir does not sue if these claims are false? Sue who? The tabloid articles are charaterized by legalese, everyone is quoting everyone else. Even here on wiki, supposed to be an enclyclopedia, half baked allegations are accepted as fact.

3. Even if it can be shown conclusively that Shamir has changed his name and acquired Swedish citizenship, how this indicate that he is no longer an Israeli, since it is legal to have different identities and different nationalities in Israel, and it is not hard to have your name inserted on the census, even if you are not present.

I suggest you find yourself a private investigator, find solid proof, convince a reputable newspaper to publish your evidence, and then come and edit in these reports. You don't get a free pass to edit in your opinions, based on the opinions of others, as a fact: ie. Swedish writer.

My edits are reasonable, explained and unless you have a pertinent argument for doing so, please don't revert it again.

As for your 'controversy' edits, please go ahead, but spare us your opinions, the speech contains nothing resembling Zionist Occupied Government, and neither does 'Blood Libels' endorse the blood libel. It is just your opinion, and irrelevant to the subject at any rate. Do you inderstand the concept of slander by association? There is nothing to indicate that Lard Ahmed shares Shamir's views, simply because he hosts a book launch for him and others. The claim that Shamir endorses the 'veracity' of the Protocols of the Learned Eldershis article of the same name says:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are best described as 'pseudo-epigrapha', rather than 'fake'. They belong to the same category as Tomas Friedman's Letter of President Clinton to Mubarak. After all, pseudo-epigraphic genre is an old and venerable one. It is even better to consider the Protocols, 'a political pamphlet'.

... Summing it up, a big share (though not all) of the ideas ascribed to the Jews by the Protocols are indeed the ideas useful or necessary for the Jewish communal well-being, without any need for great hatred towards Gentiles and/or the guidance of mythic Elders of Zion. That is the reason of the Protocols' long life. Paradoxically, without Israeli apartheid these facts would remain invisible for the host communities.

Hardly an 'endorsement'. In his piece Shamir agrees that the 'protocols' are 'fake', although he thinks a better word would be 'epigara' or a political pamplet in the form of a imaginary dialogue. Hardly represented by your editorializing use of the word 'endorses'.

I think I will stick around, even if it is as a one-issue editor, certainly there is much that has alerted me to the agenda of some of the editors here. And I can play by the rules as well.(JohD 04:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

(JohD 04:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Are you Shamir?
Since he stoped editing wikipedia, I suppose you are probably him. Do you reject this? jucifer 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your problem is you suppose too many things, then edit them into wiki articles as fact. I am not now, nor have I ever been - Israel Shamir.(JohD 23:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Shamir
Hello - thanks for your message. I will look into it and get back to you here or on the article talk page with my comments. Ramallite (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Black Consciousness Movement
Hi JohD,

thanks for your comments on Black Consciousness Movement. Some of my contributions to the article tried to briefly address the issue re: the ANC; the challenge as I saw it in this section was not to denigrate the ANC (which of course had many supporters even during that time) while trying to give a realistic sense of why the BCM seemed compelling to people at the time as an alternative to the ANC's inability to change the political landscape during that period. I will look over the source you provide and look for others to try to give more depth to this portion of the context for the BCM.

I hope you will continue to offer comments, sources and even to be bold in efforts to improve the South Africa-related portions of the encyclopedia.

best regards

Joewright 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)