User talk:PalestineRemembered/Archives/2008/November

Thanks
Hey PR. Thanks for the barnstar. Sorry for the late acknowledgement, I only just noticed it now. Have not been in and around here as much as I would like to lately, due to work. But thanks again.  T i a m u t talk 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest
I know this particular subject has always interested you. Perhaps you might like to read the review, and eventually look at the volumes cited London Review of Books. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting! The accounts suggest that the Jews of the new Iraq were much more vulnerable than 1,500 years (shouldn't that be 2,500 years?!) of life in Mesopotamia might suggest. The Ottoman system, dhimmi tax and all, seems to have worked well for the Jews - but despite their contacts with (and maybe preference from) the British, the new monarchy of 1920 started to upset things, even before the news from Palestine (under British Mandate) really damaged their race relations, helping drive anti-British support for Hitler's Germany. Shamash's account say that the pogrom of 1941 was the fault of the British, and might even have been caused by deliberate neglect. (That reformed Iraqi Zionist Naeim Giladi goes further - he thinks forces under British control took part).
 * According to the two books reviewed, the three last straws are the humiliating defeat of the Iraqi forces in Palestine in 1948, the arrival of eight thousand embittered Palestinians and Mossad whose "objective was not to improve the position of the Jews in Iraq, but to hasten their departure" with, amongst other things, racist pamphlets. The article says that there is "no proof of Mossad’s responsibility" in the bombings that also drove emigration ... hmmmm - why dispute what Iraqi Jews "fiercely" believe and tell us? One is left to wonder whether the sad subsequent events in Iraq were partly driven by the leaving of this very important section of society. PRtalk 19:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The central defect of editors here is to think in terms of essentialist character traits, cultural identities, national interests when all these things are in flux, and are what they are because of wider historical stresses. Here Western imperialism (which used certain sectors of Zionism for its own cynical ends while Zionists returned the compliment and used them) is responsible for the destruction of those extraordinary communities. One should never forget the major seismic force, nor its antisemitism, when editing on Zionism, was our (Western) historical tyranny, though that is no longer a viable pretext for the present tragedy's persistance. (WP:SOAP here endeth). Until Giladi's thesis (I believe it most probable myself) is thoroughly argued by an academic source, however, you should not touch it in editing wiki. Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't inclined to blame "Western Imperialism" for the calamity that wiped out the 125,000 member strong Jewish community in Iraq, though it's quite possible to claim that that's what did it. I grant you that Giladi's thesis is a primary source, but one of the two parts I count as significant (the bombings) appears in secondary literature such as Hirsh too. I could be resistant to the other one of his thesis (that the British brought about the 1941 pogrom), nevertheless it appears (according to the review) in one of the books reviewed in the LRB. I'm in no rush to buy and then read these two books, but I'll do so if you think there is serious meat that needs including somewhere. Well, if we're allowed to include material from the RS of course. PRtalk 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One doesn't blame. One seeks out all causes. Historical events are subject to multi-causal factors. Zionism grew out of the Dreyfus affair, and the aftermath of the Prussian-French war, whose reparation clauses were paid so quickly by the French they caused the stock market to collapse, and in turn scapegoating of Jews, and the strong revival of traditional anti-semitism. Good historical focus consists in seeing the total context, and the savagery of the British invasion of Iraq in 1920-21 created a radically new set of circumstances that were to undermine, as Zionism itself pressed for the enactment of the Balfour Agreement, Jewish stability and integration there. Both were British policies, and had a vast impact over the Arab world. Don't rush to buy the books, that would make me feel guilty for having you incur needless expense. Wait for them to appear in a local library, if the subject continues to interest you. One should never rush things: most bad editing, even by practiced hands, comes from wanting to fix a point for POV before even engaging in the preliminary background research to get a deeper picture of those events bearing on that edit's content.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Zionism and immigration to Palestine pre-dated the Dreyfus affair, which in any case only proved that the French public were disgusted by antisemitism. And one does "blame", as you've done over the "savagery" of the British invasion. (PS - you'll be amused by this, even through the heavy historical bias).
 * I'd query your diagnosis of what causes bad (or at least, POV) editing - some of the most egregious breaches come from sources that boast of carrying out 20,000 edits a year ... do the maths and ponder how much research can possibly go into each one! PRtalk 12:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You didn't understand. When the Vienna Stock Market collapsed in 1873, mainly due to the unforeseen promptness with which France paid out indemnities to Prussia following the Franco-Prussian war, the blame fell on Bleichröder, who'd played a key role in the indemnities transfer, and other Jews. This caused the 'long depression' 1873-1896, during which, as its effect reverberated throughout the area, helped refire latent antisemitic feelings that stoked Jewish flight 1882 onwards in aliyah. The Dreyfus Affair proved no such thing. It showed the contrary. I used 'blame' when one singles out one cause, as against many causes. The savagery of the British repression and invasion of Iraq in 1920 has been the object of numerous studies. Look up Winston Churchill's words on the people, read the history of the push into Mesopotamia. We are still living with its repercussions. The most notorious POV editors and admins don't read much, if anything, outside of wiki pages: they monitor what others write, and then frig about with waving banners on wiki rules if they don't like it. Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What I have on aliyah from 1882 doesn't mention Austria, it concerns places further East. I may be wrong about Dreyfus, it was a gentile, Zola, who forced his retrial and partial rehabilitation - I'd taken it that, faced with what antisemitism had actually caused, French society was more than a bit taken aback. And I was under the impression that the number of casualties in Iraq in the 1920s was some tiny, tiny, fraction of what's happened there recently. Note that the link I provided to the IPS story concerned British domination of government and foreign policy, not atrocities by the British ... or is there a distortion there, who killed those 400 Iraqis in 1948, was it the Iraqi police, or was it the British?
 * I haven't edited on any of these topics we've drifted into. My interest in 1950s Iraq only concerned the highly Islamophobic explanations attached to it (along with every other article on the Middle East). Like you, I'm cautious of editing on anything I don't have a good grounding on - which, of course, is why I regularly present good RS evidence on TalkPages, enough to demonstrate faults in the article, but not necessarily enough to produce a really good alternative. There'd be a lot less POV editing (as I've hinted to Moonriddengirl below] if administrators acted against badly-informed editing, instead of sometimes being the very worst culprits. PRtalk 13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

-> Events are meaningless without the perspective of the rich and deeper context in which they occur. A defective set of machines, creating hanging chads, in Florida, was one of the many concomitant causes that led to the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqis, and the forced exile of 4 million. A terrorist's bomb launched at a Hapsburg in Sarayevo did wonders for the Argentinian economy. A slap in the face in China in 19O5 influenced the outcome of the Battle of Tannenberg. The Kishinev pogrom enabled Japan to secure Manchuria. Books on these specific incidents will never clue you in. You only see this if you read widely in the literature, on each and every separate event. In any case, the Dreyfus trial, though won in the end in his favour, determined the course of French history, and led to Vichy's collaboration with Nazis for the destruction of the Jews. And it looks like you should read up on the slaughterhouse created by the British in Mesopotamia. Churchill was all for mass gassing Arabs, following the example of Italy, which, in invading Libya, introduced the mass gassification by bombing of Libyan villagers in 1911. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds has a long history, which goes back to what Western powers did way back, etc.etc. etc. Remember, every hour on wiki is an hour lost reading 60 pages of a good book that will be far more informative than whatever you can read here over the same time. That is why useful editors should take long breaks, and leave the wikilawyering to people who don't have a better way to spend their lives than by monitoring everyone except themselves.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're exaggerating a bit. When I last checked, Churchill threatened to gas-bomb Iraqis, but there seems to be no evidence that he did so. I can't again find the number of deaths recorded in the British pacification of Iraq (1921-22), but it was some tiny fraction of the 5 year bungling we've seen recently. Whenever Kishinev 1903 is mentioned, I check the figures for Deir Yassin. PRtalk 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Thank you for your note. You have a reply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, re your comment about page protection: see The wrong version. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Painted Bird
Hello! I hope this doesn't create a problem, but I removed the section on "The Painted Bird" that you placed in the article on the rescue of Polish Jews during World War II. The problem with the section is the fact "The Painted Bird" is a novel, and the controversy surrounding it distracts from the focus of the article. Perhaps there is another way we can mention Kosinski without going off on a tangent about the book's controversial history? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would do more sense to include it in The Painted Bird article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Żegota =/= ŻOB
I've somewhat reverted your edit here: Żegota was not part of Jewish resistance - perhaps you confused it with ŻOB? If you are interested in Polish-Jewish history, please don't hesitate to edit those topics more - we certainly need more editors! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a further edit that should fit the case. I'm concentrating on improving the English, and correcting faulty wiki-links, if I wrongly associate organisations, I'll need you to fix it. PRtalk 19:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also fixed some redirects/disambigs (Jewish resistance).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer to question
Hi. You said on Moonriddengirl's talk page, "where do you want the evidence that the USS Liberty incident article is suffering badly from UNDUE and distortion of the material of sources?" I'm sorry, I don't remember asking for that evidence. I might or might not be able to find time to participate in that discussion. I suggest that if you want to post evidence about that, that you post it on the article talk page. That seems to me to be the most appropriate place. I might or might not have time to look at it, but I hope that others would look at it there if I don't. I've also commented on Moonriddengirl's talk page in response to your comment there. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada
Hello. Please see the talk section after Talk:Second Intifada. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tone
PalestineRemembered, please do not use such language as "racists" towards other editors. If you continue with this kind of language, you may be placed under ArbCom restrictions. Instead, please limit your comments on article talkpages just to the content of the articles, and do not make comments about the contributors. Thanks, --Elonka 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada
I don't understand this comment, PR: "Editors will note that I wasn't and haven't accused anyone of racism,..." given your earlier comment "The problem you've got is that serious racists have arrived,". I'm also putting a comment on NoCal100's talk page about a comment on that article talk page. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 15:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem - now I've mentioned it, admins can get on the job and watch out for the kind of people who cannot be allowed to edit articles in sensitive areas like the Second Intifada. Israeli forces killed 84 Palestinian children in the first 3.5 months of that event, and the biggest single cause of their deaths was gunfire to the head.. Not one Israeli child was killed in the same period. Nor was there a single suicide bombing against Israelis in that period. (A total of 4 Israelis, all civilians, were killed in the first 4.5 months by 2 bombs).
 * Are you dealing with imputations of antisemitism being made by some of these newly-arrived editors? It's a bit rough to chastise me for bringing up the serious problem of racism in as non-accusatory a fashion as I can manage, while there are other editors throwing round completely baseless accusations.
 * While I'm about it, I and others have been unable to discover what the rules are for CoI in incidents like this when editors may have carried a gun - can you help? PRtalk 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please watch it, PR. This is toeing much too close to the line; would you please consider striking this unhelpful comment?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing much more specific accusations of ethno-specific intolerance appearing all over the place - eg at the initial complaint in this ANI report from 2 days ago, wherein Henrywinklestein is being accused of being antisemitic for (as best I can see) no reason whatsoever. I'm not loosely throwing anything around, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, I'm simply stating the obvious, some conduct is grossly offensive and totally unacceptable.
 * I don't really see the point of striking something that's nearly 24 hours old and has been seen by everyone who's visited that section, but I've done as you asked. PRtalk 18:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Even when slightly stale, the positive act of striking a comment that might have been over the limit is an acknowledgment of that fact and always a sign of good faith.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Aaronshavit (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No means no
"I'm not threatening anybody with anything. But I thought y'all might be amused to know that times move on and that, in at least some jurisdictions, accusations of antisemitism have apparently become actionable. Even an apology may not be good enough, as in the example I've drawn your attention to. There are of course, simple means to avoid putting yourself in jeopardy." That's a tacit legal threat. You're blocked. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This indefinite blocking is in response to a discussion that was taking place here. Two editors had objected to the rather generalised accusations of antisemitism that opened a new ANI section. The High Court action that closed down a radio station 3 months ago is, as best I know, the first of it's kind anywhere in the world. I'm not sure whether people want their attention drawn to a potentially startling change in the publishing environment, but I can only offer it. PRtalk 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're claiming that you weren't making a tacit legal threat, you need to be very clear and explicit saying so and retracting any perceived implication of such a threat; because I'm not the first editor to read your statement I quoted as a legal threat. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a careful look at all the to-ings and fro-ings in this affair and, while my comments on ANI weren't aimed at a specific user, I can see how they were taken as such, and realise it was a pretty silly thing to say. I didn't mean for it to be taken in that way, and I have absolutely no intention of taking legal action against anyone.  I'm sorry that it was taken as legal threat, and want to apologise to everyone involved in the discussion.
 * It seems to me that I should be striking some of these comments from the ANI and request an unblock in order to allow me to do so - alternatively, perhaps someone else could strike them for me. PRtalk 00:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that you have unequivocally stated that no legal action is forthcoming, I'm going to unblock you. I'm going to use the opportunity, however, to remind you that throwing around accusations of racism is never a positive move (no matter how certain you may be) and that you should think twice before doing so.  And then not do it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep the faith
Don't let them get to you PR. The truth hurts and is known to all. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The truth is not known on this as on so many historical issues, and in any case wiki is not a truth organ. I agree the Moorer report is being has been held to ransom over technicalities, but this in no way allows one to push it as 'the truth'. What I or PR or yourself think privately is immaterial to the task we are obliged to perform here, which is to produce NPOV articles that are based on verifiable material,(which the Moorer report is), nor on 'the truth'. Basic policy.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor point Nishidani, the moorer report has been in the article for several days. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Narson, point taken. I was relying on memories of the rather hectic debate over it that preceded recent edits. Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a 2007 claim that at c. 2100 (local) on Wed 7th the US Defense Attache informed the US Army Communication Centre in Washington by coded telegram that "the IDF was planning to attack the Liberty if the ship continued to move closer to the Israeli coast". An hour later, 2200, Israeli planes were flying round the Liberty "homing their rockets" as though to attack. (The attack occurred at 1405 on Thurs 8th). Unfortunately, although the source itself is unquestionably RS, this particular insight is in the form of a "primary source", the author (on this particular count) is telling the story from personal knowledge and interviews with various personalities. I don't know whether this claim has been been picked up or expanded on by secondary sources, it might be a good idea to ask Henrywinklestein. It's a pity he's not activating his Wikipedia e-mail! PRtalk 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks --- point me in the right direction & I just might be able to. Or maybe I can figure it out myself. (BTW --- my "Keep the Faith" comment is much more far-reaching than the tragic USS Liberty Incident. I am sure you realize that ...  :o) )  Nishidani -- Points taken on the above and yes narson its been noticed --Henrywinklestein (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is not the actual page to comment, but all sides agree that this is a dreadfully constructed page. In other instances, we have found some merit in opening a good faith discussion on how it should be designed. Arguably one casts about for a similarly controversial topic page, perhaps one where a conspiracy theory has been entertained even, that has achieved GA status at a minimum. Is there one?. If so, then follow its structural design. There are some people who are actually good at telling one how a layout like this should be done optimally, and who don't have an interest in article content. Cast about for one. Here there are overlaps, recursions, blocs that repeat the same stuff, i.e. highly amateurish pastiche in which each side has negotiated or conceded a space. Agree on principles of layout. (1) facts (2) chronology of events from all sides and sources. These should not be controversial, since it is simply a matter of sifting the material to ascertain what reliable sources say at a purely descriptive level. (3) Official investigations (4) Controversy over investigations (5) Theories. Something like this.
 * If the constant editors there can agree on a structure to present the evidence without recursive overlaps, most of the work will not be conflictual, but rather, more laborious but less antagonistic, namely reorganizing material already on the page, agreed to by most parties, in the most coherent and consequential fashion.
 * Try to edit this in two sequences (a) what is uncontroversial, and all can agree on in these several divisions (b) then, if consensus is achievedat level (a) turn to the details over which there is much contention. Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ps. I should register that in theory I oppose conspiracy theories, and frequently also in interpretative practice. I do not think however that the branding of a minority view, one not endorsed by several government reports, as 'conspiracy theory' is proper. Political or congressional committees' writing of history is authoritative politically, but rarely so for an historian. Specifically, there is a lot of evidence of policy-advocacy for acting 'crazy' in Israeli senior and cabinet circles in the 50s, as strategically advisable. So there is nothing intrinsically wrong at positing that the attack was made deliberately. I don't know the truth however, and I don't allow myself to induct my knowledge of these 50s policies about acting 'crazy' in crises, to interfere with the public task of writing to Wiki's NPOV standards. I'd probably be on the other side of Narson and others there in a private talk on personal interpretations, but I don't think this would get in the way of working productively with him on a review of the page, since it is understood that writing to a wiki format means suspending private views. Just a series of suggestions.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your personal attacks, such as this, against Jaakobou, are unacceptable.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Re this comment: Please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Шизомби (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism
TBH I've never heard any criticism of the Wiesenthal Center regarding a bias before - it's certainly no CAMERA or MEMRI, and is often cited by the BBC (which, if anything, has an anti-Israel bias) - and I'm happy that it is actually a reliable source. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  23:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)