User talk:Nishidani/Archive 24

Bolter's point of view toes his government's line
The fact I perfer to use the term "Palestinian Territories" with no regret in my mind contradicts this claim. I do not say the SoP doesn't exist de-facto becuase I support Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, but becuase I know for fact, it doesn't exist de-facto, as a left-leaning anti-settlement person.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was an inappropriate choice of idiom, but I don't have much time, given the work load and the heat to pause over the niceties of prose. What I meant was that objectively, despite the obvious fact that you think for yourself, spend a lot of time examining and thinking about sources to arrive at your conclusions, the result obtained is not substantially different from the conservative Israeli line, which I identified as a calculated desire not to clarify where Israel's eastern boundaries are. I think I wrote (perhaps replying to Kingsindian) some years ago, that it was rational for Israel to do this, and there was no visible gain for Israel in making up its mind (i.e. in no longer investing huge amounts of time, money and diplomacy to avoid a peace deal). Any minimal deal would mean losing something substantial while gaining nothing Israel already does not have. That's why Nathan Thrall's new book, stating what has been obvious for decades, was so welcome. When your researches tell you there is no such thing as the state of Palestine, that, objectively, is heir to a long line of Zionist claims about there being no such thing as 'Palestinians'. It took several decades to extract an admission that Palestinians do exist, so now we have the 'there is no State of Palestine' argument. This is too abstract, and plays with words, since you have an elected Palestinian government in Gaza, like it or not,and all retired Shin Bet heads seem to think you can negotiate with it) and the PNA ruling over 6,000 sq. kms. Sure, these are enclaves, but the definition of statehood is not arrived at by imposing the criteria used of Western polities- it has numerous definitions because state formation (see the historical anthropology of African states pre-contact etc.) is extremely variegated and a clear categorical definition thereby very complex. All the Israeli argument you agree with means is, 'Palestine' is not a state of the kind we, and the Western countries that count, have. Big deal. It is not such a polity because it is objectively in Israel's geopolitical interests, according to the conservative worldview, to keep the baby born in 1988 on minimum life-support, while denying it the conditions to mature into adulthood. All official power thrives on the margins opened up by ambiguities. Close the ambiguities by clear law, and you have less leeway to do as you want, at least in formal democracies. I must get back to Two Mules for Sister Sara since the ad break is over. Best regards, and, if you find the desert trying, take up an interest in skinks and lizards. Gaza alone has about 13 species. I used to collect them in my leisure time after a 15 hour workday.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem here is mainly what the name "State of Palestine" mean in both of our minds. It seems that to you, "State of Palestine" is a concept. You said ...you have an elected Palestinian government in Gaza, like it or not,and all retired Shin Bet heads seem to think you can negotiate with it) and the PNA ruling over 6,000 sq. kms.... which means that for you, it is not that the "State of Palestine" exists, but that there is a "State of Palestine" which is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip. First of all, I don't fully disagree, in my eyes, the PA and Gaza are functioning as states. Secondly, saying "there is a State of Palestine already" and poiting out the Gaza Strip and PA, is a very Zionist thing to say, a few levels below saying Jordan is a Palestinian State. "The Palestinians already have a state" they say, "it is Gaza and the PA". This can be linked to Naftalie Bennet's vision, of a State of Israel, annexing Area C, keeping Areas A and B under Palestinian "autonomy" and the Gaza Strip as a separate state.  From my point of view, the "State of Palestine" is a state de jure. It is not the Gaza Strip or PA, but only what it claims to be: The State of Palestine. It was declared in 1988, not established via agreements with Israel in 1994 or after a civil war in July 2007. It is the Palestinian Liberation Organization, acting as a wanna-be state. Whether you say there is already a "Palestinian State", doesn't change what I see, that the state under the name "State of Palestine", declared in 1988 by the PLO, accepted as a UN observer in 2012, doesn't exist yet. The State of Palestine is not the Palestinian Authority. One thing some users in Wikipedia do, that is even worse in my eyes, is to refer to the Palestinian Authority as the "State of Palestine", while seeing the Gaza Strip as a separate entity, as if the situation was simmilar to the Peoples' Republic of China and the Republic of China, only that the Gaza Strip consists of a third or half of the Palestinian population and Hamas is still active in the West Bank, fighting Fatah politically, and enjoying the wide support of the West Bankers.  The State of Palestine, Palestinian Territories, Palestinian Authority and Gaza Strip, are all four different things, and blending the difference between them will contribute to further confusion among readers.  Just a small anecdote, yesterday my father's cousin and her Welsh husband visited us. She told me that when they were on the way back from a trip in Jerusalem, they took the 443 highway and passed through Modiin. On the way they entered Wikipedia as they wanted to read about the city, and they saw this paragraph in the lead: A small part of the city is not recognized by the European Union as being in Israel, as it lies in what the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Jordan left as a no man's land, and occupied in 1967 by Israel together with the West Bank proper. They read it, but since they are not educated on the subject, they didn't really understand much, and came into conclusion that Modiin is an Israeli settlement beyond the Green Line. This is the things I try to avoid, and this is why I am so stubborn about the definition of the State of Palestine and its usage in links, because I care first and foremost about what my readers understand, and this is why I send articles and paragraph I create to my father and to other people for review, to see if they actually understand anything. Know that this is my motive, more than a mere POV push.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, when I've watered my tomatoes to ensure the blistering heat wave doesn't have me starving next week, I'll get back to this, but in the meantime, I've made an expansion to the article precisely on this. The problem with that patch in the lead was that it had no follow-up, as is required per policy, in the body of the article, which would have clarified the issue. There was nothing, however, inaccurate in the lead sentence, which states 'a small part of the city' meaning that the EU decision does not change the status of Modi'in as an Israeli city.
 * The general issue you raise is, by the way, reflected exactly on this point because, while the EU was simply legislating in accordance with a court decision, its decision caused the usual boring outcry, described by Coren thus:-
 * "“In our opinion, the European Union’s interpretation of the term the State of Israel as it appears in the trade agreement constitutes a deviation and breach of contract. Ora Coren,  'European Union: Parts of Modi'in Do Not Belong to Israel,' Haaretz 14 August 2012"
 * In other words, some Israelis were upset that an 'interpretation' was problematical as undermining 'The State of Israel', just as you think the 135+plus international states' recognition of a 'State of Palestine' is a denial of reality. The Israeli side upset about this chanted that the European Union was not facing 'reality'. Arguably, your approach is doing the same: not facing the 'reality' on the ground, i.e., that there are areas, recognized by Israel, as definitely constituting land under exclusive Palestinian jurisdiction where Israel has no right to enter, except on occasions when it determines that it must enter enemy territory. That is both a de jure and de facto admission that the so-called Palestinian territories contains something that constitutes a state. I'll get back to this, but first the garden.Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI :
 * The fact is that the 'de jure' situation prevails on any 'de facto' situation because the law and legacy of things and situations prevails on anything.
 * If you are taken your smartphone by a thief, it is still yours, even if it is 'de facto' in his hands.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Only that the State of Palestine was never taken by a thief, it never came into existence in the first place, unlike my phone. The State of Palestine exists only on papers. Writing that a university is located on a paper, is misleading. Someone might actually think that the Palestine Polyechnic University is located in a state called Palestine, and pays taxes to the State of Palestine, and get fundings from the State of Palestine, which also has a government and citizens. But the State of Palestine doesn't have sovereignty, or a government, or citizens. It only has recognition and the recognition is considered even by most of the supporters as no more than symbolic. Recognized or not, the State of Palestine still doesn't exist.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that on a detailed level most of my understanding of the reality on the ground would match Bolter's. However, at the meta-level we differ. The main problem is that on Wikipedia we are not supposed to edit according to our personal assessment, but rather in accordance with reliable sources. The fact that both legal experts and political commentators differ widely on what "State of Palestine" means that our articles should reflect that disagreement, and we aren't allowed to write what we believe is self-evident and demand others follow. One key point: it is not hard to find expert legal opinion that there is no such thing as a distinction between a "de-jure state" and a "de-facto state". Usually the distinction is only made in reference to governments rather than states. For example, the "de-jure recognition of Israel" by the US some time after the "de-facto" recognition of May 1948 was in no way a statement that the status of Israel as a state had changed, but only (as the text itself says) that the US recognised the government of Israel after the first election as the legitimate government as opposed to the provisional government that existed before. So one can't take the de-jure/de-facto distinction as an objective fact but only as one of the extant opinions. As another example, the territory of states can be under occupation by other states. Many reliable sources, not least most or all UN agencies, use "State of Palestine" to refer to a territory and not just to a paper-state, and are perfectly happy to write about places "in the State of Palestine". We can argue that they are wrong, but our opinion on that doesn't belong in article space except as a report of reliable sources who have that opinion. As an aside, I would personally prefer to write just "Palestine" rather than "State of Palestine" unless the statehood is the topic of discussion, just as we write "Israel" most of the time and only rarely "State of Israel". Zerotalk 11:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Palestine Polyechnic University does receive funding from the government of Palestine and answers to the Palestinian Ministry of Higher Education (which is an entity that actually exists with staff and salaries, despite Bolter's sweeping assertions.) The government of Palestine also collects taxes in area A at least. Zerotalk 11:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that allows me to do some more tribal articles, since it is precisely my view, only expressed more succinctly and, arguably, more cogently. The final point is that the wild generalizations Bolter uses above (no citizens, no sovereignty, no government) crumble when practices in the real world are examined. You can, as a Palestinian, take out a Palestinian passport from the PA government authority in Ramallah, which first determines that you are, for them, worthy of Palestinian citizenship, and then travel abroad. If you go to the U.S. they, of course, will state that this acceptance of the passport's validity in no way, horror of horrors, implies recognition of the citizenship of its holder. If the same person then catches a flight to Tokyo, he will be treated as a Palestinian national, i.e. citizen. All you need is a visa, like most other folks. Daniel Barenboim in accepting his Palestinian passport, interpreted it as giving him Palestinian citizenship. But then, Barenboim's genius in this regard consists on insisting on being normal in a world of hallucinating confusion.Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The State of Palestine has no citizens, no soveriegnty and no government. The Palestinian Authority has all three for quite a long time. The Palestinian Authority is not the State of Palestine, and merging the two is extremely misleading. The State of Palestine is run by the undemocratic closed-club of the PLO, while the Palestinian Authority is run by the once-democratic Palestinian Legislative Council and Fatah/Hamas' cabinets.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't repeat yourself on this page. Either reason on the terms given in an argument or drop it.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you are persisting in treading on dangerous wiki ground, I'll add this, for your own good. I.e. you are confusing your perception of the 'truth', with the way reality must be described, i.e. neutrally, by wikipedians. If you don't take that on board, you're asking for trouble, and that would be a shame. I'll synthesize the gist.
 * What you are confusing is recognition of a country as a state, and the existence of that state, in whatever form it happens to be, embryonic in this case. Israel, as we all know, has no interest in recognizing the state of Palestine, as that is recognized by 135+ countries. It will not do so because doing so would be (a) political suicide for its proposer (b) a form of amputation of territory it aspires to control or annex (c) the definitive cancellation of a key symbolic component of Zionist ideology, the religious fiction of 'The Land of Israel’.(I'll add my private fourth view: a permanent state of conflict involving external threats is, pragmatically, ideal, and to be sustained for cynical political reasons by a leadership that must manage a country with deep identity conflicts about its nature and future direction). It can persist in obdurately blocking this because American administrations, Israel's junior partner, have repeated that they will continue to exercise a veto on any recognition of Palestine as a State, except  if or when, some day towards the end of time, the Palestinians negotiate a deal with the occupying power, Israel. This, in performative terms, means that the State of Palestine cannot exist as an entity endorsed by the UN until Israel gives the go-ahead, which it is not in Israel's interests to do (except if it managed with their cronies in Ramallah an agreement that would necessarily kill any pretensions to a viable independent state. This is the hard realism Nathan Thrall finally made public, but has long been known to people who don't read newspapers, twitter or faecesbook.
 * The rest of the world is realistic: it accepts that this ‘roadmap’ is a Catch 22/Batesonian double bind farce guaranteed never to resolve the outstanding issues, and thus, accumulatively 135+ nations have negotiated agreements with the Palestinians recognizing their statehood. All this however is irrelevant. The fact is, Palestinian diplomats explicitly present themselves as  representatives of the State of Palestine.  When Saeb Erekat writes that:
 * ’The State of Palestine remains committed to negotiating a peaceful resolution to the conflict between it and the State of Israel’ (p.14 below) he is articulating the Palestinian POV, that a state exists already, and argues why this is true appealing to the Montevideo Convention, which expressly stipulates that recognition is not a sine qua non of statehood .(Saeb Erekat, Liberation Organisation: Legal Brief in Support of Recognition of the State of Palestine,’ in Mutaz Qafisheh  (ed.), Citizens of the State of Palestine and Future Refugees, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014 pp.14-29 pp.23ff.)


 * What you have been doing recently is rejecting for personal reasons all of Erekat’s positions, which you are allowed to do off-line but you can’t as an editor. I’m surprised at your persistence because we have a known and documented Palestinian POV and all I/P article are obliged to balance the equations of the parties. You,  articulating a commonplace Israeli POV, insist that Erekat's formal position is factually wrong, and want to meddle on those grounds with numerous articles. You’ve enough experience to know that WP:NPOV means that on wikipedia no position identifiable with a party in a dispute can be passed off as the default reality, i.e. as if it were a fact, and the other POV  false.
 * You've all the rights in the world to believe, that the Palestinians are deluded and you, an Israeli, see things objectively and that your 'objectivism' should be imprinted on this encyclopedia.  In real life, you may well believe that your government is telling the truth: on wikipedia, you are obliged to see the other side, the alternative ‘truth’. You may, I allow, even be right, but that is irrelevant to editing here. Some day, you'd do well to get some philosophical student or lecturer to take you through Hegel's concept of Anerkenntnis. The whole of Israel's 'master'-conflict with the knechtisch Palestinians is contained in that short excursus, unbeknown to most of the actors, kibitzers, commentators of the global dronocracy.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think that you both speak French. Anyway, here are the points of view of scholars on the topic :. And that's quite clear. They even go further than what wikipedia admits. Jean Salmon : Pluto2012 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "l'Etat palestinien existe bel et bien. Mais il n'existe que pour ceux qui l'ont reconnu." / "The State of Palestine well and truly exists. But it only exists for those who have recognized it." All tihs is quite easy and obvious.
 * "Est-ce que l'effectivité de l'occupation (manque de souveraineté) empêche l'existence de la Palestine ? Non" - "Est-ce que les frontières empêche la reconnaisance ? Non. Idrael n'aurait d'ailleurs pas de frontière non plus." :-) - "Est-ce qu'une reconnaissance ne risque pas" etc.
 * Exactement. Merci, mon cher ami. J'espère encore trouver le temps nécessaire à compléter le travail pour lequel tu m'as sollicité l'autre semaine . . malheurerusement, la vieillesse me rend oisif. Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Philosophical inquiry
Since the meme 'alternative facts' is constantly in the air in the current political climate in the USA, I was wondering what would/could the contemporary Popperian philosophical outlook be on the possible concept of an 'alternative truth,' alluded to in one of the very recent posts above. The sudden, unexpected mention of such a concept has aroused, nay enhanced, my pure philosophical curiosity. warshy (¥¥) 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the bedtime reading witching hour over here. If you give me a link to the precise passage above alluded to, I'll examine it tomorrow. But off-hand, you might like to examine Many-valued logic.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was referring to your statement above at 16:45 (UTC) today that

"' on wikipedia, you are obliged to see the other side, the alternative ‘truth’. '"
 * Thank you for the pointer in the meantime. Good night. warshy (¥¥) 23:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, inverted commas around any word have a 'suspensive' or 'ironical' function. Nothing whatever to do with 'alternatives', since there is no alternative in a world where most people think lying is the primrose path.Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Incantation
To request speedy deletion of Wadjari, replace the whole of its contents by

As the sole author of the page, you have to do this yourself, otherwise I'd do it for you. Regards, NSH001 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry for that bother and other oversights causing you needless labour.Anyway, we're just about half way through, over 270 tribes, and 24 anthropologist/linguist articles - by today I hope we'll tip the magic 300 mark, all within a working period of 10 months. It might even be less since the latest data, despite Tindale's classification, is that the Aborigines spoke 502 communilects, and languages(228)/dialects define the ethnic field. If so I hope, to use my father's idiom, to 'break the back' of this marathon by Christmas, if all goes well. This of course only means setting up the stubs, so that anyone, consulting the linked literature on any page, can build on them slowly and carefully. Back to woik! Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Aboriginal source page per Huldra's shining example
I think I need to muster up the fundamental early sources on the Aborigines, very much along the lines of my inspirer for this series. I'll begin to drop some bibliographical notes here, so they can be transferred to a new page, as she does.

There are two assumptions on future work once the several hundred outline articles are completed I expect doing these two things is beyong my scope and span, but by setting up a comprehensive reading list and leaving it here, stray editors and odd bods may just be able to click read, and harvest information from these sources without making tiresome net searches on their own.
 * (1)All articles deal with the country where each aboriginal tribe lived, listing contemporary townships and cities etc. Eventually each town and city article in Wikipedia should have a link indicating the tribe(s) that inhabited the zone before white colonization. At the moment, most articles begin with white settlement, ignoring the pre-existing groups.
 * (2)These articles are being written according to the relatively modern scholarly notices. However, once the list is complete, then each article should be reviewed according to the 19th century historical sources listed below, which are extensive and detailed yet difficult to use because they mention landscape, and customs, without identifying the tribes by name. Once we know from the articles who lived where, reading the classics accounts becomes simpler, in that we can immediately twig which tribe or tribal group is being spoken of.
 * (3) It follows that each article should have in a History section RS citations of the first settlers, where they set up stations and cattle runs, even if the tribe is not specified. Thios is perfectly legitimate background, and not a WP:RS infraction. Often the early pioneer chronicles will mention the 'natives' or 'tribes' without identifying them, but the lack of a specific tribal name does not translate into passing over in silence their presence on those terrains. This is particularly exigent for articles on tribes for whom little information survives, since they died of introduced disease or massacres. Their articles can easily be thickened by using regional histories of the occupiers who took over their territory. Examples are the Bungandidj and Meintangk: the earliest forays indicate widespread smallpox marks, but few people. The archaeological evidence is turning up, to the contrary, evidence of dense populations until settlement.


 * Overviews




 * Bibliography in chronological order


 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online
 * This is a reprint of 1883, but more legible online


 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lyndall Ryan, (ed.) Colonial Frontier: Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872 University of Newcastle, with timeline here and statistical analysis of the 172 massacres in 84 years here, 3139 aborigines as opposed to 72 colonists. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

some reading
I dont know if you are familiar with these?


 * http://www.nyungah.org.au/susannah/owlstonereport.pdf



Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed. Setting that main course on my oogling menu today means you have helped me rid my thoughts of the image plaguing them since I woke up this morning: I was at a restaurant last night where the conversation dwelt in meticulous detail on an almost lost recipe for Pappardelle alla lepre, pappardelle stewed in hare sauce, which a male nurse (also a hunter) picked up by patiently eliciting the arcana from a dying cook, aged 92, from the Marches, who was otherwise on the edge of taking the recipe to the grave 20 years ago. It takes 3 days to prepare, and cooked once a year by the nurse, who has promised to pass on a succulent portion of the result this coming Sunday. We have salvage linguistics in Australian anthropology, and salvage cooking in the infinitely deep world of Italian culinary arts, and I really needed something like the above two works to get my mind focused back on my present priority! Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

A wee present for you
... to lift your spirits after the nightmare of the AfD getting into the Bundestag, and in thanks for your tireless work on anything that really matters on Wikipedia.



--NSH001 (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,N. Exquisite. As these racist scumbags shoot up and shoot off like toxic mushrooms, one can only tune out of their yawping noise by tuning in to the likes of Daiqing Tana, or as song like Wiyathul by the late deeply lamented Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, to realize, if proof were needed, how little those xenophobic bastards know of the aesthetic dimensions of the non-hegemonic world. I haven't done much these last few days- busy navvying for a friend's farmhouse.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Allah vs God per WP:NPOV
apropos this, which of course was immediately reverted.

I think it obvious that there is something wrong in consistently referring to 'Allah', when, with regard to the other non-Christian monotheism, Judaism, one does not refer to 'YHWH' or Jehovah/Yahweh. This is a systemic bias.


 * 'god-fearing Jew' (234,000 results)
 * 'god-fearing Arab' (9,210 results)

Textually one has good authority for 'those that feared Yahweh' but Western tradition has abandoned it. God is God (whatever the deep differences are between the two conceptions) in Christian-Jewish dialogue. We still insist, however, on a distinction between 'Allah' and 'God', whereas Allah is the standard Arabic for God, used by all Arabic-speaking Christians. This should be brought up, as a policy-point that is, as far as I know, unclarified.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt whether others would find this interesting.
 * Yossi Gurvitz An Atheist in the Yeshiva: The education of Yossi Zvi Gurvitz Mondoweiss

September 29, 2017
 * I enjoyed it because he found in classical Greece an exit ramp, to mix metaphors, from the ideological straitjacket of Judeo-Christian thought.Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nishidani - it's not the same. Muslims use Allah when speaking in English (partly due to Muslims using Arabic, and only Arabic, for prayer and for the Quran) - e.g. - (see 0:45, 2:00), or  (0:45 for instance), or  (1:10 for instance). Jews, in contrast, do not use the proper Hebrew name for god in Hebrew, let along English - it avoided both when speaking (if reading a section with the proper name, it is replaced - typically with Adonai (mylord) and when writing (for instance, with a single ה, or alternatively with a euphemism). One uses euphemisms. In English - most Jews will say God (and if not (rarely these days) - a different euphemism). In fact, avoiding the proper name has reached the point when some English speaking Jews write G-d (, as well as other shortcuts) and not god as a carryover from the Hebrew practice. The google bias is there due to completely different speech and writing patterns. I suspect that if Jews didn't have the custom to avoid the proper name - we probably would seem more proper name uses in reference to Jews - as it is something no practicing Jew (and many non-practicing Jews) would say or use. When referring to other religions (e.g. Buddhism) - we do use the proper names of figures in their religions, as they do use them.Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's best not to seek information on the popular sites, like the ones you link to. You only get disinformation, in the sense that anyone who tries to improve their knowledge of Judaism (or any other religion) via such sources only gets trapped in modern ethnonationalist collectivist clichés that iron out all of the variations and dissonance in the respective traditions. I expect Arabic-speaking Jews would have had no problem in reciting the Shema Yisrael in Arabic, using 'Allah' as a replacement for 'Adonai Eloheinu'. Jews translated the Tanakh into Arabic precisely for this reason, because it was the primary language of their eastern communities. Perhaps you might like to check Saadia Gaon's tafsir to see how he handled such issues.
 * Where did you get the idea Arabs only use Allah when speaking other languages? My local Moroccan and Egyptian tradesmen say 'Dio',and I have often heard or read Arabs saying 'God' in English, as I have heard Jewish people say 'God', without thinking they are somehow thinking as Christians. Navid Kermani 's Gott ist schön: Das ästhetische Erleben des Koran, came out 6 years ago and no jihadi has, to my knowledge, taken offense. Same with Zahid Aziz, Introduction à l'Islam, (2012)
 * "'Dieu est Rahim ce qui signifie qu'Il est Miséricordieux,.' p.17"
 * Rabbis likewise have no trouble saying God/Dieu/Dio/ when referring to the tetragrammaton: Neil Gillman,The Jewish Approach to God: A Brief Introduction for Christians,2003 etc.Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some Muslim may use God in English - but many use Allah. Arabic-speaking Jews may have used Allah (though this was complicated by use of Judeo-Arabic languages, Judaeo-Spanish, as well as Aramaic language by some communities) - I don't not know off hand (though wouldn't have used this for Shema Yisrael - which would've been said in Hebrew even by lay people (as the least common denominator Hebrew prayer - just as the Shahada and Takbir would be something just about any Muslim would say in Arabic), but in day to day or in more esoteric instances - perhaps). Note it was permissible according to some for Jews to pray in a mosque, whereas praying in a Church is considered to be a "big problem" (due to the trinity and icons). however no practicing Jew uses the tetragrammaton (any most non-practicing as well) - this is avoided - thus a Jew (Rabbanim included) in English will always use god or some other replacement - in fact the most common use of the tetragrammaton in English seems to be by Jehovah's Witnesses which is Christian (or derived as per POV).Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Mishna allows prayers like the Shema Yisrael to be said in any language, and it was so prayed in Arabic, since most Jews in Arabic-speaking lands did not know Hebrew, as most Jews in the Mediterranean 2000 years ago spoke and read only Greek, and prayed in that language as often as not.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ps. it's best not to bold some sentence that contains a cliché, the implication being your interlocutor doesn't know the ABC of such things. Entering a church is, in the general orthodox tradition, forbidden, not because of the Trinity. Halakhic rulings are fuzzy, but the general rule goes back to the old interdiction against Jews entering a city where any structure containing idols had been raised. Of course, most Jews couldn't give a fuck for such nonsense, since curiosity about art, architecture, history and human culture etc trump the stupidity of bigots in the clerisy of any faith. Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And no one could of course pronounce the tetragrammaton anywasy since no one knows how it was to be properly pronounced. You can't speak a word you can't pronounce.Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Allowed, yes (contrast this with Islam's exclusive use of Arabic, of course most Christian branches are much more language permissive) - however most communities prayed in Hebrew - and the Shema in particular would be something most community members would've been able to say in Hebrew - even if they knew little else. So yes - possibly said also in Arabic - making the use of Allah in the Shema more prevalent (rarely used) than the use of the tetragrammaton (in the past 2000 or so years - since the advent of Rabbinic Judaism - never used). The point I'm trying to make - is that Jews (in the past 2000+ years) never use the proper name - and typically use the language equivalent god (as long as it isn't an idol...) in whatever language they are speaking. And yes - pronunciation of the tetragrammaton is to a large extent lost (though possible to reconstruct) - since it has been suppressed by Jews for 2000+ years - this is an effect of Jewish use, not the cause.
 * Regarding churches - yes... it is complex.... Alot of blood bad between Jews and Christians (heck - the Christian bread & wine "thing" caused various Jewish prohbitions)... And needless to say much of the finest art and architecture in Europe is in masterpiece churches.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Generalizations are either high-order syntheses of a complex cluster of facts cautiously made in order not to violate any detail in the secondary order under summary, or they are just impressions, opinions, etc. It's not proven that most Jewish communities prayed in Hebrew, and the reason is simple. You are taking the word 'Jew' as having an inclusive valency which defies the huge variations of Jewish traditions. Your premise, for example above, is gender-biased: while Ashkenazi Jewish men who prayed in a synagogue would use Hebrew, their wives and daughters in Europe would pray in Yiddish, from such sources as the Seyder Tkhines. That means one half of the community did not pray in Hebrew.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We might argue on the length of time the respective genders spent praying vs. possibly more productive pursuits, however neither gender uttered (in the vast majority of cases - halachik dissenters might've) the tetragrammaton in whatever language they were praying.Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a reasoned reply, it is persisting in an opinion in the face of an obvious fact that exposed the premise of the generalization you used, and its lack of historical pertinence. The tetragrammaton is a furphy in the argument I proposed. Judaism, like all religions, changed its opinion after several centuries, and decided not to pronounce God's name in Hebrew (or rather you could no longer hear the High Priest shout it 10 times from the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur). It was a word that could be only said on one day at one place in the world, and with the destruction of the Temple, its justifying context was lost.
 * You appear to have forgotten the starting point: This is an English encyclopedia, which must be global and neutral. The concept of God shared by the 3 monotheisms, all genetically related, is denoted by a different term in Hebrew, Greek, Arabic etc., but in English we say 'God'. No one writes, the YHWH of the Jews, or the theos of the Christians, but there is a tendency to differentiate the Arab word as denoting a different concept. Westerners allow that the standard English term, 'god' (or dieu, dio, Бог (as in bok(er tov), Gott, etc.) according to cultural context, can be used for the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic deity, despite the fact that each of these religions describe key aspects of that entity in decidedly different ways. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that a residue of the millennial old hostility to Islam subsists in our (lazy wikipedian) persistence in allowing 'God' to cover both the Jewish texts, and the Christian texts, but reserve for Arabic texts the indigenous term, implying it is qualitatively different. It is not: a large part of the Qu'ran comes straight out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christian and Jewish concepts of God are as alien to each other as  the Islamic notion might be to either, yet we treat the Jewish and Christian texts re God as referring essentially to the same metaphysical reality. It's pure prejudice, racist at the core.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's very decent of you. Of the Palestinian bios I did, however, Muhammad Najati Sidqi is my favourite. As for GA, well, I don't have that much time to get involved in any wiki formal applications/processes. The important thing is not formal approval, but simply doing the kind of job GA asks us to strive towards achieving. My old man, who had a fair array of medals on his chest when marching in commemoration of his mates who didn't make it through the war, always felt uncomfortable about what he called 'fruit salad'. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you thought about creating an infobox for the Australian aborigines?
I think these articles lack an infobox. First I figured out it will be good to have a map on the upper-right side of the page, with a pin on the location of the tribe, but I realised that it would also make sense to have an infobox.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I find it offensive most names for anything about Australian indigenous people - we stopped the usage of the term natives since the 1950s I think JarrahTree 08:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot how to spell aborigines, so used the word natives. Aparently its offensive. Oh well.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think people are far too touchy about names, while (Jarrah excepted of course) relatively uninformed about the real history of aboriginal/native peoples (the world over). If I had time I would go through every city, town and patch of terrain about which we have articles, and note there the tribe(s) which originally inhabited the area. As the Australian city/town articles stand, only about 1 in a 100 mentions who lived in the area before the coming of whites, and the history sections start with the colonist(s) who founded the modern site. I find that offensive.


 * Apropos 'aborigines'. I happened to be in Australia during the Whitlam years, and remember vividly Whitlam's handing over land back to the original owners at Wave Hill. On checking his speech, I see he mentioned in sequence, Australians, black Australians, Aboriginal Australians, and specifically Vincent Lingiari's Gurindji people. The iconic gesture at least is recorded here. I'm sure the run of John Howards and, what's the fellow's name, that Jesuit-educated twit who has a name, and had a behavior, reminiscent of Abbott and Costello?, no doubt all used some voguish politically correct term, but in their acts they were throwbacks to the racist world of Australia as an imperial colonial outpost, comfortable with its progressive pride in the necessary genocide of the foundational century.


 * Once you get into politically correct usage, it's not that you have a certified stability in naming, or that prejudice just disappears. As to Aboriginal, it is, to anyone with a Latinate feel for English, deeply complimentary, meaning 'there from the pristine beginnings of time'. Of course if an indigenous Australian dislikes being called an 'aborigine', then only a prick would insist on the term. The last time I was out there, a western Australian aborigine, who looked like he had not a tincture of 'white' blood in him, self-identified as both 'aboriginal', and as a member of a specific Westralian tribe, but insisted he was more than that, since his paternal grandfather had been Scottish, and he was equally proud of that lineage. Indeed, his primary cultural identification was with the Greek Argonauts, about which he knew a lot. Bolter himself is 'Israeli', 'Jewish' but has a fascinating mixture of French, Sephardim, Ashkenazi etc.etc., family links, unless I am mistaken, and each has a place in his cosmopolitan identity formation.
 * In English, ethnic slurs are typically formed by abbreviation into monosyllables or disyllables: Aborigines is neutral, 'abos' is racist; Palestinian is neutral, 'Pally' is a put-down: 'Polish', 'Italian', 'Greek', 'Arab', 'Chinese', 'Japanese', 'Jewish' neutral,' 'Polack,Ity, Dago, Wop (Worthy Oriental Gentleman), Chink, Jap/Nip, 'Jew' etc., all potentially or really offensive. My father, as usual, gave me a hint as to handle this: avoid the generic. He befriended some American soldiers, looking a bit lost and lonesome, sitting outside the Moana hotel on Waikiki beach back in the early 60s and asked them where in the States they came from. One said, 'well sir, we're actually of Indian origin'. 'Oh, really?' Dad replied, 'which nation?' They were amazed by this: all their lives they had been identified as 'American Indians', a term which they used but only in deference to white prejudice, and here was an utter stranger asking them if they were Iroquois, Cherokee, Sioux, Paiute,Chocktaw, Kiowa, Navaho etc. They were Navaho.
 * As an infobox, you're right, Stav, but for the moment it's a matter of priorities to get the basic bibliography in place with links, and an outline of the ethnographic details -language, country, history, etc-. The two biggest gaps are in formats to get across the kinship structures in tabulated form, and maps showing their relative place among the historic tribes of every region. But those are big undertakings and beyond my abilities.Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone interested in brilliant oratory might like to listen to Pearson's commemoration of Gough Whitlam here, particularly 15 minutes into the talk.Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me second the suggestion for an infobox. You can peruse List of infoboxes and choose one that looks easy to adapt, then some infobox editor can adapt it for you. I think the main things to insert are the tribe name and a map with a location pin, but you will think of others. Note that fields are automatically omitted if no value is given, so fields for which only some tribes have a known value are fine to include. Zerotalk 01:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think people are missing the point here - nishidani cannot even project tag or categorise much - as an editor is far more interested in the content - boxes are hardly the thing to be coming to this talk page - probably the last... mind you the missive about the about the transient nature of labels is worthy of a close read as to its perspicacity - and as he says the issues here are beyond his capacity to fix here on wp en JarrahTree 03:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Compromise?
 * Of course, I don't own any pages I create: I've never removed the info boxes that I find, and have only edited them down when they appear to hijack the article, i.e. stuff in all of Tindale's alternative names and the like. They should be summary, short and sweet. If anyone can think up a minimal template along the lines Zero suggests, and plunks it here, then I'll duly add it to at least the last 200 or so articles I have to write up (yeah, I'm a lazy ****, botting off other people's good will, apart from the fact one pushes on with a certain fatigue, after spending days up olive trees picking the crop for oil presses). The coordinates are the easiest problem, since they exist for every tribe (whether reliable or not is another thing, because often Tindale's determinations have been questioned), and are readily available by examining the searchable on-line copy's alphabetical list of his magnum opus, or magnum o'piss as I believe his critics in Australia might call it.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * makes me think of basils great eureka moment about the darwin grass people in 'the sick who do not speak' - he loved telling the story how camp at wallaby cross missed and the subsequent paper solve it... displacement and divergence - thats the style I say - JarrahTree 11:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * E.g.Peter Sutton,Native Title in Australia: An Ethnographic Perspective,  Cambridge University Press, 2004 pp.46ff. isbn 978-1-139-44949-6, but for the moment can't find the right article for it.Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ngadadjara
Hello Nishidani,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ngadadjara for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xx236 (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

trying to mke sense
''Just off hand. Can you help me stop going off my 'nana'?''

haha im in the tree anyway, and its not a grandmother or banana tree either... no need to worry..

In view of the range of names that do not even appear to be related in some articles about people, languages etc -

I think a fear about any principle at risk - is unfounded - the possible usage of redirects/cross ref'g and clear correlation of the corroborating information (as ex-plained to me on my talk page) is not committing and offence or issue. Adequate referencing and low level personal doubt exhibited does not constitute anything untoward imho. Please go ahead JarrahTree 07:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Fuck but these are hard to do, in the sense that Tindale refers you to sources, so you read them and can't find anything except a name. Kaberry's 1935 article names but doesn't distinguish much between the Arnga, Yeidji, Wilawila etc., but is full of detail assuming the data all applies to the several tribes. The editor here is stymied from adding the rich material because it is not specified which tribe any datum relates to. Idem Stuart's The Land of Opportunity (1923) full of details but never mentions a tribe by name, though you know from the geography it must be the Kambure etc., here and the Yeidji there. It means one dutifully examines 100-200 pages per diem, only to squeeze out a few drops because the rules of editing don't allow inferences. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Dispute on Lead Section of Im Tirtzu
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! PasterofMuppets (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Manus Regional Processing Centre
Re your edit. and summary
 * "What happened to the lead. No trace of the intense criticism aroused by these lager conditions, and bureaucratic-political obtusity."

- Nothing happened to the lead.There was never anything there about "intense criticism" because they had not been added to the body text. Maybe you could add a relevant paragraphs/s? - What do you men by "who wrote this ? some foreign offi toeing the official template language?" - Page also needs more updating as AFAIK all persons have been removed from the Centre, and that isn't mentioned either at the moment. Regards, 220  of  Borg 01:25, 28 November 2017
 * What is a "foreign offi"?
 * I'll get round to it if no one else does. The article strikes an outside observer who reads up on the topic as (a) written straight out of government papers: the jargon used is only found in bureaucratese (b) and totally ignores the intense criticism over the years aimed at the way the government handled the issue. 'Some foreign office bureaucratic'. The body of the article needs to build up a criticism section, you're quite right. Sources abound, and those who wrote the paper fell short of their job in omitting to mention to obvious.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I did do these edits. 220  of  Borg 06:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that work, I'll review it and add more material as time and health allows. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * 謝謝.我出生在一家酒吧! And don't even think of it. There are better nightmares. As to being tired, there's an easy remedy for that - rereading Endō Shūsaku's 海と毒薬, which, among so many grisly things, has a stimulating exploration of the concept of fatigue (疲れ) in all of its nuances. Thinking about a concept which has personal ramifications often cures the state of mind that suffers from its effects. Cheers, Alex. Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your much deserved beer!....for some reason, editing in the IP area made me think of Flash mobs...Take this: I logged on one day, getting several pings from a talk page.... It turned out I had been discussed on he.wp, one lady there had apparently mistakenly assumed that I was the writer of the Khirba article...and immediately two other editors ping me...without even doing a simple check of the history of that article. If they had, they would have seen that I had never even edited the damn article!

Now, that one editor made a mistake, is one thing, but two other parroting the same mistake, without even a rudimentary check?? I mean, much as I respect, say, you, or Zero0000, I would never just copy what you are saying without doing any checking! (No offence meant!) ...you are both human, and humans do mistakes. Ah, well... enjoy your beer! (I prefer wine, myself...) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The annoying topic of "State of Palestine"
Hello Nish. Came back from 25 days in Jericho. I've checked a few dozen Palestinian IDs, all say "citizen of the Palestinian Authority" in Hebrew and Arabic, with the Palestinian Authority emblem on the back (with "al-Sulta al-Falastiniyya", not "Dawlat Falastin"). Some of the Palestinians gave me their driving license, which said in Hebrew and Arabic "Ministry of Transportation - Palestinian Authority". I've checked a handfull of Palestinian Passports in the checkpost before the Allenby Bridge, all said "Palestinian Authority". I've seured workers in Aqbat Jaber and we met with Palestinian policemen, whose tags said "al-Sulta al-Falastiniyya". I've seen a big sign on the southern entrance to Jericho, whit information about a construction project, sponsered by the "Palestinian Authority". My platoon commandor was part of the convoy of Abu Mazen on his way to Jordan, which was described by a Palestinian representitive as the "President of the Palestinian Authority". In other words, I've spent 25 days in the State of Palestine, and I saw no sign of it existing in any way. Any opinion? (other than probably showing sorrow about me doing the job you spend a effort opposing).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stav. very interesting. In other words, the state doesn't exist, but has citizens: the non-existent state does what all states do, issuing licenses, passports, and running standard state institutions like a police force, health and educational services and infrastructure and these multiple exercises of state rights are recognized as legitimate by Israel (I don't think you lads are told to impound that material, as an earlier generation was told to rip down on sight any Palestinian flag), and foreign states, 136 of which formally recognize statehood. No. I don't have feelings of sorrow. When I went to Israel to work on a kibbutz, I was asked in the tel Aviv office where I'd like to spend my time. I said: 'Anywhere, near borders, that is regarded as dangerous will be fine' and, after a laugh, they posted me to one such area. I wanted to put my antiwar principles under strain, potentially of hostilities, to see whether they were real, or just a cover for cowardice. One man did try to kill me, but he was a psychotic foreigner, neither Israeli nor Palestinian and I handled the threat well, without panicking.
 * You are under a national obligation to do military service (I preferred a jail sentence, but Socrates would have served even if he disagreed), so the point is to do the job well, without enmity, by the book, which it appears, unsurprisingly, you do. I have no expectations that the experience will substantially alter your views. I only worry that you are in an unpredictable warzone, where even the best of intentions can misfire and endanger you, and others. It is a very difficult situation, so keep on your toes, observe everything closely, and keep safe. My only advice is to try and wrench 10 or 20 minutes each night writing down the bare bones of your daily experiences, without cluttering it with emotions, and, perhaps, to read Thucydides. The world is increasingly hysterical and one opportunity your service can offer, unintentionally, is to cultivate close detached observation, not only of the 'enemy' but of your fellows, and yourself, when everything you might face demands the opposite. Above all, take care, lad.Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a different argument, you say that the "Palestinian Authority" is, in fact, the Palestinian State. I won't fully disagree, as the PA does act more as a state rather than an autonomy as some in the right like to define it. But the "State of Palestine", as an entity, and not a general term, is not the "Palestinian State" that the PA is.


 * I am struggeling to spend 10-20 minutes for exercising, reading (books or newspaper) and sometimes, even sleeping and eating. So far I didn't really had any serious confrontations with the "enemy". The Palestinians of the Jordan Valley are quite calm and when we meet them in checkpoints (Allemby or at the exit from the West Bank on the south) it is usually accompanied with a smile and sometimes a laugh. The occasional Taxi drivers from East Jerusalem already know us and shake our hands in the morning, while the Palestinian workers from Ramallah, Hebron and Jericho sit with us for a cup of coffee and greet us as they renovate a millitary camp, from which raids on Jericho will be sent. The only time we saw a major confrontation was when we arrested someone for a crinimal offense (wouldn't elaborate as I don't know if I am allowed to) and his family refused to let go (not knowing that he will probably go back home tommorow, as most of the Palestinians we arrest). One extremely odd expiriance I've had, was seeing three Palestinians being arrested and brought to our base, blindfolded with their hands tied, after they accidently flew a drone above our base. An hour after they were arrested, I saw my half Bedouin, half Galilee-an Muslim company commandor sits with those three, with their hands and eyes free, as they show him their BMW car and let him take it for a ride around the base and even take a picture of him with it. Even though I knew that my expiriances will be much different than what is expressed by the media (the Israeli, Palestinian and international ones), I have to say I didn't expect so many cynical and absurd expriances and in such a short period of time.
 * Hopefully I'll have time to expand some articles about the Jordan Valley in the future.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing absurd there: it's the normal side of any longterm occupation on a quiet front. Australians collectively in the colonial period shot an estimated 20,000 indigenous people but generally most people 'got on' and most settlers didn't engage in it. They just kept mum, or murmured it wasn't nice, but then the logic of history meant that they would die out anyway. A man like Paul Foelsche could command 'nigger hunts' and wipe out a dozen here and there and, next week, camp with some and ask them if they could supply him with words for his lists of their vocabulary. Some of the worst massacres were by the Australian native police, under of course white commanders, just as some of the most vicious behavior in the IDF search and arrest missions is undertaken by Druze. It's a standard colonial policy. Men could have Sunday shooting parties to knock off a tribe, while keeping some blacks to work for them.
 * Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I didn't identify the PNA with the State of Palestine. The PNA is a quisling government. Palestinians suffer a double occupation in my view: by the PNA (and perhaps Hamas) and by Israel. As I said much earlier somewhere, the State of Palestine is a quarkish entity, there and not there depending on terms of definition but recognized by too many foreign states. The concept of God is nonsensical of course, but a disturbing proportion of mankind accept it,  as a metaphysical reality, and act, behave, perform service and think as though it were existent. Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I just noted that Interpol has accepted the State of Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an afterthought,B. The evidence you cite re PNA documents doesn't reflect the 'state' of the 'State of Palestine' question. It reflects a negotiated outcome between the occupying power and the occupied authority as to what form of notation is acceptable to the former, Israel, and what the latter is willing to go along with faute de mieux. On internal or diplomatic documents, and discourses before an international institution, the PNA appears to refer to itself as the representative of the State of Palestine, for there, Israel cannot pose a veto, as it can on documents circulating (which require its approval) in the West Bank. I would expect that were the PNA to issue documents for those travelling through Israeli checkpoints that contained 'State of Palestine' it would translate into holdups, rejection of passage etc. So the 'evidence' is neither here nor there, for Israel, in every forum in the world, and today at the Interpol conference in Beijing, vigorously protested the use of State of Palestine. To no effect, fortunately. The farce you see in documentation reflects not reality (whatever that may be) but force majeure, for it would imperil Israel's geopolitical interests to have Palestine universally recognized as a state, starting with immense legal complications. And that is the way it will almost inevitably stay, regardless of diplomatic realities.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the Palestinians will elect Marwan Bargouti as a president, he would still not be a president, until he will be released from the Israeli jail and the State of Palestine will not be a state until it will be released from Israeli occupation, even if the world will vote in favour of its existence. I accept the PA as an entity which is a state within a millitary occupation on a territory under occupation. But the concept of a "State of Palestine", the member of the UN, is not acceptable as a location in which there are cities and academies.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "the State of Palestine will not be a state until it will be released from Israeli occupation, even if the world will vote in favour of its existence."
 * That sums it up nicely. In your understanding, Israel, uniquely among the community of nations, has the right of veto as to what constitutes a state, in this case Palestine. No nation on earth, in international law, has a right of veto to invalidate what 99.9% of the states of the world recognize. It can state its view, and wipe its arse on all formal deliberations by the world community that contradict its intransigence, but no one would give a flying fuck, other than laugh. You admit that Israel is an occupying power, and assert, above, that it is occupying something that doesn't exist. Reflect again. I'm familiar with all these paradoxes: Zionism was a secular movement by atheists which laid a claim to entitlement over another country on the basis of a divine writ concerning a promised land which, however, the foundational atheists knew to be a pious fiction, etc. Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We occupay a land and a people, as in, they are not our citizens, yet we rule over them, and the territory is under the direct rule of our millitary and not the government. And we believe (and know for fact) that regardless of mythology, we were here and this is our homeland. If there was no sign of Jewish presence in the region or any other mention to Jews in Israel outside of the biblie, today you won't have any atheist nationalists like me.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've said a million times, the state of Israel is uncontestably legitimate. But the nucleus of your statement 'We were here'  is analytically and historically meaningless. In laymen's language, crap. You were born in Israel. Israel is a state 80% composed of historically recent immigrants and their offspring, period (like Australia, America, Canada etc). The only thing that connects that variegated multitude with the land is a religious doctrine formulated in Babylon by a small clerisy, around 6 centuries BCE, descending from exiles from Judea, which formed the nucleus of Judaism, defining incidentally 'pure Jews' like themselves (see Ezra/Nehemiah) from a 'rabble' ( Am ha'aretz) who nonetheless were ethnically identical to them, and had stayed on the land while the aristocracy languished in Babylon. Use 'we'  as some transhistorical entity which has maintained its essence, you step outside of religion, and enter into a form of ideology based on the notion of 'race', now euphemistically reframed as genetic continuity. 'We' means, here, that Yitzhak Shamir and Israel Shahak, or Norman Finkelstein and Menachem Begin, or Albert Einstein and Dov Lior, all share some secret essence that is deeper than anything that might bind the first 3 to their peer communities. If you believe that you'll believe anything
 * There is no genetic continuity proven between Jews in general and the Jews located, aside from everywhere from the Maghreb to Iran in antiquity, in ancient Israel, anymore than Italians are ancient Romans or Greeks Hellenes, or the English Britanni. Mind you, in real estate terms, it's a buyable idea. It's nice to be able to hail from Brooklyn, from Ashkenazi families that go back hundreds of year in the USA, discover you are a Jew above all else, and therefore entitled via aliyah to kick Abdul out of Shuhada street in Hebron because a Sephardi who did aliyah in the 1800s from Iraq was force out of his home after the slaughter in 1929, and you want his house at zero cost.
 * I looked on my ancestors' farmland in Carrick-on-Suir some years ago, and a local farmer hailed me at a distance, mistaking me for a local identity, saying I was his spitting image. It turned out, funnily enough, that the local identity had the same name as my ancestors who fled after being dispossessed by the English. He wanted me to meet up with the fellow. I wasn't interested. Perhaps I should check the net and see if anyone else will join me in an armed invasion to take back what was, um, 'ours', meaning all of the 70 million people who can trace some link to the Ireland from which one of their forefathers was evicted at gunpoint or by the duress of state-organized famine. Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As Im sure you know, Dublin was founded my MYYYYYYY ancestors.....them damn sqatting Dubliners can just wait, I will be back with our navy and kick them out one day.....(Seriously, Ive never been to Ireland, but I hear that many of countrymen invade Ireland every summer.....mostly its pubs..... I even know a couple who have bought a 2nd  home there...and apparently they are  quite welcome, too! That might have something to do with only taking what is for sale, and paying for it. Huldra (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC))
 * Good grief. True, you have prior right. My father always said that we weren't authentic O'Cuinns but rather descended from a medieval Norman family, Duquesne. He also said however that nothing the Irish say about themselves is reliable, since their, sorry, 'our' penchant for letting fantasy get the better of the facts was unrivalled. If Ireland, then the West Coast, in September. Magnificent food is not the least of it. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sound tempting! I have just watched "Lords & Ladles"...Huldra (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like someone been drinking too much of the Pally Kool-Aid. Your ignorance is astounding. The Norse invaded and colonized Ireland. They were never native. The Irish are the natives. The Arabs invaded and colonized Israel. They were never native. Jews are the natives. Just because the Arabs built the Dock of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque doesn't mean the Temple Mount is theirs. It will forever be Jewish and only Jewish, and we will one day take it back and slaughter the Islamic occupiers and rebuild the temple. I yearn for the day when Mecca is destroyed and a Jewish synagogue built in its place and Muslims banned from praying there. And Norway will soon be an Islamic country full of dhimmis subservient to Muslim overlords. Ireland has always been a puny and irrelevant anti-Semitic country and will remain that way. But it too is losing its culture and morality like Norway and has a homosexual Indian foreigner prime minister; what a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.225.102 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I always enjoy being told by quarter-baked drongos who've sucked on, and been suckered by the milk of infantile myths since they were in nappies, and have never been succoured by imbibing any serious nourishment ex fonte, that I am ignorant. I take such things as a Socratic compliment. Out of the mouth of boobs.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Kokata
Just wondering – I notice we already have an article Kokatha Mula. Are these the same as Kokata? --NSH001 (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. So I guess I'll have to delete my more recent stub, which I was gunna woik on taday.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the one source on that page doesn't mention 'mula', The only variation is Kokata, which is universally attested in the older literature, and Kokatha - how the descendents spell it now. So even if I deleted my page and put the information there, that Kokatha Mula article would require a change of title, even more laborious. Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And things are getting tougher on the home-run or last leg. For some confounded reason, some glitch means that I can no longer read pages at Google Books. The page comes up as grey, and does not allow me to search elsewhere in the same book. Perhaps they've twigged to the fact I've been ransacking and rummaging like a pirate through tens of thousands of pages without so much as a thank you note.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I often find that Amazon will let me see more pages than google books. Are you using the Italian version of google, which is probably what you're getting by default? So you could also try google.com or the UK version of google. In any case, I actually find Amazon easier to use than Google. I wouldn't put a URL to Amazon in a book cite, though, as some people object to it as link to a "commercial site", which I find a strange argument, given that Google is also a commercial site. I'll ponder the name a bit further, but I think I'll wind up simply redirecting Kokatha Mula to Kokata for now (quick and easy to do). --NSH001 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a serious glitch. Every google page comes up a blank grey, though the page no is indicated that I got there. I did withdraw from google books to stop them making my stuff searchable. Amazon still allow this, using versions bootlegged by a major international publishing house, which refuses to even pay me my copyright dues. 'Vengeance is mine', saith the Lord of digital creation ! I find Amazon less searchable, quite anal in fact and I only use it if the precise page number is not given for text in google scholar. In that regard, Amazon will always yield up the precise pagination for quoted text. Damn it. It really hampers my side of our project. It means 100-150 tribes mightn't nhave their pages done after exacting checks on the academic sources at Google Books. I used to be able to read 50-100 pages, even if the usable data extracted was just a few lines, for most tribes. Zilch from here on in.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you give a few examples where you're having this problem? I've just looked at a few random examples on google, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to have changed (hard to be sure though, as google has only ever given a partial view, unless the source is public domain). I do get some blank pages where it says "loading" at the top, but they do eventually load. I don't see any greyed-out pages. Perhaps if you're editing on an old and slow computer, that might be the cause? Even if google books is fucked, all is not lost, as you've still got access to public-domain sites for older books and JSTOR for journals and (some) books. Must be annoying if someone is not paying you your copyright/royalty fees. I thought the penalties could be quite severe for violating copyright? --NSH001 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a slow, old computer. I've put up hundreds of links to pages on those 430+ tribal articles, and a random clicking shows none are now visible, even if one waits a half an hour. The same things are happening with my downloads from biodiversity for old anthropological texts. They email you an email address which you click ona and download into the relevant file. Well, for 2 days, the email arrives, I click on it, and it won't load, so no more downloading from that rich site either, though one can read the texts on-line. So it is a general state of the computer. I have a nephew who's an expert in quantum mechanics, whom I should see in the festive period. I'll try to get him to fix whatever it is. My pet companion for 20 years, while I was taking my wife to Rome for some medical texts, plopped down in her usual waiting spot, a pothole from which she could wait for our return. She died there some minutes before we got back. No bones were broken, so it can't have been a car. I've just buried her. A string of bad luck.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Might be time to consider getting a new computer? Though you'll probably have to put up with Windows 10, unless you can get a geek nephew/friend to get hold of a copy of Windows 7 and install it on top of Windows 10 for you. I have 2 laptops on my desk, the older one is Windows 7, which I refused to allow to upgrade itself to Windows 10 (turned out to be the right decision), but the newer one is Windows 10 (OK once you get used to it, but I'm not a big fan). They're cheap enough nowadays that I prefer to have two machines in case one fails. So sorry to hear of your loss, hope she wasn't in any pain – and that your wife's health turns out OK. --NSH001 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a tinkerer, and used old TVs and fridges that have lasted three decades. I remember some time ago that there was a reset programme that enabled one to set back the computer's system a week or so, and, using it, resolved some glitches. I'll try that first, then using my uncle's MAC to see if I can download the stuff on a pen and transfer it here, or see if a computer technician can reboot it with just windows7, and, if all that doesn't work get the nephew in. I never hurry over these things.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AE
Please be aware that I reported your edit warring and inferior editing at WP:AE. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, have a nice day.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Citations needed
I appreciate that you are trying to add information about traditional owners of Australian places, but could you please include a citation. You must be getting the information from somewhere; please tell us where. Kerry (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And why in this edit did you delete the citation I added for the Kangulu people? I added it precisely because you didn't provide a source for the information. If that's not your source, then by all means replace it with your source, but don't just delete my source. Kerry (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that edit was misunderstood. Since two tribes were involved, and since the link you provided sent the reader only to one of the two tribes, I provided a textual citation to the precise page in Tindale's 1974 magnus opus where both tribes, the Kangulu and the Kanolu, are mentioned. I therefore didn't delete your source, but simply gave the page number, which is lacking on the SA museum site. I intended providing a link to the downloadable copy of the whole of Tindale's book which is accessible in the ANU open research resources, but it was late. I'll add that now.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Koa people
Hi, why do you keep reverting my edit?

Firstly, references go under the heading "References", not "Citations" or "Sources". This is a Wikipedia standard.

Secondly, your "Social organization and practices" section says absolutely nothing about social organisation or practices. Moreover, there must be infinitely many things that Koa society doesn't practise. It is ridiculous to single out genital mutilation (or anything for that matter) for mention. — Smjg (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You know nothing about the topic (b) nothing about the 400 plus articles in this series which adopt the precise template you are reverting out (c) had you understood that I construct articles sentence by sentence, section by section, i.e. had you been familiar with the process, which no one familiar with the topic area objects to, on the contrary they support it, whereby these new articles are composed, you wouldn't (I presume, but I have doubts now) that you wouldn't have jumped in to start messing up and interfering with the consecutive edits I was engaged in doing. So, you are out of your depth, and I suggest therefore that you quietly move to areas in which you have some competence. The proof is that the primary sources on all 600+ plus Australian tribes regard the adoption or refusal to adopt circumcision and subincision as a geocultural marker of great significance, and its presence or absence is crucial to social identity. So, flick off, that's a good lad.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You can't break Wikipedia standards on the basis that the template you're using breaks them. The template needs to be fixed.  Besides, one does not need to know anything about the topic in order to fix an article to conform to Wikipedia standards, or to apply common sense in order to fix issues with the article.  I am not out of my depth at all.  Furthermore, what has constructing articles section by section to do with anything?  I was not interfering with your edits - I was making constructive improvements.  Once an article has been created, it is fair game to constructive improvements being made by anybody.  As for the circumcision/subincision matter ... this may be true, but if the purpose of the statement is to contrast it with other indigenous Australian tribes, the section needs to indicate this (otherwise, everyone will be asking "why on earth are you mentioning that?"), and also needs to include some meaningful, on-topic content.  Moreover, please try to be civil and avoid personal attacks. — Smjg (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no such thing as a standard citation style on Wikipedia – see WP:CITESTYLE. Neither is there anything wrong with using "Sources" as a section heading for a list of full cite templates; "Sources" is in fact a much better description, and is slowly becoming more widely used on Wikipedia, rightly so. Pinging J. Johnson (JJ) who I'm sure will be happy to explain to you why (JJ - on Smjg's talk page, please, not here, we don't want to interrupt Nishidani any more on this topic). Please use some common sense here, and take the time to examine the work of the editor you're interrupting. Is it really too much to ask, that when someone is actively editing an article, that you wait until he or she is finished? Now, please heed Nishidani's request, and stay off his talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I fully concur with NSH001: "Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no such thing as a standard citation style on Wikipedia". Smjg, you are laboring under several misapprehensions, including (a widely shared one) of just what a "reference" is. Also, just because a lot of editors do something one way does not make that a standard that all must follow. Most certainly do read WP:CITEVAR.


 * If I can squeeze this in I will try to explain some details for you. (Perhaps tomorrow?) But, as NSH001 suggests, let's do it on your Talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Smjg. By all means use this page if you want to thrash out your objections. I don't scour wiki or track people, and therefore seeing what regards my editing explained here is no problem. Just another point. Most Australian tribes were devastated within a few decades of settlement, and compared to what we might know of each had they and their cultures survived into modernity, which adopted techniques of anthropological and linguistic analysis adequate to integral ethnographic description, for large stretches we know close to zero. Take by comparison the Amazonian Barasana, another article I did from the bottom up. We have two masterly monographs of over 500 pages detailing the outlines of their world. Logically, for any Australian tribe one would like to have the standard 500 pages, plus a 300 page dictionary and a 200-400 page grammar, together with numerous specialist articles dealing in greater detail with their lives, thinking, ecology, and history. What you get generally, to the contrary, thanks to the genocide and indifference of settlers, are a few scrawny notes by pastoralists or missionaries or travelers, listing one or two facts, and a paragraph or so of a generic description (they go naked, eat people, kill kangaroos, and brandish woomeras and spears, etc). So that when I draw up an article on such a scarcely documented tribe, I can't go beyond  that paucity of data to satisfy (see your implied requests) the curious reader. If the only thing stated is: 'they did not practice circumcision or subincision', that's all the article will have. A second point is that while trying as hard as I can to provide the reader with linked references to all and any relevant material (this is noted in bibliographies, but rarely cited in extenso) bearing on each tribe, I can't do anything definitive. I construct the basic page structure and fill in what I can dredge up, even if it is sparse, leaving it to future editors luckier in their searches than I (I can't go to a public library in Australia) to fill in or expand. Your criticisms reflect a dissatisfaction with the void of information accessible, which is, for the moment, unavoidable, rather than  a criticism of what I am doing, and this is understandable because you are, I think, unfamiliar with the state of knowledge in this field. An immense amount of relevant information is in many archives, but has yet to be harvested simply because there are still far too few scholars working on it, and,much of that material is under a ban against publication in order not to offend the sensibilities about tribal secrets confided to some earlier generations of ethnographers. The aim is, simply, to set up a basic encyclopedic outlines of the total field, unified by format and approach, so that for once Wikipedia can provide the world with an integrated model for one area of ethnography.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is not a dissatisfaction with the void of information accessible. It's a dissatisfaction with the way in which the information is structured and the apparent total arbitrariness of what is mentioned.  I repeat: if the purpose of the statement is to contrast it with other indigenous Australian tribes, the section needs to indicate this (otherwise, everyone will be asking "why on earth are you mentioning that?"). — Smjg (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "if the purpose of the statement is to contrast it with other indigenous Australian tribes, the section needs to indicate this (otherwise, everyone will be asking 'why on earth are you mentioning that?')."
 * Again, you are unfamiliar with the relevant Wikipedia protocols, because what you are asking me to do is to engage in WP:OR. No source I am familiar with refers to circumcision and subincision among the Koa within the wider framework of that general practice among Australian aborigines. What I stated is what the source, laconically, notes.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I'd assumed the heading 'References' is a WP standard because it's what every WP article I'd seen (besides unreferenced ones) uses. Furthermore, the sections you've referred me to appear to be about how the references themselves are formatted, rather than than what heading they are placed under.  But what do you mean about misapprehensions of 'just what a "reference" is'???  We can continue this discussion on my talk page you suggest.
 * Moreover, how was I meant to know that it was still being actively edited? At no point was there a notice there like under construction or in use, and this cleanup attempt was nearly an hour after the last edit; come this instance there had been no further additions in nearly four hours, so in my mind it doesn't really constitute being actively edited.
 * Also, you have no right to tell anybody to stay off anybody's talk page. — Smjg (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Smjg: I strongly suggest that you "cool your jets", and refrain from further comments, because you are just digging yourself into a hole. One which you apparently do not even see. Furthermore, after looking at some of your edits and discussions at other pages it appears you are headed towards a confrontation at ANI, and even a block. Therefore I also suggest: if you want to continue as a Wikipedia editor it would be wise to stand-down from all editing until some matters are clarified.

For now let's consider your edits at Koa people. As I said before, you are laboring under several misapprehensions. First is your assertion that "references go under the heading "References", not "Citations" or "Sources". This is a Wikipedia standard." That is most assuredly FALSE. I direct your attention specifically to MOS (under "Standard appendices and footers"), which says (in part):

So you "assumed the heading 'References' is a WP standard because it's what every WP article I'd seen ... uses"? Well, you were wrong to make that assumption, because WP does, in fact, have codified standards, such as MOS, WP:CITEVAR, and others. I find it quite amazing that someone who has been editing since 2004 does not know this.

NSH001 and I previously directed you to WP:CITEVAR because that covers changing an article's "citation style". It is not about formatting details, it is about all aspects of citation "style" taken broadly, and it is a basic standard with which we reckon all non-newbies have some familiarity. Please study it.

You should note particularly that CITEVAR says "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor". In the case of Koa people the first major contributor is Nishidani, and you should defer to his/her arrangements.

You just asked: "how was I meant to know that it was still being actively edited?". Well, "actively" isn't limited to just the few minutes an edit window is open, it can encompass a scope of hours and even days as an editor works on an article. In the case at hand, Nishidani created the article at 13:09 4 January, and made five more edits before you made at 13:40 where you removed the empty sections (only, they were not empty), and commented that "the standard heading is 'References'". Nishidani made another ten edits before you came back at 14:14 to restore your edits that Nishidani had reverted. More edits by Nishidani, and then from 15:51 to 18:43 you are edit-warring with Nishidani. To not know the article was being actively edited when you were interacting with that editing is just uncredible. And where you just said that (relative to "" at 18:43) "there had been no further additions in nearly four hours": not true. Nishidani had added (restored) the material you were edit-warring over at 17:37 (just 66 minutes earlier).

Speaking of WP:edit warring, please note the "three-revert rule" WP:3RR): "there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block.". You have already violated that rule, and any continuation will likely get you blocked.

Another standard you really should know (how many years have you been editing?) is good old WP:BRD: the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle." If your edit gets reverted do not revert again. Instead, discuss on the article's Talk page. That is what it is there for! However, the discussion should be started after the first reversion, not the third.

There is much more that could be said, but I am out of time. I will note that your last "you have no right ..." comment is misplaced, and down right uncivil; I suggest you strike it. Also: don't give me any flack or argument about any of this. You have been acting like an idiot newbie, and I am trying to help you to not do that. If you don't accept that, just go away. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Huldra's shining example
Morning, Nishidani! I recommend you follow Huldra's excellent example and put the list of Aussie cites in a sub-page of your user space, perhaps with a link from your user page. That will make it easier for people to refer to. Not the sort of thing that really belongs on a talk page. And if you don't, sooner or later the bot is going to come along and archive it again anyway. Cheers! NSH001 (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Top a the mornen to you too, N. I'd do that, but I don't know how to create subpages. Everytime I did so, it wiped out the sandbox page I have on water and the Middle East. I'm a befuddled fuckwit in these matters.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You make a link like so: . Then you click on that link and edit it as per usual. Or you could get fancy and put it as a sub-page of your sandbox, like so:   (but I usually just put it under my user page). If you like, you should feel free to crib code from my sandbox page. I've set it up so I have a couple of numbered sandbox pages ("sandbox 1", "sandbox 2", etc. These use technical mumbo-jumbo for excessive fanciness that you probably shouldn't bother replicating) that I use as general scratchpads, and then named sandbox pages for articles I'm drafting (like User:Xover/sandbox/Hamlet (2004)) or other more concrete stuff. And on my main sandbox page I use a  template to show me all the subpages I have so I don't have to keep remembering where I stashed something. Feel free to ping me if there's anything I can help with there. --Xover (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Another way is to search for it, for example search for "User:Nishdani/BloodyHell". When the results come up, near the top of the list will be a clearly labelled link for creating it. Zerotalk 11:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Xover was first in, so I gratefully adopted the first method offered, and fucked it up of course. Realizing the error, which I can't cancel, I corrected my mistake producing the bibliography under 'list of Aussie cities' and made the correct move, getting finally one on aborigines ( .). Dunno how to undo the first mess, which has to be deleted. Well, I was told how to by N, but can't remember the delete template. Whatever, thanks for the geriatric care. The more I age, the more I remember my primary school teacher's advice to my mother, at the end of year 1. 'Nish is a nice little chappy, but he has absolutely no awareness of his teachers, and you'd do well to have him repeat his first year in bubs.' Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To delete something under your user page, put on the page (at the top, typically). An admin will be along fairly shortly to take care of it. It's actually a part of the general process for deleting stuff on Wikipedia (like mainspace articles): there's Articles for Deletion for a full discussion and review; Proposed Deletion for proposing deleting something that you think is uncontroversial to delete, but which doesn't meet the criteria for "speedy deletion"; and then there's Speedy Deletion, which has a set of specific and narrow criteria for what can be deleted that way. The template above refers to criteria U1: a user request to delete something in their user space. Unless exceptional circumstance obtains, all self-requests to delete a page in your own user space are generally assumed to be valid and acted on without further discussion. For deleting stuff in user space, my experience is that someone takes care of it in hours, at most. PS. You can also move pages to a new name: so if you'd miscreated "User:Nishidani/List of Aussie cites", you could have simply moved it to "User:Nishidani/Bibliography on aborigines" (and unchecked the box to leave behind a redirect at the old name). Important to remember the "User:Nishidani/…" stuff, by the way: I've moved stuff from user space into mainspace by mistake before (and once in mainspace you need admin help to fix it). --Xover (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! In the best tradition of Costard's costive diction, Digitus extrahendus extractus est.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One problem remains. How do I find User:Nishidani/Bibliography on aborigines? I mean, it disappears from my watchlist after a few days, and I can't google it up under that name. Often I don't touch that page for weeks. W hat button do I press on the bar to be able to consult it rapidly?Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no really good way to do this, but if you take a look at User:Xover/sandbox you'll see the best workaround I've found. You could put the equivalent template on your main sandbox: . It would generate a list like this:


 * The alternative is the advanced search page where you can choose a namespace and prefix to search for, in order to replicate the above list using the search, but I don't think I've ever used that for this for reasons of lazyness. --Xover (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. The first suggestion worked poifectly. I guess in thanks I should augur you a happy and productive year undisturbed by timewasters (this timewaster, methinks, hath need of a wallop on his back!) and technical troublemakers like my cognitively otiose self. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively (and the way I usually do it) is bring up the list of your contributions, then at the bottom you'll see, 2nd from the left, a link "Subpages" - click on that and you'll get a list of all your user subpages, the Aboriginies list is the very first one. If you select, in the drop-down box, "User talk", you'll get all the subpages of your talk page. And for fun, you can try clicking on all the other links there (at the bottom of your contributions list) and see what you get! --NSH001 (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the way I find my sub pages is to look at my contributions, then look at that second button at the bottom: subpages. Though Zero0000 has a subpage under his talk page, User talk:Zero0000/Buraq, which I always struggle to find... Huldra (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC) (PS: I once started a Huldra/Morris-list...when Hulder was called Huldra. Much confusion......)

An Interesting Article in the New York Review of Books
This Land Is Our Land.

The article's author, Raja Shehadeh, is a book author and the founder of the human rights group Al-Haq, an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks indeed, IT. My copies of the NYRB arrive several months late, courtesy of a mate still working in academia, who passes me that, and several other journals on regularly.I have been thinking of you and the pups desultorily and thought of smirching your page with auguries for a prosperous and productive New Year, but like much else I should have done, the edit got forgotten under the onus of other work. Your exchanges have made this dull page sparkle.


 * I've corresponded with Raja Shehadeh, that deeply gentle and erudite fellow, and will now download the article and read it after dinner. It seems the only function of Palestine is to warrant documentation on its disappearance. It's not that I get bored with the area: au contraire, but as User:Kingsindian, and several others here agreed yonks ago, it has long been an illusion to think one can ever go beyond reading about it, or, if you are Palestinian, getting shot, or jailed, or living under apartheid. As I read thousands of pages of early Australian occupation by settlers about the 'natives',  the language of dispossession, and the reasons for it, are exactly those we encounter over the decades in this domain, predictably of course, since Zionism, despite the claim to some uniqueness, is a standard colonial project empowered by self-deception, ideology, mercenary territorial designs  and ethnocentric contempt, its sole point of interest being the discursive blarney of the unique predicaments of 'Jewish' identity and its corresponding historical necessity for reworking the American concept of 'manifest destiny' that over time, by dribs and drabs has blindsided the world, the diaspora, and the Jewish-Israeli community within Israel itself, to the bleak obviousness of their role in creating what, for the autochthones, is an ineludible tragedy. I once heard an impressive Australian doctor of Jewish origins, who does magnificent work with aboriginal health in the outback, sigh wryly that his humble emarginalized and broken patients know more about Palestinians that he does. Best regards, and two pats for the pups. (My 20 year old cat got killed off by a car late December).Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The book reviewed, if its thesis is to argue that what happened in Palestine recapitulates the practice of Enclosures in England (or for that matter the world around) is not saying anything new. It is how economics functions, well summed up in the old rhyme:
 * The law locks up the man or woman
 * Who steals the goose from off the common
 * But leaves the greater villain loose
 * Who steals the common from the goose.


 * The point was first made, by the pseudonymous Dionides, a pirate, in conversation with Alexander the Great. I've always assumed that your average Zionist papers over any twinges by some 'ends justifies the means' argument of the kind you get in, Niall Ferguson, spokesman for the wheeler-dealers of modern finance. I.e. sure, empires are based on sheer massive theft, but whatever the transitory violence, everyone comes out the better once the robber barons settle down and translate their gains into investments, backed by laws on their privat(ized) property, that eventually improve the general commonwealth. This was impressed on me by reading Barrington Moore Jr.'s Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, soon after it came out. Modern ideological conservatism was born out of English reactions to the horror of hung aristocrats or land holders in the French Revolution- two and a half thousand victims of the terror in Paris alone. If I recall correctly, Barrington Moore drily noted that, until these notables were murdered, no one thought it anomalous that the land tenure system for a century saw an average of 40,000 peasants dying of starvation annually. Modern news reports of the 'terror' threat to our comfortable (e)states have the same fundamental disequilibrium of blindsided focus.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Future reference
On WP:Silence, as a corrective to the frequent misinterpretation of WP:consensus. Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

1948 Palestine War
I kindly ask you to revise your vote! following the different sources that I have brought on this naming issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't voted so I can't 'revise' mine, since it does not exist. I usually defer to experts, so, while I have been out all day, I will probably back your call, particularly because it is the only one that is well documented. But I'll have to read first all of the comments. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome :-)
 * (nb: sorry for the mistake - I copied/pasted my message several times today) Pluto2012 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

acknowledgement
just like the buddhas in the berndt collection there comes a time to measure time and numbers, congrats on clearing the 64k edits, couldnt happen to a nicer oldie (sic) JarrahTree 09:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Effmedead, I think you've got my number, no. I think 64k leaves me feeling number. By impromptu crystal-ball gazing (which sounds like an allusion to frozen knackers) and computation, I think I'll be ready to toss in the towel around the 70k mark, piss-ant stuff compared to your 153,000 edits, a contribution that leaves me doffing the hat, and exposing the other bald-headed gentleman to the gelid airs of mid-winter! Thanks, though. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

At a pre-christmas social event I had a retired native title judge critique your edits sight unseen - he was concerned that your main ref preocupation might leave us in contradiction of prevalent recent refs cf'ed to the subject - pity we cannot have a beer down at the local to work on that one - I have returned from enforced absence from the play pit, and the sand is still in my eyes - once the saline solution has kicked in and the innocuous fractiousness of the horrible weather here in marvellous metropolitan perth has lessened in its pretence of tropical outpust of lunatics - maybe a conversation is needed further JarrahTree 09:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. There are a lot of problems that follow from using Tindale as the basic template, but you can't get around that because it's the only available source covering briefly the whole set. So, one puts in the data from T (while jotting down desultorily on the N Tindale page criticisms of his approach so that referred readers can see what is wrong - his tribe/dialect/territory triad has been challenged since Hiatt (1964) Sutton (1979) and many others started reanalyzing specific cases to show a much more complex picture of patrilineal moieties, totem/land links, inter-clan/tribal exchange marriage complications etc. I'm aware of all that.
 * As editor I had to calculate that what makes this minimal sketch possible is a year's access to Jstor, to do 600+tribes, and that is about to expire, so I've had to rush up the bare minimum, in the hope that, once we have a comprehensive integrated mapping with a single format for the whole subject, all later editors need do is (a) read the linked sources, and add what time hasn't allowed me to put in and (b) follow up by updating and fleshening out the bare bones provided. If you googled for info re, say, the Gadubanud, you could get fuck all before the wiki article was done. By pursuing this technique I managed at last to get the minimal sketch the scarce data allows us, and make Gadubanud. It doesn't help that for some obscure glitch I have lost all ability to read Google Books, once my primary tool for writing these articles. Tell the judge, then, that he's right but in this provisory world, better something than nothing. The nothing is something that awaits folks like me, a bit further on, down the corner!Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey we are at square one which is brilliant and eminent and noteworthy- and hey, your corner stop aint that soon regardless of your pre-existings - he got my card, but unlikely to hear back think his partner thought i was crazy (it always helps), nah what was wishing we were on same block somewhere - was the idea of how to move beyond the brilliant start... less on the short comings - more on the possible moves beyond the long needed and brilliant set - the fact that things are where they are is good, more a sense, regardless of oggle and jstor possible strategies to get beyond current state of things - where i sit - the west oz set is a great thing to work from - have you had any luck accessing any of the aitsis material - or is it not the right fit? JarrahTree 10:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If one were in a library, this would be a pushover, of course. I look at AIATSIS, but the pages just scream at me:'Get to an Australian library', since they rarely allow one links to the material one knows exists. I have been trying to get at least the AIATSIS map on every article. It's hard to use however. I did that for the Westralian tribes mainly, but have gotten slack. What helped there is that the Western Australian government provides an excellent web map of its section of Tindale's map, which meant that an editor could add stuff like: the X tribe's neighbours, running clockwise from the north, were A,B,C,D etc'. Other states haven't done this so far, but looking at Sutton's 1979 reproduction of the Wik tribe map from Tindale last night, I can see my way to fixing them up today. There are dozens of ideas: (a) every place name linkable in the 'country' section should lead to edits on those localities, entering the tribe name in the 'History section', so that Aurukun or Weipa, for instance, should have the relevant tribes in their history, so that, corresponding to the 600 tribes map, every wiki Australian town or shire or region article mentions the prehistorical people there. (b) The history of contact  can be filled out with the numerous regional or local history books and articles, by noting who first took up a selection there. Usually you get, if ever, 'aborigines', whereas we know now which aboriginal tribes were there, and can specify that. Aborigines tells you nothing. I think there's only another 100 or so to sketch out in the next 2 months, so we're pretty close to completing a first draft.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is very good - will try to uncover from the house shifting - copies of things, otherwise into the library and archive for west oz things before my absence in march (whole month offline and away from elctormagnetic things) - all sounds very do-able - if you have queries there are perths academic and much denuded public library system at my access - just 6 weeks before gone then mid april back into things JarrahTree 10:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who works with Australian uni students working in this area of study should be asked if they could prompt them, and pass the word round, to get involved in a day (even if the time stretches out over months or a year) of public work by choosing one of the tribes, and ransacking the libraries and net, in order to do that one page. Doing 600 stubs in a year and a half suggests to me that anyone, unlike me, in Australian metropolitan city, could, over an afternoon, get up enough material even on relatively obscure tribes to write an essay. It's not much to ask. Wistful/wishful thinking perhaps, since eyes and thumbs scan preferably a more engaging social reality. Still worth trying the bush telegraph as I think downunderites call it? Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * After twisting my fucking Cromwellian bowels into alchemical knots and wrenching out clumpy whispers of hair from my despairing pate for donkey's ages, in frustration I could never get any link to the journal Science of Man, which is often cited by Tindale, I finally twittered like an Aristophanic bird εὕρηκα! on fishing up from the Stygian depths of the net this apparent link, which appears, but I only have one proof, that the whole series is digitalized. If you ever get time, it might be worth trying to independently confirm whether this is searchable. It doesn't yield further results for me, but then I have drongo DNA in the family lines. It would mean doubling or tripling the content of many pages which I have had to abandon because the Science of Man articles T. alludes to weren't traceable.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops
In reversing that cut-and paste move, I seem to have inadvertently dropped 2 small edits of yours. Sorry about that. Best thing is probably for you to do them again, rather than my trying to disentagle the mess. Sorry for the trouble. --NSH001 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no problem, and nugatory compared to my regular and serious fuckups which you keep fixing quietly without complaint.Nishidani (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * yup excellent that you have us trailing you... :). cut and paste police exist - they get rather whatever, so when the new name place starts, to ward them off at the warbuton ranges rather than somehwere in uluru, the clapped out holden ute going in reverse for 200 km on straw tyres and booze for fuel, one needs to move quick so to speak JarrahTree 11:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Don' faget to pack the fosters'-laden esky into that ute. The straggling alztimer with the nip monicker you may back into is hitchhiking in that part of the nevernever, an' even if not runover, will be dry as a nun's nasty or already flattened out like a thirst-slaked thorny devil.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * reality is much worse, we will soon be resting temporarily next to the southern ocean, the closest legal campsite to the ocean, near a former whaling site (that never got the proper archaeol dig ever I dont think when they had a chance) so it will be wet ocean salt as opposed to lake carnegie. :). JarrahTree 12:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reality's just a poor fictional ersatz for dreaming. Sounds like Mineng country, so y'd better chew some pituri and have a whale of a time improvising a dithyramb in memory of Nebinyan! Have a good 'trip' even if it's only the Himalayas.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Janis Joplin lyrics come back as if it was last year...Richard Lester had a kooky movie which she was edited into the opening sequence - nah 2 trips, one with the better, the other into the clouds (currently 6c to 16c in the day average) nothing chewed, all added salt JarrahTree 15:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tomorrow
Merge Nawagi into Nyawagyi. Same people.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Janis Joplin indeed, maybe Belushi (on a mission from god), or even for that matter going back further William S. - its astonishing that it was the 1940s it all started,  New York must have been a scary place in the meatpacking district...  This is a part of a conversation I am sure I would have if we ever met  in real life. But then I imagine there is quite a lot of saltwater between us. JarrahTree 15:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I used to visit Australia quite regularly, for three reasons: to keep in touch with the dialect, which was a marvelous one; to save heating bills over a European winter, and to see the  Aussie thrash the Poms in a 5 test series (that's as far as ancestral Irish vengeance goes). My wife's illness doesn't allow travel anymore. But if you pass through Rome, I could get the time to show you its original meat-packing district, namely the Coliseum, where ancient Rome in all its g(l)ory set the civilised world on the road to Auschwitz.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * inneresting, ok, the offer accepted, all I gotta do is adjust reality a bit, maybe not tommorrow, maybe a little later... JarrahTree 23:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

More misrepresentation of sources on the Korean influence article
This guy doesn't seem to get it, and has been ignoring my ping on the talk page; worse, he's been waiting for me to revert, then quickly coming along and reverting back. My 1RR is keeping me from restoring the stable version for the time being, and honestly last time I opened an ANEW report on editor who was engaged in bad-faith edit-warring while ignoring the talk page discussion but who hadn't breached 3RR, User:EdJohnston basically responded by giving them a slap on the wrist and telling them to stop, but then when it continued immediately thereafter still didn't do anything.

Anyway, if he's not willing to use the talk page in order to get his version restored, he's definitely not going to use it while his version is already live, so would you mind taking a look and seeing if you agree with my assessment that he's misrepresenting the source? Basically I think that what the source (which is here -- despite what Koryosaram's edit summary thinks, I did read it) is talking about is the literary structure followed by the editors of the Nihongi in recording actual myths that formed part of the religious practice of the time in various parts of the archipelago having been influenced by Korean sources, not that the myths themselves are derived from earlier Korean myths. If you think their edit is fine I'll probably just drop it.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the only reason I didn't take this to ANEW already was because they seem to require a "warning" having been issued, but chances are he's going to ignore my warning and just not do anything until he needs to revert again, which is why I can't actually do anything for the next thirteen hours or so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted per plagiarism of copyright, i.e. the editor didn't paraphrase, but pretended that a direct quote from the source was in fact a paraphrase of that source. But this is just a technicality. The material cited should be in the article, like so much else that is missing, mainly because that page is or was a battle ground between  Japanese and Korean source nationalisms. Como was being cited by the Korean nationalist in order to imply that Japan's foundational chronicles were of 'Korean' origin: well, much of the Yamato court ideology has deep roots in the Korean peninsular myths of regional state formation, but we are not dealing with 'Korea' and 'Japan' but with the adoption by both, the former providing the latter with the model for how this is done, of mythopoetic charters for autochonous origins which, as Como and many others show, meld a wide variety of broad continental traditions and that therefore cannot be used, as they have been, to retrospectively read back modern notions of endogenous identity. 大林太良's works, at least the several I am familiar with from the 1960s and 1970s, constantly contextualize these myths in much larger pre-national/continental stories that were floating around, as tribes moved, all over the place. Como himself is aware of that, as per his remark:'the royal cult was imbued with cultic elements with roots that stretched beyond  Kyūshū  and even Korea, into the distant Chinese past.' (p113)
 * Rather then allowing that page to stagnate by consistently stymying by reverts the Korean nationalist gambit, I think you should bear in mind a more positive approach by going to those sources and paraphrasing them to show the Korean peninsular multiethnic tribal drive towards statehood was replicated in Japan, with the former being not only a Kulturträger but a creative world, which remodulated broader continental traditions to create a warrant for tribal amalgamations there which, in turn, furnished the Yamato elites with a technique and warrant for doing the same in the rising formation of a proto-Japanese state at a time when there was no unified ethnonational identity, but merely powerful families in both crafting stories to legitimize their respective bids for ascendancy in the emerging political landscapes.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

To do
Merge Mingginda and Mingin.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC) and perhaps Koamu and Kooma.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

How do I use this source?
Jinggeri Nishidani,

I am interested in using information from a local radio show on Yugambeh language and culture, it is presented by the language officer of the Yugambeh Museum, the episodes are availabale online as well at: https://m.soundcloud.com/abc-gold-coast/sets/learn-the-lingo-yugambeh

How would I use this information? I am not going to lie, I am deeply confused. Do I quote things and say 'According to ...'? Also, there is occasional reference of written material - Should I track these down to use as a reference?

Nyanyahbu BlackfullaLinguist (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ngata.(Jinggeri), BlackfullaLinguist.
 * yaan wirakanwan ('let's track down some words' in my self-taught pidgin version of Kuurn Kopan Noot)
 * I listened for a half hour, surprised to hear an Yugambeh speaking without an Australian accent when using English. On the technical side, you would put a source like that, formatted Learn the lingo: Yugambeh language ABC in the external references section, while actually citing material on the language from any number of printed sources, or online reprints like the following:
 * The reason is that citing a written source enables the reader/other editors to verify the content immediately with a click, whereas a radio conversation source, apart from not be very acceptable on Wikipedia, takes ages to check, because you must listen every time to the whole download.
 * So if you wanted to make the point Shaun Davies (?sp) makes re duin (fear), for example, using the citation form in the article, you would write, after it-
 * So if you wanted to make the point Shaun Davies (?sp) makes re duin (fear), for example, using the citation form in the article, you would write, after it-

There's a 10 hour time-lag between us, so often I will be asleep when someone makes a query on this page, or vice versa.
 * Yiyan-yiyan(Nyanyahbu ) Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Easter bunny
There's a rabbit in your mailbox. Might make good felt. Zerotalk 23:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Citing lists
The Land Day massacre article has highlighted a problem that I've been noticing for a while on your Aboriginal Australian articles, but mostly allowed to pass, since the intention was obvious, namely that a cite appended to a list item only supports that item, not the whole list, even if the cite is appended to the last item in the list. The best course is usually to provide an introductory sentence or two, if not already present, and cite that ("Scholar X listed the following names. " or whatever). Otherwise lazy editors are likely to make claims that the list is "uncited", as you can see on the talk page.

It also matters if someone wants to alter the order of the list (e.g., to put it in alphabetical order), when there is little chance that anybody might recognise it as citing the whole list if it is no longer at the end.

Best wishes, and hope you recover speedily. --NSH001 (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Cite error
Could you fix this cite error from one of your edits? I think the material is important, but I wanted to tweak the wording so I could include information on protests and funerals that took place the following day. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, I hate that fancy mobile presentation! This is the diff he's referring to, in which you introduce an undefined named ref:  --NSH001 (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

AE
You have been reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Persistence in political, historical and current events

 * Deeply appreciated, Darouet, but I am afraid that recently, to pun on an idiom, I have 'fallen down on the job' and must accept the hospitality of Procrustes for a good while yet. CheersNishidani (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Nish, checking my watchlist on my way to go offline (what can be more important that checking a watchlist?), I peeked at the edit above. So sorry to hear. Take care and do everything the doctors tell you to. Even physical therapy. It's a bitch, but pays off in the long term. Nothing like random advice from a random person on the internet, huh? Still, you're one the good guys here and sorry to hear you're in Procrustes's grip. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversaries
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Why?
What are you trying to show? He needs to be alerted about his accusations. -- M h hossein   talk 13:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to show anything. Beyond My Ken is perfectly entitled to (a) consider yourself, myself and Zero POV pushers, and (b) to ask you not to make remarks on his page. One should always defer to these requests. I myself was surprised to be greeted with hostility there - I've seen a lot of sensible edits and comments by that editor - but, when he reacted dismissively to a small courtesy - correcting a misimpression he entertained in my view about Arab countries' attitudes to Israel - I took note that it was pointless pursuing the matter. In this area, the tendency to think everyone critical of Israel is a POV pusher is endemic, and one just has to be patient, and stick to the factual documentary record for pages we edit, and not get caught up in challenges that will only be read as further proof of bias. No offense intended.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, however I felt the need to alert him regarding his bad behavior, though he had asked me not to edit his page. Yeah, pursuing the matter is "pointless". -- M h hossein   talk 18:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Advice
I do not think getting in an edit war with others over the op-eds is worth it. One of the editors--and I'm sure you know who--exists primarily to make blanket reverts and mindlessly agree with the usual entourage so there is a good chance they can outlast you on this issue. Perhaps go at this way: drop the op-ed. There are plenty of secondary sources like The New York Times, Miami Herald, Aljazeera that describe the double standard you are trying to convey in the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. This is not an oped issue. Minder editors, those who do nothing but sit back and revert-assist the 'team' should have zero tolerance, esp. since the edit summaries used are invariably specious. In my talk page edit which has disappeared through some glitch on the page as it appears somehow confused the point I was making with your own and which I tried to fix several times without success, I write:-

Shrike strikes again with a blind revert without examining the evidence

This cannot but go back in, because, while citing Beaumont, I knew that it was not Beaumont’s personal oped opinion, but a general view in several sources.

To make that clear, I’ll rephrase it so the objection drops. "Hanan Ashrawi, Ammar Dweik, director of the The Independent Commission for Human Rights,Peter Beaumont and social media, contrasted the length of the sentence Tamimi received for slapping a soldier with that of an Israeli border guard who was sentenced to nine months for shooting dead an unarmed Palestinian demonstrator, and with the case of another Israeli soldier, Elor Azaria, who eventually received a sentence roughly of the same length as Tamimi’s after he executed a wounded Palestinian militant while the latter lay on a road."

A nanosecond's googling would have told you, Shrike, or Icewhiz or anyone else, that this is not reducible to a journalistic oped, but formed part of the media reportage of the Tamimi verdiot, unlike the smear op-ed removed with Beaumont earlier. Anyone, feel free to restore this. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Here I showed that Beaumont's piece, though technically an oped, merely reflected the impression widely voiced by social media and identifiable figures prominent in that area, as anyone wbo, when tempted to revert, should have checked before pressing tbe nuke button. The sources you refer me to confirm this. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Can AE or ANI evaluate that kind of behavior? I know it doesn't violate ARBPIA per se, but it certainly violates the spirit of it. And as you said, it certainly borders on "team" editing. The whole point of 1RR was to have editors discuss more on the talk page, not to disagree without any reason other than personal preference. If a case can be made, I'll gather diffs to construct a timeline of long-term disruptive behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, neither can handle it. One observes numerous patterns of collective gaming in this area, but there's no instrument at arbitration to handle it since even there you get crowding and the temptation of arbs is to say 'content dispute'. Mind you, the teamsters here are convinced that the other side does exactly what they do, exchange emails, alert each other, etc. That's nonsense, and the essence of it is that one party is committed to defending a national interest, whereas the other is a disaggregated number of editors from all sorts of backgrounds who tend to see the complexities, and above all, are thoroughly familiar with the topic, which can't be said for the nationalist POV push. There are no Palestinian editors here, and it lies just on the shoulders of other editors to see that one underrepresented part of the conflict gets fair and equal attention to its claims and interpretations, something that, in terms of sourcing, is assisted by the enormous dedication of, esp. Israeli and Jewish scholars to setting the record straight. What they know to their fingertips in the history and sociology departments of places like  TAU is unknown to the gamers, who think anyone who cites this material is anti-Semitic or anti-Israel and therefore a danger to anyone whose knowledge of that country is limited to fluency in the language, drill in the IDF and a daily reading of Israel Hayom, The Times of Israel or Jerusalem Post. Well, whatever, editing here is good moral training - one learns the virtues of forbearance, detachment and informed  judgement under trying circumstances, what the Palestinians call sumud. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The teaming is real. See what happens when you create an article not about a Palestinian terrorist incident. I think I understand exactly what you are saying, especially now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:TheGracefulSlick, oh boy, I see you have gotten yourself a following. I have been living with that for 12+ years now. Actually, I mostly dont mind that: if they follow me around, at least they learn some Palestinian history! Though, I would appreciate them making some rudimentary check of the facts at times.... See this, eg, (←I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry..) Huldra (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I have learned my lesson! They have already taken out the words "terrorist/terrorism" entirely from the article. By the time they are finished it will be an article on a revolutionary statement by true patriots. But, as you said, hopefully they learned something beforehand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One of our (wiki) problems is that we cover not only contemporary and recent history, but also episodes decades back, using sources contemporary with the event, or RS that uses newspaper reports contemporary with the events. The historian knew that only after 3 or 4 decades, when archives were opened, would something more proximate to the complex forces at play start to shape up. All of our Gaza articles for example are sheer rubbish, 'balancing' with POV proportionality ostensibly the western-israeli spin machine's churning reportage with bulletins from the other front. If only 50% of Norman Finkelstein's forensic deconstruction of the hasbara tsunami washing over reportage from the New York Times down were correct, it would be bad enough. But he's far too meticulous to get that low grade. Wew are reporting spin, not facts most of the time. It's true even of the distant past you touched on in that British Embassy article. Just slowly following up the implications of an article like this, or Ronen Bergman's book, for the 1980s would mean months of work. But, life's short, quality is the thing, and the motto for editing here is festina lente. It's pleasurable in the end if one masters a topic sufficiently to make it so that compulsive reverters can only ruin  it at their risk. One learns a lot here, not only about history: one of my pursuits is analysing antipathy or cold insouciance to shame and pity. Ah well, beddy-byes!Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

An Exchange
Just saying from the 2018 Gaza Border Incidents page

In the Infobox, the Israel Fire and Rescue Services are listed under Parties to the civil conflict. The Red Crescent isn't. Shouldn't both be mentioned, or neither? Moriori (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red Crescent is a counterpart to Magen David Adom, which is not mentioned. There were no widespread fire-kite terrorism burning fields inside Gaza, so whatever firefighters inside Gaza are called they were not involved. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Kite- fires are terrorism (and not vandalism?). I presume you mean that if Israeli fields are burnt by Palestinian fire-kites that is terrorism, whereas the hundreds of incidents of settlers burning Palestinian fields in the West Bank are just routine 'weed' control. No source I know of speaks of the routine firing of Palestinian fields as terrorism, nor does the Israeli spraying of herbicide toxins on Gazan crop land qualify as terrorism, nor does the systematic destruction of scarce farmland by Israeli bulldozers, or military onslaughts. So kindly take a little more care in the way you phrase these things, for, on the principle of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' you are unwittingly suggesting that thousands of Israeli actions on Palestinian land are terrorism, a position you no doubt would deny.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Since no sources call these incidents terrorism, they are not terrorism. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll put that in my favourite wiki quotes section. Israel defines anything the people it occupies do in resistance as terrorism. Whoever controls the discourse, gets to define evil as doing what we do, but unacceptably because opposed to us. Orwellian. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like you need a reminder: WP:NOTTRUTH. Wikipedia goes by what the sources say, not by what you believe in. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, our aim is untruth in this area, as per most pages. But notwithstanding that result, editors are advised that perhaps the most fundamental rule they must subscribe to and abide by is WP:NPOV, and are cautioned against WP:Systemic bias. If someone really believes, after considering the apt congruency of events reported of one people with those of another, both in conflict, it doesn't matter that one is described as terrorist behavior (in Israeli sources basically), and the other not. Per our policies, and WP:Terrorist, commonsense demands that one lay off opportunistic harvesting of the bias in order to assert and insert a POV one sympathizes with, and simply describe what happens without partisan adjectival ornamentation. This stands out like dogs' knackers.Nishidani (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Drsmoo (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As this is a DS violation and just plain disruptive, I'm inclined to block you and close the thread. You might want to respond to the ANI thread.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit rash. What exactly is the violation and what exactly is disruptive?  nableezy  - 16:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

apology
No I'm sorry for taking the OP's word before all the facts were in.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Intended deception
Sorry Nishidani, but the warning at the top of my talk page means what it says, and I am therefore publishing the whole of your email (minus signature, as I don't want to "dox" you).

I was happy, in one of your previous "retirement"s, to tweak the archiving box on your talk page in response to your email request. That was OK, as it's your page, and it's reasonable to halt the archiving bot while you're away, something I might have done myself anyway. My edit summary stated that it was at your (email) request, so there was no deception involved.

By contrast, on this occasion, you are asking me to pass off somebody else's work (in this case, yours) as if it were my own. That is something I won't do under any circumstances, even for you. That is a general principle, and therefore would apply even without the warning on my talk page. Now I could get round that objection by stating in an edit summary that it is copied from an email sent by Nishidani, but in that case you might as well just do it yourself. Sorry, Nishidani, but you can't have it both ways. If you want to make changes such as these, you will have to come back and do them yourself.

Regards,

--NSH001 (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

{{Quote box | bgcolor = #EEFFEE | quote = Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 19:19:36 +0000

Dear Neil,

While clicking through the series, something I've never done, I realized I might have left some things in disorder, not even correcting some of your red links.

For example at Djaui Ongkarango (red) should be blue-linked to Unggarranggu, and Warwa idem to Warrwa.

Since I am firm in my commitment to keep my word about not returning (many think this is just a staged thing I do from time to time and then backtrack), I wondered if I might prevail upon your courtesy, on occasion, to retouch something in the series we did together (for which I am eternally grateful by the way). I don't think this can be classified as meatpuppetry, and as co-author (no I/P editor I think tracks you) you should be able to tweak things without arousing any such suspicion.

Here's one adjustment that might be added, if you do not consider my request objectionable (which of course might well be a reasonable reaction, in which case, no worries):

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wurla Wurla

Add

Language
The Wurla spoke Waladjangarri one of the Worrorran languages. Arthur Capell classified it more specifically as as a North Kimberley prefixing language, forming part of the   Ngarinyin language dialect cluster. And add to the bibliography

Whatever you decide, best wishes and thanks for your kind words.

[signature redacted] }}
 * If only your exquisite sense of scruple were normative here, we would have an encyclopedia of the highest quality.  Your reasoning is flawless. My apologies for putting your ethical rigour and commitment to editorial principles of independence in judgement to the test merely to soothe my narcissistic anxieties about some residual imperfection in the quality of material I offered to our readership. Béla Grunberger once defined narcissism, its inclusive striving for perfection, as a 'quest to recapture the  experience of eternity' (C.Fred Alfoldi,Narcissism, Yale University Press, 1988 p.195), which is the folly your notation of my rule infraction, itself reportable, unequivocably documents. Yet, working here is to acquiesce in the imperfections of the provisory, and I've never been comfortable in doing so, never less so than now - a sense relieved by the vaguely eudaimonic sense that Sandstein's threat has done me an inadvertent service. Wikipedia is not the place to cathect and displace my personal obsessions onto. Best wishes, N.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued battleground mentality, ergo
I imagined something like this scenario as likely, some days ago.
 * permalink

That will be, inadvertently, read as an open invitation from today to persist in making frivolous reports against me, a pattern that has repeatedly disrupted my contributions to articles for 12 years, in order to get me  blocked or indeffed, even without prior discussion. One I/P editor can make 23 controversial reverts in a single day without talk page warrant, and it is not actionable. I can call a racist statement of ethnic superiority 'moronic' and have that judged as warranting  a drastic indefinite suspension on the bizarre grounds that I display a battleground behavioural tic despite this this, and this. and not, as I presume to believe, an extraordinary patience with needless disputatiousness, esp. in an area that is notorious for poor, or indifferent belligerently nationalistic editing and reverting, as witness my tedious commitment to extensive talk page discussion of even querulously nugatory objections. I unwittingly exceeded the 500 limit in my defense, but the subsequent administrative excision,while rule-compliant, quashed my response to what I consider to be a minority-of-one administrative misreading of the diff used against me,  a point noted by another admin who  rarely if ever allows affective considerations to disturb his judgement. Evidently, I am not trusted to work here without having a sword of Damocles hanging over my head, with someone monitoring anyone's exclamations of ostensible  'discomfort' in my regard whatever the exasperation I, for one, may be driven to by reverters. So I have little option but to withdraw, yes, in protest. Writing this kind of rubbish bored me, so I'll close with a few actually interesting things which entertained my thoughts as I finalized this drudgery of trying pointlessly to justify to recalcitrant sceptics here that this is evidence, not of a battleground mentality, but a passion for pure, neutral encyclopedic work.
 * 1) *I am closing this without action at this time, given that I am the only admin that considers this actionable. Nonetheless, I will consider imposing a block or an indefinite topic ban, with or without any prior discussion, in the event of continued battleground-like conduct by Nishidani in this topic area

(a)''Was Henker! freilich Händ und Füße ''Und Kopf und Hintern, die sind dein Goethe Faust - der Tragiöde erster und zweiter Teil, Urfaust Teil l.1820 ed.Erich Trunz Verlag C. H. Beck  1972 p.60

(b)''Er giorno che impiccorno Gammardella ''io m’ero propio allora accresimato. ''Me pare mó, ch’er zàntolo a mmercato ''me pagò un zartapicchio e ’na sciammella. ''Mi’ padre pijjò ppoi la carrettella, ''ma pprima vorze gode l’impiccato: ''e mme tieneva in arto inarberato ''discenno: «Va’ la forca cuant’è bbella!» ''Tutt’a un tempo ar paziente Mastro Titta ''j’appoggiò un carcio in culo, e Ttata a mmene ''un schiaffone a la guancia de mandritta. ''«Pijja», me disse, «e aricordete bbene ''che sta fine medema sce sta scritta ''pe mmill’antri che ssò mmejjo de tene». Giuseppe Gioachino Belli tutti i sonetti romaneschi, ed. Bruno Cagli Newton Compton Publishers 1980, 5 vols. vol.1 p.167

(c)τοῦτο μὲν οὖν οὐδαμῶς ἀναθετέον, ᾧ δ᾽ ἐξέστω καὶ μὴ δέ, τοῦτο νομοθετησώμεθα. ποιητῇ δὴ κωμῳδίας ἤ τινος ἰάμβων ἢ μουσῶν μελῳδίας μὴ ἐξέστω μήτε λόγῳ μήτε εἰκόνι, μήτε θυμῷ μήτε ἄνευ θυμοῦ, μηδαμῶς μηδένα τῶν πολιτῶν κωμῳδεῖν: ἐὰν δέ τις ἀπειθῇ, τοὺς ἀθλοθέτας ἐξείργειν ἐκ τῆς χώρας τὸ παράπαν αὐθημερόν, Plato, The Laws 935e Platonis Opera, ed. Iohannes Burnet, Oxford University Press (1907) 1914 Tome 5 pp.394-395

(d)此去經年 應是良辰好景虛設 便縱有千種風情 更與何人說 Liu Yong (柳永) in Wai-lim Yip (ed.) Chinese Poetry, Duke University Press 1997 p.316

(e)''Doch des Wegs herangetrottelt ''Kommt ein schlottrig alter Mensch, ''Fingert in der Luft, wie rechnend, ''Näselnd singt er vor sich hin. ''Also fragen wir beständig, ''Bis man uns mit einer Handvoll ''Erde endlich stopft die Mäuler ''Aber ist das eine Antwort? S.S. Prawer, Heine’s Jewish Comedy, Oxford University Press 1983 pp.542,706 Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Nish, if I might, you are taking that way too seriously. Every other admin agreed that such a sanction was widely out of order. I was curious as to if he actually would impose such a ban, as in my view Sandstein's primary objective in imposing some action is that it is not overturned. And given the unanimity in opposition to any sanction, much less one as drastic as an indef topic-ban, had he imposed that sanction I would have gone straight to WP:AN to request that it be overturned, and I feel pretty confident it would have been in short order. I will say this though, there are users, you know their names, that will take any opportunity to remove you from Wikipedia. They do this because they recognize they can not "win" on the sources and policies. They know you know this topic better than they do, and it frustrates them. So they nitpick, get you to say "shit" and then run to an admin. You, for all your virtues, have yet to accept that this tactic can be effective against you, given your errr proclivity to deconstruct bullshit in great depth. So, if I might ask, put that semi back on top, try not to allow the usual nonsense to ruffle your feathers, and just keep going about what you have been. I understand if not, this shit is tiring. But please, dont have Sandsteins idiosyncratic views on applying sanctions push you into anything. That man can impose whatever he wants, every other admin can call it bullshit and rescind it.  nableezy  - 20:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (case in point)  nableezy  - 21:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What Nableezy said.
 * I just seems too stupid if you "were taken out", so to speak, by a silly thing like impolite language...but you know as well as I do: some people would use any means to make sure some  facts are not published. So don't give them the weapons they need! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Admins, who don't interact with you on articles and their talkpages, don't really understand what is clear to simple editors like me and Vanamonde, Jonney2000, Icewhiz and E.M.Gregory, who simply call you and aggressive and unpleasant editor. I have seen you retire from this project many times in the past, only to continue your offensive and disruptive behavior after a while. It is not, as some have incorrectly stated, that I'd like to see you go. Your many contributions have great value, and we have interacted productively in the past. It is just that I don't want to meet unpleasant posts like yours when editing here, because for me, editing should be fun, and being called an ignoramus in explicit language is not my idea of fun. And yes, that is being disruptive, and any community would consider such behavior disruptive. If you can't get along with other members of the community, as you obviously can't, then that disrupts the fabric of the whole community, and such members will invariably be removed from the community, even if they otherwise make valuable contributions to it. I shall only be happy if you take my words to heart, and remembering Ethics of the Fathers 3:13, will mend your ways and continue to edit this project in a more pleasant way. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * lol. One of your diffs says But this is far from the level of incivility necessary to trigger an arbitration enforcement sanction, and I see no reason to take action here. Nobody gives a shit if explicit language is not your idea of fun. It isnt my idea of fun dealing with people who want to erase an entire people and their history from an encyclopedia, yet I do it often enough that one might suppose otherwise. What is being disruptive, as in disrupts the purpose of Wikipedia, are things like inserting material that you acknowledge has no source. That is what is disruptive, not him calling a moronic sentence in an article a moronic sentence.  nableezy  - 00:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nableezy has said it better than I could. Nishidani has a strong sense of fairness and justice, and I still remain astonished at how many people simply don't get it. Over the past 18 months or so, Nishidani has created and written nearly 700 articles on the Aboriginal nations and peoples of Australia (with a little help from me, but 99% of the drive and effort behind these articles has been Nishidani). That documents a set of peoples who have suffered genocidal extermination or near-extermination as a result of British settler colonization. All with no disruption at all, since nobody is trying to justify that genocidal extermination. The contrast with the Palestinians is obvious, and I would love to see the result on Israel/Palestine articles if Nishidani were allowed to get on with them in the same way, with none of this constant, time-consuming, energy-draining hassle, petty niggling and blatant bad-faith disruption. --NSH001 (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Samesies.  nableezy  - 15:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I hope you will reconsider your retirement, but I cannot share the faith in the administrative corps that my Egyptian friend has expressed. Everybody knows Sandstein is an incompetent and corrupt piece of shit, but nobody is willing to do anything about it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly I wasnt really around when a lot of things happened, though I have tried to go back through them as best I could, and I get your beef with him, but I wouldnt go so far to say either incompetent or corrupt, and corrupt in a Wikipedia sense would be to me an admin with fealty to a "side" in a dispute and administrates in that way (WGFinley would be my only real example of an admin I felt that way about). My honest impression of Sandstein is that he is singularly focused on things that can be expressed as bright lines, even if those lines shouldnt really be that bright, and he is, and he thinks this a good thing, entirely unwilling to examine any context. He sees reverts putting in bullshit sourced to bullshit as the same as reverts removing it, because saying some source is bullshit is "content". So whenever he looks at an AfD or RFC it will inevitably turn out as no consensus if it requires actually examining the quality of peoples arguments. And then there is the need to not have his decisions overturned. A while back he made some AE block and that block was reversed by an admin without his consent (discussed here), after which Sandstein requested an ArbCom case (last diff I cared to look for on it). When the admin who reversed his block did not lose his bit over that, Sandstein stopped participating at AE. Until the first of the year, with the expectation that the new ArbCom would be less lenient on those who would reverse his actions. And that has proven the case, an absolute consensus is needed to overturn an AE action. The new, more troubling in my view, thing is his seeming willingness to impose AE sanctions without discussion in the first place. Nobody opened an enforcement request over the AFD he topic-banned you over. He went out of his way to do that, and further to mark at as an AE action. That is without any discussion he imposes a ban that requires discussion and consensus to overturn. That is also how I read his closing remark here. It read to me as I wish I could indef ban him now but there is already a consensus against that action, so if given the opportunity to do so I will before any such consensus can be established as there wont be a discussion on it. That I think is an actual issue, though it seems to be in his power to do so. But, all in all, I wouldnt call him corrupt or incompetent.  nableezy  - 15:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I too would not describe Sandstein as corrupt. But I do believe him to be petty-minded and vindictive - a view I have held since this discussion several years ago. RolandR (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * An Amen to omens

''Outside, a kitten’s sprawling in the sun. ''Tortoises nibble rocket in their pen. ''Hoopoes, shaaring, dip across the garden. ''Another Larkin day has just begun.

''While sipping tea, I light a fag and think ''How random things can prompt a wary mind. ''A lure for tickles, the stubborn daily grind, ''The toxic screech from nations at the brink

''And any number of those just-so tales ''A life of reading will inflect with sense ''Making inert facts appear so dense ''A single word invokes a dozen grails.

So Yánzhěbùzhī, Shikantaza, then. ''наружный шум, безумный, светел день. Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the several friends above who regret your decision, and hope that you reconsider. Your contributions to Wikipedia are invaluable. You read texts closely and make solid and well-reasoned edits; and you appear to be one of the few editors, particularly in the fraught Israel/Palestinian area, who actually reads books. Your retirement would achieve exactly what your attackers have been unsuccessful in doing despite a relentless campaign against you, and it would be a shame (however understandable) if you were to reward them in this way. And I share views above about Sandstein. Any admin who threatens that he will impose sanctions even if every other admin disagrees with him is a disgrace and a net negative to Wikipedia, and I suspect that if he acted in this way he would not long remain an admin. Please take a couple of days off, enjoy some good wine and music, take a long walk somewhere calming and inspiring, and then return here reinvigorated, and knowing that many of us will cover your back. RolandR (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw the links added. Let me be as emphatic as I can be. It doesnt fucking matter what some random person on the internet says. Who the fuck is SportingFlyer and why the fuck do you care what he says? Some person on ANI put in an edit comment "no" as a response to me. You know what I did? I laughed out loud. Legit, I laughed out loud, heartily even. Replied to the comment and added a "yes" as the edit comment. Because that random person on the internet doesnt matter, he doesnt decide anything, and the importance that he attempted to project with typing forcefully on Wikipedia simply doesnt mean a god damn thing to me. Some random person wants to "warn" you, fine, who the fuck cares. Its some random person whose goal is to become a Wikipedia admin, so they feel the need to tell people how to behave. Fuck em, who cares, continue about your day giving the consideration such a comment merits. Literally none.  nableezy  - 17:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will say one thing though, and Sandstein brought it up as did Drmies. Your biggest problem at AE is how you respond. You expect people to read carefully, and on a talk page discussing a source that is one thing. But at AE it is an unreasonable expectation. You would be able to provide a much more meaningful defense if you simply responded to the accusations concisely. I can about guarantee you that most of the admins at AE, Sandstein especially, will not read through your responses. And they feel justified in saying TLDR. So, if I may offer one bit of advice, be to the point at AE, and the only point is responding to a complaint, not educating the admins about the topic or the history of the content-dispute.  nableezy  - 17:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * exceptio probat regulam. I'll respond to that. I read professionally, and I am certainly no exception surely, from 100-200 pages a day at least, aside from the endless bullshit one had to read on talk pages (which I am now relieved of) -and here that preparation was required often just to get a series of small edits correct. If someone goes for my jugular with a piddling blunt razor wielded by a wanking hand, as has happened dozens of times these last years, (not counting endless reverts of my work), I expected that admins never burdened with article creation and the exertions it demands, would have dropped whatever they are doing for the couple of minutes it requires to read three or four paragraphs, the precise evaluation of which might determine the wiki life or death of a dedicated editor or, in the analogous case, a brilliantly neutral non-nonsense former admin like Malik.  I'm in good company. Thanks to all for these kind words. My  best wishes to all here, and more broadly, all those whose paths I've crossed in intelligent companionship  to the end of informed encyclopedic construction. Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but you are far too smart to actually believe that most admins (and it only takes one at AE) would actually have dropped whatever they are doing for the couple minutes it requires to read three or four paragraphs. And if you do believe that then you, sir, are insane in the classic meaning of the word. Because you have seen, repeatedly, that they do not spend the couple of minutes reading those paragraphs.  nableezy  - 19:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * dubia in meliorem partem interpretari debent.Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, if Sandstein actually did what he threatened to do, under the same circumstances (ie he being the only admin advocating sanctions)..then I would go straight to arb.com to argue his demopping. That is a promise. Huldra (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not likely, because he issued a warning, a recent warning, and that means that if Nishidani does it again, he'll draw the short end. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait and see. There is a limit to how many times anyone can act against consensus, Huldra (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, here, but it is truly a shame to see you go. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Khalida Jarrar
I see some sources state that Khalida Jarrar's "detention" (read: jail without judgement or sentence) has been extended once again  ..but Im not sure I can find a RS for that.

There seem to be a policy just to let her rot in jail (undoubtedly due her work with Palestine's application to join the International Criminal Court).

Do you want to this to be unreported?

Come back. That's an order, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah,, you forget that there is only one person from whom our old friend will take orders, and that's his wife! --NSH001 (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You are very quiet Nish?

 * I trust this silence will not be prolonged..Simon Adler (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Help
Hello friend. I, with full understanding of why you choose to stay away, and despite my own views on the futility of doing anything here, still request one not so tiny favor. Id like to get a set of articles on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank going, but a. you are much smarter than me, and b. you are much less lazy than me. If you do me the favor of helping along that effort by say making some notes in User:Nableezy/SandboxWB that would be greatly appreciated. Anyway, regardless of you doing this or not, I thank you for your many years of toiling here. I learned a ton just from watching your talk page, to say nothing of the rest of Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 15:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's clever: firstly, in scrutinizing with gazelle-hunting pertinacity the fine print of my adieu to editing to find some angle to respect the decision made, and, with a casuistry worthy of the most refined Aristotelian raised on the manuscripts of Timbuktu and Graeco-Islamic logic, work up a distinction between editing wiki mainspace (forbidden) and dumping notes in a sandbox, (unclarified status), suggesting the rule does not prohibit the latter. The second element was to recast the appeal in the rhetoric of obsequious flattery, ironic in its counterfactual disavowel of the plaintiff's intelligence, and psychologically astute in playing on the zakat-tinged trope of the gift. I couldn't help think of Henri Bergson's remark about 'expressing honestly a dishonest idea', and describing it in terms of 'strict respectability' as something that assumes generally a comic aspect (Le rire 1940 p.96) that I reread two days ago, and, laughed - something which the great French thinker argued had the function of 'intimidating by humiliating' (p.151). Far be it for me, however, to humiliate even if only to preserve the integrity of taciturnity's pride. There is, shorn of all these incomprehensible elucubrations, merit in the point. I've been house-cleaning my computer files and it seems petulantly infantile to wipe out notes that others might find useful. So, yes, I'll dump a few of them in your sandbox. I doubt whether this will do wikipedia any good - contemporary newspaper spin is what is privileged in I/P article composition (most notoriously at the  2014 Israel–Gaza conflict which has a massive 672 footnotes, almost all based on contemporary spin, newsfeed and agitprop by the parties- 99% of which is now ignored by historians as question-begging tripe), not the long hindsight of scholarship, which is all I have to offer, and no doubt any attempt you might make to re cast it into article form will get the collective mangling machine to gear up at high pitch, and eviscerate the hard facts. Give me a week or so, and I will see what I can do. Very clever, indeed, my compliments. Good luck. You'll need it.Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My sandbox also needs some help from Nishidani.
 * Not sure where you conjured up 350,000kb of article from, but that was a very impressive feat! Onceinawhile (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing impressive. N. emailed me for notes to use on an article he wanted to write of this name. I said, to avoid suggestions of meatpuppetry, that he post a request on my talk page within a week. I ran up my notes, and he took his time getting round to asking me, so I thought the idea had grown cold. Then he dropped that note, and I reviewed the file, for another week or so, so its length doubled. By the way, your brilliant Balfour Declaration formed the model for the way I formatted and footnoted the result. Of course, this being Wikipedia, it won't last long, since it has a low newspaper gossip content, has almost zero political spin and is full of the factual record, as that is agreed on by 320 mainly academic sources (mostly written by 140 Jewish/Israeli scholars; 120 international scholars of varying third party backgrounds, and 60 academics of Arab descent -editors dislike the 'conversation' at TAU/Hebrew University courses on contemporary history or perhaps think it should not be given global exposure), and therefore shows too much familiarity with the topic for comfort. Cheers Once. Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

GA help
Hello Nish. I was considering nominating 1946 British Embassy bombing for GA review. You had a large role in improving the article to its current state. If I nominate it, would you be willing to help address any concerns, particularly if it relates to content you added?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. Just give me a link.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I nominated the article. I will send you a link as soon as someone picks it up for review.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Unretired
Since you are unretired yet again, you need to remove the template from your talk page, as per the template, it is to be removed when you return from editing. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

christmas and new year
trust you have had a good christmas- have a good new year as well! JarrahTree 00:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * hahaha - just had my time in hospital and under anasthesia - good start to the year :) - thanks for your greetings JarrahTree 23:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * not going anywhere near it - see my email as to why JarrahTree 09:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Zion Square assault for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zion Square assault is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Zion Square assault until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

ahh new year optimism
I can really tell where wikipedia is at when I go to the Mick Jagger and Jimi Hendrix categories to find that neither have a parent category or anything at all on their talk pages (no designated projects) - its all just low hanging fruit that people nibble at - the real issues abound like a damned 1882 tsunami from krakatoa - untouched and unmanaged - and enough to ingrain a sense of optimism that.... JarrahTree 10:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, fuck the cats, he murmured with a cynical pun on felinity. I feel as done as a dead dingo just trying to clear up one little article like Yugambeh people, knowing painfully quite a few decent people are going to be upset. Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you left out the better part in the simpson desert - current state of south east of it being more beyond cat (sic) a strophic - - the dunes close to moomba  were as almost as good as  - I once worked in a tent camp there many many moons ago - but never got to  JarrahTree 13:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, brings back dreams. I never got further north than Wilpena Pound, and was lucky to get that far since people on the road generally didn't like the look of me as I hitchhiked - right eye closed from a spider bite while camping - and just got lucky when a truckie took pity on me and gave me a ride, in the refrigerated section of his truck through to the Flinders Range. Hitching back, I felt bushed by the time I reached Adelaide, climbed the nearest wall, roped myself up in the fork of an oak tree, and at 5 am, thoroughly refreshed, jumped the wall and stuck out my thumb for a ride, and was picked up immediately by a University geologist driving through to the Wimmera, who quietly noted he'd picked me up on second thought - his first being that it might be a touch risky giving a lift to a likely lad who'd just shimmied down from the wall of the Glenside Lunatic Asylum. Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * hahahah - makes my adventure seem very very mild - I was flown into moomba by my oil exploring employer, and then drove out to the camp west in the fields (oil) - where I basically sat in a seismic recording truck monitoring the bangs - off time was sand surfing on the nearby dunes... the kitchen being the most dangerous location... the dingoes looked they hadnt eaten for a decade and the rabbit droppings were of archaeological vintage - they hadnt been around in place like that there was nothing to chew... JarrahTree 14:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So the outback is where the Dark Tower lies.
 * So, on I went. I think I never saw
 * Such starv’d ignoble nature; nothing throve:
 * For flowers—as well expect a cedar grove!
 * But cockle, spurge, according to their law
 * Might propagate their kind, with none to awe,
 * You ’d think; a burr had been a treasure trove.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * that is indeed the most poetic response to anything I have ever put on a talk page in 13 or 14 years or whatever it is - well worthy of raising
 * the tinnie in the ironclad pub in marble bar, and pouring it over your head in gratitude (all moisture is needed at 45+ whatever the from of liquid) or for that matter un-named water holes on hannan street in kal... JarrahTree 09:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fuck Paddy Hannan, his street and his statue! Not worth a dekko. I could hardly get a full forty winks at the Palace Hotel there because of the great Macropus rufus that liked to put the wind up the chooks by dinning out their cockcrow as he thumped his tail along that street at the crack of dawn. Sleepy-eyed, my big nipper and I trundled over after brekkie to chuck a shufti at his statue - distant relatives knew him and were probably kin- and were ambushed by a high aggro swarm of kallili lion ants whose late morning nap in ther burrowed grit we'd disturbed. My brother introduced me on the occasion to the Tarantella, judging from the now familiar paroxysmic pattern of his anaphylactic reaction to the stings. Only an unforgettable lime icecream at Cottesloe beach a few days later changed the western walkabout's mnemonic template from tragic to euphoric. I'm as dry as a nun's nasty these days - only because the local lager, like the peanut butter, doesn't tempt my bushed palate, so a tinnie baptism, metaphorically, is just what the 'Doctor' blowing in from Fremantle would order. Thanks.  Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * at this point it is just that little too personal - cottesloe for me is off wiki  :)   JarrahTree 11:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi
Is this of interest? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks H. A huge amount of native lore was 'grounded' in dreamtime rainbow serpents that founded the country and, once they had carved its contours, survived through communicating underground channels from one lagoon or dip to another. That's dried up. What would happen has been known since I was there in the 60s, so it's no surprise. There are few combinations as lethally destructive as an amalgam between 'cockies' (farming rednecks) and rural politicians, whose idea of 'development', despite their ferocious 'anticommunism' (hostility to the rational sustainable use of resources) consisted in rerouting scarce water on a dry outback to grow cotton and the like, with the same impact that was obtained by Soviet 'planners' at the Aral Sea. Someone should rewrite the Ord River article, which underplays the stupidity. As to Walgett's river, this poem used to be famous, and catches the early story with comic irony. Alas. Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How terrible sad. Actually, it reminds me of some of the things happening in Israel/Palestine (ok, so this is an issue I know far, far too little about: just paraphrasing from "what I have heard"). The groundwaters/aquifers are apparently being depleting at a level which will mean the end of life there in the forseeable future. When asked why they allowed this to happen, the answer was that "the Messiah" would come before then, so why worry about sustainability? Huldra (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the depletion refers to the Gaza Strip, 95% of the water of which is technically noxious, since the West Bank aquifer is intercepted before it gets there. They can't build a desalination plant, though it's already designed and partially financed, because they are not allowed to access their off-shore gas reserves to generate sufficiently secure energy to run such a plant. The problem with being old, if your memory is intact, is that all the news you read is stale, DOA dope.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Theory
Hi Nishidani, let's talk. Maybe if you and I can come to agree, it will help everyone else agree? I know you like threaded, so I will sign every paragraph. :-) Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

1. 160k or 200k or 300k is not enough to cover this topic. At least ten times as much text is needed to really do it justice. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

2. The difference between one long article or ten smaller articles is the difference between baking one big loaf and baking ten smaller loafs: either way, it's the same amount of bread. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

3. Our most important readers are the youth, for whom Wikipedia is the first stop, who know the least about this conflict, and whose minds will be heavily influenced by the first thing they read about it. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

4. The average millennial does not have the attention span to read a book, nor a novella, nor a long article. 150k or 300k of reading is not going to happen, never mind ten times as much. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

5. There is no point in writing something unless it will be read. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont think you will find an audience that accepts that view here. If somebody is too lazy to read what is written that is the fault of the reader, not the writer. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

6. We should offer the child or novice reader an article that (a) they will actually read, (b) they will understand, and (c) will give them a correct, neutral, sufficiently-complete explanation of the occupation. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

7. We should offer the curious or advanced reader further information about the topic. We should provide as much (accurate, neutral, well-sourced, etc.) information as we can, organized in such a way to make it as easy to understand as possible (i.e., to ensure it will be read). Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

8. Ergo, we should have (a) an overview article that a child can read and understand, and (b) a series of in-depth sub-articles offering further understanding to those who are willing and able to read more. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

9. Ergo, we should spin off. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

10. Ergo, we should start working together on how to spin off, rather than spend any more time fighting about whether to spin off. Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This is my train of thought. It seems to me that we both want the same thing, so I haven't understood thus far why you disagree with me (and so strongly). I'm watching your talk page and looking forward to your reply. Best, Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 00:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, Icewhiz did not spin anything off. He chopped off parts that he would rather not be covered on Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You need not note anything for the record. There is no record here. I want to have a discussion, not a trial, and no edit to the article is relevant to this discussion. I want to focus on the future of the article, not its past. The reason I posted here and not on the article talk page is because I want to have a separate conversation, away from the heat of the article talk page, to try and come to an understanding with one particular editor with whom I've consistently disagreed. Of course this is not my talk page so I have no right to make any kind of demands here, and if it were my talk page, I would invite everyone to the conversation anyway, but I just ask that we try to keep the shit from the article talk page on the article talk page, and not bring it here. I'm not trying to open up another front in some war, or press some kind of court case. I am laying out my thoughts for Nishidani's (and your and his TPW's) review and asking him (and you and anyone) to comment on them–but not on the drama on the article talk page that involves other editors. Please understand? Please help? Leviv<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">ich <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(270deg);">? ! 04:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with trimming, as once more shown today. I was and remain deeply unhappy with your reaction to my readiness to compromise. I began cutting back in an overall review and in response you filled up the gap, like putting a man on a slimming diet back onto a Big Mac eating habit, with all the hallmarks of bad faith since your request was satisfied, and you responded by contradicting your own express concern. What you put in - the geography and timeline -was the last thing (they are set out in half of the I/P pages) - sabotaged my efforts at size reduction. I would therefore appreciate if you show some active willingness to implement your own request by taking out those two additions. If you do that, in a brief couple of edits, we will have collaboratively managed to take out about 18,000b.Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this and this. Of course you're welcome to post your thoughts here.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

COI / PAID?
In regards to diff, please WP:DISCLOSE any COI and/or WP:PAID editing performed in relation to said commision.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How silly. I rejected payment, and when this was insisted on, told the executive in charge of publication to donate the payment to a charitable cause. The topic was light years away from the subject of Israel/Palestine. And I am referring to an encyclopedia published several years before Wikipedia was created. It dealt with a totally different topic area, the Orient. Of course, if super-skepticism remains, the details are readily available if you pass this request to EdJohnston, say, and he thinks verification here necessary, and asks me for them.Nishidani (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, you are describing a past commission to edit some other encyclopedia, not Wikipedia? If so I don't see that this falls under WP:PAID. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just so. Even were one offered a handsome sinecure of exuberant largesse in work on Wikipedia's IP death-zone, I doubt if anyone in his right or left mind would jump at the option. It's one of the refreshing things in a world where bottom-line calculations are the advised mode for employing one's time, that here, as in social work and hospitals, voluntarism is the privileged mode of recruitment, one of the last redoubts of unremunerated idealism, and where the greased palm of power has little pull against the testimony of the factual.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this occurred several years prior to the creation of Wikipedia (2001) - why did you use "have been" (present perfect continuous - an ongoing or just completed action) to refer to it? You are usually quite accurate and thoughtful in your grammar use. Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your problem is that you didn’t construe the  tense of the verbs in the consequent phrasing: 'disagreed . . recognized … trusted . .  looked at’ which by complementing the present perfect continuous resolve its residual ambiguity in favour of the nuance that the fact referred to took place in the past. When Orlando says:
 * 'True is it that we have seen better days,
 * And have with holy bell been knoll'd to church.' (As You Like It 2, 7.113ff)
 * The reference is to a period, now closed, before his exile. But you don't need a literary education to tell you that. 'I've been trained in analytic philosophy/psychoanalysis' does not mean, on the lips of a retired old man that he is still being mentored, particularly, if the accent, which unfortunately, we do not supply to prose, falls on have, in which case, contextually, the clear subtext is, 'don't tell granny to suck eggs'/I've been there'.Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize then for my failure to parse the semantic intent of the sentence, which I read in the context at hand (the discussion on Wikipedia on a specific article) and not as a sentence that stood by its own timeless self.Icewhiz (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All sentences, as I stated above, have their semantic content determined by the context, -here the use of the present perfect continuous tweaked by a succession of verbs in the simple perfect- and are not, as suggested, 'timeless'. No need to apologize, however. Even God makes mistakes, first by creating man, then by realizing he'd made a mistake in assuming in his omniscience that they'd be happy in paradise.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That he said he had been commissioned for a prestigious encyclopedia should have been a hint it was not Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Alexander
Following our discussion, I would be interested in working with you to improve that article, maybe even bring it up to Good Article standard - you do write excellent articles and with your classical background I can imagine you would be able to make insightful contributions to it.

I will have access to better sources in a few weeks, and have been intending to improve the article when I get them, but having an experienced editor on board would result in a better article and also provide an excellent opportunity to improve my ability to contribute to Wikipedia - and of course I would defer to your greater experience and education on any matters that we disagree on. --  No COBOL  (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm retired from Wikipedia and only back here because an editor I have great respect for requested some notes and help on this topic. As a gift I ran up the IOWB article and gave it to him to save him the effort and time, telling him that it would be hacked and battered to death by the usual crowding in all probability, which indeed is what is happening. Scholarship is despised in this area, because it deals with complexities in depth, and doesn't comfort one, as one's favourite TV and news outlets do. Indeed, just as with my work on Khazars, distaste was immediate, requests were made to split it. Why? Because a large number of editors read into everything their suspicions that anything touching this topic area must be favourable to Israel, or not undermine its (semi-)official spin on anything - otherwise it is Palestinian POV pushing. It is as simple as that. Palestinians are terrorists, an obstacle to national well-being, and should be swept under the rug. The number of people working Wikipedia's I/P area, mostly of a mixed scholarly background, who think the Palestinian side of history deserves equal treatment, can be counted on the fingers of one hand, if you are like some of the Ngadjunmaia six-fingered, rari nantes in gurgite vasto. None are Palestinians. Palestinian editors are virtually non-existent here, unlike the other ethnicity/nationality. I'm hanging round to limit the damage, but only that long, and I'm pressed privately to limit my time here anyway.


 * So I don't think I can be of much help, timewise, for input on your article. I reread the article this morning, and made some notes, before reality interrupted most of my day. Feel free to use the following, prefaced by a general comment.


 * What is required of encyclopedic writing is that it be readable to a general audience and satisfy what specialists would regard as an adequate synthesis of the field, and not provoke a sense of irritation among the latter at outsiderly amateurishness, what the Japanese inimitably call kakka sōyō no kan (隔靴掻痒の感), lit. ‘the feeling of scratching an itchy foot with one’s shoe on’.


 * There is an epistemological divide between us and antiquity, in that the majority of ‘facts’ in narratives of the latter are inferred, and therefore the objection of meticulous, often abstruse, contention. Anything you cite from an ancient text is plagued by hermeneutic difficulties, something virtually no article on antiquity on Wikipedia shows any awareness of, but one reason why all citations of primary sources should be accompanied by a secondary or tertiary scholarly source which uses that passage. Let me illustrate.
 * "The work is believed to have been written in Alexandria, perhaps having been started when Ptolemy ordered the body of Alexander brought to Egypt, and finished between 309 and 301 BC. This dating is backed by the writings of several ancient historians, in particular through the works of the same Ptolemy, who it appears corrected Cleitarchus and whose works have been dated to the late fourth century"
 * That is sourced to John Yardley’s book, without the page indicated (it is p.5).
 * But on the same page Yardley notes that some argue Ptolemy’s account was written shortly after 321 a view which might be challenged by the fact that at 9.5.21 (Quintus Curtius: Ptolemaeum, qui postea regnavit, huic pugnae adfuisse auctor est Cleitarchus et Timagenes. Sed ipse, scilicet gloriae suae non refragatus, afuisse se, missum in expeditionem, memoriae= 'According to Clitarchus and Timagenes, Ptolemy (who was subsequently a king) took part in the battle. Ptolemy himself, however, certainly from no desire to detract from his own reputation, records that he was not there, since he had been sent on an expedition’. (Yardley p.224 cf.Tarn, cited below pp.26-27)) from which it has been argued to the contrary that Ptolemy is correcting Cleitarchus, and therefore, implicitly writing after the latter’s own work was issued.
 * All that has to therefore be contextualized, beginning with W. W. Tarn’s Alexander the Great: Volume 2, Sources and Studies,  Cambridge University Press, (1948) 2003 pp.5-43, and from pp.43 onwards. This is a detailed study of the fragments of Cleitarchus and Tarn argued that the terminus post quem for Cleitarchus’s work was 280. For the context of his view and an early criticism in a very readable survey, you could consult J. R. Hamilton,  Cleitarchus and Aristobulus  Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte  Bd. 10, H. 4, (October 1961 pp. 448-458.


 * The opening sentence should have a footnote after the title Perì Aléxandron historíai (note accents, = Περὶ Ἀλέξανδρον ἱστορίαι) noting that it was also referred to by the variant title ‘tà perì Aléxandron = τὰ περὶ Αλέξανδρον.
 * 'Late fourth-century' should be 'late fourth century-early third century.' (Prandi p.16)
 * You should not cite a work without a page reference, thus referring generically to Prandi’s paper for the Oxyrhynchus fragment. The ‘sensational’ is a description conserved there from an anonymous historian,(Prandi p.16)
 * Get rid of the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 article, cited for the vague number of fragments of Cleitarchus’s work, i.e. ‘around thirty’. Tarn 1948/2003 p.43 gives the precise number, 36.
 * The citation of Bartlett, Brett (July 2014). "Justin's Epitome: The Unlikely Adaptation of Trogus' World History" (PDF). Histos. 8: 246–283 is pointless and WP:OR as it stands. This doesn’t mention Cleitarchus, and the source you would need for the statement is  J. C. Yardley, Pat Wheatley, Waldemar Heckel,  Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus: Volume II: Books 13-15: The Successors to Alexander the Great,   Clarendon Press, 2011 978-0-199-27759-9 p.5 esp. but also pp.53,62,85 (on Justin) and 94.
 * There are a score of other things, -some of them I hinted at in my tough remonstrance -but I don't have much time. All I advise is to read Tarn's extensive section very closely, and use that as a basis for a draft, which can then be tweaked as subsequent reading suggests. If of course you come up with a real doifficulty or two, drop me a note here and I'll try eventually to see what I can do.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will refer closely to this when I return to work on the article; my field of expertise is well outside the classics, but I have no interest on working on my field of expertise outside of work. --  No COBOL  (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

get well
Your retired sign looks sick, and you self identify as sick as well - get better ! JarrahTree 01:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)