User talk:Nishidani/Archive 6

Book(s)
Thanks for the new book-title! I will add it in a moment. Oh, btw, I was taught  "never to wrestle with pigs", as "you both get filthy, and the pigs enjoy it." Some people are simply not worth a block, if you see what I mean? I hope we can get Eleland back before 3 months. Anyway, take care, Huldra (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't offend me! I like pigs, and would gladly have one as a household pet (only I don't trust the cook!), like the snakes I gather from frightened neighbours, reptiles I lodge in my gardens. Human wisdom began when we listened to a snake, as I think Harry Potter understood. The more something is hated or feared, the more I feel obliged to take an interest in its welfare, since more often than not, it is the victim of our irrationality.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! Ok, ok, I´m backing off! ..btw,  I have several times seen people out walking their pigs in the centre of the city here...it´s true!! ;-D Ok, not the BIG  normal pigs, but something I think they call Chinese pet-pigs, (or something like that). Not my cup of tea, I´m afraid, (I am totally a cat-person myself.) As for snakes.. ...let´s leave that discussion for another time. Meao. Huldra (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Done. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Judaism and Nationalism
Saw one of your recent edits which said "Judaism has nothing to do with nationalism," and that is actually 100% false. The Torah defined the Jewish people as a Nation. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of an argument I had with someone over a political biography in Australia where the interesting assertion was made that because the guy's autobiography said he wasn't corrupt, claims of corruption in the article were wrong and should be removed. Orderinchaos 23:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, lemme see, BH? Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all, Einsteindonut. I commend your reading the 'Torah'. Less so your apparent insouciance to academic works on the history of Judaism before and after Ezra's reforms, of Zionism, nationalism, and even, let us say, Chaim Potok's novel, The Chosen. All such varied sourceds support my generalization, which is not controversial except for amnesiacs, or those who fail to understand that, by 'nationalism' I mean the phenomenon discussed by Ernest Gellner, Eric Hobsbawm, Peter Alter, Benedict Anderson and hundreds of other academics.Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the fact that so many of your references felt the need to go to such great lengths to try to separate the two does, in fact, suggest that the two actually do have something to do with one another. ''"The stone the builder refused.... shall always be the head cornerstone...." --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We really shouldn't be using wikispace to play pilpul, but I'll end the game with an allusion punning on the two sources your proverb refers back to, 'κἁγω δὲ σοι λἐγω ὄτι εἲ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταυτῃ τῇ πἐτρᾳ οὶκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἑκκλησἰαν'Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks Greek to me. Feel free to translate and explain.  Something about Peter and a Church?  --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nafez Assaily
Thanks for the kind words. Anyone can deprod, and it can still go to AfD. But I don't think that it would fail, despite the prod2 from David, the reigning emperor of inclusionists, which would give anyone pause. Regards,John Z (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, one of my mistakes--it would be at any rate too controversial for Prod. And of course afd is too variable for anyone to really predict a particular AfD. DGG (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Note
PalestineRemembered is in a peculiar situation. I won't use this space to bring about any complaints towards PR since I believe he's been following some bad examples of his peers. However, certainly a defender of antisemitic comments and one repeatedly accused of anti-Israel/Jewish bigotry should not play (neutral) advocate to PalestineRemembered's off-topic commentary. Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment is, as usual, strictly related to what was said, who said it, and who misconstrued it. What PR wrote is uncontroversial. We should be editing. I find a lot of comments, edits, articles here deplorable. I try to be patient and not scour around to score points. Much of our time has been wasted in these trivial pursuits these last few days. Let's think of the articles, which are not written by duellists in an etiquette supremacy stakes. I say this to 'my' side, as to yours. Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record you are here registered, notwithstanding a deep discussion over two years with me, as asserting that I am, 'a defender of antisemitic comments' and of being someone repeatedly accused of anti-Israel/Jewish bigotry. I won't report the former, but it is malicious defamation. The latter is true, and reflects to my credit against the credibility of those who have team-tagged to spread the slander.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Both assertions are quite correct as you've defended (/justified even), for example, Eleland's calling a Jewish editor "Nazi" and "goose-stepper" -- by citing as example incidents where idiot Jews did the same to Israeli officials who vacated them from their homes -- as well as other comments who's sole purpose was being provocative like PalestineRemembered's commentary on Benny Morris and Tiamut's commentary about Israel. It matters not if you find these comments incorrect, as there seems to be a clear consensus on the matter, through your own admission as well.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) clarify 12:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let's drop it. I refuse to play the victim to other people's inability to understand precise analysis and reasonably nuanced prose. If you wish to live in the house of jargon, chum up to platitudes and jigger about with stereotypes to find one to lynch an adversary with, that is your right. Could I prevail on you to be courteous enough to keep the hallucinations off this page, dear Jaakobou. If you find my intellectual goosestepping sanctionable, by all means go to Arbcom. I won't even put in a defence. That should make things easier. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, some friendly help. You are sometimes too subtle, and your nuances too fine. I've learned to avoid anything that requires careful reading to get it right. (though it still takes careful phrasing in the writing: I first wrote "intelligence" but changed it to "careful reading",  which implies that people here could read more carefully if they chose to slow down a little, not that they are too stupid or uneducated to read). I enjoy reading what you write for its own sake, but some of those involved in the issues you discuss may not have the patience--to talk effectively, one must talk to the audience, however lamentable that may be. If a writer is misunderstood, it is almost invariably his fault (assuming he write to communicate.)   DGG (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF
The specific link is andre Oboler without whom the JIDF is a husk.....A specific link is unnecessary...there is no specific link to Honest reporting or CAMERA....in most cases of see also there is no specific link....Unless of course you're thinking of asking for the removal of all unspecific links throughout wiki articles relating to Palestinian subjects? Which I don't believe the pro-Israeli crowd would approve of...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the JIDF was featured by HonestReporting here and here, and CAMERA articles are all over the JIDF site. I see how Oboler is externally linked to the JIDF (in no official capacity other than the fact that he has provided a bit of commentary here and there in articles and on his site) but do not see where Oboler is linked to "Hasbara."  --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ESD has JIDF got any direct link to HR and C. ...no....the Hasabra link is more substantial than any HR or C links...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you missed my point above. Yes, direct links with HR and CAMERA (in the sense that HR has "linked" to and covered the JIDF and the JIDF "links" to both HR and CAMERA, but that is more of a link to Hasbara, which has never mentioned the JIDF, nor has the JIDF mentioned it.  --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Your link was to HR about a Jpost article hardly JIDF....therefore no point...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF are a tu'ppenny ha'penny operation that, without Oboler, are nowt but a husk...as ESD points out JIDF are a marginal extremist group that is between 3 and 10 strong....ESD Oboler withdrew due to CoI...Oboler is not an aspiring academic, he's an aspiring political activist using student bodies as a launch pad......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you make as many false assumptions about people as you do anything else.


 * TPKTKB syndrome. Einstein, sign your posts, at least on my page. Though the probabilities are extremely low the two of us would be confused (well, one of us looks confused, an'it ain'ìt me), not-signing here means others might attribute your remarks to me. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I really wish you would stop calling JIDF a fringe organization. It is a wonderful mainstream organization fighting garbage like the groups it broke up on Facebook. Now, I gather, it is fighting the attempts by neutral Wiki editors to keep articles on Israel and its conflicts neutral. Calling JIDF fringe is biased and pure POV. I am not defending anything Einsteindonut has said or done, but there are way too many people on Wiki saying groups like JIDF and CAMERA are biased, when they are actually fighting bias and telling the truth. Einsteindonut's desire to fix Wiki is 100% correct IMO. His methods however are 100% wrong and his language and decorum should have him blocked for longer than 72 hours.Sposer (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not use that language to offend, Sposer. I think it a precise term to denote the infrastructural reality of the JIDF. We are told it is a grassroots thing, started in 2000. No evidence, for this. It appears to run on a shoe-string, as a virtual organization of computer techies. I have read one or two of D.Appletree's essays. I can't use this space to analyse them, but they represent an extremist ideology, and have nothing mainstream about them. I must admit I do not follow the details. I find mainstream newspapers disconnected to reality: virtual tabloids, even wiki articles, set my teeth grinding. The devil, the German saw says, is in the details. Anyone can trot out huge generalizations. Secondly, wiki has thousands of intelligent people, most of whom have no particular take on I/P issues. They are mainly committed to a non-ideological presentation of relevant facts. We have no need of ill-informed ideologues, apparently attuned to scooping material off POV sites to stuff into articles, barging about to 'reform' wiki. If anything, we need people with a good university education, well-read in academic and specialist studies, who wish to write to the article, not twist an article to suit a national POV, be it Israeli or Palestinian.


 * The JIDF's operation on FACEBOOK came about, if I understand the reconstruction in wiki, from a sequence. (a) A group tried to delist 'Palestine is a country' from Facebook (b) A retaliation occurred, with a group forming to push for delisting 'Israel as a country' from Facebook. (c) The casus belli was ignored, and (b) was considered to be proof of anti-semitism. Anti-semites may well have been behind it, I don't know. Whoever was behind it was challenging the prior move to delist Palestine. Of this, no one speaks. It is as if only (b) were significant, and its immediate antecedent was trivial. In all of these things, I suggest one look coolly, as historians are do, at the whole complex chain of events, and simply not elicit those facts, occurrences and circumstances which favour one's personal beliefs.Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be glaringly obvious that articles entitled "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference", containing such material as "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'" have no place in the reference list of an enyclopedia. PRtalk 18:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but Sposer is entitled to disagree. Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nishidani. Not looking for fights. Started to write a longer response, but don't want to start a pointless back-and-forth on your talk page. We will agree to disagree.Sposer (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment
Einsteindonut. For the record, I would have dropped a note advising a reduction (no where near what you got. You deserved a month, just as I personally thought Eleland deserved 2 weeks), only my morning was spent shovelling crap out of road grates, with no time to check in here. My opinion? Puttyschool should be severely warned by an administrator never to attempt to source anything in Wikipedia, even on a talk page, to a visibly anti-semitic site, even if his attention was drawn to it (proof itself that Putty does not find these things off his own bat, as though he were prepossessed with proving a Jewish conspiracy) by Michael Safyan a month ago. Secondly, that, your whole record here has been one of ideological militancy, with no evidence of a commitment to Wikipedia’s goals, and when Puttyschool relinked to the site Michael had earlier directed him to, the fact appears to have fallen like manna into your hands. You finally, eureka, had the evidence youìve been scouring Wiki for, for some months to reinforce your bunker mentality. You posted a correct remonstration at 5.47, and after 6 minutes, at 5.53 you added this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=next&oldid=242910145 Real nice---you fucking antisemitic idiotic piece of Egyptian shit schmuck. (put that in your ANI board peace pipe and smoke it.]

What went on in your mind in those 6 minutes is evident. You made a judgement to recontest the Eleland decision, by what you thought was a clever imitation of Eleland’s remark, with one fatal (to your desire for a congruent analogy) difference. Eleland never said Saxophonemn was a Jew, never spoke of a nation, but told that editor to shove his ethnic supremicism, and that he was a ‘cunt/douche bag’ for vaunting his sense of racial superiority on Wikipedia.

Your remark to Puttyschool was to to take a broad swipe at him, his people, and his nation. In doing so, like Saxophonemn, you used racist language (see the quote from Tolstoy on your page, which you’ve put there, in solidarity I assume with Saxophonemn’s use of a similar remark by Mark Twain). The two of you have been confused, and despite your denials, you appear to be doing everything possible to confirm that suspicion (I don’t care either way). You then placed a challenge to me. Challenge to Nishidani

I.e. you want a rerun of the Eleland decision, with yourself, mutatis mutandis, in Eleland's position to see if I might 'offer a large context of intricate rationalizations for my statement (as (Nishidani) provided for Eleland)'.

In other words, since you assume I, and not the community, got a pro-Palestinian editor’s permaban reduced to a week, you appear to wish to put my attachment to universal, humanist values to the test. If Eleland was a victim of an injustice, you, by provoking a foreseeable administrative sanction, wished to see whether I would use my time, with ‘intricate rationalizions’, to overturn a comparable ‘injustice’.

One takes each case on its merits. The only thing your case shares with Eleland’s is a ripe use of abusive language. The differences are notable. (a)	You imitated Eleland (b)	You employed racist language, he did not. (c)	Unlike Eleland, you hold wikipedia in contempt, think of it as a bastion of anti-semitic prejudice and general disinformation, you do not edit articles broadly, but appear to trawl for ideological battles. Unlike him, you confess you are a supporter of an extreme fringe group whose obsession is to hunt for antisemitism on the net. You assert your purpose nhere is to come and protect that organization (Sept.6) Unlike him, you believe Wikipedia is a fertile hunting ground for you to exercise your venatorial skills. Unlike him, you have no edits to your credit. Unlike him, you appear to wish to make enemies. A suspicion exists that you were a sock-puppet, or acted in tandem with another user who shares, down to small details your outlook. No such suspicion exists in Eleland’s record. Unlike Eleland, you boast not only that ‘Wikipedia is a cesspool of misinformation’, but also that you have returned to ‘get much LOUDER’ You insinuated that one of our finest, most neutral editors in the I/P area, Malik Shabazz runs round in an ‘effort to butcher articles about Jewish organizations’, and that suspicions of racism and antisemitism should hang over him because of his handle (Aug.30. Your user page). You imply that anyone who reverts you is a ‘jerk’ (Sept.1), that Wikipedia is worse than Goebbels (Sept.1), taunt Wikipedians sardonically to ‘overwhelm you with (their) rules and wisdom’ (things you evidently hold in contempt.(Sept.6). You assert that there are editors in here who ‘work tirelessly to defend the work of holocaust deniers’ (Sept.6). Most grievous in my view is that you complain of people not using correctly English, and consistently write poor English "I do not not go into articles about organizations in which I do not agree (and trust me, there are PLENTY OF THEM) and start taking out key information and facts, because that would be destructive, not constructive.’ (Sept 20)"

Actually you do. Nafez Assaily is not an ‘organisation’, but immediately after the conclusion of the Eleland case you tracked my record, and tried immediately to wipe off a page (plea for deletion) of an article I wrote on a Palestinian pacifist, as ‘not notable’. I.e. one should not have noted on Wikipedia that there are Palestinians who are pacifists. I read this in the light of your earlier complaint about not being able to edit effectively the Hebron article. Presumably, that call for deletion was politically inspired, since Nafez Assaily has lost most of his family land as a result of its illegal seizure by Hebron settlers. It is similar to your wiping out a section of the Iman Darweesh Al Hams page, after I made an analogy with her fate and that of the little girl murdered by Samir Kuntar. You immediately went to that page and deleted a section which showed that the IDF officer in the former case, was promoted and given compensation, though he murdered the Palestinian girl. I.e. to edit to elide information you dislike as showing problematical sides of Israel's, here, use of double standards.

You then start compiling an on-line profile of wikipedians who are ‘supporters of Eleland’ whom you think is anti-semitic), and by implication cast suspicion on experienced wikipedians, and administrators who were simply doing their job, which is collegial. The innuendo was obvious.

In short, you support the JIDF, which is your private right, but it is an extreme fringe organisation, apparently with strong Irgun sympathies, which trawls the net not only to identify anything faintly interpretable as evidence for anti-semitism, but seems eager, to gather from its webpages, to promote an extremist-alarmist impression that the Jewish world is under threat from Wikipedia. Your presence here from day one has all the appearance of being that of an agent provocateur, i.e. to actively provoke people within Wikipedia in conflicts that will then be used to feed the JIDF with ‘proof’ Wikipedia is as you assert it to be, a hive of anti-semites building a ‘cesspool of misinformation’ about Israel. CJCurrie was singled out by the JIDF, Malik Shabazz was sneered at, you were hyperactive to try to prove Eleland was antisemitic, and finally here you jumped at Puttyschool, whose link was deplorable, as though you had found finally what you were looking for. Put aside even the abuse you threw at Puttyschool’s nation and people, and examine only what you have reiterated, and the conclusion is your self-perceived function here is not ‘encyclopedic’ but that of stirring up a hornet’s nest by provocative, ideologically-fueled statement to feed back to the JIDF. despite these many provocations, both editors and administrators have clearly understood the tacit game you are playing here, and have intelligently refrained from applying sanctions many others would have been hit with if they had this kind of track record. Israel's case and interests are strongly supported by numerous editors who find no need to adopt these tactics, not vaunt their contempt for the encyclopedia. Unless you learn the ropes, and accept the rules, your presence here is a waste of our time and your own. Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't reply to ESD's remarks on his page. Any one who says he 'stumbled on' by chance, a minor article never edited by anyone but myself virtually, only to suggest its immediate deletion, is not, even when speaking on his own behalf, a reliable source. I would only note another forecast, for the record.
 * (a)"Unfortunately today we don't just take prisoners, but then we release child killing terrorists (Kuntar) in exchange for dead corpses. That's all going to change one day. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)"
 * (b)'"I'm here just doing my thing. Everything will start changing around here soon (with or without me being here.) --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)"

Fun JIDF stuff
Just so you know, you've been mentioned in a posting at this website. (permanent link) Let me know if you experience any problems regarding this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I guess JIDF isn't perfect. I disagree with what Nishidani calls neutral and reject some of his equivocations and defenses against actions in Israel and the territories by terrorists and such, but I would not consider Nishidani an anti-Semite. I usually disagree with his politics, and still consider JIDF a wonderful, non-fringe group, but they need to do look more carefully at editing practices before throwing the anti-Semite label around.Sposer (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate that, Sposer. Our interactions, despite a pronounced disagreement on most of these issues, has been courteous. I think however you should review things a little more deeply. We have a very strong, and gifted community of Israeli and Jewish editors in here, with experience, knowledge and a solid respect for the given rules. No one on either side is satisfied with the state of most I/P articles, there are deep rifts in perceptions. To complicate this delicate balance, which is mostly conducted in mutual recognition and respect, by an overtly partisan militancy, as are those connected to the JIDF appear to be doing, is unfortunate. It makes, I suggest, the work of those who may share some of those perspectives, far more difficult, because of the atmosphere of innuendo, witch-hunting, and political scoring this kind of inside-outside feedback is creating. In short, whichever way you look at it, this is very much counter to the very interests the JIDF pretends (in the French sense) to be defending. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I get where you are coming from. Also misread the page, which does not use anti-Semite, but uses anti-Israel. I am not sure I would agree with that either, although we mostly disagree on the subject. You are a courteous editor for sure and try. We all have our biases that are difficult to get around, and do not always realize when we are pursuing such bias. I also have a problem with the attack methodology, such as promoted by Einsteindonut (and which I've admonished him in the past). Like I said, I do not consider them to be fringe, and think the Facebook actions were perfectly justified. Attacking individuals on Wiki is a bit over the top IMO. Although some on their list I would agree with the label, but I am not sure what good it does.Sposer (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For some of them, it is the same difference. In any case, my own take is that this is an attempt at herostratic fame - burn down the temple of Artemis (flame wikipedia) to get yourself noted. The Greeks understood the motivation, destructive activity in order to get one's name in the history books (like Laszlo Toth's attempt to destroy La Pietà), and took measures to ensure the arsonist's name was never mentioned. Unfortunately Strabo several centuries later slipped up, and said it was a certain Herostratus. I take this as a baiting expedition, and hope the Greek rule is applied. Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The website explicitly states "Please note, we are not labeling anyone an "antisemite" - we just want to explore the bias on WP and feel some of these names and their contributions offer a good start." I agree with Sposer, that you are not antisemitic, but I also note that they have not accused you of being so. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It also works the other way. We must be doing something right to get our names put up in lights.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you regularly and reliably edit from an anti-Israel POV, as described. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ashley, you regularly and reliably edit from an anti-Israel POV, as described; that, no doubt, is why your name was placed on that list. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On this, as in many things, you are not a reliable source, but the rumour-mongering is duly noted as one you share. For the record, I regularly and reliably edit on behalf of a point-of-view that strives to ensure that a land occupied by Israel in 1967, and its people, have the relevant facts of their history, culture and world properly represented, as required by NPOV. If, in performing this duty, in your view and that of the JIDF, I am 'anti-Israeli', I can only understand this adjective as denoting someone opposed, not to Israel, but to its occupation of foreign ground, and entailing, by the same token, the implication that those who hurl the insinuation, as you do, my way, are supportive of the occupation and annexation. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually on this, as in most things, I am an extremely reliable source, and I use "anti-Israel" in its conventional meaning, not the straw man one you have proposed. However, the comment you are responding to was directed to Ashley kennedy3, not you. That's why it was directly under his comment, and indented one from his, though I see now, based on his wording, how you might have thought it was directed towards you as well. I've re-worded somewhat my statement to him, to make that more clear. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had to rewrite this three times because of continual reediting as above. For the record.
 * In any case, Jayjg is wrong. I have not accused anyone falsely. It's the usual problem of people writing and reading too fast. Jayjg did not construe his own words in context . For the record, Ashley used a collective 'we', which becomes the subject. (b) Jayjg used 'you' which in English can be singular or plural, but, in a context where the the reference is to a 'we', the ambiguity is resolved in favour of reading 'you' as a plural, esp. since this comment is on my talk page, and we were both called 'anti-Israelis'. I see, having written this, you may have reworded. But I am replying to your original remark. I hope we can leave off these puerilities. I have never brandished 'anti-Palestinian' around as an epithet to score points against Israeli or Jewish colleagues, and I fail to understand why it is so chic here to 'hurl' accusations of 'anti-Israeli' around at people working to ensure a proper representation of Palestinian realities. Zeev Sternhell is a self-declared 'strong Zionist', and everything he deplores in the Occupied Territories I deplore, in good part because of what I learnt in reading his and many other mainstream Israeli scholars' books. People who disagree with me are disagreeing with a strong tradition in contemporary Israeli thought and scholarship, not with some weirdo goy's personal perceptions. I don't have anything original to say or edit in. The thought analysis and work has all been done by Jewish and Israeli mainstream scholars. Let's get back to editing.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What have these straw man arguments regarding "the Occupied Territories" have to do with me? Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not the right place to have a three way conversation using Nishidani's talk page but .. I too am of the opinion that those who support the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are doing something that is not in Israel's best interest and that demographic should rightfully be termed anti-Israeli......I'm pro-Palestinian....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Chomsky likes to play that kind of word-game too, where he insists he is a Zionist, because real Zionists didn't support a Jewish state. Whatever. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That only shows you've never read Chomsky or Zeev Sternhell or Uri Avnery etc.,etc., all confessed Zionists of the old school. Come now, if we must take up wikispace, at least let us anchor our opinions in reliable sources (of which Chomsky is one), and show we do actually read books, which is what editing correctly to articles requires.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, the "old school" = Bizarro Zionism, where up is down, left is right, good is bad, and Zionists don't support a Jewish state. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere, you are not at all familiar with the literature on Zionism, but only with a very restricted variety of it. Still, no hard done. Quite funny actually.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. Chomsky quite openly states that his version of being a Zionist involves "the same ideas and concerns are now called 'anti-Zionist.'" He may certainly claim, as he does, that being "opposed to the deeply antidemocratic concept of a Jewish state" was "a position that was considered well within the mainstream of Zionism", (see Peck, James (Ed.) (1987). Chomsky Reader, p. 7) but, again, that's only in the Bizarro world. Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I permit myself to comment here. Chomsky is of course ''not' a reference about Zionism. Zionism is a matter of historians and sociologist (Not politicians or even less activists). The formers are prevented to work properly (or better said to communicate properly) due to interferences linked to the I-P conflict today.
 * My personal interaction with you (Jayjg) lets me think that what you know on the topic is biaised by your "natural" (and respectable !) involvement in issues related to the current political issues. On which, you cannot be criticized (from my point of view).
 * I am (was...) personnally in favor of Arik Sharon's policy in the current conflit and am pro-Israeli and pro-Zionist. Nishidani and even more AshleyK do not share at all that perspective and are rather on the other side. Well. Ok. -> but that doesn't prevent them (us) to write on the historical issues of Zionism a neutral way and in taking references in scholars'work not influenced by current political issues.
 * To see their name quoted in JIDF website is not acceptable. It is an unacceptable way of pressure that makes me think of list of Jews written at some black period of our common History.
 * My mind is that these so-claimed-Jews betrays Jewish traditions. They'd better think about the profound meaning of Lashon Hara rather than becoming far-right wing young fascists. And they should certainly not cry when they are compared to Nazis. Because they are not compared to Nazis because of what happens in the occupied territories (which is a drama) but they are compared to Nazis because of the way they are thinking and because of their mind's structure...
 * You should not try to find excuses for them.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That you link me to a comic strip, to make an association as bizarre as its title, is itself comical. Chomsky's position, as one of the few American secular Jews of his time raised with Hebrew as a virtual mother tongue, has deep roots in his background, his father and mother's world (see Jacob Goldstein, Abraham Cahan, Jewish Socialists in the United States: The Cahan Debate, 1925-1926, Sussex Academic Press, 1998, passim for the 20s milieu, and for his immediate family background Elsie Chomsky).
 * That you got as far as page 7 of a book of excerpts ain't that bad for starters, I suppose. Only the young, or those who do not read, could fail to see the continuity between his secular socialist Zionism and that of many, even of figures like Nahum Sokolov and Nahum Goldmann.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding Nahum Goldmann, rather unsurprisingly, I contributed to Wikipedia's article on him on the first day it was created. He supported the creation of a Jewish state (alongside an Arab state). As for Sokolow, he was one of the key figures who worked towards the Balfour Declaration, and demanded that a "Jewish commonwealth" be established after World War I. They were real Zionists, not faux-Zionists playing word-games. Linking to a comic strip was an entirely appropriate response to your claims about a Zionism which is against a Jewish state; the notion is both comic and cartoonish. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, both pages show scarce depth. As I say, you do not know what you are talking about, and since you appear to believe the same of me, there is really no point in wasting each others time, especially when your points of reference are comic strips and wiki articles. I'd never checked the wiki Nahum Goldmann page. That's quite comical for its startling omissions. Those who edited it, well, they edited it out. An extraordinary man, as admirable in his way, as an exemplar of the finest in his cultural tradition, as is Chomsky, and sharing (Chomsky is on record as expressing his esteem for the man and his vision, but I won't trouble you with the details) many of the same values. Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, no, my comparisons of Chomsky's views of Zionism (and your own) are to comic book concepts, as is entirely appropriate. My "points of reference" are not, however, "comic strips and wiki articles", though, as always, you cannot resist the construction of straw man in a feeble attempt to bolster your logorrheic prose (argumentation being too complimentary a word to describe it). Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad you got that off your chest. Feel better? To be concrete and practical, I suggest you get your Chomsky fixation off the agenda, and simply go and fix up the numerous errors and lacunae on Nahum Goldmann's page. You don't have to worry that there are several key points where Goldmann's understanding of Zionism is identical to the 'comic-cut Zionism' you conjure up from what little you know of Chomsky's thought. The problems are several-fold, even like making the spelling of his name consistent (Nahum Goldmann, not Nachum Goldman). The para. on his and Wise's obstructionism of Hillel Kook, makes Goldmann look as though he were a 'powerful opponent of intense rescue efforts to save Europe's Jews' (the passage beginning 'Protocol of' lacks a definite or indefinite article, and the note itself should be in a footnote, not the text), an absurd caricature, that ignores Goldmann's own chill forecast at Biltmore in the spring of 1942 before a sceptical audience, and before the Final Solution got thoroughly organized, of what the Nazis really might do. There is no mention of his suggestion that the declaration of Israel in May 1948 be delayed to give time for a diplomatic agreement with Arab leaders, which he thought possible. The German wiki alludes to this at least:
 * "In der Nachkriegszeit trat er für einen arabischen und einen jüdischen Staat in Palästina ein. Obwohl er mit David Ben Gurion aktiv für die Gründung des Staates Israel eintrat, hielt er die Gründung für verfrüht und warnte vor einem arabisch-israelischen Krieg, als der Staat Israel unmittelbar nach Abzug der britischen Mandatsmacht proklamiert wurde."
 * No need I suppose to add that he thought Begin had a 'Galut mentality', or Ben-Gurion a 'will to power' complex, or that Israel on the eve of the Lebanon war, despite significant achievements, was hampered by a 'radical distortion of the Zionist ideal'. These are too Chomskyian. But, at a minimum, fixing grammar, spelling shouldn't take too much of your valuable time.
 * Which reminds me, 'logorrheic' is properly written, 'logorrhoeic'.Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised by the lack of references on the Goldmann article and no mention of his split/antagonism with Zionism in the last 15 years of his life....it appears that the article was a conversion copy of the German wiki article with minor input from the translators..... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Same impression of conversion, that's why I pointed out the oddness of some of what the German text has being apparently elided. Inter-Zionist politics were far more complicated in the 1900-1948 period than they are today. There were many distinct positions, and thus it is nonsensical to speak of a 'Zionist' perspective tout court. I've admired Nahum Goldmann: he basically stuck to that strain of Zionist thought which thought of Israel as a refuge for the persecuted, accommodated to a diplomatic entente with the Palestinians and Arabs that would assuage their offended dignity at what was an aggressive if, for Zionists, necessary indwelling in their land, so that it would be, as some of its original proponents dreamed it might be, a site for a renaissance in Jewish civilization, which would enrich what would otherwise remain the Jewish diaspora. In any case, it is a poorly written and organized article, that doesn't do his complex life justice. Perhaps, if nothing is done to improve it, one should go there in a few months and work on it.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm dusting it with references at the mo...this should have been done at the time of translation....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to add it to the bibliography.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably always will forget. It's Neil's fault. He made me feel I had a guardian angel, always ready to clean up any messes I made.
 * I'm old!
 * I wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled
 * And can't quite rememba
 * To fix notes at the enda
 * The edits I make,
 * So gimme a break.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How long did you have to work on that excuse?.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The time to type it. Of course, if you'd have preferred a sonnet. . . :)Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How's your hacks and tracker status? Have you had the same flurry as I have had recently?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

??? More specific? Twice, after making a delicate edit, I was blocked from accessing wiki for some hours. Not that that worried me. Is this what you allude to? Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes....plus hack packs put in place to track....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Biltmore
have you seen Biltmore Conference? to read it is to assume it was all about setting up Israel rather than trying to establish ways of saving European Jewry....the main point of the conference is completely missing.....what group is supposed to look after those type of articles?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The irony of Biltmore was that the revisionists were excluded from it, and yet the decisions taken more or less underscored a victory for the revisionist line. As far as I recall, from Berman and Laqueur, the central thrust was to impress American Jewry with the importance of pressing for the creation of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine as the only rational settlement for the havoc to European Jews underway in the war. You have to look at it in terms of the diplomatic rifts caused by any one line. Still, I try to read as few wiki I/P articles as possible, for the sake of my health.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You jumped on the Goldman miss spelling damn quick....I pushed the button and before I could put if right low and behold it was done as if by magic....the tart up seems to be going well...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I gotta keep you under surveillance. You're a wild man, trooper. Next spelling mistake, and you get an afternoon of square-bashing, (for going AWOL on orthography) and I don't mean by that a licence for leave to go out thumping conservatives! ;) ps. 'lo and behold'. 'Low and be hold', sounds too much like that custom Robertson Smith talked about on the physical manoeuvers required for taking oaths among men in Arabia!Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

square-bashing was for others (max of 10 hours in total), my time was doing word 6, not your average soldier. and I was a sapper (RE's) not a trooper...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suffer at times from a George Pattern complex. Now that I have elicited this bit of info' . . . . .!! My father was also a sapper, from Benghazi through to Jerusalem and Syria, WW2. Ear-infection swimmming the Suez canal for a bet put paid to his prospects of joining his mates in Crete, and a German lager. (not notable for wiki, they'll scream). Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are articles on German lagers, Crete, Syria, Jerusalem and Benghazi?..looks like you could write an article to link them all....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the nuances and controversies that made up Nahum Goldmann come across a bit clearer...a solid 20 plus references...makes a bit of an improvement....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pats on the back all round ...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm Sad Sack with the slops bucket there, pal. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (We discussed some changes I wanted to make at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni but I can't remember what they were - but I've put a bit in anyway, tell me if you approve). PRtalk 20:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani please look at the correct pages next time....Tundrabuggy unfortunately incorrectly noted the page numbers as 22-23 whereas the number I gave (look in history of article) was 22 and 31-33,....The statement was not inaccurate nor misleading....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not contesting your edit. For the past 2 days most of my time has been spent travelling to, or, hanging round in hospitals. There are many things I note, without rushing to edit. I made that call on the basis of a glance at the material against many other sources I remember. I'll discuss it when I have some free time. There are many RS I know which I don't use immediately because even RS represent one interpretation, highly informed, but not for that, if used selectively, spot-on. I trust you on sourcing from your record. It's the nuancing. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If the quota system was working why the voyage of the damned of May 1939?....Just the right time for a propaganda coup....what was the American Jewry response?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may intrude, the response of American Jewry was vigorous. The Joint and (parts of the) State department, while unable to reform American immigration laws (an obstacle which is easy to underestimate, and very often is, with prescient but forgetful hindsight) worked hard to rescue these refugees - and while unsuccessful in bribing the Cuban government, they were successful in getting all of them asylum, so they were safe for a time.  What killed the 254 (of the 936) of them who perished in the holocaust was Hitler's Blitzkrieg succeeding beyond his own expectations, something that no one could have predicted or did predict at the time.John Z (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost missed this, JOhn. I will post it on the Nahum Goldmann page, with your permission. Thanks indeed.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said the quota system worked. My views on the overall internal contradictions in the politics of Zionism are more or less those of Lenni Brenner's Zionism in the Age of the Dictorships. All was lost, for me, in the failure of the WZO to organize a massive world boycott of the German economy in 1933-4. The aftermath was inevitable, at least in hindsight, which we have, they didn't.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

PS I hate the medical profession....There always seems to be less of me after they make repairs....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep the Evian conference came and went to be replaced by global inertia...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The inability to see the obvious is what much of education sets about 'improving'.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One gets the impression that the Israeli government treated him so shabbily in his death was because of that very point...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the President of the State Yitzhak Navon turned up, but Begin snubbed the ceremony, so it wasn't the state, as much as his adversaries, then in government, who refused to honour a great Zionist, one like Chomsky. There were a good many Zionists like him, who knew that there were, unlike much contemporary 'wisdom', limits to whatever one desired, which stopped at the backyard of those whose rights were infringed by unrestrained appetite.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In desperation
I have been trying to fathom out why the Post WWII section is indented...It is really annoying...can you please have a look at it to find the problem....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Thank you, Thank you....I was chasing commas, full stops, semi and full colons and getting nowhere..,Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Robert's a close relative. As said, my real vocation here is as Sad Sack (Shakespearean sense) with mop and a slops bucket!Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

POV issues, potentially quite serious ( Western Wall)
This article should raise alarm bells on POV. For instance, the events of 1929 are treated in a seriously distorted fashion, the article currently says:

''On August 14, 1929, after attacks on individual Jews praying at the Wall, 6,000 Jews demonstrated in Tel Aviv, shouting “The Wall is ours.” The next day, the Jewish fast of Tisha B'Av, 300 youths raised the Zionist flag and sang the Zionist anthem at the Wall.[30] The day after, on August 16, an organized mob of 2,000 Muslim Arabs descended on the Western Wall, injuring the beadle and burning prayer books, liturgical fixtures and notes of supplication. The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]''

Even the most highly regarded Israeli historians give a much more nuanced impression than this - Benny Morris in "Rightous Victims" says that the Muslims long feared a violent take-over of the Wall - p.112 "the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: "the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions".

Morris doesn't mention any attacks on "individual Jews" on Aug 14th 1929 (and I don't see a reference for this). Rather, he infers that organised and/or mass violence was brought to the Wall (and for the first time?) by the Zionists, starting the following day with: "hundreds of Jews - some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons - demonstrated on the site". Benny Morris (a very, very long way from being a friend of the Palestinians!) says things like: ''"In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.[226 Porath, 1976] ... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall".

I'm also very alarmed at statements like this "In October 1928, the Grand Mufti organised a series of provocations against the Jews who prayed at the Wall. He ordered new construction next to and above the Wall, with bricks often falling on the worshippers below. The volume of the muezzin was turned up while the Jews were praying.[31]" being referenced to "The Case For Israel", a polemical work that, amongst other things, appears to justify torture and communal punishment. There seems no doubt that the construction work did interfere with worship - but we should be absolutely sure of our facts before claiming it was done provocatively to damage race relations. The Mufti, for all his faults, has too long been used as a propaganda bogeyman with the most absurd exaggeration of his influence. We reference the distinguished historian (who specialises somewhat in Israel) Martin Gilbert - but only for the trivial statement "The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]". Again, alarm bells ring - where's his real scholarly input? I defer to another scholar, Nishidani, if any of the facts or conclusions I'm giving you are wrong. PRtalk 09:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If one took for alarm bells everything deeply problematical in many Wiki articles like this, then one would prematurely anticipate Beethoven's late auricular condition. Of course, what you note is irresponsible POV editing. I haven't done much editing on the Western Wall because there are a dozen related articles, and most of what I find wrong with them links back to the early image of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. By slowly redacting that article, I hoped to give an NPOV perspective on the 1920s and 30s, on episodes like al-Aqsa, rioting, and the like. If you read the relevant section in his article, you will see a relatively balanced approach to the background behind the Wailing Wall incidents (of which much more can be written, though I haven't yet included that material, too detailed). I suggest therefore that the proper approach is to concentrate one's efforts on one specific article, familiarize yourself or master all relevant reliable sources bearing on it, and work on it, without what Shakespeare called 'swift haste'(pleonasm) or patent disgruntlement. And then move on to contiguous articles. If you mean by 'The Case for Israel' Alan Dershowitz's hackwork diatribe (look at p.56 for the frivolous use of academically dead opinions he harvests for his polemic, for example), then evidently, on an historical topic, he is clearly not reliable, being a lawyer, and public polemicist not an historian.
 * Learn something from Morris' temper. Handle grievance with a certain nonchalant detachment, at least as an editor here. Much of what we read, from sources, has been driven by competing resentments. The factual record is more than sufficient to establish for readers an informed basis to contest the commodified clichés that pass for knowledge in the contemporary world. Everyone can get emotional, outrage, while justified, comes cheap. Intelligent insight into the documentary record is rare as it is expensive of unpaid time. But in the end, the latter is what wins an argument, as opposed to bullying through a POV. If you've even run long distance, you will know that after several miles one can get a severe stitch. If you keep thinking about it, and allowing the pain to alter your rhythm, you end up throwing in the towel. One just has to ignore it, and run through to the end, irrespective of the twitching starts of pain, which, mostly, just disappear as one gets a second wind.
 * By the way, Martin Gilbert does not 'specialize somewhat in (on)Israel'. He made his reputation on his multi-volume biography of Winston Churchill. Unlike many, he does not deal with abstractions, but forages in contemporary newspaper and archival accounts. He has a strong Zionist POV, just as Chomsky or Finkelstein have a strong POV. Both schools bring to bear on any argument much that is otherwise missed. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Benny Morris calls Gilbert an Israeli propagandist....You need to check what Gilbert is using as the source...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would never personally use MG's books on Israel, because he is not a specialist in the area. I was speaking of his status as an historian. Perhaps that was not clear. Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PS - could you please tell me what's going on here? The new thread starts with what I think is an unbelievably dubious piece of Hasbara in it. It's been inserted as if it justifies the removal of some very well referenced material that seems to me to belong firmly in the article - when the statement "no political driving force behind the depopulation of the villages" wouldn't be relevant, even if it were true.

Is it normal to allow such material to stand in TalkPages, and then treat it as relevant to, and over-riding policy on editing? Should I answer the question posed to me at the end? I'd be very worried that I couldn't find enough one-syllable words to make things any plainer than they are already. PRtalk 09:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Goldmann
I have that as page 591 not 590. (But nice find for the citation I've been hunting high and low; but not in Israel in the Middle East, obviously)...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I (another excuse!) popped that in while talking to a nephew on car rentals, in exchange for his expertise as a hacker/anti-hacker expert. Sorry for the oversight.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

why don't you think the Rosenblatt quote should be used?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bit late for this, but for the record. Rosenblatt made that remark in 1934, not in 1940, the period in which it is contextualized. Secondly, it was a commonplace, not in particular his perspective alone.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me that I am not crazy with regard to this
Eklipse and I have agreed to revert the lede, but to remove the "most notably EU" statement due to it being misleading (I think he agreed to the whole change, but I am leaving it to him to make the change). Please see the following diff for Ashley's response. Am I missing something in my response, thanks?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hezbollah&curid=68893&diff=245023917&oldid=245015236 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to be flattered. Although I know we disagree on many things politically, and have different views on what is RS and POV, you try to be pretty even-handed, and I think so do I. Sometimes we both do and will fail, but I know you try, and that is what counts. It will lead to a better Wikipedia. Like you, I do intend to stay away from most I-P articles, but since I inserted myself in Hezbollah, I am going to keep an eye on it, though with a very light hand. Just no out-and-out silliness. I am not up to a full rework, because I am probably blind to some POV things, and am not an expert, but I want to keep things simple and straightforward.Sposer (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF update
Just look at who is on the JIDF updated list of anti-Israel wiki editors.....ESD has really lost the plot....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been evident from day one that this is their game. In dealing with high octane ideo-illogical drongos, the contempt of indifference is the only proper response. They need the drama to jerry themselves out of their hypogeal slough of inanity. Sartre once said the classic antisemite found his identity by paranoid hate of something he knew nothing about. Only by conjuring up a conspiratorial shadow, could he fleshen out his own thin identity. The same goes for some fringe lunatics who see antisemites under every rug. Still, I hope Fayssal's Jewish and Israeli colleagues do the right thing: a short rubric, without comment, of support, for a fine admin. undersigned by whoever dislikes this despicable trashing of dedicated people. The rest of us, happy drudgers in our self-chosen peonage to a wiki ideal, should just shrug it off with a laugh, and follow the shenanigans with a mow of bemused contempt. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NSH001 (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh the shame! Oh the humiliation! I must be doing something wrong! My name isn't up there!


 * You're a nobody NSH, just like me. User:Einstein "Honest! I'm not a member of the JIDF" Donut has granted me the private honour of an email calling me a douche and another saying that he's sure that I'm not really Jewish, but the JIDF have decided I'm not a big enough fish to fry. Of course, now that I've refered to them in a post summary as a "rabid pack" this may confirm in what pass as their minds that I'm a dog-averse Moslem. These are the people, after all, who see it as necessary to point out to those of their readers who have trouble in finding Fayssal's homeland on the globe that Morocco is in North Africa.--Peter cohen (talk)
 * Neil, Peter. I think I and a few other reprobates will have to set up a wiki tutorial page to teach you the ropes, lurks like (a) how to get caught up in a witch-hunt (I think one of them spells that 'wich hunt': I would have thought that orthographically 'which hunt' was the better mispelling!) (b) how to lead with your chin when baited (c) how to join Andy Warhol's be-(in)famous- for-fifteen-minutes' list, (4) how to get high-profile exposure from low-profile garrulity etc. Mind you, chaps, just as the JIDF website teaches us, wisdom-sharing has cost-overruns, and requires moolah. Financial arrangements can be settled off-line, but, informally, I'm willing to accept delayed payment. If my tutorial prompts fail to get you up on the big screen, I'll forsake remuneration. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If ceedjee can make ESD's list, then I'm not sure who he would leave off....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ceedjee? Touche-pas à mon copain. But Benny Morris is in for it. Ehud Olmert is looking like he's ripe for candidacy . .Netanyahoo's making odd cracks about Tzipi Livni that could get her in the JIDF's sights. Moshe Levinger's trembling in Kiryat Arbour, and perhaps mulling a shift back to the Cave of the Patriarchs, to be on the safe side. Stay posted, all ears and eyes akimbo Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On the matter of Olmert, I'm sure I heard a report that he was advocating giving up some of Jerusalem. Was I imagining it or didhe really say it? It's not mentioned in his article here. --Peter cohen (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not imagining at all, Peter. The dreadful truth here


 * These guys are unbelievable. They're so desperate for the spotlight they post links to articles they admit they cannot read. I.e. now we are linked to the Frankfurter Allgemeine. The best part is at the end.


 * "'Auch die JIDF verfolgt offen eine politische Agenda. Viele ihrer heutigen Mitglieder protestierten 2005 gegen die Räumung israelischer Siedlungen im Gazastreifen - diese Politik, Land gegen Frieden zu tauschen, sei falsch. Letztendlich möchte die JIDF auch „jüdische Werte im Internet verbreiten“. So kommt es, dass die selbsternannten Kämpfer gegen Online-Hass ihre eigene Homepage mit einer dubiosen Seite namens thereligionofpeace.com verlinken. Der Name ist purer Sarkasmus. Die Seite stellt Mohammed als Befürworter von Mord und Pädophilie dar, zeichnet ein Bild vom Islam als einer Religion des Hasses und vergleicht sie mit dem Ku-Klux-Klan oder der spanischen Inquisition - mit dem klaren Ergebnis: Der Islam ist viel schlimmer."
 * "Und manchmal verliert auch David die Contenance in seinem Kampf gegen die Windmühlen der Propaganda: „Du bist total krank“, schreibt er auf Facebook an Ahmad aus Saudi-Arabien, der sich damit brüstet, dem Mörder der Yeshiva-Schüler eine Gruppe gewidmet zu haben - und der später provokativ in eine der Gegengruppen eintrat, die dagegen protestierten. „Verzieh Dich von hier“, schreibt David wütend, „Du Terroristen feierndes, widerliches Schwein!“ Christoph Gunkel, Antisemitismus im Web 2, Frankfurter Allgemeine FAZ.NET 14. Oktober 2008 I think that's called shooting yourself in the foot, or is it foot-in-the-mouthing-off?Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"


 * Now that is interesting - if my German comprehension is up to it. The FAZ saying that the JIDF follows a political agenda opposed to land for peace, links to anti-Islamic hate sites and that it's front man "David" tilts at windmills. Is the author a reporter or an op-ed writer?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He's a fairly regular contributor to the FA, based in Tel Aviv. Whatever, it is a RS for the JIDF wiki page. It's straightforward of course, but I think rules suggest we need a reliable specialist wiki translator, so that no complaints are made about possible misrepresentations in wiki. I thought I'd note it here, if anyone's interested. Personally, I'm extremely bored by the JIDF page.Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he must be a freelance writer as his byline also appears on articles on the Spiegel and German Financial Times sites. It would be useful being able to quote an RS which identifies them with the Israeli/American right and not with the centre ground. If anyone knows a translator...--Peter cohen (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No way they could be confused with centrists. As I said on the page way back, their pseudonym handles invite readers with some knowledge to read the message 'acolytes of Irgun'. They are as anti-Semitic as your classical antisemites,  Gunkel's own description of Appletree is that he is of of these soi-disant warriors against Hate on-line' (the adjective is, in any language, a terrible put-down), which is underwritten by the follow-up, where Gunkel ironically notes that Appletree links approvingly to sites that depict Mohammad as someone who approves of paedophilia and murder, and likens Islam to the Ku-Klux-Klan. That certainly excludes them from being identified with the classic American or Israeli right. They are as right-wing as the John Birch Society was. But one would never confuse a Robert W. Welch with Gerald Ford, both of the 'right' but worlds apart. The latter was a very decent man, and not, actually, a bad president, as American leftists and libertarians freely admit. Yet the point is they are simply not notable enough for journalists to take note of them as anything more than a militantly self-promoting groupuscule. Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article makes a good case for AfD, but it is to much fun having them around.....which is a good reason for asking for a shortening of ESDs ban....you only have to bump into his once a month to find the rationale for why you make edits....He is entertainment on a stick...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * AfD? Absolutely not. The only threat for deletion would come from them. Wiki will follow them with fondness (in the Shakespearean sense) wherever reliable sources take us. One thing they appear not to understand is that every link they make to wiki figures or arguments, only sends their browsers to a much more intelligent world of multivocal comment on wiki pages, which discuss precisely what they spin. So they are doing wiki an invaluable service by sending casual readers of theirs who might be sucked in, in the direction of a democratic body of opinion where everything they spin monotonously will appear far more complex, nuanced than they would wish was the case. Full steam ahead, JIDF!Nishidani (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I meant Nishidani. There is no way I'd put in for an AfD...my May alterations to the 1949 Armistice Agreement is making news on their talk pages....Don't you just love them?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A friend outside of wiki dropped me a note to what the saw on JIDF....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, they finally appear to have got someone to read the final section of Gunkel's piece (did I tip them off inadvertently here?) They now write:


 * "In hindsight, we regret doing the interview and we hope the piece coming out in Ha'aretz will be better (though we are concerned there as well.) It's very sad when journalists have to go to such great lengths in order to stretch and twist the truth to make the good guys look 'just as bad' as the bad guys. However, through studying the coverage of the issues in the Middle East for many years, we have grown accustomed to it."


 * UPDATE


 * In a followup email exchange, we wrote to Mr. Gunkel:


 * "You could have ended it on a much different note. Unfortunately, in this quest for 'balance' you make us both out to look like the bad guy. We don't appreciate being compared to people who celebrate terrorism online. It's the same problem in the Middle East. Terrorists who educate children to hate and blow themselves up are compared to religious settlers.There are good guys and bad guys in life. We are the good guys here and do not allow any hate speech in any of our groups, yet you have made it appear that way and you made it appear that the JIDF promotes hate sites ourselves. Although we originally published portions of Mr. Gunkel's response, he seems to have taken issue with us taking quotes out of context (ironically). However, he seemed to indicate that it's not always clear who the good guys are and who are the bad guys and that no one seems to be remaining calm and objective. We disagree."


 * To which only can only footnote this from CPT's team at al-Tuwani


 * "Comparison of the data collected during the 2007-08 school year and the 2006-07 school year shows a constant, unacceptable level of settler violence against the schoolchildren. Data also show that in the 2007-2008 school year the tardiness of the army caused the children to miss 25.32 hours of classes, compared to 10.47 hours in the previous school year. The report concludes, “Nearly four years after the Israeli military’s agreement to provide an escort, and the affirmation of this agreement by the Knesset Committee for Children’s Rights, the situation of the children has worsened. The children continue to be harassed and attacked by Israeli settlers. The Israeli military, which was given a mandate to ensure the safety of the children, has consistently failed to do so.”"


 * I only add this to my talk page because most of the evidence against Ceedjee et al consists in citing remarks that document terrorism among settlers against Palestinians, especially children, which is known to everyone bar the JIDF Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

have you seen ceedjee's talk page?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the odds that the next Ha'aretz write up on JIDF will be about how the JIDF have managed to intimidate the right wing pro-Israeli wiki editor Ceedjee...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. I did actually think of dropping Haaretz a line, but thought it not good for Wiki, despite the injustice. The JIDF may be hungry for notability and press for newspapers to mention them. Wiki must stands on its merits and refrain from badgering journalists, to push them one way or another, even when its integrity is under absurdly false accusation, and shouldn't get involved, even if what happened was a disgrace, and a loss of a very fine editor is a blow to its principles.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

by what odds; I was thinking how incredibly small, although an article about how JIDF harm the Israeli case should be written.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still holding out for a subscription on his page by 'pro-Israeli editors' about whose position there is no shadow of suspicion, to put down their names to attest to his integrity. He's one in their ranks, respected by all sides. It's the Niemöller principle. I won't canvass for it, and things shouldn't be dramatized. But a certain spontaneous esprit de corps (touche pas à mon copain), faux de mieux, is the minimum one would expect. In lieu of that, a brief note by Mr.Wales would be sufficient. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF take over of Face book "Israel is not a country" didn't last long...IinaC is still listed and it still has 7315 members and a new manager.....obviously JIDF is a bit of a failure...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have I been too obvious? .....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A faceless facebook mugshot! Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. Now the JIDF's outed us as a couple of girlfriends!Honey, we're ruined!Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

oh a screen shot of entries, it's so frightful....didn't you read the profile?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Something (for you) to hate
Red linked it as no article is at present written...I use the red to remind me what I've still got to do...at the mo I'm on mapping (I'm also a qualified photogrametrist, specialist in satellite imagery interpretation. Not much call for it outside the world of MI)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I only eliminated the other red link at Hebron because it was extremely improbable that an article might have been written on Ezra the dairyman, which is not the case with the Palestinian village. Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just tidied up my user page...erh belated thanks...
 * any ideas for improvements?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, I'd revert. I always am in favour of the full documentary record!Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User page, not talk page. I've been archiving the rest, to allow for clarity....I was wandering if there is a This user is from the UK..This user is an ex spy...this user is a civil engineer...that sort of thing...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, thick as a brick today. Eyes elsewhere.Dunno nuffen about that stuff. Neil's your man if you need advice on that: he's a meaty as Quaker Oats on all things regarding wikiways.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Doesn't the link on my user page (not talk page) give the facebook profile?
 * 2) Who's Neil?.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. When I open a facebook page, I get a silhouette and a name, and nothing else.
 * 2.NSH001 - Friendly bloke, has trouble running marathons because his sheer brain weight tends to make him pitch forward and lose his balance.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

you're supposed to click on the tabs to get the get profiles (wall-Info-notes...profile under info)...I'll look up NSH001 to see what's what...thanksAshley kennedy3 (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, click and I get an invite to sign up with facebook, and then all sorts of complicated instructions that don't work. These thingamijigs are as profound as the proverbial mysteries of the rosary, whatever they are. Ah, age . . .Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep you're right, I didn't realise that only those nominated as "fiends" can view a profile,....I went to all that trouble of entering details on facebook for nothing...I posted a reply to David Appletree on the "delete Israel is not a country", they are not very good at opening a dialogue, they deleted my reply and ejected me from their group. They are classic "Islamic conspiracy theorists"...David Appletree does all the "agent provocateur" on "Israel is not a country" declaring that the holocaust never happened; as it is an open to all group, you never know if all the anti-semitic stuff has been posted by JIDF members....active JIDF members seems to number three (3).David Apppletree (Israel), Ben Snow (Israel) and Ari Ben Canaan, Ari Ben has a huge persecution complex......NSH001 is on a wikibreak....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt what you say re Apfelbaum, since it can't be proven. There are plenty of crackpots out there, shadows behind shadows, on either side of the divide. Cyberspace is a great place for anonymous schemers who play with pseudonyms, provoke, game etc. A net-search reveals several people who have commented on their experience with JIDF, after withdrawing. One returns with relief to the real world of reliable sources. Neil's always on a wikibreak, except when quietly fixing the messes others like myself make, which is quite frequently. If you need some technical advice re your page, drop him a note. At the worst, he might just, as the Japanese used to say, maintain his 'evaporated' condition!Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Appletree says "Holocaust is a lie"...I know there are plenty of crackpots and conspiracy theorists in cyberspace who use extremist literature as though it is accurate and reliable...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, anyone. How do you unblock a popup blocker in Vista? I can't access my account because a popup is blocked! Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

haven't got a clue, I block popups and still get through...anyway another subject Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (unofficial) translation....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose that can be cross-referenced for entry on the wiki JIDF page, though technicalities (translations etc) will crop up. Good work.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Icon of Evil"
The Dalin & Rothmann book is bound to crop up frequently as a source; so, in case you haven't yet seen it, here is Tom Segev's review in the New York Times, in which he describes the book as "of little scholarly value, and… potentially harmful to Middle East peace prospects". He concludes "the book is worth noticing, as it belongs to a genre of popular Arab-bashing that is often believed to be “good for Israel.” It is not. The suggestion that Israel’s enemies are ­Nazis, or the Nazis’ heirs, is apt to discourage any fair compromise with the Palestinians, and that is bad for Israel". RolandR (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already removed Dalin as a source on some pages (Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, for example, where Zeq plunked him in, citing him, oddly enough, from an Adelaide anti-semitic site which carried an essay of Dalin's, if I recall correctly). The material he uses is incredibly inept for someone even with minor credentials in history. I usually get my NYRBs with a month's delay due to postal problems. So that link was very useful. Thanks Roland.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * p.s.Jeffrey Goldberg’s predictable review of Segev’s review Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Melville
Thanks for the correction - even if you did not pass one test, you obviously passed another one that i had failed! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exquisite: doesn't save my neck from hanging from Eco's Pendulum however!Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Alas, no one ever passes that one, which means NOW you definitely pass ALL tests! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hebron
Since I am often attacked for citing in articles Idith Zertal, David Shulman, Avishai Margalit, for their views on certain behaviour in the West Bank as 'evil', esp. Hebron, note this for future reference from Zeev Sternhell, 'Colonial Zionism', Haaretz 17/10/2008. He is one of the great post-war analysts of fascism:-

'In Hebron a situation has been created that is a national disgrace, a genuine sin and crime'Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

rewrite of post 1967
Much of the text requires tightening and revision, but this section has yet to be even minimally organized despite its poor shape. I suggest
 * 'After the Six-Day War in June 1967, Israel, according to the Allon Plan, was to exchange parts of the West Bank with Jordan in a proposal for trading land for peace, with Israel annexing 45% of the West Bank and Jordan the remainder. [[Image:HebronStar.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Star of David]] carved above entrance to a now Arab home in the old city of Hebron. ]]

David Ben-Gurion disagreed, and told the BBC that Hebron was the one sector of the conquered territories that should remain under Jewish control, as it became Jewish four thousand years ago under Abraham. [86]


 * In 1968, a group of Jews led by Rabbi Moshe Levinger rented the main hotel in Hebron and then refused to leave. The Labor government's survival depended on the National Religious Party, and was reluctant to evacuate the settlers, given the massacre that occurred decades earlier. After heavy lobbying by Levinger, the settlement gained the tacit support of Levi Eshkol and Yigal Allon, After more than a year and a half of agitation and a bloody Arab attack on the Hebron settlers, the government agreed to allow Levinger's group to establish a town on the outskirts of the city" in an abandoned military base at Kiryat Arba.  In 1979, a group of settlers headed by Levinger's wife led 30 Jewish women to move back and take over the former Hadassah Hospital, Daboya Hospital, now Beit Hadassah in central Hebron, to found the Committee of The Jewish Community of Hebron near the Abraham Avinu Synagogue. This was later extended to other Hebron neighborhoods including Tel Rumeida, and and settlers are currently reported to be trying to purchase more homes in the city.

Jews living in these settlements and their supporters claim that they are resettling areas where Jews have lived for centuries. However, some reports, both foreign and Israeli are sharply critical of the settlers.[93][94]Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

There were double sentences, no chronology etc...Famed? it takes a specialist knowledge to know about them. (I believed you but it still needed a ref) PS the article on it also needs a whole host of refs...
 * The articles on all these figures need refs, since they're written by acoluytes citing personal anecdote and yeshiva traditions. Many are a mess (Zohar) because everyone from every sectarian angle wants to have his say, as opposed to using modern sources to write an intelligible article. But it ain't my job.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your 67 version splits the Lustik quote.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we could double ref it. I orginally plunked the Lustick quote in. It takes up too much space though, as did the Ben-Gurion quote. The problem is, all of the second half has been just a massive point-scoring by point-scoring compilation with little logic and much repetition. al-Ammer son expressed a desire to begin chipping it down do that the article doesn't suffer from repetitious hammering (repeating the 'famed' episoded of 1968,1979) and recentism, which means that an article on a city can't have half its text blaring away at a minor, if important blip on its chronology. By the way, we have to identify the building in the first photo top right of page. Which building is it. I say that because the photo selections are either of troops watching Palestinians, Israeli yeshiva, Moses Maimonides, or the Star of David, with little else, and this is selective bias. Is that a Jewish building in the centre, or the town council or what? (know your expertise on this, just hope you can hack Cheltenham or Echelon for details!!?)Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Building is at the bottom end of wadi al-Tuffah by al-Manarah sqr.....(Cheltenham is a listening post, Brampton and Feltham are looking posts)....I did expect the recentisms to be moved to the article specially created for that very point....looks like a case of "move the Arab stuff for Israeli POV to take precedence". How surprising......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. No the fork was useful. We still have a good deal to do, but only key incidents should remain here, which means three or four, from either side.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Three or four is three of four to many.....It detracts from Hebron as a city and creates the tendency to start listing all...for me it should all be removed from mandate onwards, a clean break as it were....just a brief note on 1929 and Goldstein end of story on Hebron, turn page for conflict. That way those readers who wish to read about Hebron are not bombarded with conflict and those that are interested in the gore can turn the page where the gory bits are laid out in full, context at front with as near a complete list as possible at bottom.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is what I am saying. The Hebron 1929 episode elicits the views of the survivors. The Goldstein episode occurred to derail the Oslo talks, but two incidents of intensive attacks on the settlers, involving several deaths, did occur, and they should be mentioned in the context of Palestinian-settler conflict, which is a hallmark of the city's life over the past three decades. Not to mention the fact that settlers and the IDF have been themselves ambushed would open up the page to a charge of bias. Such balance leaves the reader to draw whatever conclusion (s)he wants. My or your POV is obvious, but we have to be ultra-precise not to allow it to destabilize the text by a contentious tilt in evidence, as I think you would agree? We should ask al-Ameer son if he'd like to help out, since he wished to cut all of this post 67 material down, and is even handed. If I have time, I'll finish my summary version of that section, and post it on the Hebron talk page for comprehensive review.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you start to get into editorial choices...Should the Levinger shooting get included as it is a seminal point showing the Palestinians that there is no Israeli justice.... or the Uni bombing by settlers.....My personal choice would be one from each and link for the rest keeping all the conflict in context....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We should be discussing this on the Hebron page, where I have reposted my rewrite. This of course needs a consensual approach, as it is large scale, and we shall have to ask people like Hertz to chip in there. In general, I agree. If we can get much of it off the Hebron page, it can be expanded and redeveloped on the subpage dealing with violence. Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all conflict is physical violence....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ricks?
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.14 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No thanks needed. I was, as Terry-Thomas would groan from his grave were he to have known, a propa shaa for correcting 'intent' to 'intense'. I could accept 'intent' from Ricks, but it is not the kind of adjective one associates with Kenner's prose. Now that I've checked and reflected, Kenner's choice of phrase was a compliment to Ricks by the subtle irony of amicable parody, instinct with the nuanced verbal intelligence that gives us pleasure in both masters.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Al-Husayni's memoirs
Hello Nishidani , I went through Al-Husayni's memoirs where he describes his visit to Berlin and his meeting with Hitler (pages 103 - 129), and there's nothing that translates to the passage you copied in my talk page. Any clue on where in his memoirs Al-Husayni said that? The memoirs are 510 pages. Imad marie (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize my friend. Actually it was very interesting to go through the memoirs, and see how there were conflicting interests in the region: Al-Husayni who allied with the Germans vs. Al Hashimi king who allied with the British. Imad marie (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)