Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:39, 1 March 2008

Archives

2006 May - September 2007 October - December 2007

I now feel somewhat honoured by this disgrace

I would like to thank all those who intervened, and feel somewhat embarrassed. Still I take my wise young mentor, (the oxymoron is justified) Bendono's words to heart, and will withdraw for some time. One needs to reflect on experience at a distance, at times, per tirare le somme if one is to be more effective in what one does. Best regards and best wishes to you all, editorial adversaries included.Nishidani 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir, it has been an honor to us to have you as a colleague. I know personally that the effort here has been substantially improved by your presence. Take as long away as you want, however. I simply hope that when you do return, and I hope you will, that you will strive for accuracy and objectivity like you have before, Informed parties on some of these obscure, contentious issues are few and far between, and I hope we don't wind up losing one of the few we have here. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, JC has said exactly what I was going to say. Thank you, and I wish you well. --NSH001 (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Me three, Nishidani. Warm wishes are also returned to you from your friend in Nazareth. As we roast chestnuts over the fire this Christmas, I won't forget to raise my glass to you. Tiamut 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lehi (group)

Thank you for your comments. I'm sorry to read that you're leaving Misplaced Pages, and I hope that you choose to come back, fully refreshed from your break. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Eilabun massacre

You added book citations--can you give publisher, year, etc. for those books so that they can have full bibliographies? Thanks. gren グレン 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein

.. please check the WP:LEDE. Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your block, and etc.

Nishidani - if I had noticed your block, I would also have reported it to AN/I with a particular focus on scrutinizing the obvious lack of a review on the part of SWATJester. Admins reviewing unblock requests are obliged to provide a full review of the circumstances of the block and its reasoning, and 'You insulted me so no unblock for you' is not a considered review. I feel some responsibility for this, since I reported the seemingly escalating revert war in the Finkelstein page to WP:RPP, to which Cavalry responded. I did not intend you to be caught up, however.

On another question: Perhaps you might help with this - I'm trying to translate the phrase "I view self nominations as prima facie evidence of a hunger for power" into Latin. Is that something you can do? Thanks for your help if you are able, and hope to see you editing regularly again soon either way - Avruch 23:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Avruch, Nishidani's last edit was on the 6th and he indicated that he will be taking some time off. In the meantime, perhaps Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language may be of assistance. Regards, Bendono (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bendono. I'm not in a rush, and I value Nishidani's expertise. Avruch 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Avruch. I apologize. I suffered from a broken internet connection from 10-27th of December, due to a server problem. I noted your request, and did translate more meo the sentence, and asked a childhood friend, with a chair in classics, to check it. The problem, apart from my limited competence, is that the phrase has to be rethought in classical terms in order to come out nicely in Latin. He said he'd check it. If he does approve of my version or provides me with a more fluent phrasing, I'll pass it on. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Its no problem, glad to see its fixed and you are back to being involved. Has he got back to you yet? 16:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Systematic faults and bias

Nishidani is/was exactly the kind of editor that Misplaced Pages needs and that all believers in the project should be trying to encourage. "Neutral" administrators would be slapping down most of the (sometimes barely literate) "editors" who have systematically obstructed his (her?) efforts. "Neutral" administrators would be seeking indef-blockings of many of them.

Nishidani has actually identified something I've never bothered mentioning - that many of us now live in heavily militarised cultures, where even participation in "known" war-crimes and massacres has become either respectable or apparently admirable. (I'm not applying this tag to all who have served in Iraq, but, under the circumstances, all who've been there should be considered under suspicion).

Before people express surprise, let me point them to this, the work of one of the (the?) foremost poet/authors of the British Empire. Societies obviously have to look after their ex-servicemen, but on no account would we rate highly their opinions (or even tolerate their presence) in discussions relating to war-crimes (the subject of this particular article is highly notable for protesting these kinds of things, amongst others).

When the encyclopedia (or multiple agents of the encyclopedia) act as if German soldiers returning from Poland should be treated as perfectly respectable citizens again, entitled to refuse to answer questions, and even to white-wash strongly suspected crimes, then it ceases to be acting for general good, and becomes an agent of oppression and obstruction of justice. PR 15:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. so you feel that your categorical opposition to all military acts of certain Western cultures is not a political opinion, but is a factual position? Sorry, but i feel that any viewpoint like this falls somewhat within the realm of political opinion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Is open to editing again, as the issue of "occupied" vs. "disputed" has been solved in a way I think you would agree with. Would be nice to see you there again! Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 19.12.2007 17:13

Agreed. thanks for spreading the word, Pedro. nice work. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration might interest you.

Dear Nishidani. Your scholarship is much missed. Even if you're not planning to come back to editing, there is an RfA you might be interested in here. PR 11:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Weizmann quote

Hi Nishidani, great pleasure to see you back. Can you tell me which particular book you're refering to with this diff? Thankyou. PR 11:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not back. Only updating my file, and occasionally checking around. But if you wish to know where the Weizmann quote comes from in that diff, it's Lenni Brenner Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Croom Helm, London 1983 p.37. The book is on the net in a free downloadable version. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, jolly well hurry back! The project urgently needs scholarship, and it urgently needs ideas from some of these people on how to make the environment friendly for you lot and unfriendly for the other kind! Present your analysis and ideas to the top management at the ArbCom (when you're ready, of course).

You once told us you regretted not enabling your e-mail - but you've still not done so. I'm sure you don't want to hear peremptory demands from the peanut gallery, but it would still be useful. PR 11:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried that this is not a very good example of what you want to prove, or that proving it is worth doing. PR 12:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide, and nothing to fear, and in any case am only making a few edits, without any desire to return to work on articles. I seriously doubt this process will do anything more than add a few more dozen pages to the infinite archives of Misplaced Pages disputes. That dispute mechanism is defective, even if fascinating. Metaphorically, one has to seek a consensus before saying the world is round, and if someone disagrees with you, you go higher up, argue the casem, get input from flatearthers and others, and then perhaps a sanction against one flatearther advising him not to revert for more than once a day for six months. In the normal world, you do not get pulled into endless trials of justification for having reverted, say, an editor who refuses to accept that the International Court of Justice's rulings on law are to be taken as definitive, and those of Shmuel Katz are just trite personal opinions, worthy at most of a brief footnote.

It looks as though it is shaping up as a witch-hunt, and I have no intention of joining substantially in the fray. My single remark about Jayjg, which breaks a rule I have always obeyed of always withholding any personal complaint I might have with an adversary from formal arbitration, is justified because I noted late last night that he seemed, while very many good editors are lined up for scrutiny on both sides, to be singled out as above scrutiny merely because a fellow administrator preferred him not to be included.

I think it wrong to engage editors in a reciprocal McCarthyist witch-hunt, and that is what is occurring. However deep my disputes have been with several editors, the fact remains that the abuses both I and they complain of are intrinsic to the system of rules governing editing. This area is one involving a notorious case of systemic bias, the problem is the systemic bias, that the history of Palestinians is in the hands of editors predominantly affiliated with the nation that, in international law, occupies them. Since, despite it being a recognized problem with Wiki, systemic bias will not be touched on, the procedures underway will be inconclusive. Take care, and, if I may proffer a word of advice, review what you intend to post with different eyes, the eyes of someone you imagine to be honest, but who might happen to disagree with you. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A. Material from the Arbcom review

(1)Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=183486854#Statement_by_User:Nishidani

Statement by User:Nishidani

I have withdrawn from editing, tired of the futility of trying to get attested and verifiable book sources in, and internet propaganda sources out in many articles. But, since I note User:Jaakobou has named me as a contentious editor, I should like at least to jot down this one point. In my experience, User:Jayjg, whose inclusion here many editors wonder about, certainly has edited frequently in an incomprehensible, and, in my view censorious fashion, riding shotgun to keep disagreeable information off many pages because he deems it personally unwelcome. As just one example of his ignoring Wiki editing norms concerning sources in order to wikilawyer an item of information or a respectable author I could cite for example the following edit exchange with myself, .

The reason given was ‘remove claim attributed to an unknown and possibly non-existent rabbi'’

The quote came from an eminent authority on the region, Professor Ian Lustick. Lustick’s source was in turn the New York Times. Thus it was doubly grounded in reliable sources. Jayjg has enough experience to know that information must be grounded in verifiable and reliable sources, yet he challenged the use of this information because he doubted its truth (which is not at issue). In the subsequent exchange on the talk page , (Talk:Baruch Goldstein. See the present talk sect.5 'fingernail speech'), he endeavoured apparently to get me to engage in a violation of WIKI:OR, by trying to lure me to verify the truth of Lustik's remark.

That said, I do not think the issue is primarily one of putting up individual editors to intense scrutiny, to weed out malefactors. Given the structural problem, even the best can find themselves dragged into violations of rules, out of sheer exasperation with patent abuses of the rules by editors cunning enough to avoid, themselves, a technical breach. And in any case, a person by person examination of the record would lead to a Kafkian or Borgesian archive of unmanageable intricacy. The articles in this area perfectly fit the cruxes (cruces) outlined in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The contentiousness in good part arises from the anomalousness of articles dealing predominantly with Palestinians (almost invariably entwined with Israel as occupying power). The history of the Palestinians is being written with hardly any Palestinians on board (User:Tiamut is a notable exception), by (a) complete outsiders (Westerners) who, for a variety of distinct motives, take on the task of representing a 'Palestinian perspective' as that is available in books and reliable sources, and (2) by Jewish/Israeli editors who are either present in the area or deeply committed to the country. Both are potentially defective sources, in that the Westerners who stand in as locum tenentes for the missing Palestinian voices, often have no intimate personal grounding in the area, and lack as often or not familiarity with the appropriate languages(User:RolandR provides an exception), and the Jewish/Israeli editors, some living in the West Bank, can often confuse their task with a national mission to define the people their nation has effectively colonized (after 1967), and over which Israel exercises a preponderance of legal, military, economic and, in a discursive sense, cultural power. User:Chesdovi 's home page is all for national liberation movements everywhere, for example, but in the relevant window on Palestinians, they alone effectively do not exist, since he locates their homeland in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

There is, in addition, a general Western cognitive bias against Palestinians and Arabs, one that has deep historical roots, and which is complicated by the intense politics concerning terrorism, identified in the public mind with Islam, over the past decades. A lesser one, often suspected as motivating some 'pro-Palestinian' editors, is anti-semitism. Personally I have not encountered editors whose work lends itself to this suspicion, but then again, I have relatively little experience. I judge this to be a concern among 'adversaries' because more than twice my work here has be hinted at as implying such a bias, and the innuendo is often encountered.

Several practical measures can be taken, with, I suggest a series of experiments. Here are two suggestions of many that come to mind. (a) Competitive page writing in which editors from both 'sides' (not always a valid marker, since many of us get on well with posters on the other 'side') take on an article, and compete to produce a GA/FA standard according to strict Wiki rules, while the original page is locked.*note 1)

The natural consequence will be to eliminate edit-wars between opposed groups, since say one page on Palestine will be done exclusively by Jewish/Israeli editors, the other page by 'pro-Palestinian' editors, in which the conflicts will be respectively inframural. The psychological logic of such testing would be, I should think, one that presses each group to modify internally its own natural biases, reduce ideological antagonism, and strive harder towards both neutrality and excellence in order to impress neutral arbitrators called in, at the end of the experiment, to cast a vote as to which article best fits Wiki's quality standards. (b) have a rule obliging patent and consistent violators or edit-warriors to justify their continued presence on the encyclopedia by creating, within a month or two, an article dealing exclusively and neutrally, with some event, figure or episode in the history or culture of either Israel (in the case of a 'pro-Palestinian' editor) or Palestine (in the case of a 'pro-Israeli' editor'.

Excuse my longueur. Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(Note 1)I note today that, independently, some time ago other editors have come to the same conclusion. E.g.

'I see many articles that are simply bad, because editors of dramatically different POVs make a mishmash trying to come up with a version that is acceptable to both sides. I think that in many cases readers would be much better served if, instead of reading one obfuscated version presuming to be NPOV, they could read two perfectly clear versions, each representing an explicit POV. Like advocacy journalism, only advocacy encyclopedianism.' User:Ravpapa on his talk page here

(2)On NPOV

Comment by others:

Proposed. One of the problems with articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that we have here two diametrically-opposed viewpoints, each with frequently their own versions of historical fact, and legality. Under these conditions, it is almost impossible to write something which is absolutely neutral in the most traditional sense, since there is no genuinely neutral account. One of the best ways to achieve true consensus here is to recognize that there are two communities here, and two valid viewpoints, each with its own heartfelt concerns and genuine sensitivities.

Proponents of Palestinian views may frequently need to cite sources which in a Western political context might be seen as overly leftist, or revisionist. Similarly, proponents of Israeli views may sometimes need to cite sources which might be seen as somewhat dogmatic within a Western context. Neither side's sources should be always accepted unconditionally.

However, one of the ways to find true consensus and a positive resolution is to accept that the views of each community deserve some degree of coverage, and not to wrangle endlessly because one source or another appears to clearly have a certain opinionated political approach or an opinionated approach to history. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is, I'm afraid Steve, Sm8900, deeply problematical. Most of the literature I, for one, used to ensure a just representation of the 'Palestinian' record comes from Israeli or Jewish historians, writers and journalists, not from Palestinians. And it is precisely many of these sources which were bitterly contested or challenged by pro-Zionist editors. Your remark implies that we are dealing, in editing from the reliable literature, with two national outlooks, respectively Israeli and Palestinian. Not so. Cite sources such as Noam Chomsky, Joel Beinin, Norman Finkelstein, Baruch Kimmerling, Benny Morris, Israel Shahak, Ilan Pappé, Ian Lustick, Alfred Lilienthal, Norton Mezvinsky, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Nathan J. Brown, Uriel Tal, Tony Judt, Maxime Rodinson, Felicia Langer, Simha Flapan, Raul Hilberg, Avi Shlaim, Idith Zertal. Israel Finkelstein, Shlomo Ben-Ami Hillel Cohen, Yakov Rabkin, Livia Rokach, Lenni Brenner, and journalists such as Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Uri Avnery, to name but a few and one, as often as not, suffers a challenge over RS or pretextual wikilawyering of the kind: Shahak is not a professional historian hence not RS (days then pass in argument as to why this disqualifies him, while it does not disqualify the unqualified historian Walter Laqueur,) etc.

The systemic bias which I think is the root problem, not addressed here, is distinct from a 'national conflict' (Macedonia, Croat-Serb Wiki etc.) because, distinctively, we are dealing with an occupying power, exercising military, legal, cultural and economic preponderance of power over an occupied people (ICJ ruling 2004), the former splendidly represented by an abundance of editors, the latter having less than a handful. The discursive interests of Palestinians are substantially represented by stand-ins, either by Jewish/Israeli or Western scholars and writers, on which 'pro-Palestinian editors then draw for most of their material. It is not therefore a matter of a conflict of two valid national perspectives, as much as an internal cognitive rift within Jewish/Israeli intellectual debates (reflecting the post-Babylonian rift between universalism and nationalism in the Jewish tradition, much written about by Arnold Toynbee and others), and Western debates, on the area. One needs quite creative methods to iron out the peculiar difficulties this situation generates.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. My comment relates exactly to the concerns which you expressed. I don't see any need for a contentious atmosphere between us. My friend, i NEVER said that there was anything wrong with any sources which Palestinians attempt to use. I never said they rely too heavily on Palestinian sources. you're putting words in my mouth. ALL I said is that we need to show more flexibility and more tolerance in allowing Palestinian editors to use sources whom they feel represent their point of view more fairly. And you thought I was actually trying to be more contentious here. that's a little bit amazing.

People, we need to try to start learning how to take each other's thoughts a little more at face value, giving each other a little more benefit of the doubt, start assuming good faith a little more, and start trying to HEAR each other more, rather than only hearing what we THINK the other person said. let's try to all do that a little more, ok? I'll start trying to do that too. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Steve, Sm8900. I assure you, had I wished to be 'contentious', I would simply have drawn your attention to the biased weighting of the respective adverbs (bolded below) used to qualify the two viewpoints you identify. I.e.

'Proponents of Palestinian views may frequently need to cite sources which in a Western political context might be seen as overly leftist, or revisionist. Similarly, proponents of Israeli views may sometimes need to cite sources which might be seen as somewhat dogmatic within a Western context.'

If I have a vice, it maybe what some (User:Jaakobou) regard as an excessively finicky ear for nuance and drift. I took exception to the ambiguous implications of your statement which approaches conflict in terms of diplomacy (both parties have equally 'valid' claims) rather than forensically, (required by scholarship insouciant of who claims what, or the politics of consequences, in its focused care on the available relevant data). Your comment gave the impression that the actual work on wiki in this area is stymied by 'two communities' (pro-Israeli) and pro-Palestinian more or less commensurate with the interests/outlook of Israel/Israelis and Palestinians.

'One of the best ways to achieve true consensus here is to recognize that there are two communities here, and two valid viewpoints, each with its own heartfelt concerns and genuine sensitivities.'

I don't feel I am part of a (pro-Palestinian)editorial community, and I don't see much real evidence for a witting coalition of this kind. Many of those in the list certainly do not behave, as individuals, groupishly. I don't see the need for it, because, in my view, fidelity to the historical record is sufficient to establish that systemic bias (which you briefly mention) does exist in the way Palestinians and their history are represented generally, and, specifically, in Misplaced Pages. Establish that record via reliable academic sources, and not by recourse to the vast chatroom of newspaper editorializing, and readers can make up their own minds.

Check the record and you will see that within at least one, to use Benedict Anderson's term ironically, imaginary community you invoke, lively differences exist, edits are mutually contested with a certain frequency, and many good editors there will endorse contributions made by 'pro-Israeli' editors, whose POV is distinctly different from their own. I, for one, refuse to activate my email account because of the danger it leads to, of gaming edits by stacking a page with ring-ins or pals, as our notorious User:Jayjg did here, to get friends to watch one's back while entering into an editorial fray; or by allowing discretionary favours (unblocking) to be negotiated off-line between friendly administrators and editors under suspension for violations of various kinds evidence here - notable administrative abuses which this Arbcom refuses to deal with, though many examples of such arbitrary jerry-rigging of Misplaced Pages are readily available and infuse the atmosphere with suspicions not conducive to the equanimity you rightly ask for.

I have yet witness a similar quality of 'infra-communal' disagreement among the major 'pro-Israeli' editors on these relevant pages. No communities, real or virtual, have 'valid' viewpoints: to subscribe to that is to subscribe to the parlous doctrine, which condemns serious attempts to concur on facts, according to which 'collective' beliefs or Weltanschauungen exist, which, in so far as they are expressions of ethnic identity, must be respected as 'valid'. Many of the ideas or beliefs cited for such hypothetical outlooks are, to use Walter Lippmann's classic term, 'manufactured' by political interests, though passed off as public opinionhere. Facts are not ascertained by consensus between adversarial collective or national mindsets, nor neutrality, as opposed to interpretations, by sub-Hegelian compromises negotiated between dialectically opposed, mutually exclusive perspectives. Communities of knowledge work by agreed-on rules, a sense of the provisional character of acquired 'truths', and an awareness that metanarratives, personal, traditional and collective, are to be stringently guarded against, for the bias they inflect us with, by those individuals who wish to contribute to a deeper understanding of the world. I'm not contentious, by the way. I simply argue my points with as much energy as I may muster. Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani. thanks so much for your thoughtful message., however, sorry , but I do disagree. Yes, you're right that neither group of editors is a monolithic mass. there are meaningful disagreements within each . And I agree with you that no editor has the right to ignore clear facts, no matter what community they are from. however, I feel that you need to start understanding just how great a role one's viewpoint and/or cultural affiliations can play in one's understanding of a topic.

Were the first Zionist a group of idealistic, energetic volunteers, restoring their nation's rightful heritage? Or were they a group of outright manipulators, slanting facts and history to uphold their distorted claims? Are Palestinian militants a bunch of proud fighters? Or are they a group of underhanded subversives, attacking innocent people?

The answer to both question depends solely on one's point of view, one's assumptions and premises in reading history, and (perhaps) one's cultural affiliations. Yes I agree with you in advance, if your answer would be that Misplaced Pages should not align itself with either partisan answer, on either question. However, what are we to do if a well-meaning editor from either side shows up here, and wishes to draw attention to what they feel are genuine misdeeds by whatever side they most disagree with?

You would say we should go with the factual record. However, my point is that there are always two views on what the facts actually are. I know it is always better to try to stick as closely to factual sources as possible. However, if we never acknowledge that there is vigorous debate and controversy on some key historical aspects of this whole topic, then that is sure to keep the edit wars and disruption going.

So my point is that one way to deal with that is to have some articles which approach this by saying, "some Palestinian advocates maintain that...", for example, or similar phrasing for Israelis. that is one approach which I feel can help reach an outcome which is fair or balanced for both sides. It’s also very good of course to try to stick to simple facts wherever possible. However, I feel that we do need some procedure or method to deal with the differing views and versions of reality which have occurred repeatedly in the past, creating the current situation, and also which will probably continue to occur in the future, requiring some constructive response from us.

Thanks very much for your helpful comment. it is very good to hear all your thoughts and ideas. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

'I feel that you need to start understanding just how great a role one's viewpoint and/or cultural affiliations can play in one's understanding of a topic.'

I've been studying that professionally for 40 years. Perhaps it does not show in what I write. It is certainly wholly invisible in the editing approaches of a very large number of, for want of a better word, 'pro-Zionist' contributors here (as opposed to the Jewish scholars who work in the area). The epistemology of cultural bias happens to be the subject of an academic book I once wrote. But that already sounds like a trumpet blower's excursionary defence Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear CasualObserver'48. Put simply, roughly a century ago, one nation (England) gave another people without a nation (Jews of the diaspora) the right to a homeland of a third people (Palestinian Arabs) who constituted 90% of the population, and who were not asked their opinion. It was, as Arthur Koestler put, it, a miraculous 'freak of history'. Arabs resisted sporadically, occasionally with riots, as the Jewish homeland, under foreign auspices, grew in their midst. After the Shoah, the UN gave the still minority Jewish pop. 56% of the land officially, over Arab protests. War ensued, in which badly armed militias, and inefficient Arab armies, mostly poorly led, battled against a powerful Western educated military organisation, with better guns, airpower,logistics and finance. Panic ensued, massacres (24) pour encourager les autres led to the dispossession of 700,000 Arabs (nakba), whose descendents live in exile. The remainder, many in Israel, but most in the residual canton of the Palestinian territories, languished under Jordanian and Egyptian rule. 1967 war broke out, Gaza and the West Bank were predictably conquered, and for two decades, against international law, settled, with land annexed or expropriated under military rule. In 1987 the Palestinians rose up, with stones, and lost thousands of dead. Oslo talks led to recognition of the PLO and their return, but with no change in the policy of incremental expropriation and squatting on what, in law, is Palestinian land. 2001, a second intifada, far more violent, of militarzied resistance to the gradual waning of prospects of real autonomy (Sharon, despite Gaza, was a great colonizer) and you have the present impasse. In 1967 education to high school level of Palestinians was significantly better than the corresponding Israeli level. Now much of the area is a grim shanty world of lost generations, deprived of peace, food, and land. History is pitiless, and this is the past. All one asks for of Misplaced Pages is that what happened be recounted with a neutral gaze, without, after colonizing the land, colonizing the history of its victims by hegemonizing Misplaced Pages articles with variants of the triumphant Zionist version, without incessantly POVving every act of resistance to this, for Palestinians, enormous historical injustice, as 'antisemitic' 'anti-Zionist' or terroristic. They behaved as all colonized peoples have behaved, and lost. But history should speak to the facts, and not mythify the tragedy as a victory of the civilized over fanatical 'donkeys'.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I also know the history, but not quite so (apparently) personally, and thanks for the info on the level of '67 high schools. Can you RS and add that? I do not dispute your version of history and have a somewhat similar outlook that Wiki events need to 'be recounted with a neutral gaze...without incessantly POVving every act...as 'antisemitic' 'anti-Zionist' or terroristic', and I'll add 'or just denying them'. Maybe that overstates my view, but I believe we have few basic squabbles; see this.

At the same time, however, those same events had a different cause/result/reaction on the other side. You seem to be the perfect editor to accomplish what you want to see Wiki become, so please, continue to do it; just be careful that your edits present the facts/quotes at a reasonable level of POV (rhetorical violence?). I know few specifics as to how that can be done, until I read/see them; I also want to de-mythify the current view of history, but facts are needed; how those facts are presented and accepted seems to be the major problem. I might add, that when I tried to learn something 'about you', there was little there (except your edits); I suggest that you give other editors something to chew on and maybe better understand why you edit the way you do. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re educational levels, you request a source. I had in mind the following RS (the authors were, respectively, Professor of Economics at Cal-U, Davis, and Director of the Institute for Land Resource Planning, at Tel Aviv and consultant for the UN):-

'In comparison with both Israel and Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza seem to have a favourable educational basis. The age group 6-11 shows a higher participation in Israel (84.4) than in the West Bank (80.5) but, in the group 15-17 years of age, the percentage in the West Bank is considerably higher than in Israel, 44.6 compared with 22.8 in Israel.' Elias H.Tuma, Haim Darin-Drabkin, The Economic Case for Palestine, Croom Helm, London 1978 p.48.

They also point out that by 1966, Palestinian enrolment rates at university level exceeded those of all other Arab countries.

As to contributing further, No, to do so would be absurd, as long as the rules allow the nonsensical obstructionism to serious editing one has witnessed in here. I don't think by the way I edited with rhetorical violence. I mainly endeavoured to provide academic or quality sources to articles suffused with newspaper links and gossip from tertiary sources to slant views one way or another, and found the intensity of obstruction so consistent, often by editors who clearly don't read books, but only a few paragraphs of the POV tabloids and official or unofficial Israeli sources they rely on, that contributing was futile. So 90% of relevant quality material can only get in if one is ready for temporal martyrdom, since to try and post it would require a lifetime of edit-warring. Objectively this is to concede much to the warriors of obstreperous attrition, and betray others who struggle valiantly to write articles as encyclopedia articles should be written. But I am, compared to most, quite old, and lack the younger person's sense of a long future.

Too many editors have a national POV informed by material circulating from semi-official organisations' handout sheets (I've lost count of many times I have recognized a 'handout 'factsheet' of the kind typical of hasbara material, behind edits), which they take as gospel, and though I attribute much of their obstinacy to naivity and indoctrination, and to a widespread conviction that the facts external to this cultivated image are invariably nuanced with, and motivated by anti-semitic feelings, I think they edit out of a sense that Wiki, like other public venues, is a battleground, where every local patriot is fighting for a partisan version of reality, and thus any tactic is warranted on the grounds of 'existential threats' to get one's own lines (in two senses) further into enemy territory, while conceding nothing to what they take to be ther adversaries' assaults. This automatically makes 'consensus' a matter of attrition to the point of exhaustion. Wiki will, given this state, never be a reliable source for the area, unlike so many other areas where splendid articles abound. RegardsNishidani (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, thanks for your helpful and thoughtful response. In fact i do find your thoughts articulate and interesting. However, i must be frank; if all you're doing is saying that the creation of Israel was based on imperialism and unfairness, and that the article can or should present that view as objective fact, then in fact you are doing more to perpetuate the problem than to solve it. my point isn't that we should erase that view, but that rather we should present as one part of the conflict. so that is where we disagree. I do appreciate your articulate response to me though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I understand your concerns. However, the Israeli view is that one thing which diminished the Palestinians' cause was their apparent refusal to accept Israel's existence, and peaceful co-existence. your response seems to indicates that viewepoint as well as anything. I do udnerstand the legitimate concerns behind your message though. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

'if all you're doing is saying that the creation of Israel was based on imperialism and unfairness, and that the article can or should present that view as objective fact, then in fact you are doing more to perpetuate the problem than to solve it'

Israel's foundation was fairly typical for one class of nations,(with which most of us are united) not exceptional, except in the sense that it tried to do in the 20th century what the emigrants to the Americas, or Australia did in the 16th and 18th centuries. Unlike the otherwise similar, more modern, colonial experiements of France in Algeria, or Italy in Libya, Jews were remarkably successful (the point was made by Tony Judt years ago, and by Ian Lustick). To state this is not ideological. Imperialism is an objective phenomenon of history, most of the world was formed via the outcome of conflict between empires. The past is not moral, events are determined, by force. We (politicians excluded) do not however consider ourselves civilized if we carry the amoralism of past history into the present, where events are not yet determined, and where our individual and group agency, as moral beings, does influence outcomes. So, it is neither moral not rational to deny Israel's right to existence, on the basis of its birth in a colonial design, any more than it would be to disrecognize many other nations, the US, Australia, etc., with similar roots. People wholly unaware of the real foundational violence of their national pasts (not rhetorical, an allusion, rather, to Ernest Renan's 1882 essay and René Girard's more modern theories) have been born there for generations, and by that fact, have entitlements, underwritten by international law. What is deeply disturbing is the idea that, in that part of former Palestine where another people, the original inhabitants, are an overwhelming majority, where they hold title, where international law concedes them a full range of rights as a people under military occupation, and where the historical outcome (based on tendentially on violence, as usual) is still undetermined, that the hegemon recycle the earlier panoramic of justificatory myth (1917-1967, now exposed by historigraphy) to complete its conquest beyond what international law now defines as the limit. I.e. exercise the old Zionist plans to further expropriate the indigenous people's land on the West Bank, on the basis not of international law, but religious charters, and dispossess the people, once more, and thereby complete the amoral visionary ultra-realism of Jabotinsky's Iron Wall before contemporary eyes that are familiar with its programmatic designs. For, unlike the past, all actors now have complete access to the historic record, and the myths that drove the expropriation are no longer tenable as justifications for what is, unlike what occurred in 1917-1948 which took place under Mandatory supervision, international law and UN deliberations, a set of practices wrought in defiance of international law and of the United Nations. We are experiencing a recycling of an old story, which was functional and persuasive under international power arrangements in a relatively primitive period informationally (and which successfully achieved its realistic end, a homeland for the Jews, a refuge from Western antisemitism), but no longer so in a world where either law, or the law of the jungle prevails, the former based on enlightened reason, the latter battening on religious myths or superannuated conditions of persecution.Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I happen to have just signed on this morning, just before going off to work, so I happened to see your extremely helpful and thoughtful post. However, I do have a few questions. I do appreciate all you said about the underlying legitimacy of Israel and its founding. however, you say that where Israel differs from other colonial-based countries is in its displacement of an existing indigenous majority. Ok. But let me ask you, how does this differ from the partition of India and Pakistan, where as you know the Hindus living in Pakistani territory were displaced, either voluntarily or compulsorily, and made to move back to India. How does it differ from the arbitrary partition of a dozen African and Asian nations, where various native groups were made to step aside on behalf of other cultural ethnic groups?

More importantly, there is a deeper problem. Your portray of the founding or establishment of Israel as a deep moral wrong in any way, even in a limited sense, is the same attitude which is leading Palestinians deeper and deeper into a dark endless cycle of darkness and despair, by making them believe in waging some endless war against what others have told them is an imperialist nation they must fight against.

Palestinians are not winning. this struggle is not producing any better change in well-being for them. I say not this with any sense of glee, but rather just acknowledging the material reasons for peace versus war. Your depiction of Israel as stemming from some deep displacement of Palestinians is what leads others to excuse all malicious acts of war by Palestinians, by saying "oh well, what do you expect, an oppressed people has no choice but to fight." The Palestinians have a choice as to whether to continue to wage war even in the midst of massive efforts for peace, or to accept peace and co-existence.

Is your point that peace is desirable, but Israel has committed massive wrongs, and therefore should be ready to make major concessions in the peace process? If so, you didn't seem to say that very clearly. Or is it that Israel has created the conditions for conflict, and therefore Palestinians are justified in pursuing ongoing war? that’s the message which your comment seems to apply. But it is the attitude which has led to nothing but ongoing and continual conflict, and fading opportunities for Palestinians to succeed.

I would suggest that, in addition to your justifiable concerns for Palestinian welfare, you also give some credence to the idea of these two peoples just learning how to simply accept each other and live together, instead of always declaring one to be the aggressor and the other the victim, or making it seem that only one side has committed historical wrongs. In the end, perhaps then the two peoples can find some sort of peace. thanks. didn't mean to go on and on, but I do appreciate the chance to discuss this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, Sm8900 You so consistently misread or read between the lines, and in doing so, raising queries I thought answered implicitly in my earlier remarks, that I must, I suppose, (suppressing natural suspicions abouot fishing expeditions) stop generating prose that unwittingly generates misapprehensions, that are then scored here, and on the Arbcom page, as Nishidani's views. I am not talking about the past, but the present. The expulsions and expropriations of 1948-1967 are history. What is going on since then on the West Bank is contemporary history still modifiable by an (improbable) Israeli decision to stop repeating the violence of ethnic cleansing and infrastructural chaos-making and adhere at last to international law. You write:-

'(I suggest . . .you also give some credence to the idea of these two peoples just learning how to simply accept each other and live together, instead of always declaring one to be the aggressor and the other the victim, or making it seem that only one side has committed historical wrongs.'

I.e. you expect that an occupied people daily deprived of the elementary rights to their own world and living under the hallucinating vexations of the occupiers, with the 4th most powerful army at their back supporting land thieves and state-backed carpetbaggers and promptly arresting or often shooting people on sight if they even feign resistance to fundamentalists explicitly on record as intending to steal Palestinian livelihoods and dignity, should evince incredible qualities of moral sanctity because, after all, they, as Palestinians, must reflect that even those other Israeli intruders, the guys down the road, beyond their bulldozed village shambles, there on dad's former olive grove, those guys with their swimming pools, schools, TV parabolas, internet connections, subsidized lifestyle, military police, medical clinics and cheap Palestinian labour bought out of inflicted poverty and expropriation, are just like them, they want a quiet life in a decent world, much like the Palestinians used to have before 1967?

If my prose above generates further confusions, then read the following report relating to events yesterday from just one of many areas under vigorous colonization. It is written with an exquisitely NPOV approach.

On Saturday 12 and Sunday 13 January, 2008, a crowd of Israeli settlers invaded the yard area of a home near the illegal Israeli settlement of Kiryat Arba, on the outskirts of Hebron. The settlers threw stones at members of the Abu Siefen family, injuring several people.

The Israeli settlers who carried out the attacks had been occupying nearby Palestinian land, in the Wadi al Nasara, since Wednesday 9 January. On Wednesday the owner of the land went to the Israeli police with legal documents (from the Israeli High Court) proving his ownership of the land. He requested that the police remove the settlers, but they refused to do so.

For five days the Israeli police and military present in the area prevented Palestinians from using the road adjacent to the occupied land, forcing them to take a detour through muddy ground. Throughout this time, the Israeli forces stood by and watched when young settlers verbally harassed and threw stones at passing Palestinians. Christian Peacemaker Team members (CPTers) and international human rights workers interceded to help Palestinians, some elderly and some with young children, to pass through the area.

The Israeli forces only intervened on a few occasions over the five-day period. On Wednesday 9 January, they stepped in when a crowd of settlers ran into the yard of a nearby Palestinian home, apparently chasing a young Palestinian boy who had taken a settler’s bag. An elderly Palestinian man ensured that the bag was quickly returned and the Israeli police removed the settlers. However, the police and military merely looked on when the settlers returned to the yard a few moments later and verbally harassed the family, CPTers and other internationals. For several hours, until the settlers eventually left, the frightened family locked themselves in their home.

On Saturday 12 January, young Israeli settlers attacked two CPTers as they stood between a Palestinian man and a group of three Israeli boys. The boys were taunting the man with rude remarks in Arabic about the Prophet Mohammad. A group of 8-10 girls pushed, pulled and kicked Jan Benvie until she fell to the ground. The boys sprayed something in Johann Funk’s face that caused eye irritation. Two Israeli soldiers stood a short distance away and watched the attacks. A third soldier came forward to intervene only when the settler girls knocked Benvie to the ground.

When the settlers attacked the Abu Siefen family on the evenings of Saturday and Sunday, the Israeli military were slow to get involved. They eventually moved the settlers away from the home. No action was taken against the settlers, but on Saturday evening the Israeli police arrested four members of the Abu Siefen family and questioned them for four hours at the police station.

At 8:00 p.m. on the evening of Sunday 13 January, the Israeli military moved the settlers and removed the structures they had built on the land.

Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I find your post of 12:06, 14 January 2008 to be very, good and will use the to add to my knowledge base of changes in Palestinian perceptions of systematic bias against them, or more properly, the repetition of old, historic (and now facts to be accepted) justifications, that are now being used in a modern, more enlightened time when those same justifications/reasons can not be morally justified. Do I have that right in a few words? If I do, I believe that it is somewhat similar to my post in the ArbCom workshop, noting the changing definitions of Zionism (pre- and post-1967, or for me post-'77 and Begin's election). I believe Steve did misunderstand what you said and probably read between the lines (that I can not even find). That you didnt respond to his India/Pak ref, I see as evidence, but he will speak for himself. I do find your writing eloquent, but way above my level and that of most readers, though not talk page heavies; I need a dictionary, in several languages, to make sure I understand it. Anyway, good post. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. just want to let you know, I have read your posts here, and i find them extremely helpful and insightful. I will try to absorb them fully, and think about them. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear CasualObserver'48 . It's not a 'Palestinian perception' that systemic bias exists against them. It is a widespread perception among the Jewish intelligentsia/Israeli scholars who work on the history of the area, and more broadly in Western academic circles. you mention my not responding to Steve, Sm8900's enquiry about the India-Pakistan analogy. I did, but didn’t post it. I apologize for the way I write. I simply haven’t the time to compose edits. I write spontaneously, and post what comes out. If I sat down to revise what I think with an eye to an eventual reader, I’d end up with so many notes and cautions, and expansions and parentheses I’d never get to edit at all. Here, for what it is worth, is how I reacted to the query Smith, among many others, made yesterday. Hope the frankness will not be mistaken for rudeness.

'you say that where Israel differs from other colonial-based countries is in its displacement of an existing indigenous majority.'

I'm afraid I didn't say that. I don't believe in exceptionalist theories. My whole point is that one should cease thinking of Israel and Palestine in exceptionalist terms (as indeed is favoured by Israeli POVers). In 1948 this is what occurred, roughly contemporaneously with the India-Pakistan population exchange. That is past history, and the reasons for it, policy-induced and real fear, the natural logic of war etc., have been fairly well explored (though I do not fully share his analysis) by Benny Morris. The case illustrates my point about Zionist mythography posing as history. For well over a decade, a myth was propagated that the huge numbers of the nakba fled in response to calls by Arab leaders outside the area to clear out temporarily, in order to enable the Arab armies a clear battle zone free of potential Palestinian Arab civilians. Then Erskine Childers, a UN functionary, exposed the myth in 1961. Scholarship over the decades confirmed his analysis. By the mid-1980s it was undisputed. Two decades later in wikiworld, numerous posters engaged in editing the articles on the 1948 and 1967 war, the period, and the various Palestinian exoduses, wasted huge amounts of time blocking the writing of those pages according to the best modern knowledge, by insisting on evenly weighting old mythographic versions, and the newer scholarship as though they were nothing more than different POV opinions.

The conceptual problem with rejecting the return of Palestinian nakba refugees and their descendents is as follows. The zionist charter for colonizing that area lay in claims following from the historical fact that from 68 CE to after Bar Kochba's revolt, Judea was subject to an ancient form of cleansing, and renamed for another indigenous people. The vision of return, primarily religious throughout the ages, and harking back to Ezra's Biblical influence after the Babylonian exile, was realized in secular form under Zionism. All Jews the world over, of the galut or diaspora, qua Jews, have a right of return to what is regarded as the ancestral homeland. This, for complex causes, led to the Palestinian diaspora, and to Palestinians claiming a similar, indeed identical, right to return from the land their forefathers have been, just yesterday historically, dispossessed of, or exiled from. Technically,

Israel cannot yield on this by allowing Palestinians whom their state effectively or indirectly uprooted the same rights Israel allows to Jews whose ancestors were uprooted by Roman imperialism. For it would lead to enswampment, among other things, and no state would ever allow that. But, at the same time, it cannot assert its right of Jewish return and, at the same time, deny with an easy conscience, that Palestinians claiming on identical grounds, a right of return, are any differently from themselves. The state of things means that an ethnic prejudice inscribed in the constitution and Staatsräson, defy logic to the advantage of the victor, and to the damage to the vanquished. One obvious symbolic solution is to concede several large residential blocks built in the Palestinian territories to exiles by lottery as part of a compensation package, which includes formal recognition of an injustice wrought (states have (Willy Brandt in Poland, Australia) with the Mabo decision occasionally through wise leadership risen to such occasions), and financial assistance to the exiled, a long process of assisted repatriation to the territories or improvement of their situations in neighbouring countries.

But this historic displacement, 1948, 1967, is one thing, excluding anything but a recognition of the facts, for no viable solution for a return to the status quo ante (1947) is politically possible. My remarks rather, if you read them again, directed to attempts, now, to repeat that process of displacement. For three decades the same pattern of 1948-1967, is being applied to the Occupied Palestinian Territories where, however, the mythic legitimacy of earlier Zionism has been exhausted. In our time, and before our eyes, Palestinians with universally recognized rights, are being harassed, or driven from their land, by laws, administrative procedures, and outright theft. This is a drift in contemporary history, in the process of making, and is subject to reversion potentially. My point was to distinguish the two. I can understand empathetically the contexts that drove so many Jews to view the establishment of Israel as an ideal requiring commitment, a commitment blinding them to the hapless, ignored victims to be trodden underfoot in their own flight from persecution, down to 1948. I have zero empathy for the events post 1967. It is imperialism in my lifetime, asking for assent in a post-imperial age, and articles manoeuvered to naturalize this late aberration as though it were provoked by security exigencies against a huge Arab horde threatening a second Shoah, aren't plausible, but simply ideological recyclings of the earlier story beyond their use-by date, in order to expand one's frontiers in defiance of international law, while refusing the second time round, to take cognisance of the other who happened to be the victim of one's first, understandable flight from a hostile world. The Palestinians now, in short, are being treated, by Israel, as Rome treated the Jews in the Ist and 2nd centuries CE.

'Your portray of the founding or establishment of Israel as a deep moral wrong,'

I'm afraid it looks like our brief dialogue must end here. I said Israel, like so many nations in history, wasn't founded in innocence, but by the intrusive assertion of ethnic self-interest by an alien group over an indigenous people. Not Israel, but many Western nations, historically, were thus formed. Renan's essay famously said that nations are founded on violence and forgetfulness. Modernity in thought and culture is against the complacent somnolescence of those foundational myths which cast our origins as a battle of a just cause against such maleficent other. Palestinians remember, what Israel's politicians and many citizens, forget. And since the guerilla model of the IRA so influenced the terroristic Lehi/Stern and Irgun, (which gave Israel two Prime Ministers, Begin and Shamir), since the sons, daughters and relatives of earliler terrorists (Olmert, Livni and Netanyahu to name a few), now dominate Israeli politics and express extreme outrage at Palestinian terror (at the people whose country they occupy doing, to obtain a state, exactly what their own relatives did decades back to secure a state called Israel), I suggest you reflect on the wise words of Oliver Plunkett concerning the earlier period of Irish troubles, under conditions of English predation, to effect that the wound would never heal until the English (Israelis) begin to remember, and the Irish (Palestinians) forget, what was done to the latter in the name of civilization. Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have read all your postings. i find them extremely helpful and interesting. I am sorry if I misunderstood you in any way; if I did, i didn't mean to, but your subsequent explanations have clarified things very helpfully. Thanks for all your ideas. Hope we can continue to discuss things occasionally, in various ways. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(2) Tag-team editing from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop. Kicked off by reading Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Proposed decision Fut.Perf. ☼

I agree that tag-team editing is a problem. I've seen it done by both "sides" of the dispute and would encourage uninvolved admins, and perhaps ArbCom, to be responsive to this problem. Perhaps the relation to 3RR needs to be clarified or expanded? Thanks. HG | Talk 16:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HG. By posting the following, I don't mean to lay a formal complaint about the editors involved. I have exempted myself generally from recourse to arbitration procedures because I was taught as a child it is a form of whingeing, and improper. However, in looking through these pages, I was reminded of an instance which I long suspected as being emblematic, underscoring the problems, of which tag-team editing is just one, which lead to loss of temper because the procedures are all formal, when content calls by administrators with a firm understanding of academic criteria for writing articles, neutral but commonsensical, would remove much of the frustration editors on both sides feel. That doesn't bother me so much as the deeper issue - can administrators judge what measures are to be taken simply by looking at the log and ignoring the content dispute? I was drawn (no excuse) into edit-warring because I adduced three (two eminently) reputable historians (Walter Laqueur, Benny Morris and Lenni Brenner)whose content was disliked by the main editor, User:Zeq who had three days earlier suffered a suspension. He returned to find me editing what many believe he regards as 'his page', and appears to have called on another editor to help him out in countering my appearance there to edit it. I had been asked by a pro-Israeli editor, Alithien, frustrated by his own failure to remove a prejudicial reading of Amin's early career, to see if I could look in on the page and help fix it. I made a long review, polishing up poor grammar, correcting spelling and adding materials I was familiar with on the subject. This appears to have galvanized User:Zeq, who, after his suspension was lifted, called, unless I am mistaken, User:Armon to help him block me.

Sequence: (1)Zeq, on Arbcom probation, was blocked for further abuses on October 22 for 24 hourshere

(2) Alithien asks me to look at the al-Husayni page to see if I can help on October 22 ('If you have time, could you take care about Amin al-Husseini, because, he will soon become a virulent antisemite') here. I know nothing of User:Zeq, or the page history.

(3) I proceed to edit the page forthwith from October 22 here

(4) User:Zeq after some days denounces me as ‘anti-Semitic’ here, while accepting the many improvements in link-fixing, spelling. grammar etc., is irritated by my content additions, which we discuss on the talk page. I had difficulty, and admittedly impatience, because he did not appear to understand English sufficiently. In one case, in response to a query he made, I withheld detailed information he requested (based on a misreading of what I was saying) because possible third-parties might use the details I could have produced to justify from Raul Hilberg a remark I made, to buttress their anti-semitism.

(5) Tag-team request. Very early on October 26 Zeq asks User:Armon in New Zealand, long invisible on the page, to email him here. Quickly afterwards User:Armon begins to edit vigorously against my content contributions, often wikilawyering.

E.g.(7)User:Armon eliminates Walter Laqueur and Lenni Brenner

(8)User:Armon Eliminating Benny Morris

(9) I was thus drawn against the two into a 3RR violation denounced by Zeqhere

I my record is smirched by entrapment, while simply endeavouring to get quality historians, not tabloid sources or propaganda broadsheets favoured by Zeq, into this Wiki article. I get punished for adding 3 historians, and Zeq and Armon plug away without notable additions to the page, because they appear to know far more about the politics of wiki-editing than someone like myself. If humoured by the ironies, and my naivity at the time, it certainly hinted to me nonetheless that I, for one, perhaps am wasting my time on Misplaced Pages, if this is the way it works. Most troublesome articles could be written by one of any number of experienced hands in a few days: here they are written and unwritten by dozens for years, without noticeable quality. What T.S. Eliot would call a mug's game (without the poetry) in short.

An administrator applying the sanction will look at the log, and judge the abuse without tedious regard for circumstances. The sequence above gives one merely my impression of what was going on, and what dragged me into insisting that proper evidence be respected or restored, against recalcitrant erasures by what I regarded to be two tag-teamed posters. Administrators are not omniscient, but they often appear in their judgements to be like Joyce's god of creation, paring their fingernails on high after handing down formal judgements that ignore the dynamic substance of a dispute.

My own fault here lay in not keeping a weather eye on the clock (I believe that when I did edit Wiki probity of the material was the only thing that counted, little else, an oversight on formalism), and, allowed myself to be prepossessed by the problem, as I saw it, of irrational indeed censorious, POV-motivated removal of material. Of all ironies, this occurred while I was, at the same, strengthening the material on Amin's pro-Nazi links.

Privately, I wondered how is one to edit when one's interlocutor seems to suffer from WP:OWN; when here, as many have argued, he is sufficiently unfamiliar with English usage to misread my own caution against anti-semitism as an accusation that he is antisemitic, when indeed I knew he was an Israeli whose family suffered eviction from the antisemitic milieu of Iraq; and thirdly, how can one fix badly mauled highly POV pages (I have myself added substantial documentation there on Amin's Nazi connections) when one finds impeccably sourced material, (that nuances Amin's early anti-Zionism as in part related, in turn, to provocations by Zionist extremists likeZe'ev Jabotinsky and his Betar militants etc,) held hostage by recalcitrant editors who refuse to recognize that a Walter Laqueur, or a Benny Morris, (let us leave Lenni Brenner out for simplicity) do not need to be justified as WP:RS.

Of course one can argue through the various arbitration courts a long-winded case for days on just this nugatory point (if the point is won, no doubt a dozen more will follow in such an atmsphere), but, I thought, there must be some ground for having area-competent administrators on call to simple stop this kind of cunctatorial practice, or judgements made in patent (if not indeed blatant) ignorance, simply by an editor making a quick call, i.e. Laqueur, Brenner and Morris material - stet. I can understand squabbles about tabloid sources, but not, as here, objections to books published by major publishing houses. To ask deeply committed editors to be civil under the provocations of uncomprehending, time-consuming objections, bide their time, argue for weeks, take out lengthy arbitration, on what are ABC issues resolvable at a glance is, I think, an impediment to serious work on this area of Wiki. Academics shouldn't pull rank, of course, God forbid. But editors without a minimal grasp of basic academic or juridical principles of evidence should not be given unbridled rein to whoah up virtually anything the former adduce simply because, not having done thermselves the required homework, they are unfamiliar with it, and entertain ungrounded POV suspicions. I don't ask you to take sides, but simply to meditate on the broader issue this raises. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

8

Per the NPOV tutorial we shouldn't be stating a political POV categorically. We don't need to take a position, but rather, let the facts speak for themselves. There was a time when there was clearly no Palestinian nation/people and there are differing definitions of Palestine and Palestinians. However, the current political consensus is that there is "a Palestinian people" in the sense of a polity or body politic, and that there should be a future Palestinian state. The article should simply trace that development without attempting to adjudicate the conflict.

1. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Current? Look at the early documents. There are any number of references in official League of Mations and British papers referring to 'the Palestinian people' as the native population distinct from the Jewish population that was to be allowed to immigrate there.

‘essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine.’ British White Paper of 1922

‘The conflict has grown steadily more bitter since 1920 and the process will continue. Conditions inside Palestine especially the systems of education, are strengthening the national sentiment of the two peoples..’ Peel Commission Report, 1937

I repeat, this is a ridiculously pettifogging argument. Weizmann in his reply to Lansing in 1919 famously spoke of 'the right to establish schools, develop institutions, and generally build up a nationality, and so make Palestine as Jewish as America is American, or England English,’ a right duly conceded (any number of sources, David Vital's Zionism: The Crucial Phase, OUP 1987 p.355, to cite but one example). The Jewish Agency subsequently set about 'building up a nationality' for Jewish immigrants, making them Jewish citizens of Mandatory Palestine, with a Jewish nationality, via instruction in Hebrew and school textbooks. That nationality was programmed, and institutionalized for over two decades before the declaration of the state of Israel (sabras had that distinct national identity), i.e. a Jewish nationality was 'built' before the state was recognized, just as in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, a school system exists, Palestinian textbooks exist, which have built up a nationality (see the work of Nathan Brown on the representation in these textbooks for 'the Palestinian national consensus' on many issues). It is immaterial that the state has yet to be declared, since the Palestinians are precisely in the position of sabras, or the immigrant Jewish denizens of Palestine before 1948 i.e. they have a national identity, constructed by schools and official institutions, without having a state embodying formally that ethnic-national identity, existing only as a promised land in the future. The Jews of April 1948 became the Israelis of May 1948 overnight, i.e. the de facto national identity became de jure in the passage of minutes. Of course what is good for the goose is never good for the gander, when the latter happens to be Palestinian. Notoriously again in Wiki, due pesi, due misure, and endless argument by editors who use coffee klatsch kibitzing to disarticulate what a mere glance at the scholarly literature would have resolved quickly Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

9 Talk:Palestinian people

• None of the above seem complete. Whether directly or as an inference from WP policy, I would expect our encyclopedia to give some significant weight to the principle of self-identification. If so, options 1-3 strike me as quite implausible. (Why would folks identify as Palestinian if they thought the term had no separate sense of peoplehood? Arabs who agree with #1-3 might not identify themselves "Palestinian" and, logically, wouldn't be in the article.) The remainder don't tackle self-identity either. Option 7's last clause is overstated. Option 8 is useful but it's focused on politics rather than mainstream sources, which is what should get us out of this jam. Option 4 is unworkable. Options 5 and 6 -- are these mutually exclusive? Give me much of 8, toss in a combo of 5+6, garnish with sources demonstrating Palestinians' self-identifying nomenclature, and voila -- you've got my straw! Take a sip. HG | Talk 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful; how about writing that option, or options; so they can be voted for? I think when we are all finished and done; we can then start zeroing in on first and second choices which adhere to Misplaced Pages policies, and come to a compromise. Itzse (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

HG, in what sense is the last clause of #7 overstated? Who are the current reliable, credited sources denying a separate Palestinian identity?--G-Dett (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, it's my impression that there does exist a verifiable minority view which doesn't refer to Palestinians as a "nation." En-wp doesn't need to characterize this as a "dubious or discredited" view. It would be sufficient to simply give the view weight proportionate to its prevalence. (Furthermore, #7 implies that objections to "nation" are equivalent to a "denial of Palestinian identity." That's not a necessary equivalence, is it?) Hope that's a reasoned response. HG | Talk 02:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess we're reading #7's "nation or people" differently. Perhaps that clause needs to be clarified. My understanding of the compromise was that "people" was the way forward because it was a generic term signifying their separate identity, which appears to be uncontested, and is line with the phraseology of parallel articles. Also, to be clear, I don't think the article should describe such views as discredited based on our own evaluation of their marginality; we should describe them as such only if that's specifically the consensus of reliable sources. --G-Dett (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are trying to select a principle to guide future edits, then clarity about using 'nation' and/or 'people' would be useful. (G-Dett, you are correct that we could use meta-sources to characterize the competing POVs, but it wasn't my impression that the Talk has discussed/investigated such meta-sources. So #7 reads more like too strong an editorializing about the data.) Anyway, I would still like to see folks agree on sources, instead of competing principles based on competing sets of sources. Let everyone answer something like: What is the dataset that supports my principle/option, and how should that dataset be analyzed to demonstrate the validity (or not) of my principle? Thanks. HG | Talk 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reflection on the issues raised by the Arbcom review underway

Though I have formally withdrawn from editing, I am following the recent attempt to review the incessant conflictuality of the Israel/Palestine area articles with considerable interest, and, while tempted to make a few remarks there, think my style of writing inappropriate for a venue where administrators, harassed by numerous requests for intervention, prefer sweetly succinct contributions. The few contributions I have made look awkward there, and, furthermore, since I have serious doubts that the way things are being set up to review the crisis can grasp the irritable nettles of contention and devise solutions less prickly than those which have long been in place, I am considering using this page to reflect, undisturbed, and undisturbingly, on my own experience of editing this sector of Misplaced Pages. In particular, in looks like measures are to be taken to strengthen punitive sanctions, and to isolate, by an examination of individual records, a number of editors who are, or are deemed to be, disruptive. I share Gatoclass's view, that to invite pimping and denunciations of 'adversaries' is a parlous, and rather unfruitful approach. The fundamental problems, as I perceive them, are those of (a) systemic bias, (b) a rulebook so unwieldy in its byzantine complexities it allows for far too much pretextual editing, gamesmanship and cunctator tactics by partisan editors, and (c) a complex set of appeal processes and review tribunals which are dilatory, invite manipulation by stacking, and are themselves, often, time-consuming devices that encourage whining and politicking, things distractive of time better spent on editing, or sorting out one's difficulties on talk pages.

In this last regard, a simple suggestion. Where edit warring occurs of a 3RR type, for example, a simple rule would suffice to relieve administrators of some of the burden here. On any page where a violation occurs, the plaintiff should simple post the evidence on the talk-page, avert all recent editors of that page of the violation, and have them (obligatory) visit the talk-page, and check the evidence. If the 3RR rule has been broken (no ifs or buts) all editors, independent of partisan interests, should undersign the verdict. A non-negotiable 24-hour block on the guilty party should be imposed, for a first offence. But all those who turn up should then be obliged (those who do not should forfeit automatically posting rights on that page for a week or a month) to dedicate time on the talk page to resolving rapidly the point over which the 3RR rule was violated, within 24 hours. If an impasse occurs between the parties, an ombudsman with an impeccable record for neutrality, should be available on call to adjudicate the point on the strength of the evidence and arguments given by the disputing parties within that 24 hours period. No one foreign to the recent edit history of that page (period to be determined: 6 months if not busy, 2 months if busy?) should be allowed to turn up in the resolutory debate.

I can see of course problems, as I do in any proposal, but a self-monitoring procedure, with an obligatory character on all those who have edited a page, to work quickly and fairly on dispute-resolution among themselves, would save immense time both for editors and administrators. It would also oblige partisans to undersign a violation made by someone who they view as 'on their side'. An ombudsman of this type could even, on exceptional occasions, be invested with the power to endorse the text which the violator of the 3RR principle reinserted, or endorse the erasure, if the evidence suggests that the 3RR violation occurred on rational grounds (reinstating technically impeccable evidence from quality sources that has been systematically removed by a coalition of tag-team posters) etc.

I'm jumping the gun however. In what will follow, desultorily, as the mood takes me, I will make a series of initial reflections on the root casus belli and the way it affects the problems infesting this area of Misplaced Pages.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My tuppence worth

Nishidani, good to see you back, though I do hope you'll feel able to edit again sometime in the future. Editors of your quality are rare, and extremely valuable. No need to rush back, though.

Your report above on the Hebron settlers has prompted me to dig out a couple of links which you (and Steve) might find interesting. They largely reinforce the points you were making, but with an emphasis on peace-building:

• Living With the Enemy
• Hebron Rehabilitation Committee

In fact, the whole set of journal letters is worth reading (but that's just my -- biased -- opinion):

• Index to journal letters

Secondly, I'd like to endorse your view on the exclusion of Jayjg from the Arbcom. Trying to confront the horrendous problems infesting Israel-Palestine articles without mentioning Jayjg is like trying to write a history of World War II without mentioning Churchill (or Stalin, or Roosevelt, or Hitler, take your pick)!
:::--NSH001 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear NSH001. No one is indispensable, and certainly there's far too much talent around for justn one person to make a difference (though each would naturally be missed) I rate myself poorly compared to most of the others listed in the inquisition, for constancy of purpose, clarity of judgement, clear prose, patience with obstruction, and dedication to a punishing form of labour on behalf of the global public's quest for precise and balanced information. Thanks for the Hebron stuff. Quakers are doing a great job there and elsewhere in Palestine in monitoring the tragedies. Nothing can be done to write articles on these areas, the articles are under militant vigilance by settlers and their proxies. The real articles will be written only if, improbably, Israel decides that it is worth adhering to International law, what 22 Arab nations request, in exchange for an iron-cast peace treaty, or if, the administrators wise up, and do the obvious thing, split article pages into pro- and anti-, and see which of the two comes up with the best NPOV version. I can think of numerous pages that could be NPOVed to quality level overnight in this way.

I won't participate in making a case (it's already been decided anyhow, he and a few others are untouchable) against Jayjg. As earlier, I don't believe in whining to authorities, and indeed I don't believe in authorities, (other than proven one's in a specialized field)

I will say though that in my limited experience he is perhaps the worst editor I have encountered reading wiki, far worse than Zeq and Jaakobou, of whom, strangely, despite their obstructive antics, I am rather fond of. For Jayjg gives one the impression(and I have many odd ones, admittedly, since I can't help subjectively visualising a person behind a prose style, e.g. Jaakobou seems overweight, PR a women etc.etc!!) he is perfectly aware your edit is correct, yet at the same time perfectly confident he can spin the rulebook to cancel it. He posts far too much, far too quickly, for the good of this encyclopedia.) Best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, it is not only Lustick which is not acceptable, nor is this guy according to this talk-page. (This is what is being censored away: () Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One could make a substantial list. That I missed, thanks Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani. I've corrected the "index" link above (sorry for that little slip). Also another wee correction - it isn't only Quakers doing "a great job", it's people from all the churches (hence "Ecumenical Accompanier"); volunteers are selected for that difficult job on their merits, not which church they happen to belong to.

I still encourage you to continue editing, though I can well understand your frustration. It's true that no-one's indispensable, but you most definitely have made a difference, and I don't agree that "nothing can be done". You helped turn the Norman Finkelstein article from a sloppy, mendacious mess into one that now merits "Good Article" status. Similarly for many other articles. Just as important, having you around makes life easier for the rest of us who'd like to improve I-P articles.

My advice to you would be to continue editing, but maybe take a more laid-back, less hurried approach. There's no rush. Wait a day to make your next change, relax, and get on with the rest of your life in the meantime. Also has the side benefit that you're less likely to fall foul of the rule book. But keep doing it, the rest of us will make sure your edits survive. Patience and persistence are the key. I think of South Africa, where the sky didn't fall in when Apartheid collapsed. Or Northern Ireland, where I despaired of a solution -- I'd seen the visceral anti-Catholic bigotry in the West of Scotland, where I grew up, mild compared to NI, but bad enough to make me think there would never be a solution. Or pushing the disarmament message for decades here in this highly conservative part of the world to a hostile reception - it now feels quite disconcerting to find that almost everyone agrees with us over the Iraq war. All causes that seemed so hopeless for so long, but have now come (more or less) right. Best wishes,

--NSH001 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Responded on my talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mattar & 1920 riots

Hi Nishidani,
I hope you are fine.
I contact you for 2 questions :

• Would you have Mattar's biography of Mufti ? I am looking for some information concerning his view on Mufti involvment in the 1920 Jerusalem riots ?
• Would have a description of the events of 1920 made by a palestinian historian ?

Thank you ! Ceedjee (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ceedjee. Sorry I'm late, a life off-line etc. No I don't have Mattar's bio of the Mufti, and am afraid I can't help you on that on. If you can access the Palin Report (is there a Wiki article on that?) it would be useful. The relative article on Amin al-Husayni is of course a dreadful mess, and having a fuller account from Mattar would be useful. But many other sources could be brought to bear (I don't because I think, if the article is owned by Zeq and co., any improvements others make will only 'tizzy up' add a veneer of learning to what is a shabby little piece of POV editorializing). If you are interested, read Meinertzagen's diaries for the period, which provide evidence for the idea that Allenby and Bols, and generally the British military, were behind the riots, the 'incitement' coming from anti-Zionists (and implicitly anti-Semites, of whom Waters-Taylor is often mentioned) working on notables like Amin, who was regarded by the British as very pro-British. I have occasionally wondered whether the publication in the Arab Palestinian press of excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (later sponsored by Amin) might be linked to copies sent on by the British army?, since Victor Marsden's English translation of that paranoid tract had just come out. The Hebrew press blamed the British military administration for the 'incitement' generally, and tended to direct its critical fire at them rather than the Arab Notables.

As to the second point. I welcome any sources on history, and couldn't care less about the ethnicity of their author if the scholarship is 'up to snuff'. One only takes this otherwise nugatory element into consideration when one discovers systematic bias, the suppression of key documents in favour of others conducive to an ethnic case, being highlighted in their stead. There are quite a few good books by Palestinians on this period of their history, which supply, esp. on the Palin report, information not contained in many other books (like Caplan's) dealing with the same period,

Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers !

In fact, this was not a question for wp:en but for wp:fr : fr:Émeutes de 1920 en Palestine mandataire.

I have the material concerning "la contreverse sur l'implication britannique" (I must still write this nevertheless) but I am amazed by the way Rashid Khalidi describes the events... see here. Ceedjee (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've copied it here (to be eliminated later) and will, over the next few days, give you some pointers on my take on it. Best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Template:Conflit arabo-sioniste en Palestine mandataire

Thank you !

But there is no hurry. (and it is not finished).

I copied pasted the text here : user:Nishidani/draftCeedjee (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour Nishidani,

Notre ami commun a réussi à me dégouter une fois de plus de wp:en. Un peu comme il t'a dégoutté, toi à mon avis. Puisqu'on ne veut pas le bloquer et bien que les sociologues qui veulent s'en occuper le fassent.

Pourrais-je t'inviter à prendre un compte sur wp:fr ?

Je pense que cela peut valoir la peine d'essayer...

En tout cas, je serais ravi de pouvoir dans un autre climat qu'ici, bénéficier de discussion et de la collaboration d'un éditeur aux sentiments différents des miens.

Bien coridalement,

fr:user:ceedjee

Ceedjee (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee Alors, cher ami, je suis en retard. Malheureusement, j'ai eu des problèmes, encore une fois, avec le 'server' (?) (je dois communiquer avec le monde pour le moment à travers l'ordinateur de mon neveu). Alors il faut attendre que ce tohu-bohu ici passe , j'espère non plus d'une semaine. A bientot! Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou - the proof of him sock-puppeting

PR Just an outsider's word, Pr. It is simply not worth posting insinuations, especially when they are grave. You are obliged to post the evidence, or withdraw the claim. Everything else is mere gossip, and posting it should not be conditional on other matters. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I told User:jpgordon to remove the allegations, after all, it's his project to do with as he sees fit.

But I've provided the evidence at User:PalestineRemembered anyway. Someone else I shared it with tonight says "Wow" and points out another impossibly odd wrinkle about the sock-puppets behavior (re Pallywood), something I'd not noticed.

Now all I can do is sit back and wait while, if previous sock-puppeting is any guide, the two accounts User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans are deleted, removing the evidence for everyone else to see it. PR 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I at least for one don't follow everything, and am perhaps the least well informed editor in the area as regards the complex dynamics and past history. So my irritation was not only directed at you, but on your behalf. I thought it was not helpng your case to mention your suspicions to administrators without documenting them there. I'll look at what you've come up with now then. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor that of dead persons, as if they were both liars and anti-semites, when they merely happened to be deeply liberal voices within the Jewish world. See this for both aspects having undue weight (Israel Shahak) in describing what most would call a classical humanist thinker, and the improper use of cheap political slurs to 'document' by innuendo what no honest biographer, enemy or friend, would incorporate into an article, except as a footnote on fringe charges.Nishidani (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You've probably seen this, but I've compared the bio of Ayaan Hirsi Ali with that of Israel Shahak. Ali is a fine, brave woman, but she's known to have lied about Islam, we should not be quoting her virtual hate-speech about it without making that clear. Meanwhile, we treat Shahak appallingly, for no reason other than that he's exposed fundamentalism in his own religious group. PR 14:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

What? Anyone may comment on the proposed decision using the talk page. Thatcher 16:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I am hopelessly out of my depth in the, to me, byzantine complexities of rules, arbitrations etc., and can only admire the youthful flexibility of intelligence of so many who take to it all like fish to water. I was under, it seems, a wrong impression. Since it looks, now that you and Smith enlighten me, as though I tampered with the page, I suppose I should revert it back. But I won't for fear of doing, accidentally, collateral damage to someone else perhaps posting in the meantime. And, in any case, it is a late and,more meo rather wordy thing perhaps not worth the seriousness a salvage revert would otherwise signpost. Thanks however for the note. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The proposed decision page is for Arbitrators to vote on the decision and may not be edited by non-arbs, but the talk page is where any editor may discuss or comment on the proposed decision. Thatcher 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

From Arbitrators' Proposed Decision page

I don't think admins need to be knowledgeable in a particular topic area, in order to be able to determine if an editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. All they need to know is what the purpose of Misplaced Pages is, what the expected standard of behavior is, and what the normal editorial process is. The issue is admins who participate significantly to the topic also enforcing such a powerful discretionary sanction could contribute to a perception of bias and injustice that would only inflame the situation, not calm it down. After all, ArbCom regularly makes judgements every day about what is unacceptable behaviour without the need or even desire to know the topic content, so why is it so difficult for admins in this case? Martintg (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparisont doesn't work. Arbitrators have the luxury of having dozens of other people predigesting and spoon-feeding the evidence for them, and they have lots of time that they (hopefully) use for discussing among themselves. When you are a normal admin out in the trenches, you have to be quick, and you are on your own. And as for the dogma that admin (or Arbcom) surveillance should be completely agnostic as to content - well, I reject it. It's just plain wrong, and good amin work has never worked like that in practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that depending upon the content, the purpose of Misplaced Pages, the expected standard of behaviour or the normal editorial process varies? If these three things are invariable, what relevance does knowledge of content have? Martintg (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. I need understanding of the backgrounds and content in order to assess whether and to what extent a contributor's performance is incompatible with the these, especially with the "purpose of Misplaced Pages" (which, as you will easily understand, is impossible to assess without taking content into consideration, because the purpose of Misplaced Pages, after all, is to assemble good content.) Translated into a practical example: If I find somebody edit-warring somewhere below 3RR, over, say, the inclusion of a passage based on some reference, I will treat him differently if I recognise the passage is a competently worded, well structured, neutral summary of a reliable mainstream scholarly publication relevant to the article, than if I recognise it is a coatrack ripoff plagiarised from the editor's pet nationalist propaganda website written in ungrammatical English. These are content judgments, yes, and I make them in my administrative decisions every day. Arbcom, please desysop me if you don't like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You only need to understand WP:V and WP:RS to know the difference between a mainstream scholarly publication and a "nationalist propaganda" (or any other) website, as that particular passage should have a reference attached. That you may call it "nationalist propoganda" is itself your own personal political viewpoint which is colouring your judgement, hence you ought to step back from the fray. Martintg (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Hoping I am not intruding). I can provide an example of what Fut.Perf. appears to be suggesting, and why your reply, Martintg, mightn't strike many average editors in this area (under scrutiny or not) as anywhere near adequate, since endless useless arguments are raised about sources no person with a decent education would question in the first place, apparently as part of a wikilawyering attrition gambit.here Regards e buon lavoro. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani. Editors (and admins) need some reasonable latitude in order to include a full range of sources which can best represent the notable views and valid concerns of both sides in this conflict. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Tag team" editing is not unique to Palestine-Israel articles, I've seen it in my area of interest, pick any random hotspot you will find it there too. It is a pattern that is easily recognisable without having to be involved intimately in the article content. Nothing stopping Editors and Admins including a full range of sources in an article, but I'd be worried about the impartiality of that same admin issuing a discretionary sanction of up to one year in duration, particularly if it was influenced by his subjective view that the content in question was "xxxxx propaganda", where xxxx = nationalist, proletarian internationalist, zionist, anti-zionist or some other -ist. I don't think these kinds of political considerations should have any role when an admin enforces a sanction. Being an admin does not give one some special protection against adopting a particular viewpoint if he/she has been significantly contibuting to a topic area, we are all human, it is inevitable. Hence I think these admins ought to to step back and allow one of the other 1000 admins deal with the disruption. Martintg (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Although this may be futile at this point (given that there is a motion pending to close the case), I think the definition of "uninvolved" may be too narrow. (Meaning, I think that admins who are in the "grey area" should not be part of the "enforcement team.") I understand from the above discussion that there are some who feel just the opposite, and are concerned that "outside" admins may not be knowledgeable enough to enforce this decision. However, I think that the possibility of arguably-"involved" admins taking actions consistent with their POV (whether actual or apparent) is of greater concern. Now, I am not an admin, so I may not fully understand all of relevant considerations, but I do understand the "needs" of this particular area of dispute on Misplaced Pages, and if we are going to "err", it should be on the side of restricting the pool of those enforcing the rules. Otherwise, I think the controversy is only going to be exacerbated, which is the opposite of what the ArbCom is trying to accomplish here. Now, as I have been writing this, I have been debating with myself, how specific to be. In the interests of diplomacy, I have decided not to "name names." But let me put it this way: In keeping with my comments above about the "grey area", I think that if you are an admin who has posted in this section about the fact that some people consider you "involved" in this area, but you disagree, let's just consider you to be "involved", shall we? Of course, there are some people who I think are clearly "involved" and not in the "grey area", and you know who you are, most likely. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It might well need clarification later on; I'd suggest that admins err very much on the side of caution on this matter, since it's so inflammatory. --jpgordon 03:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that "involvement" is not static. Once an admin makes a comment or assesses a situation in a way that angers one "faction", then hardened WP:BATTLErs who conflate criticism of specific editors' conduct with political criticism of entire nation-states or ethnicities will spare no effort to try and disqualify that admin by casting them as fundamentally biased on all related matters. It's in the interest of particularly partisan editors to do so; if all a poorly behaved editor has to do to disqualify an admin is create FUD, then the already small pool of uninvolved admins foolish enough to consider stepping into this minefield will rapidly dwindle. I agree that in the interest of diplomacy, it's unecessary to name names. MastCell 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be true of some admins. Others may in fact be using their administrative tools to give advantage to a particular POV. I suspect we may disagree as to who is who. But what this really should be all about is an assessment of comparative risks and harms. When I compare the potential harm to an editor who is unfairly blocked or banned (even if there is an opportunity to appeal), to the potential harm to an administrator who is unfairly excluded from the "enforcement team", if we have to err on one side or the other, I would err on the side of protecting the editors, hands down. One possible answer might be to limit the authority of all admins to unilaterally impose serious consequences on editors, but obviously that isn't happening anytime soon. It is clear that the ArbCom has great confidence in the admins as a group, so we are left to haggle over which individuals should be excluded from the group in this particular area of dispute. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The creation of FUD is, I believe, a deliberate and established tactic in this topic area. I recall a conversation I had some time ago with a contact who works in the media. He commented that Israel-Palestinian issues were extraordinarily difficult to report because of the intensely hostile lobbying of partisans. Any report that was critical of Israel or showed it in a bad light attracted floods of angry e-mails, phone calls and letters; there was a similar but less intense reaction to reports critical of the Palestinian side. He believed that the US media was largely paralysed by this phenomenon and was largely incapable of neutral reporting on the issue, as it was intimidated by predominately pro-Israel partisans. He mentioned the example of National Public Radio, which pro-Israel activists apparently regard as being anti-Israel in its reporting; they sought to bully NPR by organising demonstrations outside its stations and campaigning for NPR's supporters to withhold funds. (I recall this being mentioned in the UK press too.) In other words, there's clearly a substantial and organised group of partisans in this debate who have an ideological aversion to reporting that doesn't favour their own side, and who consciously seek to influence the issue through intimidation and pressure. We've definitely seen a similar trend here on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately it seems to me that this proposal concerning "uninvolved administrators" doesn't take account of this factor. As MastCell suggests, the proposal can easily be gamed by "hardened WP:BATTLErs" mau-mauing admins if they disagree with their decisions. This already happens - MastCell and I have already experienced exactly this sort of thing, and I'm sure other admins have as well. It's a large part of the reason why most admins have steered clear of this topic area. This proposal would, in effect, amount to a heckler's veto over administrative decisions. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The root cause of this dispute is that many editors and admins believe that an article must present a single point of view that is "neutral". This is a fallacy. NPOV is the presentation of multiple views when they exist. As explained in Misplaced Pages:Five_pillars: "Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." Martintg (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. In my experience, admittedly limited experience, that point is well understood. The major problem, as I see it, is that a very large number of editors on topics that are historical in nature, surf the net through search engines for information to back their position. They never seem to frequent libraries, or read books. What pops up very quickly in searches are sites written from a strong POV as part of the daily informational wars to influence and pull one way or another public opinion. Most of that material consists of editorializing, by well known members of the partisan commentariat, feeding off vaguely from secondary sources, which are read simply to cull 'ammo'. Most of the serious technical-historical or academic research on the relevant issues is not yet available on the net. In consequence, we get a huge volume of sourcing to virtual tabloid, or digital ragsheet sites, and little from up-to-date academic sources. This in turn engenders RS arguments. I am not questioning net sources, but have little confidence in them as the basic sources for writing historical articles.

There are multiple points of view in the historical literature, but at least one knows that each viewpoint emerges from archival work and peer review, something that, on the other hand, does not occur with the POV junk from internet hearsay produced and fine-tuned to sway a mass audience. The distinctions customarily made on RS itself, with internet sites, is often one based on corporate size and throwweight in the informational wars, and not on quality. Counterpunch, for example, has proven to have been much better informed on the politics of staging the Invasion of Iraq than the New York Times. The latter is unchallenged (though User:Jayjg did manage to eliminate it as a source because he disliked the content, on at least one occasion) the former dismissed mechanically as 'fringe'. Fox News is, to an historian, an horrific place to source reliable information from. But it's a major News organization so . . . being big, quoted on the stock exchange, and widely followed, its material on an issue can be deemed more reliable that say some article by Uri Avnery, who is endlessly challenged because he only posts on minor 'fringe' news outlets. Yet Avnery is not under instruction from Rupert Murdoch to follow a line, was a pro-Zionist, has written powerful memoirs of his years as a terrorist, was elected to the Knesset, boasts 50 years of experience as a journalist, engaged politicians, knows personally everyone relevant to the inside world of world politics. Even as the rules stand, huge systemic bias can intrude, often preicsely because the rules inadvertently favour as 'mainstream' what are corporate 'news'-factories over minority voices with far better records for integrity, but not being widely read or quoted on the stock exchange, can airily be dismissed as 'fringe', 'undue weight' (Undue weight is often given to what are sources that have a high public profile, but represent highly partisan interests). Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I share most of Nishidani's analysis.

But that is also true that "many editors and admins believe that an article must present a single point of view that is "neutral".

If you add some editors "believe they defend the interests or the points of view of their community", it is not possible to work any more.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes on strange things, particularly linguistical

From the Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

'clear minority Israelis promote the occupation narrative.'

When facts become a narrative here, wikiworld reels at the discovery that our Jaakobou is now subjecting Israel's colonial history to the rigours of post-modernist analysis! Has the man been reading Jacques Derrida, Edward Said, Tzvetan Todorov, Jean-François Lyotard, in the interim, while waiting for the Arbitration Committee to publish its deliberations? Will everything now have to be recast in terms of 'narratology' theory, which so bemused us three decades ago? I can imagine its extension in articles on Namibia. Lothar von Trotha's Vernichtungsbefehl as a mission civilisatrice as opposed to the Herero's genocide narrative, etc.Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Soon it will be a rumor due to New Historians... The occupation rumor...

I wonder what must be written on wp:he and how they deal conflicts there. It must be sociologically fascinating...

Don't worry. There is no hurry. Wp must remain a pleasure.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

'I wonder what must be written on wp:he and how they deal conflicts there. It must be sociologically fascinating.'

I expect it to be far better than the English version. Much more freedom of expression on these issues is available in Israel than abroad. 'Fixing' the English version has a central role in controlling public opinion within which political decision-making affecting US and generally, Western policy with regard to the area takes place. When inframural debates are translated for outsiders, the complexities widely admitted quickly evaporate in dilettantish simplifications.Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am responsible of this. You are of course right. I didn't know the existence of the article 1929 Palestine riots.

Concerning the control of us media, I don't know. I would hope this not. Ceedjee (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

'Control of media'. There is nothing scandalous in this, in the sense that all powers struggle to secure the best coverage for their own political slant on the world in order to push a perception onto the public, and then retroactively cite that 'manufactured consensus' in order to justify the 'democratic basis' of their highly tendentious position. Walter Lippman's 'Public Opinion'is readily available on line, and showed the logic of how this functions. Israel, as Japan, is very well organized, at an official level, in monitoring and using pressure, in academic and 'mainstream' news outlets, to get its line over, and discredit adversary opinions (often by Israeli and Japanese academics). GWB's adminstration, just yesterday, was the subject of two studies which showed that a senior cabal of administration officers lied consciously on some 950 odd occasions to promote the Iraqi war. They lied, misled the public, and, moulding consensus, then proceeded to invade another country. 'Mainstream' news outlets repeated the lies as serious opinions, and not just, as experts and insiders knew, farcial manipulations of the truth, and as a result we have to deal with one more quagmire. It's the Leo Straussian approach to the world, or, modify Habermas's words, the age-old issue of 'knowledge and state interests'. Quite normal, then, that Hasbara agencies closely monitor Wiki, and have their lads in here, working to keep in strong view the official political line, as opposed to the 'objective' record of events, uppermost on the page. To note this is to state the obvious (editors are tracked down, as I proved to myself with an experiment in here, whenever they assume a profile of critical weight in a controversial area). Knowledge is power, but so is disinformatsiya. Nothing to do with paranoia, or antisemitism, since it is a nigh-universal practice of powerful states with a controversial politics of interfering with other, weaker states.Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that could be possible but I wonder if the importance given to wp in this reasonning is appropriated. I don't have the feeling that wp has the weight to forge opinions. Opinions are forged by journalists and lobbies which work around men with power (such as politicians). Here, there is nothing as such. I see more a big mess of uncompetence or internet's geeks. Ceedjee (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oups... Are you sure that Haj amin kept his status of Grand Mufti until '48. I would guess he lost this in '37. I have read something about this somewhere but cannot remember where... I am sure of nothing here. Ceedjee (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is the lazyman's prop for instant omniscience. Not only journalists, but, I've had frequent occasion to note, even academics read the relevant pages before talking or writing about issues they are not quite au fait with.

No, I'm not sure on that date, but I didn't put it in there. I was just cleaning up the grammar. It's the span, I now note, assigned to him on the Wiki mufti of Jerusalem page but as we know, Wiki is not a reliable source. I was sure of the 1895 date, Pappé gives it and whatever else you might think, he uses Arabic sources. I am happy to see you have now corrected it, I didn't have time to research it thoroughly. All I knew was that the 1893 date was pushed by Perlman. Good edit. Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shaw Report in a large variety of articles

Just a note. Fiddle with it as one will, the only proper way round the impasse (the article is a disaster by the way) is to find some good up-to-date historical works specifically dealing with the Mandatory policy papers and reports and their review in the League of Nations' Commission. As they stand those papers do not reflect the facts, but the politics and prejudices of the age. The fundamental difference between the two reports is that the Shaw Report was looking for formal legal proof of the Arab Executive and Muslim Clergy's responsibilities, and found none. It found evidence for incitement on both sides (most Wiki articles highlight Arab incitement alone). The Mandatory Commission said this was not adequate since the events deal with Arabs, and in an Eastern country where feudal conditions of life still existed, effective proof against the traditional religious and other leaders of the people would very rarely be found.

In other words, members of the Mandatory Committee said legal proof wasn't required, because Arabs are Orientals who characteristically hid the required proof.(Mr van Rees, reiterating this twice). Van Rees 'had not the least doubt that the responsibility for what had happened must lie with the religious and political leaders of the Arabs.' Van Rees' argument relied for its general premises on an article about the 'Arab Fellahins' Mind' written by M. William Martin for the Nouvelle Revue Juive , April 1930 p.22. I.e. as spokesman for the Commission he accepted the verdict of the Jewish Agency and articles written for the Jewish press. We know know, thanks to Israeli historians, that van Rees had almost no indepth knowledge of the complex intertwining causes, but was guided predominantly by the prejudices and sympathies of the age concerning 'civilized people' and 'primitive' orientals. Take the following remark:-

The Arab peasant is distinguished, not only in Palestine, but also in the other neighbouring countries, by the fact that he can always be induced to attack his true friends by his true enemies, who are the landowners.(translation. The Arab fellahin obeyed their enemies, the Arab ruling class, and killed their friends, the Zionist immigrants. The point of view is that Jewish immigration will improve the lot of the Arab poor, by wresting the land from its feudal owners and hiring Arabs with better wages and conditions, and that all Arab protests against Jewish immigration are excuses for continuing to exploit the Arab proletariat. In this the Mufti and other leaders were as responsible as Gandhi was in India for creating havoc!)

This is of course highly ideological, as are many primary sources. Contemporary historians can deconstruct that and contextualize the judgements (British desire for impartiality as a political requisite in order not to add fuel to the fire of Arab sentiments of betrayal vas. Mandatory commissioners, who had a colonial cast of mind and constantly pushed the British about subordinating their duties to the majority of population in order to fulfil the Mandate policy of allowing Jewish immigration)Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing that a historical/secondary source would be preferred, let me know if you find one. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, greetings. If you don't mind my asking, why put all this text on your talk page? It's unnecessary. You can just keep a set of links. Or copy it off-line, if you wish. Or maybe on a user subpage if you plan to edit it for future use. Otherwise, well, it's not quite what the Talk pages are meant to be. From an occasional correspondent of yours, HG | Talk 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Age, young man, age. Keeping tracks of edits scattered about numerous pages like a mad (wo)man's excrement, edits that reflect things I wish particularly to keep in a doddery mind's eye, difficulties finangling up diffs, and doing back page researches, mean I post odd bits back here. I've eliminated the background, in respect to others participating on the relevant page. Here I will be mainly talking with myself. RegardsNishidani (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, where can we see a copy of the Shaw Report, or was it suppressed? The document we've seen is the minutes of the League of Nation meeting and looks like an occasion for Van Rees (in particular) to ignore the result of the investigation and claim the 1929 riots were nothing more than a security lapse for which it was necessary to scape-goat the locals. He comes out with statements such as "... represented that the screen was not deliberately intended to annoy the Arabs", but that Muslim calls to prayer were intended to annoy the Jews. He engages in wholesale verbal trickery over the first demonstration at the wall of 15th Aug, managing to imply that the "extremist members of Betar, carrying batons" (Morris, Victims, p.112) did not threaten violence. The demonstrators have flown their national (Israeli?) flag at the Wall, a day after 6,000 of them were demonstrating in Tel-Aviv with cries of "The Wall is ours" - yet Van Rees brazenly claims that "the right of ownership of the Wailing Wall had never been contested by any one" and speaks of the "absurdity" of allegations about ownership of the Wailing Wall. Van Rees even attempts to deny that Jabotinsky is a Zionist!

Actually, I'm very puzzled what any of these guys are doing contributing to the hearing. Rappard and Palacios are named only as "Rapporteurs" presenting petitions. Rappard is to present petitions IV and V from the Supreme Muslim Council, which is strange indeed when his contributions are so partisan. All three play a significant part in the hearings, but do not present their petitions.

Note how these 11 meetings were held between the 3rd and 9th June, before the evidence of the Shaw Report itself could reach Geneva - "It is hoped to send copy of Shaw Commission evidence to Geneva June 14 and to publish here June 16." I think we need to see what the Shaw Report itself said. And perhaps need to see "Annex 2", the Government statement, which is refered to repeatedly. But this is probably useful, paragraph 43 summarises the conclusions of the Shaw Report. PR 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pedro has ordered a copy of the Shaw Report. No, it wasn't repressed, just filed in archives, like so many White Papers. Without APPENDIX 2, the net report is pretty useless, except for underlining how out of touch van Rees and others were with the nitty-gritty of everyday events and polemics in Palestine. That is why contemporary historians should be used in preference to these primary sources, for documenting the period. The official documents, like most bureaucratic bumf, reflect political turf-fights and clashes of interest, not the facts. Van Rees did not have access to the kind of information later authorities like Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé, Walter Laqueur, or Anita Shapira have. RegardsNishidani (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

+1

This is very important to point out what Nishidani has just written.

We don't have the competences to work on primary sources because this is a work that requires to perfectly know the topic. Historians when they deal with primary sources cross check all of them, try to find bias, investigate about the autors etc.

As wikipedian editors, we must mainly report relevant information from reliable secondary sources.

WP:V -> WP:NPOV -> WP:undue. That is in fact extremelly easy if we are not disturbed in our work by any sort of editors whether without know-how of the topic or who try to analyse the reliability of a scholar or who doesn't make the difference between their own belief and what they can or could read in reference books. Ceedjee (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee. Thanks for the input. There does appear, at least in terms of our own dialogue, to be a 'dyscrasia' between what I have now said regarding the British Gov. League of Nations reports, and my attitude to the UN documentation on the Qibya Massacre. There you pressed for highlighting Benny Morris, and I availed myself of the primary reports. The ostensible incongruency is explained by the fact that the UN reports on borders contained a mass of statistical information, reflecting what impartial UN observers monitored directly, bearing on the breakdown of the very generic picture of the circumstances of the period given in secondary historians. Morris in my view was far too synthetic. The Shaw Report is a political balancing act which is highly synthetic; the Mandatory Commission Report sets forth a series of conclusions that are of the kind an historian would not easily accept, since there, the pronounced prejudices of the external analysts (van Rees, Rappard) etc., are highly visible. It is more like a novel, than an historical account, because the Brit. Representative Drummond Shiels, must negotiate a problem politically, defending the practical policy of his government as on-site guarantor of the interests of both parties, against the Mandatory Commission which insists more or less that the British stick to the letter of that part of the Balfour Declaration which favours Jewish interests against Arab interests. This theatrical scenario, of a conflict over interpretation of evidence informed by different political interests, is not what you get in the UN documentation on Qibya. Those with training in historical method will appreciate the problem. We cannot do OR, but if we are serious, we often shall be forced to do so to inform ourselves more deeply of what both primary and secondary sources are about.Sometimes secondary sources are simply not sufficient, or we cannot access them. I still believe for example that Benny Morris' book Righteous Victims is often essayistic, and falls down according to strict methods of in-depth historical documentation, and his border war studies likewise does not address many lacunae.

This would not be problematical if editors understood the problem, had some training in historical methods, and weren't so obsessed with taking everything as a POV battle when commonsense would indicate we are mostly trying to ascertain the verifiable facts, and relevant cirumcstantial contexts. For onlookers, Ceedjee and myself have strongly opposed positions on the general nature of the conflict, but more often than not, do not have problems with each other's evidence because there is a mutual recognition of what constitutes method.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani,

About Qibya massacre, I suggest we discuss this deeper at another time when thinks will be quieter. Please, check once again the article fr:massacre de Qibya. I don't use Benny Morris as a sacralised reference (see doc here). I cross checked all my secondary sources and I also used all the primary sources from the UNO website. But never mind :-)

And anyway I don't share your analysis of Morris's work ("Morris in my view was far too synthetic" etc) because he wrote Israel's Border War concerning this topic and he based his work on all the primary sources. There is no doubt that he read all the uno reports we have an even more. And whatever his mind, it is a relevant mind. Ours not... From the level of our know-how on the topic, he is no more and no less reliable when he writes The Birht... revisited or Israel's Border War...

Amicalement, Ceedjee (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have requested few times

Please stop refereing in your comments to my age, professional standing, knowldedge of english or make any condesending remarks. Let's stick to the subject we edit not the editor. Zeq (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If an editor evidently cannot understand what I am saying, I can attribute the understanding to his lack of knowledge of English, not to a lack of bad faith. I therefore raise the topic in order to remind you that you are, as all of us are, obliged to make an effort to understand the second language you are writing in before responding to your interlocutors who use it as a mother tongue. This is not a matter of condescension, as much as a matter of asking you to respect the intelligence and experience of others who have professional training in an area, people whom you constantly condescend to by saying 'please do this' 'please do that','please revert' as if they had committed peccadillos they cannot perceive (as a group) but which you alone insist have been committed (I think again because you do not understand completely what they mean when they write complex sentences). Amicably nonetheless.Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

All I can do at this point is request that you refrian from commenting on me, my understanding, my English etc...Focus on the edits and the edits alone. It is your right to disagree with edits and you can rspond to what is in the edits themselfs. When you start discussing the editor, his/her understanding, english level and other you create an environment that goes against the colaborative effort which this encyclopedia is. Editors who do not tolarate colaboration with other editors - even those who are less qualified - should seriously consider writing their own books where they should not have to deal with ideas that they don't agree with.

As for the condescending toward those you see as less expert than yourself: The simplest way for you to avoid condescending writing about other editors is to stop commenting on those editors. Zeq (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq I won't comment on your English, if you reply to my remarks intelligibly, and not attribute to me, as in the past, 'antisemitic' slurs, WP:OR errors. I am focused wholly on the text, which has seen a large amount of effort wasted because some editors do not understand, evidently, what is required to write an NPOV article. The text as it stands is an attempt to confuse two things, indigenous opposition to Zionism (wholly natural) with Nazism. People who defend their homelands are not, because the immigrants coming in happen to be Jews, intrinsically Nazis or irrational fanatics. Amin became a fanatic, and sided with the Nazis, but his opposition to Zionism in the 20s was not inspired by antisemitism. He was acting exactly as honest analysts like Ze'ev Jabotinsky and Menachem Begin said people in those situations would naturally react. If you can understand that simple distinction, then much of the editorial squabble will disappear.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Question of translation

Hi Nishidani,
Hope you are fine.
I don't know but maybe you could help or advice me for a translation from English to French.
How would you translate Israeli settlement policy : Politique de peuplement israélienne ou Politique de colonisation israélienne when refering to the settlements of immigrants in the territories inside the Green line "borders" between 1949-1953...
I quite automatically translated by Politique de colonisation israélienne because that is the way it is usually translated in French but concerning settlement outisde the Green line (ie in West Bank). Here, it refers to territories inside Israel's today borders. An editor on wp:fr complained and explains that calling the "settlement" of "Israeli citizens" inside Israel's borders a "politique de colonisation" is extremelly pov. I don't think he is wrong but I can hardly justify to me to translate same English word differently according to "circumstances" and personal analysis (even if pertinent from my point of view). Thx. Amicalement, Ceedjee (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating, Ceedjee. Another example of how language ineludibly cocks a POV. If we are dealing with the period 1939-1953, one looks at the juridical situation at the time regarding the UN borders 1948 and the area acquired during the 48 war. It depends how international law defines the juridical status of those areas acquired manu militari, I would think. Comnplex, because a deal of the land behind the 67 borders was formerly 'demilitarized land' whose ownership was to be determined through bilateral negotiations that never took place, and became Israeli territory by the law of customary usage (we say in English, and it is well understood in Israel and the West Bank, 'possession is nine-tenths of the law'). This I do not know. One does have public statements by Dayan (1976) in which he admits for example that in the demilitarized zones, whose status was disputed, particularly with Syria, it was an informal, but collectively agreed-upon policy by the IDF and the Israeli government, to subject these 'demilitarized areas' or no man's land to creeping expropriation by provoking incidents. The technique was to send a tractor or two in, over the ceasefire lines, provoke the Syrians on the Golan to fire (often nervously, as warning shots) then claim Israelis were being shot at by terrorists, and call in the IDF to both fire back and seize the area to consolidate it for agricultural use and settlement. 80% of incidents, he calculated, at that time, occurred because of Israeli provocations to gain more land whose juridical status had not been determined by negotiation between the parties. That, objectively, would be called 'colonisation', with the rider that colonisation usually refers to taking land undisputely belonging to another people, whereas an Israeli could say the land was disputed, and therefore not quite the object of colonisation, but simply.

If the land concerned was in the demilitarized area, colonisation would be truer to the actual state of things. If it was in areas not assigned to Israel, but acquired by Israel in 48, rather than 'colonisation' one could use 'peuplement' but perhaps, I am tempted to think that perhaps 'établissement' might fit your purpose: for example Littré gives in sense 4:'Il se dit dans un sens analogue de colonies qui se fixent en une contrée' giving an example from Barthélemy: Environ deuz siècles après la guerre de Troie, une colonie de ces Ioniens fit un établissement sur les côtes de l'Asie, dont elle avait chassé les anciens habitents. (Tome 3, 1956 ed.Pauvert p.1084)

Language is never neutral, and the only way out of this impasse is to look at contemporary official documents in French, and Hebrew, determine how French diplomatic or governement usage saw the specific process, and employ that language (even here of course, political bias exists, but at least it is not a matter of personal whim). Historically what took place, everywhere, was colonisation in the classic sense. Personally I never refer to the West Bank colonisers as 'settlers' because in normal English they would be called squatters. 'Settlements' is neutral, only in that it is adopted to disguise what is a politics of expropriation: ('theft' is more POV and yet more juridically correct than 'expropriation' which is nuanced towards an appearance of objective description but, in many cases, only attenuates the fact of theft by being less familiar to users,etc) its 'neutrality' is, bref, extremely POV, and much of the language that passes for 'neutral' falls under Orwell's sanctions. Sorry I can't be of much help. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailled analysis and pertinent comments.

I share your mind.

Maybe établissement is not the word because the nuance in French is different but I don't know how to explain you in English... One says : "les immigrants s'établirent" but one doesn't say "le gouvernement établit des colonies ou des implantations". In French, the word refers more to an action that is performed personnaly : je m'établis dans cette ville.

Maybe the solution is in official documents but I will never have access to official French documents of the 50's. I am an amateur averti, not have money, time or capability to visit official archives :-(.

Thanks a lot ! And see you soon. Ceedjee (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy the reading

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950373.html Zeq (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:Zeq. I almost always enjoy the jouissance of reading, except when I read Wiki entries on the Israeli-Palestinian question, which do not actually make for reading but rather dull unpaid overtime as, red pencil in hand, and mentally donning a high school history teacher's frown, one corrects line after line for errors, sloppy editing, bad syntax, naivity, and nescience. Thanks for the link. It adds a few more details to what is broadly known, but doesn't subtantially alter my understanding of events, and only upset my afternoon's serenity, after a splendid lunch of octopus and gilthead fillets washed down with red wine, when I noted Haaretz's mispelling a Latin phrase. I long ago read General de Gaulle 's,Mémoires de Guerre, 3 vols. in which in the third volume Le Salut:1944-1946(Plon, Paris, 1959) esp.pp.216 he gives a survey of the consequences for France when 'la frénésie des nationalistes arabes et la volonté des Britanniques de rester seuls maîtres en Orient s'y coalisaient contre nous'. France subsequently handed Israel the atom bomb, and only retracted its iron pact when it found Mossad had stolen all of its technical plans for the Mirage fighter, to better bomb Arab countries France was trying to maintain relations with. Hence de Gaulle's famous outburst in November 1967, which like many other comments made by astute observers of the time, foresaw the mess that victory would lead the world into. This time round, for once, the brilliant Raymond Aron got it wrong.

Nabi Musa pictures

Hi,
I found many other ones on the Library of Congress website.
They are free ! I think also that some are "nicer" than the one I added :
Amicalement, Ceedjee (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once more Ceedjee. I've put the selection of photos on a link at the page. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nishidani. Thanks for the invite. I'll try to take a look around to see what I can add. Tiamut 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nishidani, you are most welcome. Of course, I should be thanking you for starting such an important article on a much overlooked subject. Tiamut 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Soutien

Salut, j'apprécierais ton soutien ici. Merci, Ceedjee (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"The situation of insecurity across the country affected the Arab population more visibly (this sentence does not make good sense (since implies that jewish self-defence caused Arab insecurity,and flight. Please rethink it)"

I don't understand what you mean.

I don't know how to change this.

The only idea is to write that while Jews stay, Arabs fled, without giving any reason to this.

In French, I had written :

"Tandis que la population juive a reçu des instructions strictes l'obligeant à tenir à tout prix sur tous les terrains, la population arabe est plus soumise à la situation d'insécurité que connaît le pays"

...

Please, feel free to fix any issue you see. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the phrasing before I made my edit.

Since the Jewish population was under strict orders obliging them to hold their dominions at all costs, the situation of insecurity across the country affected the Arab population more visibly. Up to 100,000 Palestinians, chiefly those from the upper class, left the country to seek refuge abroad or in Samaria.

Since is ambiguous here, in that while it is clearly intended to mean 'from the time the order came through to hold out at all costs', the secondary sense 'in as much as, because' with its 'causative' nuance makes the sentence imply that, 'the resistance at all costs' of Jews to Arab attempts to wrest their positions from them created a diffused insecurity throughout the country that affected mainly the Arabs, inducing many to flee. It makes for a hypotactic structure, with main and subordinate clause, rather than the paratactic syntax of the French

The French does not bear this confusing double-entendre, since 'tandis que' unequivocably suggests simultaneity and not, as since, consequentiality. If you are familiar with classical Greek, then what you intended to write fits the men-de construction of contrast between two situations.

In English the French, which you have kindly supplied me, would roughly translate thus:-

'While the Jewish population had received strict orders requiring them to hold their ground everywhere at all costs/to the bitter end/ (65), the Arab population was more affected by/subjected to/ the general conditions of insecurity to which the country was exposed'

I think your point a good one. I also think Eleland's comment very sensible. I am rather leery of intervening at more than a level of stylistic and grammatical assistance, my friend, because I consider the whole narrational structure of all of these articles almost irremediably vitiated by presuppositions I do not share. My way of reading this draws on Jabotinsky's 1923 analysis. A population was to be displaced, for another population, of immigrant origin, under the aegis and authority of a third power whose imperial prerogatives, under mandate, were to sanction the expropriation, in the name of a national home for immigrants, the land of an indigenous population whose identical right, promised earlier, was cancelled, though they were the majority. As Jabotinsky understood, war was inevitable, and everything should be geared to that eventuality So periodization of conflict is deeply problematical, since informal military preparations were underway since the early 20s for what all feigned not to be aware of, the clash between a Zionist state , and native aspirations for one of their own. Morris's work was a considerable advance, and you do well to distinguish these later periods, but, as the Irgun's record itself, and Ben Gurion's written connivance with their paramilitary terrorism since mid 1945 shows, an effective, semi-official state of war existed from much earlier times (Begin's 4 fronts). Morris is a far better archival historian of the factual nitty-gritty than Pappé, but his assumptions are still profoundly Zionist, it is statist historiography, whereas, and here I side with him, Pappé has understood in depth what a probable Arab indigenous account of events would look like, a Hobsbawnian reading of the erased voices at the margins of offficial discourse. As in our earlier dispute, the issue is not of facts, but world-views. If I can offer any help, like the earlier bit, don't hesitate to call on me. Amicalement Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani,

Thank you for the explanation of the differences between since and while. The nuances are indeed important and cristal clear after your explanations.

Concerning Pappé/Morris analysis, I think our difference of world views, if real, does not matter. I can take distance between my opinion and a fair report of scholar's analysis. My only limitations are the ability to understand them and to summarize them.

I think factual articles can be improved by a section titled analysis. I think this could be added into the article 1948 Palestine War which could be dedicated to this purpose, leaving the facts to 2 other ones.

In fact, I requested your support for such thoughts as the one you gave to me. My only concern is that today, 1948 Palestine War will be deleted by Jayjg/Zeq and certainly others if it doesn't receive enough support. And whoever we refer to (Morris or Pappé), they would not agree :-)

Kind Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree with the point you are making. The problem was 'soutien'. I appreciate the need, given the urgency of the issue, in seeking help, it's just that I have reproved others for organising defensive lines by mustering assistance in a battle. But since we debate this before others, openly, I see no harm in your requesting me to put in my penny's worth. In fact I shall do so. Were proper procedures applied to these article, most of them would be wiped out as political negotiations over the truth, and therefore, as things stand, I certainly think one side, with a very pronounced hostility to open critical approaches, and particularly to the work of someone like yourself who is pro-Zionist, but highly amenable to the scholarly input of others who do not share these principles, but push a contrary reading, is to be prized, and, yes, defended.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

fr:Émeutes de Jérusalem de 1920

Hi Nishidani,
You didn't comment this article... I have modified this a little bit since we discussed this.
I hope there was nothing that upset or angried you in this one.
If you feel some points could/should be improved/neutralised, please don't hesitate to tell me.
I don't promise I will modify the article but I will take all your comments into account as much as I can.
You could make your comments on the article talk's page also. Amicalement, Ceedjee (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've allowed myself to be sidetracked into the futilia of minor Wiki stuff, ignoring my obligations to look at that text. I am also down with bronchitis, have nieces visiting, several books half-read, and roughly 11 large pine trees to cut down, and saw. Don't worry I will get round to reviewing it, as promised. I did begin, but to do this review I had to organize three large files of information on my computer's data bank for Israel, and that means several hundred pages of cross-referencing and organization to chronologize material gathered. That is basically why I am late, not foot-dragging. Be assured I will make my comments in duke horse. Amicalement Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (I gather I give some people the impression I am angry in writing in here. Not at all. The contemporary situation angers me. The reality of the way some people write about the past gives me quite a different order of feelings, having little to do with anger, and much to do with amazement at the labyrinthine workings of incoherent minds, devoid of empathy for the past and other people !Nishidani (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers! Only just read this - I sincerely hope you didn't cut down all those trees while suffering from bronchitis. Marathoners like me tend to be well aware of the fatal consequences of hard exercise undertaken with a chest infection. Hope you're feeling better now. Best wishes, NSH001 (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No worry.

Most important is the pleasure to contribute. It must remain a hobby and nobody has deadline or such things.

:-)

Ceedjee (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Tariq Ramadan

It is written he is a Swiss Muslim. I would have written he is a Muslim Swiss (particularly given the points of view he defends). What do you think ? Ceedjee (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Still have no connection. This from a borrowed computer. As you can see, in English usage, nationality normally preceeds religion

An American Catholic An English Protestant A French Huguenot A Canadian Muslim You may indeed place the adjective defining faith before the nationality. But that makes the adjective 'emphatic', diminishing the importance of one's nationality by comparison with one's religion. Thus what you suggest aims to affirm that one's Islamic faith comes before one's citizenship in Europe, as having a deeper allegiance. To single out Muslims like this is pretextual. Sir Thomas More and thousands of others (Campion) placed their faith above their nation, though being intensely patriotic, when the two were in conflict, and, in Sharia law, one owes fidelity to one's nation, as Ramadan himself someone affirms (from memory). I suggest you accept the first and normative usage. RegardsNishidani (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

In English, if I write : « I am a Belgian Christian », are both "Belgian" and "Christian" names ?

In French one must be an adjective and one must be a name.

So, I thought that in English, with that order, Christian would be a name and Belgian an adjective, which would be chocking.

But if both are names, I understand why "Belgian Christian" is of course better.

Amicalement, Ceedjee (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may be shocking but , I hope, not awe-ful, that nationality supplies the adjective and religious denomination the noun or substantive. Languages are not rational, they are grammatical, and the spoiled children of immemorial usage. It appears I once more have an internet connection, at least this evening. RegardsNishidani (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you !

Well. It is extremely shocking. That means in English (culturally), religion is more important than nationality.

But ok. I understand the whole issue.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Communal editing

We got off to a bad start, but I'd be interested in changing our interactions and reduce editorial stress and conflicts.

It would be nice if you could fix my grammar errors once in a while, keeping my content based corection in mind (such as the "They justify..."), rather than revert every time. And surely, I am going to try and take your suggestions (such as the water core issue), into proper consideration.

I hope we can find a way to edit more communally in the future. Cheers, Jaakobou 09:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You won't have problems with me if you try to keep in mind, while editing, that Misplaced Pages aspires to NPOV, and therefore that, while each of us has a POV, we owe it to the encyclopedia to strive for editorial rationality and equilibrium. Anyone can plunk their own favourite material, or spin their own POV, into an edit. The best editors will strive to strike a balance between private prejudice and the responsibility to be fair to both sides. Your suggestion on Core Issues was deeply troubling because it was decidedly unbalanced. One does not arrive at consensus readily if your interlocutor perceives your rephrasings as simply attempts to secure a one-sided interpretation- There are an extremely large number of outstanding issues between the two camps, many of them having nothing to do with terrorism. I would remind you also that, independently of historical claims as to 'who started it', both camps regard themselves as subject to terror, and that no one side has a monopoly on this, as per the death statistics. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

My apologies for this edit, it was a spur of the moment blip that was worded poorly/incorrectly. If you wish to discuss the walla source , my comment is made here. Jaakobou 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#core_issues_section.2C_intro

Hi there, I am trying to coordinate some editors to help me rewrite the intro of the article. Your thoughts/additions would be appreciated. Suicup (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It may well be the case that having an 'official' list is the best option, however in the meantime, i am trying something a little different in the hope that some progress is made. IMO any issues in the introduction don't need to be cited at all, because they are going to be detailed at length further on in the article (complete with references etc). Originally i was going to wipe the lot, however i decided that was too ambitious, so i am breaking up the task a little bit. If editors can collectively decide what issues go in the article itself, surely they can also decide which said issues go in a 2 line paragraph in the introduction. Suicup (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Asher Weisgan and Doom777

Hi,

He's been making similar edits to Eden Natan-Zada which I've been reverting. I've added Asher Weisgan to my watch list.

Cheers,

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

Quite simple, if he goes into an appropriate subcat such as (assuming he was imprisoned) Category:People imprisoned on charges of terrorism it correctly attributes the POV. Simply calling him a terrorist is POV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your fine work

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your fine contributions to a number of articles, including but not limited to Palestine Liberation Organization and Nabi Musa, I am pleased to award you this barnstar. Tiamut 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record

User:Sm8900's idea of the sort of POV-thickened crap she believes I like.

It is accompanied by the heading: 'There, I fixed it. Is that better, Nishidani? Would you like the article to read that way? thanks.'

Here's your long-lost barnstars back again

Couldn't help noticing your request, so I restored them from here NSH001 (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

)

troopers, etc

That's what came to mind, but 'trooper' has military overtones! Sorry. Thanks indeed. Remarkble how you young people do in an 'eyelid's soundless blink' (Hardy) what an old codger like myself throws his hands up in despair at the mere thought of trying to do digital-wise. I owe you a batch of Cornish pasties! (To overcome the narcissistic tinge in lining them up there, I have decided to create also a section on suspension banners!) Cheers and best wishes. Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise for the military appellation. We pacifists can have a lot of respect for military men, after all they put their lives on the line, they know what war is REALLY like, and some of them even become pacifists themselves. Not all of them deserve respect though - I contrast your nemesis Swatjester's user page with my father, who signed up the moment war was declared in 1939, served in North Africa and Burma, and spent 3 yrs as a Japanese POW. He refused to talk about the war, for him it was a necessary evil, a horrible job that had to be done, and nothing to boast about. (The only good thing about it was that it enabled him to go to university, an option normally unavailable to working-class families then.)

PS. A wee tip: when starting a new discussion on a talk page, click the little "+" at the top of the page, to the right of the "edit this page" tab. That will automatically give you a correct edit summary and section heading, and also avoid problems if someone else happens to be editing the page at the same time. Oh, and you'll have a job trying to find pasties as good as my mother used to make .

--NSH001 (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, again. So your dad was in Burma? not with Orde Wingate, I suppose (Palestine connections). I've read quite a bit about that war and indeed once did a lengthy study of Japanese war literature on it. Probably then your father knew Louis Allen, who, aside from fighting there, wrote a brilliant account of the Battle of Sittung?(I usually think in terms of the 6-links-to-any-person-in-the-world theorum) I met him him Durham in 1988. As to war, I chose to work in Israel because the air was thick with news that war would break out, and having been expelled from a public school for refusing cadet service over the Vietnamese war, and then subsequently charged (with a five year sentence) for refusing to put my name down in the conscription lottery, I wished to test my pacifism (not of an absolute variety). When asked where I would like to work I told the Jerusalem office 'any kittbutz near the most dangerous zone!' Nothing happened of course, other than getting a chance to sneak past military barriers to walk through the city of Gaza, where I was warned I would probably be shot, and instead spent a nice afternoon in Palestinian sweet and coffee shops, speaking French in deference to possible dislike of English or American-accented foreigners. Best regards then.(ps. even my own sister, a wonderful cook) sought me out to ask me how to cook Cornish pasties. I was the only one to memorize our mother's recipe)Nishidani (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please make talk not edit war

Nishidani, it would be nice if you would actually participate in the discussion on the talk page (Specifically, this section here, rather than making unsupported claims as you did in your edit summary here: . If you did, you would note that the edit you reverted came from the Encylopedia Britannica and is the same source and paragraph that your prefered POV version is purported to cite. Please review WP:RS and WP:POV . If you still object, please outline your objection in the section I've linked above, so that we can discuss how to move towards a consensus version. Failure to do so, makes the revert disruptive, rather than constructive. Thanks, Doright (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)