Misplaced Pages

Talk:Zion Square assault

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jethro B (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 26 August 2012 (→Jesse Benjamin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:28, 26 August 2012 by Jethro B (talk | contribs) (→Jesse Benjamin)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
WikiProject iconPalestine Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Issues

  • Is there a single reliable source that calls this the "Zion square lynching"? The closest I've seen is that is was described as an "attempted lynch".
  • Seems like a good part of this article is based one two blogs, one from the New Yorker (strangely without a link) and one from the NYT, both unattributed. Other op-eds are used as well, again unattributed.
  • The bit that starts with "Ma'ariv reported" actually comes from the Times of Israel and should be attributed properly, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
  • There's probably more, but I don't have the time right now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I moved it to Zion Square assault. There are some good references calling it a lynching in the headline, but not all of them do. it is a rather loose and sensationalist use of the word. Attempted lynching is the closest to a description, and is what it would be in US law. But I think we have very seriously tried to avoid the term in titles.
What I would really like to do is consider a redirect and partial merge to the paragraph on Israel in Lynching, which already has a ref to the NYT article. If nobody objects here, I will do the redirect, nad people can add the appropriate contents later. There are more such incidents that could be added. The article already covers attempted lynchnings, so it's within scope. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Look at the Hebrew press it is the default term used.
Lynching is a calque here, just as it is in Japanese, for any episode of attempted mass violence based on ethnic enmity,and this usage borrows from the primary sense of lynch in English which was used to denote acts as varied as tar-feathering and whipping.
The word 'lynch' is used by the investigating police in Jerusalem to describe the incident to the press. Many sources give 'lynch', others 'attempted lynch' (apparently 'lynch' is a successful murder attempt), so I'm fine with "Lynch attempt in Zion Square' (2012). I've only begun the article, so I'll add many more sources today.
The suggestion is that we can have 2000 Ramallah lynching dealing with Israelis on the West Bank, but not '(Attempted) Lynching in Zion Square' when Palestinians were the object of mob violence. I'm all for consistency: I do not believe it coherent POV-wise to keep the Ramallah article title, which apparently used the wording of the local Hebrew press, but hold to ransom the same local press default nomenclature for the title of an article regarding an attempt on the life of Palestinians in West Jerusalem.
As for Ma'ariv. Needless nit-picking. The Ma'ariv notice is referred to in the footnote, where I specify self-evidently where that came from.Nishidani (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So you admit that you created this article to make a point, and that your idea of NPOV is that if there's an article with the word "lynch" in the title where the victims are Israeli, we must have an article with "lynch" in the title where the victims are Arabs? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you give some evidence from what I have written here for that illation? As for creating articles 'to make a point', look around. That is basically what underlies most of User:Activism's work here, on the face of it. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I see you are referring to the Ramallah analogy. Actually I noted the Ramallah article, which I've long been familiar with, only after reflecting on DGG's change of title this morning. In plain man's terms, I wrote an article which followed Israeli press reports which everywhere write of a lynch in Zion Place (anyone can check this in 10 seconds). I use that language because it is Israeli usage. It is challenged as not proper to wikipedia. I think of the analogy with the Ramallah article, and, genius!, you suggest I wrote the article in order to make a point about the Ramallah article. Where did you study logic? Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The Israeli press does not "everywhere write of a lynch in Zion Place". Only Ynet uses the term lynch with no qualifications. Indeed anyone can check that in 10 seconds.
And you were the one who brought up the Ramallah lynch (as if it is comparable to what happened in Jerusalem), so what do you want exactly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You just removed 'beaten almost to death'. I'm not halfway through the sources I downloaded but that phrasing is easily verified. Please see Lahav Harkov, 'Rivlin to Arab J'lem 'lynching' victim: We're sorry,' at Jerusalem Post, 23 August, 2012:'Eight teenagers were arrested this week for beating Julani almost to death just after midnight in Zion Square last Thursday.' I'll put that source in now, and would appreciate if you accepted its reversion to the original language.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If you show me that most sources use "beaten almost to death" rather than "beaten unconscious", I won't object to restoring that language. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Israeli press does not "everywhere write of a lynch in Zion Place".

Of course. The Israeli press everywhere writes of a 'lynch' that took place in 'Zion Square'. So, what's the problem? Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the Israeli press mostly does not use "lynch" unqualified. I'm sure you know this and anyone can check the sources, so what are you going on about? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Who said the Israeli press used 'lynch' unqualified? Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
So why do you want to use "lynch" unqualified? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
When did I say that I wanted to use "lynch" unqualified? I gave the reasons why I adopted the title I gave the article: because 'lynch' was the default term used by politicians, journalists of all descriptions, and police to describe what happened. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Why did you use "lynch" unqualified? It certainly is not the "default term used" and any quick review of the sources in the article shows. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It's only a small courtesy but please run your eyes over the titles of the smattering of sources in the ref.section. I have downloaded over 40 sources, and the word is recurrent in most of them. Sometimes it's qualified, mostly it is not. There's not need for a psychiatric diagnosis of 'why' I used "lynch" unqualified. It's all over the sources thus, and I haven't even troubled to use the Hebrew sources yet, which are far more interesting.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have, but let's go over them just so there's no confusion.
  • Harkov, JPost, 'lynch' in quote marks in the headline, doesn't appear in the article.
  • Kershner, NYT, "described as an attempted lynching"
  • Mackey, NYT blog, 'a lynch' in quotes in the headline, reports other people describing it as a lynch in quotes in the article.
  • Kalman, Times of Israel, "lynch" in double quotes once in the body of the article.
  • Davidson, New Yorker blog, "lynch" in double quotes. (Here's a link to the article)
  • Weiss, Irish Times, "attempted lynch"
  • Mozgovoya, Haaretz, can't see the article. This is the correct link.
  • Oppenheimer, YNet op-ed, calls it a lynch in the headline, attempted lynch in the body
  • Harkov et al, JPost, (Correct link), 'lynch' in quotes in the headline, doesn't appear in the body.
  • Lis, Haaretz, can't see the article, 'lynch' in quotes in the headline.
  • Rosenbeg, Haaretz, can't see the article, "attempt to lynch" in the headline, "referred to as a 'lynching'" in the first paragraph.
That's the first column of the current reflist. I think I've proven my point. "Sometimes it's qualified, mostly it is not" is simply incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. It's late here, and I'll look at this tomorrow. I surmise you think that lynch in quote marks consistently in headlines over a broad range of newspapers does not provide a legitimate ground for writing 'Zion square 'lynch',' or some variant thereof, as the article name. Why this should be so is obscure to me. If you look at Bat Ayin ax attack, only one source appears to refer to it in that way, and, ironically, that is the Palestinian news agency, Ma'an. Actually, the article does require the Hebrew source expressions customarily used to describe the event, and I welcome editors to add it or them to the lead. Nishidani (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't read very closely, but most of those don't even have "lynch" in quote marks in the headline. The fact it's in quotes is a good indication the newspaper isn't comfortable using the term as its own and wants the reader to understand its using someone else's words. And that's the headline, which is not necessarily written by the journalist who wrote the rest of the article. Not a single one of those sources uses "lynch" unqualified, except for the YNet op-ed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the main difference between the the title of Bat Ayin ax attack and your proposed title for this article is that the former is correct in normal English usage (ie, someone carried out an attack with an ax in Bat Ayin) while the latter is not (open a dictionary, "lynch" means murder. Your assertions about Japanese usage notwithstanding). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm highly offended by your accusation at me, which is complete bull. Accusing me without even having me here on the talk page to defend myself... I thought we finished with the whole debate on how most of my articles aren't even related to I-P... You could say the same thing about any number of other editors, which I know of plenty off the top of my head... --Activism1234 00:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming Activism considers satire of his work to be an "accusation" of some kind, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Um, . . where's my accusation at you? This talk page has taken on the paradoxical quality of being increasingly fascinating as it is tedious in its barrel scraping for non-policy-based objections to, well, anything, and personal innuendoes. I can understandf NMMGG who just remarked on another page that he has a personal vocation on wikipedia to keep bad people like myself 'honest', but your remark here is cut out of imaginary cloth, much as NMMGG's extraordinary pettifogging about the use of lynch.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Luckily, I'm not the only editor who objected to your use of "lynch". Let me guess. DGG and I are on some kind of mailing list? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
DGG has made a considered and nuanced practice and policy-based set of objections. He did not cast about for any stick to throw at something he dislikes, as is apparently the case with your objections.

(a)There are some good references calling it a lynching in the headline, but not all of them do. (b)it is a rather loose and sensationalist use of the word. (c) Attempted lynching is the closest to a description, and is what it would be in US law. But I think we have very seriously tried to avoid the term in titles.

(a) concedes that my provisory title had good references behind it.
(b) argues however that it is a ' rather loose and and sensationalist use of the word', My reply would be that, as at Gaza War, many long objected to the Arabic terms as a 'loose and sensationalist' use of the word massacre, but sources consistently used it, and it had to be adopted because we go by sources.
(c) In US law it would be 'attempted lynching'. Some sources actually do use that combination, and I have no objection to a solution of this kind. I do object to the idea that it cannot be in the title
(d) on the basis that 'we (on wikipedia) seriously try to avoid the term in titles'. In the I/P area I gave the instance of 2000 Ramallah lynching. Most English users associate lynching with a killing by mob violence of an innocent member of a minority community, almost invariably by hanging. I have no objection to the use of Ramallah lynching because the word there reflects usage in the Hebrew sources, though instinctively I would have described it as a slaughter (or massacre, though the former is more precise because massacre implies several) or butchery, which is what it was.
I can argue with reasoned objections, but answering someone whose rapid-fire challenges resembles those of a machine that scrambles excuses for eliding on any grounds something disliked is rather pointless, NMMGG. Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The public debate in Israel section

This section is full of mostly un-notable people, all saying pretty much the same stuff. So I'm not sure why it's called a "debate", nor why all these people are quoted, other than the usual coatracking we've come to expect from some editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The template used in most of these recent articles organizes the page around an incident which is then followed by International reactions, Israel, the US, etc.etc., consisting of off-the-shelf customary sound-bites by the usual line-up of heads of states or politicians. Before I edited Price tag policy (look at the history), most of the page and the sources added were all to do with declarations by every imaginable politician or rabbi or member of the commentariat expressing condemnation (at one incident). These lists are read, I suspect, by no one. In the present case, since one of the main points of agreement by politicians was that we have an educational issue, the press interviewed many local academics whose professional life as teachers keeps them in touch with that area. Again, my practice is to refer to the article what sources choose to highlight or quote, without fear or favour. I don't think it is our job to make judgements about the 'notability' of people who, in mainstream sources, are interviewed because the local Israeli press considers their views noteworthy, and broadcasts them to the public. What they say is certainly more reflective than the standard brand name utterance we usually get (certainly not here in Rivkin's exemplary words) all over the world from politicians. Jürgen Habermas recently spoke in Israel on this issue, of which he is an authority: civic discourse underlies democracy and can't survive if it is supplanted in the public sphere by the inauthentic jargon of pollies and their spin-meisters.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
And, by the way, when someone reverts on a hypothetical objection (might be a copyright violation) a whole section of a page rather than civilly adopting a readily available alternative, i.e. collaborating in rewriting the section so its language is sufficiently distanced from the source to avoid that possibility, in the I/P area it usually flags 1R gamesmanship strategies. It induces the original author to restore it, and then other editors step in to rerevert, and make editing the page impossible. I hope this is not the case here, since I have quite a lot of work still to do. Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Benjamin

I am adding Jessie Benjamin, 'A Lynching in Jerusalem: Anatomy of Jewish racism,’ at Mondoweiss, August 21, 2012. From experience I know people might challenge this as not RS, which however (see that guideline) is certainly is for Benjamin's views. He is participating, as a sociologist, in an American Jewish community reflection, he had academic standing as a sociologist with a career interest in and publications on these issues, and, as a yeshiva drop-out from Jerusalem, (like two of the suspected perpetrators), with an in-depth personal knowledge of the youth culture at Zion square over the decades, considerable insight. His piece reflects information in the Hebrew press which, so far, I have refrained (this is the English wikipedia) from using, but I will not use anything in his reportage that has to do with facts (which would violate RS guidelines, since Mondoweiss is problematical as a source for facts reportedly bearing on the unfolding of the event). My synthesis of his approach and conclusions clarifies that these are his personal, if sociologically informed, views as a member of the community debating the event.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec):For the record, I posted this and opened a discussion on the edit I made. Without an the slightest attempt at responding to my analysis here, Activism1234just repeated NMMGG's revert with the edit summary.
Mondoweiss is WP:FRINGE dedicated to covering any negative story on Israel and reporting it; often repeats anti-Semitic slurs/cartoons; not RS for Misplaced Pages.Actually that is close to a WP:BLP violation since Philip Weiss is not known to be a purveyor of anti-Semitism, or a self-hating Jew except in fringe ultra-Zionist websites. It is not only inaccurate, it is certainly RS for what an Israeli-American academic sociologist writes under his own name, and therefore this deletion looks pretextual, if predictable.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
If NNMG made a revert, I didn't notice it when I went to check my watchlist and saw your edit that put in a reference from Mondoweiss, which I reverted. For the record, we're not putting into the article that Mondoweiss is an anti-Semitic fringe website, so it's not really BLP at all. I'm not sure what an "ultra-Zionist website" is though, but I'd assume then Mondoweiss certainly isn't a "moderate" website but rather the exact polar opposite. Indeed, this accusation is baseless, as I never said anything about Philip Weiss himself, just his website. Perhaps you should check out this article in The Atlantic (is that too ultra-Zionist?), this piece in Tablet (is that too ultra-Zionist?, this rumination (not an RS, a blog, not ultra-Zionist either, but a good essay), etc... No need to include it. --Activism1234 16:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Here we go, the usual swarming, no argument, no iontelligible policy, just a use of Ir and a quippy assertion.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh that's great, compare people to locusts and vermin... --Activism1234 16:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Its WP:UNDUE to include him if his view was notable he would be printed by WP:RS--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but it has been mentioned at A/I that you do not often write intelligible remarks. It is not intelligible when you write 'he would be printed at WP:RS,' and the statement only underlines that you do not understand wiki policy, on WP:Undue or WP:RS.
You really don't understand what Shrike was saying? If so, I'd question your competence at WP, but I know full well that you understand what he said... --Activism1234 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, after a WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE reference was removed, you just reinserted it... Really? --Activism1234 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Listen, While copying and reformatting my references to include the quite unobjectionable note from Benjamin high up, in which he clarifies what the word 'lynch' means in Hebrew, I pressed the button, and found, on checking the page, that the Benjamin section had been removed. Don't let's get into this game of swarming to edit, while someone else is drafting, to make it look as though I am misbehaving. Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I simply think that it would make sense to leave it out for now. I also would appreciate if you stop comparing people to locusts and vermin. Although I don't expect you to commit genocide, it is a precursor and terminology used in many genocides (see Holocaust, Rwanda, etc), and the usage of it is despicable and offensive. Thanks. --Activism1234 16:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Your personal opinions 'I simply think', are totally irrelevant. And what does for now mean? Are you saying that, 'okay. For the moment let's not put that in. Let's put it in later'?

I also would appreciate if you stop comparing people to locusts and vermin.

You'd better document where you think I said that very rapidly, because it is offensive, untrue, and reportable, as an extreme case of WP:NPA, and you are insinuating that my language favours genocidal terminology. Bees swarm, and Vergil wrote a marvellous poem on the phenomenon without any classicist I know ever interpreting this as propaganda for Roman genocide in Gaul. I expect an immediate retraction and apology.
Please note that apart from these patent attempts to get me wound up, so that the concrete issues of article construction are ignored or bogged down by petty bitching and innuendoes, neither you nor Shrike have given one reasoned policy based ground for removing what you excised.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
When I wrote "I simply think," if you'd read the rest more carefully you'd also notice I wasn't saying "I simply think we shouldn't include this person," but rather "Once someone reverted it with reasonable objections, we should'nt reinsert it back into the article just like that." All of this is clear English... The comparison is that you said "the usual swarming" in regards to some editors' objections. Intentional or not, it's offensive. Also, reading what I wrote, you'd notice I said it is used as a precursor in many genocides, while I don't expect you to commit one, so saying I insinuated that you favored genocidal terminology is absurd, and that may call into question one's competence with English, would it not? Nowhere in the world did I mention anything of the sort - I just noted the comparison between the two and how highly offensive it was, along with a polite request to desist from such terminology in the future. Well that's irrelevant, if you'd read what I wrote again, you'd notice I (and others) mention such policies as WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --Activism1234 16:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I feel you're looking too deep into something or misreading it and interpreting it in your own way which isn't how it's written, and I hope that the above would clear that up, although it's a side point that I don't think is worth getting into here, and which I believe was reasonably explalined above as simply a polite request to desist from intentional or unintentional offensive language. --Activism1234 16:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This is the English wikipedia where English usage is observed, and we do not countenance people reading into common idioms in English connotations that exist alone for, say, the customary word used in a foreign language to translate words, as here you have interpreted my innocuous use of 'swarm' in the way it is used in current Hebrew. I expect an apology, if only because, as a linguist, I object to this kind of infantile confusion, esp. if it has a polemical and offensive edge, as your remark had.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're thinking I interpreted it in a Hebrew sense? But that's not true, at all. I viewed it as offensive, because it's using an animalistic activity to describe human beings, that's all, like comparing human beings to mushrooms or cockroaches, that's it. I haven't misinterpreted anything you said, but perhaps you simply haven't realized that what you said is offensive, intentional or not. I don't see the need to apologize for someone else's offensive terminology, intentional or not, and for a polite request to desist from such terminology (we're not in 5th grade...). Preferrably, you would just simply understand the concerns of another editor and desist from the terminology and move on to the main topic at hand. --Activism1234 17:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh terrific! I misinterpreted my mother-tongue, and have wasted 5 decades on philology with the misapprehension I understand it! :::::What you think privately consider offensive is not offensive in English. The verb “to swarm” in Hebrew specifically connotes insects. It's reasonable, given your egregious misprision, to infer that you are linguistically cross-wired on this.Need proof of the obvious?
When Rabin said he would not have Palestinians "swarming" in Israel, foreign reportage has to gloss the point to get over into English its original implications. Yitzhak Rabin said Wednesday he would not allow Palestinians “to swarm among us,’’ as an indefinite closure of the occupied lands entered its second week. . .The verb “to swarm” in Hebrew specifically connotes insects.” See Lisa Talesnick, 'Rabin: Palestinians not allowed to ‘swarm’ in Israel,’ Associated Press/The Daily Gazette, Thursday April 8, 1993 p.13
The word is standard in mainstream newspaper coverage exactly as I used it.

The two words that political headline writers pair most frequently are “lobbyists” and “swarm.” As in: “Lobbyists Swarm onto Cable Issue” (Los Angeles Daily News); “A Finance Overhaul Fight Draws a Swarm of Lobbyists” (New York Times);”Credit Card Industr Lobbyists Swarm Congress to Defeat Refdorm Bills” (Colorada Independent):”LObbyistsm, Bankers Swarm US AGRICULTURAL Committee” (Reuters); “Lobbyists Swarm Capitol to Influence Health Reform “(Centre for Public Integrity) and so on.' Joshua Holland, The Fifteen Biggest Lies about the Economy: And Everything Else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs, and Corporate America, Wiley & Sons, 2010 pp.149-150

That you find it offensive and use your incompetence with nuanced English to misinterpret what I, for one, say is a problem, and best addressed by a simple polite retraction of your vicious innuendo.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Woah! You can read my brain now! Damn it, I got caught lying again, you are right, since your brain-reading abilities show that I was interpreting it in some "Hebrew way." Well, what can I say, you know my brain and what I think better than I do! I'll let you know if I have any similar problems in the future, or if I think something but I'm not sure whether that's actually what my brain is thinking. Thank you for the help. --Activism1234 17:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Categories: