IjonTichyIjonTichy

Welcome and intro

Welcome. Please note this is not a Wikipedia (WP) article - this is only my user page, reflecting only my own personal views.

My main interest is the philosophy of antinatalism, especially the many different scientific, ethical, moral, logical and rational foundations of the philosophy. This includes (but is not limited to) deep understanding and acceptance of the factual, amply-evidenced science of evolution by natural selection and the key philosophical implications of that science (and more generally the key philosophical implications of all science and technology). This includes e.g. the understanding that sentient, feeling beings capable of feeling various forms of suffering (including e.g. pain, discomfort, deprivation, striving to satisfy needs and wants) are the only things of value in the universe. This also includes acceptance of atheism, and rejection of things such as anthropocentrism/ human supremacism, speciesism and logical fallacies.

In the face of uncertainty, coupled with a high likelihood of inflicting incalculable harm, it is essential to invoke what is known as the Precautionary Principle whenever the question of procreation is raised. The strong version of the Precautionary Principle necessarily encompasses the following:

(1) The Precautionary Principle Proper, which says that if an action may cause grave harm, there is a case for counteracting measures to ensure that the action does not take place.

(2) The Principle of Reverse Onus, under which it is the responsibility of those supporting an action to show that it is not seriously harmful, thereby shifting the burden of proof off those potentially harmed by the action (people, livestock, wildlife etc). In short, it is safety, rather than potential harm, that needs to be demonstrated. In the case of procreation, pronatalists have failed to show that reproduction is not significantly harmful.

(3) The Principle of Alternative Assessment, stipulating that no potentially harmful action will be undertaken if there are alternative actions available that safely achieve the same goals as the action proposed. In the case of procreation, safe alternatives are clearly available, for example adopting a child and or adopting a nonhuman animal.

(4) All societal deliberations bearing on the application of features 1 through 3 must be open, informed, and democratic, and must include all affected parties. Clearly the vast majority of procreation deliberations are closed, uninformed or misinformed, and undemocratic, and do not include the vast majority of affected parties including the newly born (before they are born) as well as the many people and nonhuman animals the newborn person will eventually affect/ impact during their lifetime.

I am interested in the generalization and extension of antinatalism to all living beings (not only humans). I hold an atheistic worldview that addresses the objective fact that all lifeforms are a byproduct of a needless chemical reaction that occurred billions of years ago.

Through unintelligent design, we evolved nervous systems hundreds of millions years ago, enabling us to feel pain. In turn, we became addicted to the burdens of chasing after the fulfillment of wants and needs in order to escape various forms of suffering.

Our nervous systems are hardwired to experience suffering far more than pleasure; both in intensity and duration. This brutal functionality of nature motivates species to stay alive long enough to pass their DNA to the next generation; hence why sex is so pleasurable.

Antinatalists (with a sentio-centrist worldview) recognize that the welfare of all living creatures (be it a turtle, goat or human) are of equal importance. This is juxtaposed to speciesism, which values one animal over another.

Life is a game of endless chasing after pointless things, it is a malignantly idiotic DNA molecule that has ran amok and has been causing enormous pain and suffering for hundreds of millions of years. Life/ nature/ evolution by natural selection is basically stupid, unintelligent, mindless, un-thinking, pointless reproduction just for the sake of reproduction (and life i.e. nature is also consumption/ sustenance/ survival-at-all-costs - including Predation - in order to enable reproduction).

The most important thing that separates humans from other animals is our intellectual capacity to see nature for what it truly is - it is a meat grinder/ a carnage - and then do something about it. There is no justification for nature’s cruel design. It’s wasteful, needless, pointless, and causes suffering.

(.) nature sucks.

(.) nurture is unnecessarily and unfairly inconsistent ... diversity, and inequality, has a practical limit ... negative threat outweighs positive potential

(.) the future is more important than the present

(.) engineered solutions are the only rational choice

(.) shorten line between desire and fulfillment/satisfaction

(.) violence is unsustainable as a solution to conflict

(.) consciousnesses is not just the human experience ... there is a need to wean the human animal off its unnecessary addiction to animal exploitation.

(.) the "choice" to live should be as free as possible - all humans should have the right to no longer exist (right to die). Antinatalists hope one day this right will be in every national constitution and accepted by all human rights organizations throughout the world.

These days, I am particularly spending a lot of time on Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit in my ongoing efforts to deepen and broaden my understanding of antinatalism (all sentience), as well as the science of evolution by natural selection and the philosophical implications of that science (as well as of all science).

Prior to my focus on antinatalism, my main interests were human overpopulation and 'capitalism.' By 'capitalism' I mean the global industrial economy/ the global system of ownership of private property/ the financial profit motive/ inverted totalitarianism/ power, authority and dominance hierarchy/ structural classicism, structural corruption, systematically inherent violence and structural massive inequalities and inequities/ monopoly-finance capitalism (see, for example, Monthly Review)/ neoliberalism/ the insane ideology that infinite, limitless 'growth' on a finite, limited planet is both possible and desirable/ the ideology of 'growth' and 'development' and 'jobs' just for the sake of growth; and closely related topics, that is, the more than ten thousand years old, ongoing, and ever-accelerating process of the commodification, privatization, hollowing out, vulgarization, debasement, commercialization and conversion to money and monetary profit of almost all key aspects of life on the planet, including both human and non-human lives (wildlife, natural ecosystems etc, i.e. the biosphere), i.e., the transfer of the public wealth to create private riches.

I was particularly interested in the complex and complicated inter-relationships, interactions, inter-dependencies, mutual-dependencies and co-dependencies between human overpopulation (H.O.) and 'capitalism.' H.O. and capitalism are two highly detrimental processes that are inseparable from each other, they are deeply embedded within each other, are strongly interlinked and interwoven with each other, and they both greatly impact, reinforce, feed, fuel, strengthen and shape each other, facilitate the growth of each other, and exacerbate, escalate, compound, amplify and multiply each other.

I am also interested in the devastating impact of the combination/ intersection/ conglomeration of H.O. and 'capitalism' on all key aspects of life on the planet, including the severe, ongoing and ever-worsening global-wide ecocide and degradation and destruction of both human life as well as non-human life (wildlife, the natural environment/ ecosystems, etc i.e. the biosphere). The hybrid of H.O. and capitalism is waging a systematically inherent war of annihilation on livable ecology.

I am also interested in many different aspects of animals (wildlife, pets, livestock etc), nature, natural history, human history, human culture, STEMM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and management), the scientific method, and rational skepticism.

Scheme of sustainable development: at the confluence of three preoccupations. Clickable.

High-resolution photograph of me at home, checking my watchlist

The black flag is, among other things, the traditional anarchist symbol

The white and black bisected flag of anarcho-pacifism

A purple and black flag is often used to represent Anarcha-feminism

Diogenes of Sinope saw the officials of a temple leading away a homeless person who had stolen a bowl of food belonging to the treasurers, and Diogenes said, "The great thieves are leading away the little thief." (Diogenes Laërtius, vi. 45.)
Diogenes of Sinope: "Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Painting by Jean-Léon Gérôme (1860)

Statue of Diogenes of Sinope at Sinop, Turkey

File:He who joyfully marches - Albert Einstein.jpg

Albert Einstein on war

I hear you say 'Why?' Always 'Why?' You see things; and you say 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' -- George Bernard Shaw, Back to Methuselah, Pt. I, Act I (1921)
The reasonable human adapts himself or herself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable human -- George Bernard Shaw, Revolutionist's Handbook
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom. -- Albert Einstein, "Moral Decay" (1937); Later published in Out of My Later Years (1950)
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly. -- Albert Einstein, Letter to Morris Raphael Cohen, professor emeritus of philosophy at the College of the City of New York, defending the appointment of Bertrand Russell to a teaching position (19 March 1940)
Knowledge is important, but imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when contemplating the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of the mystery every day. The important thing is not to stop questioning; never lose a holy curiosity. -- Albert Einstein, Statement to William Miller, as quoted in LIFE magazine (2 May 1955)
The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. -- Albert Einstein, Mein Weltbild (My World-view) (1931)
He who would be a human, must be a nonconformist. He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind. Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance, from Essays: First Series (1841)
This I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. -- John Steinbeck, East of Eden, Part 1, Ch. 13
Humankind is so much one family that we cannot ensure our own prosperity except by ensuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy. -- Bertrand Russell, "The Science to Save Us from Science," The New York Times Magazine (March 19, 1950)

Peter Kropotkin's friend and comrade Emma Goldman delivers a eulogy before crowds at his funeral, accompanied by Alexander Berkman.
Peter Kropotkin: "Anarchist communism is an attempt to apply to the study of human institutions the generalizations gained by means of the natural-scientific inductive method; and an attempt to foresee the future steps of humankind on the road to liberty, equality, and fraternity, with a view to realizing the greatest sum of happiness for every unit of human society."

Occupy Oakland, November 12, 2011, Howard Zinn quote.
Zinn, May 2007: "... anarchism [is] an idea which today still startles us like a bolt of lightning because of its essential truth: we are all one, national boundaries and national hatreds must disappear, war is intolerable, the fruits of the earth must be shared ... the ideas of anarchism: the obliteration of national boundaries and therefore of war, the elimination of poverty, the creation of a full democracy."

Author Stanislaw Lem: Good books tell the truth, even when they're about things that never have been and never will be. They're truthful in a different way.

Peter Kropotkin: When we ask for the abolition of the State and its organs we are always told that we dream of a society composed of men and women better than they are in reality. But no; a thousand times, no. All we ask is that men and women should not be made worse than they are, by such institutions!
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Men and women are born good, society corrupts
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Men and women are born free, and everywhere they are in chains

Peter Kropotkin:
Governmental Communism (State Capitalism), like Theocratic Communism, is repugnant to the worker.
Kurt Vonnegut:
Socialism is no more an evil word than Christianity. Socialism no more prescribed Joseph Stalin and his secret police, gulags and shuttered churches than Christianity prescribed the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity and socialism alike, in fact, prescribe a society dedicated to the proposition that all men, women, and children are created equal and shall not starve.
Comedian George Carlin on ownership of property
George Carlin on the things that separate people from each other and dis-unify us and the importance of refocusing on the fact we are all humans and we all have the same things in common
George Carlin on worshipping the sun and celebrating the natural world instead of some artificial organized religion
Some of the best of George Carlin (1 hr long)

Peter Kropotkin: We know men too well to dream such dreams. We have not two measures for the virtues of the governed and those of the governors; we know that we ourselves are not without faults and that the best of us would soon be corrupted by the exercise of power.

Rudolph Rocker: For the Anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all capacities and talents with which nature has endowed her or him, and turn them to social account.

Errico Malatesta: Violence is the whole essence of authoritarianism, just as the repudiation of violence is the whole essence of communist anarchism.

Errico Malatesta: We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves.
Errico Malatesta: By anarchist spirit I mean that deeply human sentiment, which aims at the good of all, freedom and justice for all, solidarity and love among the people; which is not an exclusive characteristic only of self-declared anarchists, but inspires all people who have a generous heart and an open mind.

Henry David Thoreau: There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

Charlie Chaplin: I'm sorry, but I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone, if possible, Jew, gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness — not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another.
In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood, for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world — millions of despairing men, women and little children — victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me, I say — do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed — the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people and so long as men die, liberty will never perish.
Soldiers, don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think or what to feel. Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men — machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate! Only the unloved hate — the unloved and the unnatural.
Soldiers, don't fight for slavery. Fight for liberty! In the 17th Chapter of St. Luke it is written: "the Kingdom of God is within man" — not one man nor a group of men, but in all men. In you! You, the people have the power — the power to create machines. The power to create happiness. You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure.
Then, in the name of democracy, let us use that power. Let us all unite! Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give youth the future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They do not fulfill their promise; they never will. Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people. Now, let us fight to fulfill that promise. Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness.
Soldiers - in the name of democracy, let us all unite.

Some observations on editing Wikipedia

This section of my user page contains resources intended to assist Wikipedia (WP) editors.

Warning: This essay is in draft form, and thus somewhat rambling.

This essay contains advice based on my personal opinions as an individual Wikipedia contributor, and represents my own personal viewpoints only. The views expressed on these pages are mine alone and not those of the WP community, the Wikimedia foundation, my employer nor anyone else. Consider these views with discretion, and don't interpret this essay (or any of the viewpoints expressed on this user page) as a WP policy or guideline. And if you have a significantly different - or even a completely contradictory - set of viewpoints that you would like to share with me, please post a note on my user talk page listing the data/ evidence/ facts in support of your personal insights.

My views are based on browsing many WP articles and article talk pages, user pages and user talk pages, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) archives, Administrators' Noticeboards archives, and various additional discussion boards (e.g. civility board, etc). There, I observed the behavior of some editors exhibiting nasty, hostile and disruptive behavior, including: lack of respect for other editors, personal attacks, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, casting aspersions on others, using offensive language (including, but not limited to, abusive, rude, insulting or derogatory language), gaming the system, stonewalling, spurious argumentation (e.g. special pleading), creating and spreading Wikidrama and World Wrestling Federation-style melodrama, using wordplay formulated to mock users, WikiBullying, WikiBaiting and other forms of disruptive editing and disruptive behavior --- some sophisticated, subtle or indirect; some more crude.

I hope the material below would help you understand why you should refrain from violating the spirit, principles or letter of Wikipedia policies, and why you should not behave disruptively towards editors. I am personally opposed to all disruptive behavior. I strongly encourage you to be respectful and civil to the utmost in all your endeavors and to always strive to exhibit solidarity, camaraderie and generosity in all your interactions on WP. The best way to enforce civility is to model it in one's own interactions. But I also hope to discourage you from expecting that, just because you may act civilly towards others, they are obligated to reciprocate. Don't expect that others must behave courteously just because you acted in a friendly, polite, respectful fashion. More generally, you will be a considerably happier editor if you stop expecting Wikipedia to be rational, fair, coherent, consistent, or anything like that. Additionally, if you find contributing to Wikipedia isn't enjoyable, I'd log off until such time (if ever) you find that it might be.

On WP articles with contentious subject matter, a small group of full time editors with a more-or-less commonly shared ideology, beliefs or viewpoints can successfully push their POV in the article (in covert and/or overt ways). In the majority of cases these editors don't even need to coordinate their efforts or intentionally collaborate or cooperate in any substantial way (nor are they members of a conspiracy, cabal or cult); nonetheless, they may be likely to prevail in some editorial and behavioral disputes with those who simply can't afford the enormous time investment. These issues (as well as many additional insights on Wikipedia) are developed more fully in various user-contributed essays on WP (e.g. in the extended quotes I provide below from WP: Expert retention and from the user pages of User: The Devil's Advocate, User: NE Ent and User: Beyond My Ken ).

Wikipedia is based on loose collaboration between WP community members. However, high alignment of the participants is essential. Overall, there is a high degree of alignment among WP community members. The alignment is provided by the core policies of NPOV (Neutral Point of View), V (Verifiability), RS (Reliable Sources) and Wikipedia:NOR (No Original Research), as well as many additional [important, although somewhat less important] policies, guidelines, rules etc, as well as a small army of administrators willing and able to enforce the alignment. The administrators also have the willingness and ability to temporarily block the access of abusive users to editing Wikipedia articles, i.e., the access of users whose article editing actions and/ or behaviors towards other users fall significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia’s core tenets and are disruptive to the continued development of the encyclopedia. Administrators’ actions on Wikipedia are not intended to punish abusive users – they are only intended to bring violators back into alignment with the letter – and more importantly the spirit - of Wikipedia’s core philosophy/ tenets/ goals/ reason for existence (raison d'être). Thus, it is correct to emphasize the loose collaboration of the members of the community, but we should not risk glorifying loose collaboration too much, without sufficient emphasis on the fact that a moderate amount of structure/ coordination/ enforcement is essential to ascertain members of the community remain highly aligned with Wikipedia's most basic, most fundamental vision/ tenets/ goals/ objectives/ spirit/ philosophy/ reason-for-existence/ foundational policies.

In the sequel, I discuss some issues related to editing WP. As always, don't accept my words unquestioningly. Read critically and skeptically, and verify all data/ evidence/ facts for yourself based on your own research and your own reliable sources.

• From Jimbo Wales' talk page:

I am extremely, extremely frustrated with my recent edit experience. I edited the Mazda article yesterday to add a little information about keiretsu. (See [1]) My edit was deemed 'irrelevant' and was quickly reverted. It seemed to be a judgmental call and editor(s) refused to engage in any serious discussion.[2] My attempt to draw in attention at the Administrators' noticeboard was quickly shut down, by the same editor [3]. My question is: is there a place in Wiki for editors like me, who lack time and experience, to contribute, and to reflect the ideas of many? Or the Wiki community would only accept those few with more experience and time. The outcome would mean whether this was my last participation into this (once) great project of you. Sincerely,--Now wiki (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Step #1 is discuss at Talk:Mazda, not the user talk pages. Try that first, but be aware it may take a few days or a week to attract enough users. Step #2 is Be patient. Otherwise, the next steps to take are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (i.e., WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:DRN, etc.). If your edits are correct and appropriate, they will eventually prevail in some form, but be prepared to accept compromise and/or rejection. Rgrds. --64.85.215.214 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Try editing 20 different pages before getting demoralized: It is easy to imagine WP having degenerated into a hostile place which rejects all newcomers; however, try to update several articles, and compare the experiences when working on each page. If a person only visited the beaches at Nice (France) they might conclude all beaches have stones, or only swam at Mombasa then conclude all beaches have seaweed, or only walked at Virginia Beach, VA then might think all beaches have extensive white sand. Edit 20 articles for a few days and compare a variety of results. -Wikid77 21:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• From Jimbo Wales' talk page:

I take no strong view on the wisdom of the original topic ban, nor on the wisdom of lifting it now. As a general principle, tendentious and speculative editing can be wrong, even if the editor is proven right in the long run about the underlying facts. But on the other hand, and also as a general principle, we ought to be kind and forgiving and always willing to give people a chance to learn and improve. It is up to the community to sift through the facts and come to an informed judgment call about particular cases. The main reason I'm posting here, then, is to suggest that blocking someone based on a post to my talk page raising the general issue of lifting a topic ban (and engaging in part with the topic itself) strikes me as unwise in the long run. One of the important principles of Wikipedia is that we ought to be open to thoughtful disagreement and dissent, and my talk page has by long tradition been somewhat of a haven for people to come and raise broader philosophical issues. There are limits to this, of course - it wouldn't be wise to allow my talk page to become a useless battleground for editors who have been excluded elsewhere! But the occasional post there, which would not be welcome elsewhere, strikes me as a useful safety valve, and also a good way for me to keep in touch with edge issues in the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Support. I've the impression that the general editing climate on the relevant pages isn't so good, you have to look at the behavior of all editors in that context. Sceptre has had a time out from that area, I think Sceptre's return will improve the editing climate. Count Iblis (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly would unbanning someone who was topic banned for a large amount of disruption improve the editing climate? To me it looks like it would just add more fuel to the fire. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Being inside a group where there are tensions can over time cause someone to lose a reasonable sense of perspective, you can get dragged down into a mindset where you feel the need to prove your point in various unproductive ways (you don't see that it is unproductive yourself, of course). If you have left that group, it may well be the remaining editors whose behavior is now less than ideal (e.g. BaseballBuggs has been mentioned on Jimbo's page). So, the person returning will have regained a more reasonable perspective and will be able to have a more positive impact on the group. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• From this subsection of Wikipedia: Arbitration --- The Arbitration Committee is the ultimate dispute resolution method. Although disputes usually arise from a disagreement between two opposing views on how articles should read, the Arbitration Committee explicitly refuses to directly rule on which view should be adopted. Statistical analyses suggest that the committee ignores the content of disputes and focuses on the way disputes are conducted instead, functioning not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting editors, but to weed out problematic editors while allowing potentially productive editors back in to participate. Therefore, the committee does not dictate the content of articles, although it sometimes condemns content changes when it deems the new content violates Wikipedia policies (for example, if the new content is biased). (Comment: the committee may (directly) rule that a content change is inappropriate, but may NOT (directly) rule that a certain content is inappropriate.) Its remedies include cautions and probations (used in 63.2% of cases) and banning editors from articles (43.3%), subject matters (23.4%) or Wikipedia (15.7%). Complete bans from Wikipedia are largely limited to instances of impersonation and anti-social behavior. When conduct is not impersonation or anti-social, but rather anti-consensus or violating editing policies, warnings tend to be issued. (Comment: this needs to be clarified. Anti-consensus behavior appears to be defined mostly as "edit warring".)

• Paraphrasing WP:Don't assume: If you don't feel like assuming good faith about another user's actions, you don't have to. You can still give the benefit of the doubt by simply not assuming, one way or another. As User:JeffBillman put it: If I may offer a bit of unsanctioned advice: Assume nothing. Don't assume good faith, even though that's something of a rule here on Wikipedia. Don't assume another editor has a particular intent, whether "good" or "bad". Don't even assume another editor is a human rather than a dog. Why? Because when you make any assumption, even one of good faith, you are creating for yourself an illusion from which the truth may disappoint you. More pertinently, you expect a series of interactions from your fellow editors that may or may not be fulfilled. Ultimately, you reduce your fellow editors to your own prejudices and preconceptions. If instead you assume nothing, nobody will ever correctly accuse you of assuming bad faith, and you will never fall short of the ideal of assuming good faith. Indeed, it's the best way out of that thought trap. Cheers, JeffBillman (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"What do I think? Well, at the risk of sounding rude, I couldn't care any less. Let's put it this way: I don't assume there's any truth to Niteshift's claim of being a member of the "vast right wing conspiracy". I don't assume that it's a lie, either; or a joke, or anything else. It is to me, simply a statement Niteshift wished to share with readers of his userspace, for reasons I'm rather disinterested in knowing at the moment. Because of this, I don't assume anything about Niteshift when I read his contributions here. I find this to be a much more tenable position than the assumption of "good faith" Wikipedia asks us to maintain. Because I don't assume good faith per se, it's also difficult for me to assume bad faith. I'll admit this is a fairly recent discovery of mine. Up until recently, I tried to assume good faith of my fellow editors, and failed miserably at times. This seems to be working out for me thus far. Just a suggestion ..." JeffBillman (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: No angry mastodons: "A related mistake is to speculate about the intellectual capacity or the mental health of other editors. People do not rise to their best selves when they are reminded of their worst selves or accused of faults they do not possess. Editors who make these accusations exhibit poor self-control. Leave the angry mastodons in the Ice Age and focus on the article."

Ijon Tichy note: In other words, don't assume any user attributes at all, e.g. whether they are intelligent or not, whether they have integrity or not, whether they are a "good" or "bad" person, etc. Furthermore, don't speculate or claim to know that an editor has or has not read a source, read the article, or read a policy or guideline. Don't focus on users, focus on the sources - make statements similar to these examples: "As noted in the (source, WP guideline, etc) it is the case that X, Y and Z." Your comments, whether on edit summaries or talk pages should address the sources, Wikipedia article content, structure, policies and implementation of policy in accordance with the WMF mission rather than the habits, knowledge, skills, abilities, or lack thereof, of WP editors.

• As the TLDR essay notes, "As a label, [TLDR] is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing." So is TE. One of my favorite sections from WP: Too long; didn't read (TLDR): --- Maintain civility --- Sometimes a person might feel that a reader's decision to pointedly mention this essay during a discussion is dismissive and rude. Therefore, courteous editors might, as an alternative to citing WP:TLDR, create a section on the longwinded editor's talk page and politely ask them to write more concisely. A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an (necessarily or unnecessarily) wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity.

• From Civility enforcement: (a) Inconsistencies in civility enforcement - Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. ( See this, and this). (b) Difficulties in defining civility - The civility policy has been the subject of ongoing debate since its creation in 2004, with over 1700 edits to the policy and more than 3400 edits to its talk page (both of these data points retrieved in Feb. 2012). This ongoing debate highlights continuing disagreement on what constitutes incivility, and particularly sanctionable incivility, and makes it difficult for editors and administrators to apply the policy.

• From User: The Devil's Advocate --- My editing philosophy: In my editing I strive to take the approach of a Bohemian Wikipedian. I draw my inspiration from the values espoused in the film Moulin Rouge! of Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Love. These also reflect the kind of values I try to uphold in life. As it pertains to Wikipedia I apply these values in this way:
  • Truth - Too often people take the dictum of verifiability, not truth too far by presuming that if a reliable source can be found to make the claim then it is ok for Wikipedia to say it in the editorial voice. Usually this occurs because of an editor's own bias seeping into his or her editing process. At times because there is an absence of contravening sources editors similarly feel confident in using stronger language than that of their sources. However, I believe this goes against an unspoken rule that Wikipedia should always strive for factual accuracy. I seek to counter the systemic bias that often works its way into contentious topic areas in pursuit of the greater truth. That means using the most neutral wording the sources support and, save for "sky is blue"-type situations, in-text attribution should be the norm. The goal is making the project a place to find the whole story with eyes unclouded by prejudice, contrary to the more controlled sources of information in the world.
  • Beauty - When it comes to any article one is likely to find more than a few instances of repetition and less-than-engaging wording. One of my objectives in contributing to Wikipedia is to improve the stylistic appearance of any article I come across. That means, to provide an example, trimming down the instances of paragraphs starting with the same letter, and especially the same word. Another big issue is avoiding the timeline-like style certain articles about ongoing events tend to take on out of a general apathy of editors. By beautifying the project wherever I can my hope is that more readers will be engaged with the repository of knowledge Wikipedia represents.
  • Freedom - This project is first and foremost an experiment in information democracy. Submitting the whole of human ingenuity and knowledge to the task of building a source of knowledge for all requires great care and consideration. As predicted by the iron law of oligarchy, Wikipedia has fallen prey to the same abusive tendencies of any governance system. Rule by consensus may appear to be a policy to cherish, but it is all too often misused by editors to impose their own will on the project. Assuming good faith keeps us willfully blind to some extent about what is taking place. Look through any article in a contentious topic area and you are liable to find a consortium of editors from the same ideological persuasion who have become the page's self-appointed gatekeepers. Enterprising users who go against their will often find themselves driven away, whether it is by falling into a revert trap or simply becoming frustrated with endless stone-walling. Unfortunately, Wikipedia looks more favorably upon the gatekeepers as they greatly outnumber their opponent. Always looking for a way to satisfy all parties without compromising my principles and drawing attention to the biases of all sides is the best way I can think of to insure this experiment remains open to as many people as possible.
  • Love - Above all things I believe in WikiLove. WikiLove is like oxygen. WikiLove lifts us up where we belong. All you need is WikiLove. For me it means keeping an open mind on all things. Were more editors to leave themselves open it would be easier to defuse most disputes. Remain open to having your edits rewritten. Remain open to changing your mind. Remain open to changing your actions even if you won't change your mind. Too much potential is lost in the ideological rigidity of groupthink and confirmation bias. Pursuit of WikiLove means that the only things we should try to take seriously are the feelings of others. Sometimes it is hard to stay cool and we have all been there at one point or another. We should thus not let an occasional lapse determine someone's fate as none of us are perfect. Keep in mind that we do this not for ourselves, but for all those who may witness this body of work.
  • To sum it all up, my goal is to try and uphold the idea of what Wikipedia can be, while dealing with the reality of what Wikipedia is at this moment. More than anything I want this project to be a great service to all truth-seekers in the world. It should be a light of knowledge in dark places when all other lights go out. One could say that I am a true believer when it comes to this idea and, even if it leaves me battered and bruised, I will strive to defend the principles of this project above all else.

• Some reflections on WP:Randy in Boise: It is interesting to learn how some editors enable each other and systematically take the side of members in their group in the disputes with which they inevitably become involved (disputes with editors outside their group). Frequently, they discover behavioral problems with every editor who opposes the POV pushing of a member of their group. Meanwhile they ignore or minimize their own behavioral problems.

• From User: The Devil's Advocate: --- Things to Do --- "... Write essay on "camping" at WP articles; Write essay on "railroading" by groups to potentially link with camping; Write essay on "echo chamber" to discuss groupthink on Wikipedia to link from camping and railroading; Write essay on "doubling down" in contentious disputes ..."

• Jimbo Wales on disruptive editing: "In the old days, I would have just personally blocked the troll on sight, and that would have been the end of that. One of the things that makes wikis work is precisely the ability of the community to tell people to knock off the nonsense or get blocked. If you go back to the disastrous culture of unmoderated Usenet groups, you can see what happens if it is too difficult to block trolls from participation. What happens is that good people reach the end of their good humor and lash out. The social environment degrades to people screaming at each other and it becomes quite hard to tell the good people from the bad. If someone says that they "consider Wikipedia to be an intrinsically evil concept" then the solution is not to get emotional and lash out at them in anger, but to realize that telling them to fuck off is not nearly as satisfying as maintaining a good sense of humor while making them fuck off (with a permanent ban). We have better things to do!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A classic case of WP: BOOMERANG, from Administrators' Noticeboard:

Uncivil discussion by User:Sean.hoyland -- User:Sean.hoyland appears to be wikihounding and violating WP:Civility. He has made matters worse by impeding honest efforts at dispute resolution. He appears unable to control his battleground behavior. His comments are in clear violation of civility, namely, by "making snide comments, making personal remarks about editors, and being aggressive." He recently put me in the same category as "advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, and others who "deny the existence of evidence." (See WP:NPA: "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. [See also Godwin's law.]") I have done nothing to deserve such attacks.

• As can be seen, I have voiced concerns politely and made an honest effort to engage in discussion in Talk:Israel#Palestinian state, but he has responded aggressively to dispute resolution of a reasonable disagreement. It is an honest discussion that does not show any signs of WP:NOTADVOCATE, for which he cites as his reason for rejected any form of DR.[redacted]
• He said I and another editor lack "basic behavioral attributes," but never explained what he means, for his reason not to resolve the dispute.[4][redacted]
• In a search for guidance, I looked for editors who are willing to volunteer to help resolve disputes. I found an admin and made a polite request for advice for this situation. User:Sean.hoyland, apparently by wikihounding, made an aggressive, uncivil, and rude comment on the editor's page after my request:

  I am not refusing to "cooperate in any form of dispute resolution". I am refusing to cooperate with you. ... I also don't cooperate with advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, a variety of editors who deny the existence of evidence, because it is a waste of time.

I have acted professionally and collegially and have done nothing to deserve these abrasive comments. I have sought to resolve our disagreement, but this user is making that difficult if not impossible. He cannot control his battleground behavior, and while I have remained civil he is not making an effort to engage in dispute resolution, leaving many cases at a standstill. I kindly bring this to your attention. --Precision123 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I took the time to read first 20 edits of this discussion: Talk:Israel#Palestinian state. Precision123 is performing Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in re-opening the infamous case that West Bank and Gaza Strip would not be Palestinian (occupied) territories but disputed territories per WP:NPOV. I can understand that the way he insists despite the responses that he receives could upset and make many lose their temper. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  (edit) And I lost my time. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no civil POV pushing at all. There are no fringe theories that I push or give any weight to. I fully support describing the Palestinian territories as the Palestinian territories. My position is against the POV pushing of "State of Palestine" on the borders. I fully support that the Palestinian territories are the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the reliable sources do not refer to those territories as the state of Palestine. (Same with most WP articles). Please do not make those accusations. --Precision123 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why Pluto2012 is bringing up an unrelated edit that is a year old, to which I have made no further edits since. Pluto2012's edit was just quickly removed by another editor there just now, so I am not sure what his grievance is. I have made many improvements to articles of political parties (e.g., Hatnuah, Meretz, Likud, Green Movement, Ale Yarok, Yesh Atid, Shas, etc.) virtually all of them uncontroversial and accepted by editors still today. You may see. No accusations of POV pushing before. This is not related, so please stay on topic. --Precision123 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Pluto2012:, you want to see civil POV pushing by Precision123 just look here: Talk:Haaretz.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is another case where Precision123 tries to make a case out of nothing against Sean.hoyland. Start being a useful contributor and you will surely get better replies and cooperation. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please allow the admins to respond and read for themselves. This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. The diffs speak for themselves. A lack of civility and effort to cooperate is apparent. I have always been a useful and professional contributor and have been civil, so please leave your personal attacks to yourself. --Precision123 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123 says This group of allied editors are trying to discredit me with no explanation. WP:WIAPA says Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. What's wrong with this picture?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I have used several diffs pointing to specific incidents, unlike the other editors' comments, including yours. Please avoid accusations and let the admins see for themselves. I have acted professionally and have done nothing to deserve rude remarks or aggressive comparisons to Holocaust deniers when I politely request dispute resolution. --Precision123 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Precision123 needs to be more concise—the opening paragraph is filled with irrelevant links (people here know what "intelligent design" is, and come to think of it, they know what CIVIL is as well). I looked at the first link that appeared to be about the issue, and found a perfectly civil and helpful comment from Sean Hoyland, currently visible here. The comment may be regarded as a little blunt, but all editors who have met WP:CPUSH contributors know that mediation is a waste of time in certain cases. My recommendation would be for Precision123 to examine the message in Sean's comment and evaluate whether any of it may have merit. Wikipedia is not available for advocacy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was trying to be as inclusive as I could, but I will take your advice. My concern is over an editor who essentially acts a stumbling block to dispute resolution as could be seen there. I have not done anything to be put in categories with people like Holocaust denier, intelligent design advocates, etc., with whom mediation might actually be worthless. Rather, I want to pursue dispute resolution, and this editor just responds abrasively and rudely to me. --Precision123 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Precision123, can you please stop editing your remarks after people have responded to them? It's extremely confusing for everyone who's trying to follow the conversation, if anyone still is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if it was confusing for you. I put a note that says [redact] because I took the advice to make it more concise. I do not want my statement to be misconstrued. Never would I do anything like POV push (civil or otherwise), and there is no evidence that I have. Dispute resolution is between editors who do not agree, not between those who do. All I ask for is an honest discussion, and an editor should respond in a manner that is civil. Responding so aggressively to a polite request for DR is disruptive and unfair. --Precision123 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not trying it get involved in admin matters or even know if I'm allowed to post here. If I'm not my apologies. Sean Hoyland isn't patting anyone on the butt and tucking them in good night but he's hardly breached civility. I'm involved with this dispute or or least the one involving regarding Israel. Sean maybe a stumbling block for dispute resolution. But all avenues of dispute resolution used have been optional. I hate to assume bad faith but that is all can assume here. I have to ask you Precision if this is an effort to get Sean out of the way temporarily so that you can have a better chance at forcing a consensus. Again my apologies administrators if I shouldn't have posted here. As party involved in the dispute that lead to this I thought would be appropriate. Echo me if I'm required here for anything.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not at all, Serialjoepsycho. I would love to cooperate with him or any other editor in dispute resolution. I have never requested that he be blocked. As you can see I am understandably offended by such abrasive comments; I did nothing to deserve them and it is disrupting an honest effort at dispute resolution. But I did not want him to be blocked or banned. We have a reasonable disagreement that is best guided by an admin or mediator. I think that would be great for all of us if he were to engage, and did not impede, dispute resolution. I am sorry if that was not clear before. --Precision123 (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the talk page, Precision123's behavior here and elsewhere, I have imposed an ARBPIA Discretionary Sanctions 1-week article ban on Precision123 editing Israel and its talk page. He is acting politely and within administrative channels, but in a persistently disruptive manner in which he is acting as if the others around him cannot have a valid differing viewpoint. This is not collegial; we do not require everyone sing Kumbaya and agree on the real world positions, but we do require that you respect that others can have differing opinions and that those are valid and need to be respected. Merely holding a differing opinion is not grounds for administrative challenges or disruptive behavior, even if those are done very politely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Not previously familiar with WP:ARBPIA, or if I were in the past, I've forgotten it. Are you doing this under the "Standard discretionary sanctions" section, the remedy 6)? Not challenging, just seeking to be clear, especially since Arbcom's repealed some findings and provisions as well as enacting others that weren't originally included. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, standard discretionary sanctions are now enabled on all PIA articles. They enable any uninvolved administrator to warn any editor who they believe is editing in a disruptive manner in the field, which was done twice earlier this year for Precision123. Once warned, any uninvolved administrator can article or topic ban, etc. etc. Arbitration enforcement DS admin actions are not subject to one-admin overturn, but can be appealed or reviewed and overturned subject to a reasonable consensus on any appropriate noticeboard (which I think is AN, ANI, or AE). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Boomerang. I think from looking at those differences that Sean hoyland is the cool-headed person, besides being overall a constructive editor. Precision123 on the other hand appears to be a POV pusher and his overal behavior in my opinion warrants a topic ban of some sort. Pass a Method talk 16:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for forgiveness

More than a year has passed since I was blocked for stupidly threatening User:Jayron32. I'm from Argentina and after an edit-war, I said the following: "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..." or so I said. I well-deserved to be blocked because I was beyond immature and stupid. Then, I created another account to start anew as a respected user. Well, the sock-puppetry accusations began and I couldn't ever again work on Wikipedia. I deny sock-puppetry since I don't, I can't use blocked accounts and I'm not interested in having more than one account. So, I'm now asking to be forgiven and allowed to create another account and start anew. Thank you indeed. --190.178.156.205 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't even remember it, but if you're here to do good work, go do that. --Jayron32 23:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see, I would support the editor coming back. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron for giving me a second and last opportunity!, I've been working in the shadows and doing well with User:Japanesehelper but I'm afraid of going public (i.e. nominating candidates for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates) and getting blocked for the alleged "sock-puppetry" that never occurred since I never used two accounts at the same time. Who can guarantee me that "Japanesehelper", my only account, will not be blocked? Thank you.--190.178.183.38 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No one can guarantee anything, but the person you attacked has given his blessing for you to be back, one other person thinks that is the best unbureaucratic way to deal with the problem (me), and assuming you just edit and stay out of trouble and not war or get into fights, I don't see a problem. Assuming others don't argue against this solution, you could just point to this discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. You can see my record with "Japanesehelper", it's cleaner than a brand new t-shirt. I was immature when that happened. Promise it won't happen ever again. --Japanesehelper (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesnt sockpuppetry include using new accounts to evade blocks? Howunusual (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. We're not here to mete out perpetual punishment, we're here to build an encyclopedia. This isn't a game. If Japanesehelper wished to be helpful, I am not going to get in their way. --Jayron32 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a legitimate question, but again I agree with Jayron. When someone appears to be very sincere, apologetic and sets a clear future path for their behavior, and the person who was on the receiving end last time (Jayron) gives their blessing, I think we owe it to ourselves and them to take a chance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's not prevent good work from being done. Probably a bad use of clean start, but WP:IAR - a productive editor need not be a perfect editor, both in content or character. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably worth verifying whether this is an IP sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive, a racist ultranationalist extremist and sociopathic liar who in the spare time off wiki writes things like "fucking mohammedan apes and baby-killers", "Fuck you !! stupid Islamofascist terrorist ape dressed in rags. I hope you and all your family of monkeys shall receive what you deserve when Israel kick your coward ass. Asshole! ISRAEL WIN", "Don’t worry bitch, nobody wants your fucking Arab Keffiyeh. Nobody wants to look like an ugly terrorist monkey, except for Purim", "¡¡¡God bless Nakba!!! (Jewish victory over the war of extermination that the Arabs brought upon them 65 years ago). Never in history was a "catastrophe" so well deserved! God bless Israel. Keep strong, united, prepared and brave.", ""palestine" does not exist, never did and never will", "Yes, you are in this struggle and you will be defeated like all the enemies of my nation. I'm a Jew from Argentina who soon will make Aliya and join the IDF in order to kick, destroy and fight against bullshit scum like you. Fuck off you fucking marxist. Leave Israel with all your fucking Arab ape friends. We don't want people like you in Medinat Israel. AM ISRAEL CHAI VE KAIAM ISRAEL WIN". Sean.hoyland - talk 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that Japanesehelper does not look like AndresHerutJaim, but AndresHerutJaim's persistent socking via both accounts and Argentina based IPs has been such a major problem over the past few years in the WP:ARBPIA topic area and its suburbs that experienced editors will assume that any Buenos Aires based IP active in the ARBPIA topic area that appears to be advocating for Israel or against Palestine or Iran is a sock. Is there a diff for the comment "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian..." ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree some idea of who this editor actually is would be helpful, at least if we are going to give any indication they may be allowed to stick around.

I don't know much about the editor Sean.hoyland mentions above, but Special:Contributions/Japanesehelper is looking a lot like Special:Contributions/Timothyhere who abused many sockpuppets Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Timothyhere + Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothyhere + many which were either blocked per WP:DENY or which unblocked but had their contributions deleted). While obviously it was never confirmed by a CU, they did sometimes edit under an Argentinian IP. Particularly in their later stages, they seemed to mostly troll the Reference Desk, Help Desk and Teahouse. But they did hang around ITN at various stages. Beyond simple trolling, they did seem to have a particular interest in Nazi Germany and serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer similar to Japanesehelper.

They also claimed to be Japanese at least once Special:Contributions/Kotjap with a corresponding interest in Japanese related topics although I think they showed the same interest even with other identities. Kotjaps claims to be Japanese weren't particularly believable. IIRC they claimed to be living in Japan with some elaborate back story like being a 55 year old former hikikomori who's father beat them [5] yet never showed any actual evidence of understanding Japanese. (I can't recall if they ever explicitly said they spoke Japanese but I think they did repeatedly saying they were not a native English speaker, which may be true regardless, which combined with their claims about their identity lead to an obvious conclusion. And even IIRC when Japanese editors suggested they ask their question in Japanese they never said they didn't actually speak Japanese.) Or really any evidence of knowing that much about Japan you would expect from someone who lived there. (And of course, it's very likely they were editing from an Argentinian IP.)

As stated above, it seemed clear they were trolling. Over time, it became fairly obvious they already knew the answer to many of their 'questions' or otherwise didn't care. Furthermore, beyond the Japanese identity, they pretended to be from all over the world usually mentioning stuff in 'my country' or similar. In particular, in many of their later identities, they claimed to be from tiny island/s nations, or at least small poor places you wouldn't generally expect many wikipedians from.

I don't know if they ever said the stuff about "If I were an Israeli soldier and you a Palestinian" to Jayron32, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't the reason why the Timothyhere round of socks was blocked. It could be that the AndresHerutJaim and Timothyhere group are the same editor and no one noticed before. I would also note that if it's either editor, their indication their disruption stopped over a year ago isn't particularly believable. (I believe there were more recent Timothyhere socks than the late June ones but I'm lazy to look for them.)

I'm not suggesting an immediate block since I'm not seeing an obvious signs of disruption under the new account. And if it is Timothyhere they seem to have given up on pretending to be from places they clearly aren't. But if it's either or both editor/s, lying about their history and why they were blocked is not a good sign. And they should expect to be on a short leash not because of anything to do with forgiveness but because we have good reason to think they can't be trusted to continue to edit.

Edit: The most recent probably trolling from Timothyhere I can find is Special:Contributions/190.178.141.180. It's nothing particularly wrong but given the history it was hard to believe their claim they were "working for a psychology project on the case regarding Kato". Also looking a bit more, I think Timothyhere had an interest in terrorism and in particular Al Qaeda under their many identities, in particular in relation to Canada. But I don't recall much interest in the Israel-Palestinian issue or Iran.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not the correct process for requesting an unblock. The editor says their account was blocked 1 year ago and they apparently set up a sock account to continue editing shortly afterwards. They have not even told us what the original account was, or how they were blocked. Furthermore, if they continue editing, they are not normally allowed to make a clean start but must keep the old account after it has been unblocked. My suggestion is to close this discussion thread, block the IP and Japanesehelper, and ask them to make the request on their talk page or, if that is blocked, through email. At that time, a CU can be conducted. TFD (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it is easier to watch someone when they are in the open, and the liklihood of them becoming productive is higher as well. My opinion hasn't changed. I won't block and would oppose anyone else at this juncture. Wait and see, monitor, hope for the best. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

When you deal with civil POV pushers, you will question your own sanity and at times start thinking that you might in fact be the problem. If this happens, IME you should take a step back and think about your true reasons for editing. This should give you perspective. If you are truly here to build an encyclopedia, then you are not inherently the problem. You may have gone about it improperly and made mistakes, but that's okay, it happens, the Wikipedia community tends to forgive people who make innocent mistakes. However, the people who are not here to build an encyclopedia pose the real problem to wikipedia's "system". Often, they do everything right and rarely make mistakes (if they did things wrong, they would have been "weeded out" already).

In my experience, the best way to deal with civil POV pushing is to simply get more experience editing. The problem with civil POV pushers is they happen to be very knowledgeable about the way Wikipedia works and they know how to game the system and WP:WIKILAWYER without getting caught; if they weren't that good at it, they would have been dealt with accordingly by now. They also know the limits, and won't game the system or wikilawyer an unreasonable amount that will get them into trouble. Civil POV pushers have an agenda, and they will manipulate the rules to get what they want. This is what will drive you crazy. They will tell you you are violating all these rules, and they might actually make some seemingly very good arguments. You will likely begin to question your sanity. However, they are wikilawyering, using the "letter of the law" (Wikipedia policies) too strictly while ignoring the "spirit of the law". They are also probably rhetorically skilled, and will find ways to shift the conversation into a topic that better suits their agenda (ie you might find that you are talking about trivial interpretations of policies or other vague theoretical nonsense instead of the actual content). Do not try to rationally reason with them, as it will only lead you off track and drive you further from a consensus.

Once you start to better understand the policies and all the little ins and outs, you can start picking up on the rules that they are twisting and distorting and bending and blurring. Now, when you recognize their tactics, you can call them out on it. This should make a big difference to your editing experience. You will begin to know for certain that you are not at fault and this should ease your mind. You should also be more equipped to hold your ground in the content dispute. Please know that they will not give you any leeway and they will quickly come to understand your strengths and weaknesses. So if you're really lazy about going and verifying material in sources, they will not make any efforts to verify it for you. For example, they might cite "pages 110-170".

I know you asked for a "town sheriff", but unfortunately I don't know the best place to find one. Very rarely will you find a sheriff that cares enough to take the time to hear your case and begin to understand what the POV pusher(s) are doing. At first glance, most sheriffs will think the pusher(s) are doing nothing wrong. However, if someone really takes the time to understand your situation, they will be able to help (assuming they thoroughly know the rules). No matter what you do, if you hold on long enough, someone will stumble by. Things that seem like curses might actually turn out to be blessings. For example, the POV pusher(s) might report you for edit warring or something like that. However, this will get an admin involved. Hopefully, that admin will catch on and if he or she does, he or she may help you.

If someone does come around and helps you out, you will probably find that they are making all of the same arguments you've been making the whole time, but are citing policies while doing so. This should truly put your mind to rest. Personally, I think the reason why Wikipedia is an unreliable source boils down to civil POV pushing. In reality, any person can learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia and will have a relatively easy time pushing any opinion they want. They have no fear for their reputation or their license or their job because editing Wikipedia can be totally anonymous. Furthermore, not only can they push their POV onto articles, but sometimes they try to do the same to policy pages, in an effort to broaden their POV's influence from a single article to every article.

Charles35 (talk), 2013 (UTC)

(Ijon Tichy Note: However, injecting POV into well-established WP policies is generally much more difficult than inserting POV into WP articles. Experienced editors are generally pretty good at detecting POV pushing in policies as well as in [most] articles.)

From Jimbo Wales' talk page:

Editing uncontroversially can be tricky, and most people either run into serious problems sooner or later, or they just quit in despair. Often times, perhaps most of the time, our wiki-processes work very well in resolving problems, but it is not at all uncommon for people to be treated unfairly, even terribly, by administrators, and we should not pretend that this system we've created is anywhere near perfect. Everyking (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The system is not perfect. Do some administrators have an attitude and misuse their tools? Yes. Is there always a route to overcome and resolve conflict? No, not always. Is that frustrating? Yep. But some editors do try. ... An abusive admin is not a content dispute. Claiming you were unjustly blocked is not a content dispute. Complaining about an admin on AN is likely to be seen somewhat skeptically by most unless a clear cut case and seems to be a dead end to many and don't bother. --Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not exceptional. Been editing for 6+ years, with 25K+ edits to articles (a lot of them brought up at WP:ANI and WP:BLP so some degree of controversy is implied), disagreed with established users and admins, and have never been blocked on purpose. The "trick" is to stay calm and civil, be aware of WP:BRD, and make use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms (talk pages, noticeboards, WP:ANI, etc.). If no one seems inclined to help you out, perhaps the issue isn't as big as you think it is. --NeilN (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you were never blocked on accident. Many of those routes you mention are strictly content venues, where ANI is for administrative intervention...where an admin has to step in, and BLP of course is to get more eyes and opinions on a situation or article of concern that are not within BLP policy and guidelines (something very important) but not a conflict venue (defining a conflict as being between editors, not directly about content, although indirectly about content). It isn't as much a trick to stay calm, but a trick to know exactly where to take your issue, if you're very sure it is an issue. The best one can do now is find a trusted admin who you can seek some assistance in an informal or formal manner. If your issue is another admin, then you have the AN board where you can formally complain about a specific administrator. But that can make new comers and even some old timers think twice since you are reporting an admin...to an admin. I've worked a good deal through our DR mechanisms, there is no "Conflict" resolution, just "Dispute" resolution. And we define a dispute on Wikipedia as being "content" issues. If two people are simply unable to get along and have active conflicts, we don't tend to deal well with the situation and the personal conflict seems to blow up and end up at arbcom. Everything shouldn't be a "High court" decision and yes...I do see arb com as such, whether that be true or not, but they are our equivalent of a high court of peers. Not a knock against them, just that maybe all such conflicts need not end up on their plate.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As for me, 26,000 edits, 36% to article space, and I've never been blocked, and not even come close. I've never had an administrator say a mean word to me. My secret? I do my best to follow policies and guidelines, I don't edit war, I try hard to be polite and helpful, I compromise, and I try to resolve disputes instead of escalating them. When things get nasty, I take a break. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." --Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. ----Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia attracts people of varying type and situation. Some with different ways of interacting in this medium of text only. Everyone acting perfectly after hours of research, writing, copy editing, etc. is not always going to happen. It can tire a person out quickly when someone decides to challenge something you feel has legitimate value, sourced reliably etc.. We can expect the best, but we have to admit imperfection exists, help guide it and allow some venting. We can only learn and grow when given the room to make mistakes. Mistakes can always be overcome. Mistakes can always be corrected. In the time I have been on Wikipedia I have learned how to avoid content disputes in a number of ways to avoid content issues needing intervention or mediation. It took a number of...less than cordial exchanges that, eventually, everyone was able to apologize for their own behavior...even after what I thought would simply be the end of all enjoyment on Wikipedia for me. But then I realized that if I was not going to have fun, I might as well admit I was being an idiot for my part and leave it to the others to decide how next to reply. Given the opportunity, most people choose peace and forgiveness...even if the situation is never forgotten. It isn't a zen thing. People just have to naturally find their routes and some personalities may clash and need a lot of room to understand where the other is coming from and how best to work with whatever new tilt that editor may be adding. Maybe that just takes imagination to be able to see how something might work or maybe just patience, but I have blocks. I am not ashamed of them. They're there for the reasons they are there whether they were or were not exactly as black and white as "Doing something wrong". I don't hold much weight to a block log. not really. I have worked well with editors who have never been blocked, and why not be proud of never being blocked? However...I have worked with editors very well who have block logs the length of a feature article. If you are really attempting an honest contribution to content, most good editors can see that and find a way to compromise if they don't agree with it.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've been blocked by accident (the admin got me instead of the spammer I was dealing with). But I saw the situation for what it was and had a laugh about it. Much better than trying to stir up drama. And WP:BLPN can occasionally turn into quite the conflict venue, with editors disagreeing on how the policy applies to certain situations and each side wondering about the "competence" of the other. Most boards act the same way, with different areas of focus. --NeilN talk to me 14:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I have volunteered on a lot of the boards including BLP. Yes, I cannot deny that they can all have their fair share of drama. DR/N, RS/N can be as overwrought as AN/I and some of the worse RFAs. But I would not label them as conflict venues. I very much see conflict as between people and disputes being about content. I separate these as I might in conflict/dispute resolution at a job. A conflict is between people, a dispute is about how to proceed on a project.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

From Administrators' Noticeboard:

A word from the dispute resolution community about the voluntary nature of dispute resolution: I'm a very frequent volunteer at all levels of content dispute resolution. Participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary and no one may be compelled to participate. To say that backwards, failing to participate in DR is never a matter which should cause an editor to be blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned. That does not mean, however, that such a failure cannot be taken into consideration by an administrator or by the community in deciding whether or not an editor is editing in a disruptive manner or in a manner which is not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Failing to take part in DR is not alone disruptive, just as failing or refusing to discuss one's edits is not alone disruptive, but it can be part of a disruptive pattern. On the other hand the reasons for failing to take part in DR can also be taken into consideration: Frustration with another editor's disruptive editing or other misbehavior can certainly justify a desire to simply not engage with it further. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, just trying to provide a conceptual framework. Regards, User:TransporterMan, 15:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

From Administrators' Noticeboard:

(during discussion of a proposal to block user X) Oppose (enthusiastically). He's already been blocked, didn't seem to help. Maybe we should try something else. NE Ent, April 2014 (UTC)

NE ENT, I trust you since you are a reasonable man and not a former enemy drawn to this ANI looking for blood. What do you like to see different from me. Please be specific. I guarantee you'll get it. X (talk), April 2014 (UTC)

The first thing should probably be to stop expecting Wikipedia to be rational, fair, coherent, consistent, or anything like that. Secondly, if you find contributing to Wikipedia isn't enjoyable, I'd log off until such time (if ever) you find that it might be. Beyond that, it would depend on what specific goals you have moving forward. NE Ent, April 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Village pump:

Gaming the edit counter with edit wars and user's own user pages:

It seems engaging in edit wars though likely to get a user blocked can give users an extra hundred posts every now and again or more over time. I propose these edits me struck from the edit count to prevent inflating the status of wikipedia users who frequently edit war; I'm also not sure if your own user page should count; otherwise someone can just ramble on their page 6000 times in a weekend and become part of the top 10,000 contributors. Technically that would be in accordance with the rules. Cassandra Truth (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Why bother? Nobody with any sense thinks that raw edit count data indicates much anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Per Andy, who gives a shit? Edit counts are a meaningless thing, and no one who makes any decision that matters at Wikipedia ever looks at them. Like pretty signatures and well designed user pages, edit counters are a mild amusement, but ultimately serve no purpose for building the encyclopedia. --User:Jayron32 19:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit counts do matter for when you're applying for more user rights (Article Reviewer needs at least 500 mainspace edits, for example), but generally the sysop doing the approving checks through edits looking for edit wars and such. User:Supernerd11 14:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ijon Tichy note: Please see Wikipedia:Edit count and Wikipedia: Editcountitis.

From Administrators' Noticeboard - Final remark by admin, closing the discussion thread below:

This is not an admin issue. The anon is directed to actually do something about the article if they find the material so objectionable, as long as it is appropriately sourced. Blackmane (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Shame on you. --- I can see on the list of goverment of all the world that you separate cyprus in 2 goverments..CYPRUS and northen cyprus..You have to learn that northen cyprus is not a regognized state and the only country in the earth that regognize it as a state is turky and guess why..Turks made an invasion in Cyprus and claim north cyprus with violent and they made a war ..They killed many people and childrens they made people of cyprus move out of their houses and you put northern cyprus on list as a state??? SHAME ON YOU I THOUGHT WIKIPEDIA WAS A GOOD SITE BUT ITS NOT...You can wrote the story of cyprus and how turks invade in cyprus and claim our half coutry .....I will wait for correct your the misinformations or i will report wikipedia and i will let many people learn about that who thinks wikipedia is a good site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.220.197 (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, shame on us - we didn't write Wikipedia, people like YOU did. If there's an error on the article, go to its talkpage, suggest improvements, and provide links to sources that support your changes. That's how Wikipedia works, and that's why we ARE a "good site." User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, 12:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Northern Cyprus article makes it clear (at the very beginning of the article) that it is a "self-declared state", and further says, "Recognised only by Turkey, Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community as Turkish-occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus." Did you even read the article? We even have an article called Human rights in Northern Cyprus which documents problems that have occurred in that area. Rather than "reporting Wikipedia" (to whom?!) perhaps you should take the time to actually read what you're complaining about. -- User:Atama, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ijon Tichy note: there is no 'us vs. them' on Wikipedia. According to WP policy, all WP users are equal members of the community, unless and until a user is permanently banned/ blocked from editing the encyclopedia. Even users who are indefinitely banned or blocked are still considered members of the community.

From the user page of User:Verdana Bold

Why I'm not here -- I'm not here to edit content of any article even remotely controversial. I've gazed in horror at what happens to people who attract the attention of the goon squads that own articles. Jimbo ought to be ashamed of himself for not putting a stop to it, but he's too busy making five grand per speech at colleges like mine and fu cking groupies.

Or maybe I'm just jealous because three girls were in front of me at his motel door and he said he didn't need a fourth. I dunno.

Sub-Section

Brilliant analysis from user: Nishidani and User:Oncenawhile and User:Dr. R.R. Pickles

Question to user: Nishidani: Your standings on Palestine - Why do you engage yourself in such a controversial topic? I never understood why a man from Japan would care so much about the Palestinians. Khazar (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Saeki Yoshiro. Read Jeff Halper's article. I could list twenty major innovations in Israel's handling of Palestinians, innovations that break customary law, which are forming, in the US esp., precedents for changes in laws that will affect citizens. What happens there will probably happen throughout modern Western societies some time in the future. One example: targeted assassinations without due process. That was invented to kill Palestinians. Obama has adopted it to kill US citizens suspected of terrorism. What happened in Ferguson, Missouri, namely the dynamics of the Shooting of Michael Brown takes place every other week in the Palestinian territories, and has so for 3 decades. Palestine is an index of what lies in the future for Western law, and since the precedents set will affect our civil institutions, egotistically, I study Palestinians to imagine what my nephews and nieces might have to live through, unless one foresees in what happens to others an omen of what might well befall those one knows. To me, what happens to Palestinians is analogous to what happened to Jews in the 1930s, and what might happen to people across the world in the bitter regressive future I expect is waiting around the corner. Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC) I read the Halpers article. While it's not incorrect to say that the rhetoric of targeted assassinations can be used elsewhere, it is too misleading to give Israel the credit, in my view. Israel is using tactics which have always been used. "Asymmetrical warfare" was also seen in Algeria and Vietnam. Targeted assassination was also seen in Lebanon and Cuba. This is a matter of power. Israel has overwhelming power against the Palestinians, so it is free to ignore the law. And it does so in a familiar pattern, of other colonial powers. Kingsindian (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Israel takes the credit for theorizing its legitimacy. I wrote the introduction of that article where this is outlined. Halper's article gives now other examples of legal scholars lending their wits to justify what is, at the moment, a violation of law in order to remake it, and provide the theoretical underpinnings for the new regimen, one that breaks radically with Western civilization's vaunted systems of law. This, the theorization of racial violence as necessary to save civilization, did not occur under the major colonial powers, whatever they did in practice. They acted hypocritically. These folks are trying to iron out the hypocrisy by legislating draconian measures, that Plato's players in The Laws would envy. And, personally, they are all nice decent, smiling people socially. It is, though obvious, chilling. Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC) So you are Japanese! Your name always threw me off. Khazar (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC) I don't have a national identity, just passports, and I rarely speak my mothertongue. By the way, the topic area is not 'controversial', except in the minds of people who read mainstream newspapers and watch Fox television. Both Shin Bet analysts and way-left libertarians see this very much as it is, which is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC) If any of this speculation relates to my saying "ho mikado" earlier, that was more of a smartass attempt at a reference to the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta I'd just seen than anything else. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Really now? Then what's your ethnicity and mother tongue? I don't identify with my country neither so I understand your point there. Khazar (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC) I've never empathised with, or understood the attraction of, 'ethnicity', and so can't admit to having one: national identity for me is a sense of primal landscape, nothing else. 8-15% of children are born, unknown to the father, from adultery, and that translates out, over three or more generations into promiscuous origins for most of us. The only friends I made at primary school were immigrants: I instinctively shied away from what others would call 'our kind'. As to my mother tongue, it was a brogue or dialect, different from the 'foreign' language they tweely taught at school. By some freak of circumstances, what Viktor Shklovsky called остранение or as I prefer to translate that, 'de-family-iarization', came naturally to me. You can't figure much out from handles. Our 'John Carter' only means that he grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs's Barsoom tales, and thinks in Martian terms, which is not a bad perspective to adopt, as long as it's tempered by a yen for Gilbert and Sullivan! Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Amazing. You've typed this much and still haven't revealed anything important about your ethnicity, genetic ancestry, nor the first language you spoke. D:< Khazar (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC) There is no such thing as "Palestine." Palestine is a racist colonialist fantasy envisioned by Arabian imperialist powers. Falsely comparing Israelis to Nazis as Nishidani just did is a vile tactic used by anti-Semites to defame Jews and deny the Holocaust. As any intelligent person not brainwashed by the Muslims would know, it is the "Palestinians" who are the Nazis. They are illegal colonist-settlers from Arabia intent on stealing the Jewish homeland to further expand their colonial Arab empire consisting of 21 different countries already. Communists like Nishidani hate Israel obviously because communism is an anti-Semitic totalitarian ideology that is basically the same as Nazism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.199.221 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC) From User: Nishidani: Personal work section notes: I get headaches and am as slow as a wet week, in dragging up diffs, and even have a geezer's trouble in following these arguments all over several pages, so I can't really make an adequate case. So I'll have to make my contribution in the next few days, according to the fashion I normally work after, when I did work, in the real world. Reflecting from principles, through to the problem, the evidence and conclusions. Apologies to anyone reading this. It's written to help myself get some order into this chat, not to guide others. An editorial split between those in favour of using 'Judea & Samaria' to designate (a) parts of, or (b) all, or (c) all of the West Bank and parts of Israel, and those who oppose the usage, except on those specific pages devoted to (i) Samaria (ii) Judea (iii) the administrative territory known in Israel as 'Judea & Samaria'. The 'Judea and Samaria' school holds that (a) these are geographical and historical designations predating the West Bank (b) used in a variety of sources published in Israel and abroad to denote the territory, or parts of it, known as the West Bank (c) and that opposition to the employment of these words in wiki constitutes an 'ethnic-based discrimination' against both Israeli and Jewish people (d) specifically, that MeteorMaker, Pedrito and myself have conducted a campaign to denigrate or deprecate Jewish terms in the I/P area, an ethnic cleansing of nomenclature, in a way that lends substance to fears our position is motivated by, well let's call a spade a spade, anti-semitism. The 'West Bank' school asserts that (a) these terms have an intrinsic denotative vagueness because they refer to different geophysical, administrative and political terrains depending on historical period, and that to use the terms of the territorially bounded and defined area known internationally as the West Bank creates cognitive dissonance (b) that these terms, as documented, were used under the British Mandate, then dropped for 'West Bank', which has remained to this day the default term of neutral usage internationally and in international law and diplomacy (c) that, after the Israeli conquest of the West Bank, in 1967, the terms 'Judea & Samaria' were pushed onto the political agenda by an extremist settler group, Gush Emunim, then adopted by the Likud government in 1977, and imposed by government decree on the Israeli mass media, which suppressed the international term, West Bank (d) that, as documented, the terms 'Judea and Samaria' have a potent ideological charge as appropriative nomenclature, renaming Palestinian land presently occupied, annexed or expropriated illegally by Israel (ICJ judgement 2004), over which Israel has no sovereignty, where Israel is establishing illegal settlements at least half of which on land with private Palestinian title, and with its own Arabic toponyms, and erasing the traditional native nomenclature by creating a neo-biblical toponomy (d) that reliable secondary sources explicitly define the term as partisan, even in contemporary Hebrew and Israeli usage (e) that the evidence for usage overwhelmingly documents the prevalence of 'West Bank' (northern, southern) in neutral sources, whose neutrality is affirmed also by the very sources that otherwise employ the words 'Samaria and Judea' adduced by the former school, (f) that if explicitly attested partisan Israeli toponymy and administrative nomenclature is allowed on non-Israeli territory, then by WP:NPOV criteria, automatically this would mean the corresponding Palestinian toponymy and nomenclature, often covering the same areas, would have to be introduced (g)that in this whole debate, the West Bankers have not even represented the Palestinian side, which is absent, invisible, while the Israeli side is being treated as though its national naming were on terms of parity and neutrality with international usage (h) that wiki criteria, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, WP:RS, WP:NCGN etc. require that neutral terminology, particularly as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, be employed. (i) If we are to allow Israeli terminology to be generally employed in denoting territory over which Israel exercises no sovereignty, but is simply, in law, an occupying belligerent, a very dangerous precedent, with widespread consequences for articles where ethnic conflicts exist, would be created. (ii)Note on language, naming as an appropriative act of possession and dominion. 'According to the aboriginal theory, the ancestor first called out his own name; and this gave rise to the most sacred and secret couplet or couplets of his song. The he 'named' (tneuka) the place where he had originated, the trees or rocks growing near his home, the animals sporting about nearby, any strangers that came to visit him, and so forth. He gave names to all of these, and thereby gained the power of calling them by their names; this enabled him to control them and to bind them to his will.' Wa’-yitser’ Yĕhôwāh’ (Adonai) ĕlôhīm’ min-hā'ădāmāh’ kol-‘ha’yath’ ha’-sādeh’ wĕ'ēth kol-ôph ha’-shāma’yim wa’-yāvē ‘ el-hā'ādām’ li-r'ôth mah-yiqrā-lô’ wĕ-kôl ăsher yiqrā-lô’ hā'-ādām‘ ne’pfesh ‘ha’yāh’ hû shĕmô. (20) Wa’- yiqrā’ hā'-ādām‘ shēmôth…. ‘And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20. And Adam gave names.. .' Wa-‘allama ādama l-asmā’a kullahā, 'And He taught Adam the names, all of them.’ Qu’ran 2:31. In Thomas Pynchon's novel Mason & Dixon, the narrator Cherrycoke recounts, against the huge backdrop of seismic shifts in the political and scientific world of that time, the story of the eponymous figures who have undertaken to draw a scientific map of the wilderness and terrain between Pennsylvania and Maryland: ‘what we were doing out in that Country together was brave, scientifick beyond my understanding and ultimately meaningless, - we were putting a line straight through the heart of the Wilderness, eight yards wide and due west, in order to separate two Proprietorships, granted when the World was yet feudal and but eight years later to be nullified by the War for Independence.” Late in the novel, the Chinaman of the piece remarks: ‘To rule forever, . .it is necessary only to create, among the people one would rule, what we call . . Bad History. Nothing will produce Bad History more directly nor brutally, than drawing a Line, in particular a Right Line, the very Shape of Contempt, through the midst of a People,- to create thus a Distinction betwixt’em. –’tis the first stroke.-All else will follow as if predestin’d, into War and Devastation.’ The dispute here in wiki, like the historical reality it refers to, has its ‘Bad History’. In the novel, the apparently empirical task of defining boundaries is found unwittingly implicated in the later travails of American history, with its exceptionalism, erasure of native peoples, of possible alternative worlds, of Frostian paths never taken. American innocence and pragmatic realism, in the innocuous work of two surveyors, is swept up in the torment of power: cartographic principles embody an Enlightenment’s reach into the unknown, while, applied, to the ends of order and control, they inadvertently engender violent confusion and disarray. What is the ‘right line’ to take on nomenclature, when history’s line demarcating Israel and the West Bank was drawn by war, then the West Bank was occupied in the aftermath of war, and the world of Israeli settlers begins to redraw the map? One thing that happens is that the complexities have drawn editors into a minor war, as Pynchonesque as it is Pythonesque. There is one difference: most the cartographers say one thing, and Israel, the controlling power, asserts a different terminology. So what’s in a name? Before the world was tribalized and invested by the collateral damage or fall-out from the Tower of Babel, God assigned to the mythical forefather of all, ‘man’ or Adam, the faculty to name the world, though God himself had exercised this right in naming the light (or) day (yom) and the darkness (hôshek) night(layĕlāh) (Gen.1.5) There was only one name for each thing, and in later European thought the primordial language employed in this taxonomy was to be called ‘the Adamic vernacular’. The thesis was that the pristine jargon employed by Adam, being pre-Babelic, represented the true name for every object: every thing had a proper name intrinsic to its nature. The Greeks, as we see in Plato’s Cratylus, were much prepossessed by the philosophical crux of the correctness of names (ὀρθότης τῶν ὀνομάτων): did names have an intrinsic relation to, or represent, things, or was the link arbitrary. The Confucian school’s doctrine of the Rectification of names (zhèngmíng: 正名). In the Bible itself the Hebrew text is full of the magic of words, of the power of words themselves to alter reality, a belief testified to in Isaiah: 'So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please.' Modernity, especially after Ferdinand Saussure (1916), has opted, correctly, for the latter position, and disposed of the magical force of naming. But nationalism, another product of modernity, reintroduced it, via the backdoor, in a new sense. Naming was an act of assertive territorial control, of defining ethnic rights over land, especially as Anthony Smith argues, ethnie are defined also by attachment to a specific geophysical reality, the ‘homeland’ that defines in good part their identity ). Since national identities are a political construct, the inculcation of a uniform language, and the use of its lexicon to define or redefine the landscape, are crucial instruments in forging a national sense of common tradition. Nationalism demanded toponymic unison, and linguistic conformity. John Gaddis, glossing James Scott’s recent book on North Dakota roads and maps, remarks on maps that they reflect ‘what states try to do to those portions of the earth’s surface they hope to control, and to the people who live upon them. For it’s only by making territories and societies legible – by which he means measurable and hence manipulable – that governments can impose and maintain their authority. “These state simplifications,” he writes, are “like abridged maps.” They don’t replicate what’s actually there, but “when allied with state power, (they) enable much of the reality they (depict) to be remade.” The idea of a nation as a territorial unit speaking one language over that territory is a parlously modern ideology, one engineered by nation-builders into a plausible if specious semblance of commonsense. As Massimo d’Azeglio is said to have remarked at the dawn of the Italian Risorgimento, ‘we have made Italy: our task now is to make Italians’, 95% of whom could neither read, write and nor often even speak ‘Italian’. Imperialism, venturing into terra incognita to appropriate foreign land and incorporate it into an empire, went side by side with nationalism, which was a form of internal colonization over, and homogenization of, the disparate cultures that made up an historically defined territory. For the natives, their indigenous naming is ‘essentially a process of asserting ownership and control of place and landscape’ Daphne Kutzner, in her analysis of the role of Empire in classic children’s fiction, looks at the question from the perspective of the intrusive Empire and its refraction of imperial renaming as reflected in popular books, notes that ‘Naming a place gives the namer power over it, or at least the illusion of power and control. Colonial powers literally transform a landscape once they rename it and begin reshaping it.’ Terra incognita is the foreigner’s name for an ostensibly empty landscape which, had they taken the trouble to learn the local languages, would have revealed itself to be replete from every rocky nook to crannied gulley with ancient toponyms. The tendency was one of erasure, and, as with introduced fauna and flora, the landscape was consistently remade as it was renamed to familiarize the alien by rendering it recognizable, a variation on the landscape settlers came from. The new mapping, as often as not, represent as much the settler’s mentality, as the queerly new features of the foreign landscape under toponymic domestication. Australia is somewhat the extraordinary exception, and broke with the gusto for imperial nomenclature. There, following the pattern set by the earlier land surveyor Thomas Mitchell and his assistant Philip Elliott that “the natives can furnish you with names for every flat and almost every hill” (1828), native names were adopted in a standarized English form for both euphony and their characteristic relation to the landscape, and indeed a resolution was passed as early as 1884 which established the priority of native names in international usage. Often imperialism and nationalism go hand in hand. Napoleon’s troops, in 1796, could hardly communicate with each other, such were the grammatical, semantic and syntactical rifts between the various provincial patois at the time. By 1814, Napoleon had formed a European empire, and millions of provincials spoke the one, uniform language of the French state’s army. When two nations, or ethnie, occupy the same territory, the historical victor’s toponymic choices, dictated by the victor’s native language, and as articulated in bureaucratic documents and maps, usually determines what names are to be used. However, the presence of two distinct ethnie on the same national soil creates fissiparous tensions in nomenclature. Speaking of French and British conflict in Canada over areas, Susan Drummond, remarks that, 'Symbolic appropriation of a territory is a critical index of control’, and notes that, as late as 1962, the Québec cartographer Brochu, invoked the political dimension of place names as important, in the conflict with the majoritarian English heritage of Canada over the naming of the northern Inuit lands. Again, in another familiar example, Alfonso Pérez-Agote notes that Spain has its Basque Autonomous region, Euskadi. But the original force of that name covers an area beyond the administrative and territorial units of Spain, and Basque nationalists evoke its symbolic territory, comprising also the Basque area of Navarre in France. Euskadi has, on one level, within Spanish administrative discourse, a ‘territorial political objectification’, and on another level, in Basque nationalism, a ‘non-administratively objectified’ territory extending into a neighbouring country. The analogy with Israeli and Palestinian nationalism is close. In Israeli discourse, Israel or Eretz Israel can denote Israel and its outriding West Bank, while Palestine, which is the favoured term of West Bank Arabs for the land they inhabit, also can refer to the whole neighbouring territory of Israel as well. The anomaly, in comparative terms, is that history has settled the question, whatever local separatist nationalisms, revanchist or irredentist, may claim, except for such places as ‘Palestine’. For there, while Israel is a constituted state, it emerged the victor, manu militari in a conflict that gave it control over a contiguous land, but has no recognized legal right, since that land is defined as and ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory. Acts of unilateral annexation, the extension of administrative structures, settlements, toponymic remapping, and widescale expropriation of land in Palestinian title, is not only not recognized, but judged ‘illegal’ by the highest international bodies of law. All major encyclopedias (Encyclopædia Britannica, Encarta etc.,), except Wiki, maintain a strict neutrality, and, in recognition of the fraught difficulties, adopt the neutral toponymic convention of ‘(northern/southern) West Bank’ in order to avoid lending their prestige to the partisan politics of the parties in this regional conflict. (iii)The specific instance of Palestine and the West Bank When the British wrested control over Palestine from the Ottomans in the First World War, and established themselves there to administer the region, Selwyn Troen notes that, 'naming also became part of the contest for asserting control over Palestine'. As early as 1920 two Zionists advising the British Mandatory authority on everything regarding the assignment of Hebrew names, fought hard for the restoration of Hebraic toponymy, and when, with such places as Nablus, or indeed 'Palestine' itself, were given non-Hebrew names, they protested at the designations as evidence of discrimination against Jews. The point is made by the Israeli historian and cartographer Meron Benvenisti:- 'When the Geographical Committee for Names, which operated under the aegis of the Royal Geographical Society (the only body authorized to assign names throughout the British Empire, decided to call the Mandatory geopolitical entity “Palestine” and the city whose biblical name was Shechem, “Nablus” these Jewish advisers saw this as an act of anti-Jewish discrimination, and a searing defeat for Zionism.' One pauses to reflect. We are being accused here of 'anti-Jewish/Israeli discrimination' for refusing to insert Israeli toponyms into the West Bank. Nothing is said of the logic of this POV-pushing, i.e. that a Palestinian reader might well regard a Wiki endorsement of suc h foreign nomenclature as a 'searing defeat', and adduce it as proof of 'anti-Palestinian discrimination' both by Zionist editors, and Wikipedia itself. Since Zionism took root, and especially since Israel was founded, the making of a people, living in a defined territorial unit and speaking one language, has followed the universal pattern of modernity. The landscape, full of Arabic words, had to be renamed, often according to Biblical terminology, but, more often, by the invention of Biblical-sounding names. To do this, a good part of the 10,000 odd Arabic toponyms collected by Herbert Kitchener, T. E. Lawrence and others in surveying that part of the Middle East had to be cancelled, and replaced with Israeli/Hebrew terms, to remake the landscape and its topographic songlines resonate with historical depth. Hebrew is a ‘sacred tongue’ (Leshon HaQodesh:לשון הקודש), the Bible describes the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, and the dispossession of its indigenous peoples, who were not part of the chosen: the pattern is repeated in modern times, down to the renaming. The revival of Hebrew, with its potent shibboleths, understandably exercises a powerful hold over the new culture of the country. The problem is, as Steven Runciman pointed out in the mid-sixties, that the part assigned to Israel by the UN deliberation of 1947 was the western, non-Biblical part, whilst the part assigned to a future Palestinian state, what we now call the West Bank, is precisely the area most infused with Biblical associations cherished by the Jewish people, with sites and names redolent of the founding myths and realities of their ancient forefathers. Israelis, in their secular land, mostly dwell where the Philistines dwelt. The Palestinians dwell where the ancient Jewish tribes once settled. The tensions simmer between the secular Israel, which thrives in its new Mediterranean world, and the religiously-identified Israel that aspires to return to a geophysical space where origins and the present, the sacred nomenclature of the Bible and the modern world of Jewish life, might at least, once more overlap, in an ‘Adamic’ harmony congruent with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. (iv)The Negev Precedent With the foundation of Israel, and in the aftermath of the 1948 war, the vast Negev and part of the Arava were captured, and Ben Gurion duly established a Negev Names Committee to ‘hebraize’ the landscape’s features, its mountains, valleys and springs. The area already had a rich Arab toponymy, and some on the committee thought these terms might be preserved as a ‘democratic gesture towards the Arab population of the new state.’ It was not to be. The nomadic Bedouin who dwelt throughout the area were rounded up and expelled by force. They had terms for everything, but with their uprooting and displacement, Benvenisti notes, ‘an entire world, as portrayed in their toponomastic traditions, died.' Ben Gurion wrote to the committee setting forth his view that:- We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state. Just as we do not recognize the Arabs’ political proprietorship of the land, so also we do not recognize their spiritual proprietorship and their names. Political pressure and ‘the influence of patriotic arguments’ prevailed over those who, like S.Yeibin, thought the erasure of Arab names, many of which might preserve an archaic Hebrew origin. Yeibin thought this a disaster:- ‘With a clap of the hand they were wiping out an entire cultural heritage that must certainly conceal within it elements of the Israeli-Jewish heritage as well. The researchers did indeed endeavour to identify all those names that had a link to ancient Hebrew ones in an attempt “to redeem, as far as possible, names from the days of yore.” < Any Arabic toponym in short only interested the topographers in so far as it might provide a clue to reconstructing the hypothetical Hebraic original that might lie behind it. This consideration, however, often created a mess of concocted pseudo-traditional names. The hebraization of such Arabic toponyms did not restore the historic past, but invented a mythical landscape, resonant with traditionalist associations, that had, however, no roots in Jewish tradition. The most striking geologic formation in the Negev, Wadi Rumman was rewritten as if that word disguised an ancient Hebrew Ram ('elevated'), whereas the Arabic term it was calqued from actually meant 'Pomegranate Arroyo', for example. Reflecting on Benvenisti’s account in his larger study of language conflict in the Middle east, the Palestinian expatriate scholar Yasir Suleiman makes remarks that, ’By assigning Hebrew names anew to places on the map, the committee was therefore ‘redeeming’ these places from the corrupt and ‘alien’ Arabic names that they have acquired over the centuries’ and likens this process of linguistic erasure of Arabic and the reconstitution of Hebrew metaphorically to the nakba:- ‘The cartographic cleansing of the Negev map of Arabic place names and their replacement by Hebrew names is an enactment of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homeland’ The record is therefore one of a linguistic cleansing of Palestine of any trace of its long Arabic history, and, as we shall see, an attempt to remodel Arabic usage in the territories Israel conquered and controls, to conform with Hebrew. Toponyms can only retain some semblance of an Arabic form, if that form is suspected to camouflage, in turn, an original Hebraic name. Adapting the reborn Hebrew language to the alien realities of the Palestinian landscape, the obvious problem was that the nomenclature for much of the flora and fauna, not to speak of the landscape itself, was infused with the very language, Arabic, a revarnished Hebrew had to compete with. As early as 1910 Jacob Fichman, a member of the Language Council, stated that Hebrew: ‘will not digest the new names of plants, especially those which have been taken from the Arabic language’ and that these borrowed names ‘will always be like atrophied limbs’ for ‘despite the fact that the Arabic language is our sister language in the family of Semitic languages, it has no foundation in our |psyche ’ Hebrew was thus to be programmatically sealed off from Arabic, to prevent atrophisation, and cultivate purism by means of a fake Biblical antiquarianism. Theodor Adorno, writing in the melancholic aftermath of the Holocaust on the effects of cultural purism, once remarked on the purging of foreign words from German undertaken by nationalists intent restoring an ideal of cultural authenticity. He saw this as part of the pathology of nationalism in Germany. Foreign words were treated as if they were 'the Jews of language' (Fremdwörter sind die Juden der Sprache). In expunging the landscape and the human world of Palestine of its Arabic language, of landscape and culture, Zionism likewise treated Arabic as German or French linguistic purists treated loan-words in their own languages, or, later, actual Jews in their midst, as foreign bodies to be expelled, or expunged if a proper 'foundation for an authentically Jewish psyche' were to be successfully engineered. One would call this ironic, were it not so tragically melancholic in its unintended resonances. (v)The West Bank. History and Naming The relationship between demographic displacement and the loss of one's landscape through the erasure of its traditional placenames in Palestine has been remarked on by Paul Diehl. ‘The exclusive attachment to territory is reflected in the naming and renaming of places and locations in accordance with the historic and religious sites associated with the dominant political group. Not only did the outflow of Palestinian refugees bring about a change in the Jewish-Arab demographic rations, it brought about the replacement of an Arab-Palestinian landscape with a Jewish-Israeli landscape. The names of abandoned villages disappeared from the map and were replaced with alternative Hebrew names . . Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank have taken on biblical names associated with the specific sites as a means of expressing the Jewish priority in these places and the exclusive nature of the territorial attachment. Modern Israeli and Palestinian maps of Israel/Palestine possess the same outer borders, but the semantic content of the name is completely different.. The means by which new landscapes are created to replace or obliterate former landscapes is a good example of the way in which metaphysical and symbolic attachment to territory is translated into concrete realities on the ground.’ In 1950, when King Abdullah, of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, unilaterally annexed the territory he had conquered in 1948, he changed the name of his country to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which incorporated the remaining fragment of Palestine as aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä, or 'the West Bank' of that kingdom. The usage is still current in German (Westjordanland). Though only Britain recognized his annexation, the word itself found ready acceptance in, and was not, 'forced on', the international community, as Binyamin Netanyahu argued. In 1967, Israel conquered what the world knew as ‘The West Bank’, the Biblical heartland, and a decree calling it ‘Judea and Samaria’ was issued by the Israeli military on December 17 that year with the explicit definition that it would be identical in meaning for all purposes to the West Bank region to replace the interim terms 'Occupied Territories' (ha-shetahim ha-kevushim), and ‘the Administered Territories’ (ha-shetahim ha-muhzakim) in use since the immediate aftermath of the June war. The term 'Judea and Samaria' however was rarely used until Likud took power. The Labour Government never enacted a settlement policy, though Gush Emunim, an extremist settler ground with a fundamentalist ideology, pressed settlement, and propagated the terminology ‘Judea and Samaria’. When the Likud party, the maximalist, expansionist party with strong ties to both religious and ultra-Zionist groups and traditions, was elected in 1977, it imposed Samaria and Judea as the vox propria in modern Hebrew on the mass media, expressly forbidding the use of the international term West Bank. Notably, the government's imposing of these terms on Israeli usage was seen as a prerequisite for an envisioned settlement policy, since accepting the terms would predispose the public to accepting the policy. Gideon Aran describes the achievement: ‘The importance of changing names in the process of conquering territory is well known. Assimilation of the name “Judea and Samaria” in normal and official language, as well as in jargon, attests to G(ush)E(numin)’s political and cultural achievements.' The Camp David Accords negotiations of and the final agreement, in 1979, only underline how great was the linguistic rift between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's position and the American government intent on brokering an agreement. ‘Begin consistently proved to be the most extreme member of his delegation, insisting on seemingly innocent terms such as “autonomy” as opposed to “self rule,” on the labelling of the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” in the Hebrew text, and on the use of the phrase “undivided Jerusalem.' A huge amount of wrangling between the American negotiators and Begin revolved around this term. ‘for what must have been the tenth time, he (Begin) objected to the term West Bank, giving a lesson to the president on the geographic and historical appropriateness of the term and the importance of using the words Judea and Samaria.’ Begin refused to back down from his ‘rock-hard’ intransigence on using ‘Judea and Samaria’ and at the Camp David signing ceremony, (March 26,1979) several interpretive notes were required to be added as annexes to the basic documents, one specifically dealing with the West Bank, which President Carter annotated with his own hand with the words: ‘I have been informed that the expression ‘West Bank’ is understood by the Government of Israel to mean ‘Judea and Samaria’. An ambitious programme of colonising settlement, toponomastic Hebraisation and cultural Judaization was undertaken, and indigenous Palestinians were shifted off their land, in a repetition of the Negev programme, which forms the precedent. The programme took wing especially after the unprovokedinvasion of Lebanon in 1982, whose key political objectives included ousting the refugee Palestinian resistance in the para-state on Israel’s northern flank from Lebanon, where the PLO projected a 'state in waiting' image that threatened Israel’s plans for long-term control over the West Bank. The war was, the head of the IDF said at the time, ‘part of the struggle over the Land of Israel. It aimed to further the isolation of Palestinians on the West Bank by depriving them of close support, halt the rise to political respectability of the PLO, which embodied Palestinian nationalist aspirations, and deprive that body of its claims to be a political partner in the peace process for Israel’s normalization of its relations with the outside world. One calculation, a minority view entertained by both Ariel Sharon and Raphael Eytan, however, was that, expelled from Lebanon, the PLO would be forced to return to Jordan, topple king Hussein, and establish a Palestinian state there to satisfy Palestinian national ambitions that Israel would thwart on the West Bank. Changing the realities of occupied territory by the manipulation of language, Hebrew, Arabic, and in controllable sources like the global Wikipedia, became a programmatic goal. The settlers were in fact 'colonists' in the old sense, but Israeli English usage has here prevailed in the politics of the culture wars to determine how the international community perceives the dynamics of that area. The corresponding Hebrew usage is complex (see Israeli settlements), but continuity with the biblical setlement of Eretz Yisrael is evoked by referring to Jewish settlers as mitnahalim. The root *n-h-l directly evokes a passage in the Book of Numbers where each tribe is assigned its portion on entering Canaan, or the Land of Israel, particularly as ' in the pledge by the tribes of Gad and Reuben that they will fight on the west side of the Jordan river to help the other tribes take possession of their assigned portions' Settlers, qua, mitnahalim are not colonizing anybody's land, in this usage: they are simply taking up their 'assigned portions' as those were marked out by God to the Chosen People. Rashid Khalidi has remarked how the Israeli authorities themselves try to engineer the way Palestinians think in Arabic by tampering with that language's natural idiom in the Arabic broadcasts they authorize. Over Israeli Arabic channels, one does not hear Jerusalem referred to, as it is customarily in Arabic, and by Palestinians, as Bayt al-Maqdis ('The House of Sanctity') or Al Quds al-Sharif ('The Noble Holy Place'). Arabic usage as sanctioned by Israel speaks rather of Urshalim ('Jerusalem') or Urshalim/al-Quds ('Jerusalem Al-Quds'). The purpose is to diffuse a variety of Arabic names for places that are calques on the Hebrew terms chosen for the area. This goes right through the bureaucratic language, a form of linguistic colonization that reinforces the physical occupation of the west Bank by cultural re-engineering. A new travel permit was imposed on the colonized Palestinians in the West Bank in 2002, and required of any of them wishing to travel in that area. This was issued, printed and released by Israeli authorities who call it in Arabic Tasrih tanaqul khas fi al-hawajiz al-dakhiliyya fi mantaqat yahuda wa al-samara. ('Special Travel Permit for the Internal Checkpioints in the Area of Judea and Samaria.'). Here, Palestinians who must travel in the West Bank, for them 'Filastin', are required to obtain a document which requires that area to be referred to by the settler term, 'Judea and Samaria'. It is this form of Arabic which they are expected to use in negotiating their way with Israeli authorities through checkpoints. But West Bank Palestinians simply abbreviate it and refer to their tasrih dakhili (Checkpoint permit), thereby eluding the settler term imposed on them. Michael Sfard indeed has spoken of Hebrew being mobilized to lend itself to the national emergency of occupying Palestine, and denying the Palestinians the liberty to be themselves. They are passive subjects of an activist language that wraps them about in bureaucratic euphemisms. 'It has been tasked with providing a soothing, anesthetizing name for the entire project of suffocation, for the blanket system of theft we have imposed on those we occupy . . Thus extrajudicial executions have become “targeted assassinations”. Torture has been dubbed “moderate physical pressure”. Expulsion to Gaza has been renamed “assigning a place of residence”. The theft of privately owned land has become “declaring the land state-owned”. Collective punishment is “leveraging civilians”; and collective punishment by blockade is a “siege,” “closure” or “separation".' A proposal is now being made to apply the principle of Hebraization, as of 2009, even to those places within Israel which the world designates by traditional toponyms, such as Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) Nazareth (Natzrat) and Jaffa (Yafo). According to Yossi Sarid, the process, illustrated further by Knesset proposals to eliminate Arabic as one of Israel's official languages, constitutes a form of ethnocide. (vi) Analysis of Ynhockey's suggestions ‘Mapmaking was one of the specialized intellectual weapons by which power could be gained, administered, given legitimacy and codified’ 'Mapmaking is not, however, solely an instrument of war; it is an activity of supreme political significance – a means of providing a basis for the mapmaker’s claims and for his social and symbolic values, while cloaking them in a guise of “scientific objectivity.” Maps are generally judged in terms of their “accuracy”, that is, the degree to which they succeed in reflecting and depicting the morphological landscape and its “man-made” covering But maps portray a fictitious reality that differs from other sorts of printed matter only in form.' After 1967 ‘Cartographers . .had many options, which tended to reveal their political proclivities. Those who were sympathetic to Israel labelled the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Sinai as “administered territories” and used the phrase “Judea and Samaria” for Jordan’s former West Bank. They also included all of Jerusalem within Israeli territory,. Mapmakers who were ideologically neutral generally referred to “occupied territory” and maintained the term “West Bank”. . . In the post-1993 period a Palestinian Authority has been established in the West Bank and Gaza, yet there is no actual independent state of Palestine. Most international maps have stayed with the terms “West Bank” and “Gaza” but maps published by the Palestinian Authority describe these areas as “Palestine.” Furthermore, Palestinian Authority maps usually leave out Israel and assign its territory to “Palestine,” with the added designation that it is “occupied territory.”Arthur Jay Klinghoffer, Harvey Sicherman, The power of projections: : how maps reflect global politics and history, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 pp.37-8 We are dealing with a defined territory and its naming. User:Ynhockey would make tidy distinctions, define the bound geographical territory (CIA Factbook) as just a political reality, and use Judea and Samaria for all other contexts. In his own work on Wiki, much of it admirable, we find many maps. Examine the following map he authored and uploaded, and which is employed on the Battle of Karameh The central colour, a washed acquamarine tint, allows one to highlight the field of movement in the battle, and blurs the neat territorial division between the West Bank, and Jordan. But note that, in a wholly unnecessary manner, Israel is stamped in large bold characters and made to overlay the West Bank, which is placed diminutively in parentheses. Willy-nilly, the impression is that the West Bank is some territorial hypothesis or province within Israel. Whether Ynhockey meant to give the reader this impression or not is immaterial. Maps, as one source already quoted noted, reflect the cognitive bias of the mapmaker as much as an interpretation of a landscape, and here the bias is that the West Bank is under Israel, behind Israeli lines, a subset of that state. It is a fine example of what many cartographers and historians of cartography argue: the making of maps, and toponymic nomenclature in them, serves several purposes, to clarify, as here, a battle landscape, for example, but also to impose or assert power, or claims, or blur facts. Objectively, User:Ynhockey has loaded wiki with a map that cogs our perceptions, tilting them to an annexationist assumption. Indeed, unlike the Israeli government so far, his map actually looks like it has the West Bank annexed. Further reading: Mark Monmonier, No Dig, No Fly, No Go. How maps restrict and control, University of Chicago Press 2010 Re: 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict and Human Shield Our text currently reads that "[Israeli Defense Forces, IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields'; an allegation denied by Hamas," and "In response, Israel claimed that many civilian casualties were the result of Hamas using the Gazan population as 'human shields' at alleged missile launch targets, an allegation denied by Hamas." This text seems incorrect, as Hamas has on multiple occasions acknowledged using human shields, both during this conflict, and in general, and praised those who use that tactic as martyrs. (Although they have in other contexts denied it as well.) How should we correctly describe this part? Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri: "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes." "We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be" http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729#.U8kvA_nP3z4 http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/hamas-encourages-civilians-to-ignore-warnings-act-as-human-shields-video/ http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12019 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Better source : http://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-gaza-residents-acting-human-shields-israeli-forces-258223Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Sami Abu Zuhri does not use the term "human shield". Besides, the video refers to practice that some Gazan residents have adopted where they would stand on the roof of targeted homes in hopes of preventing its bombing by Israel attacks, which is quite different from the conventional definition for human shield. Nevertheless, Israel continues to use such vague terms and explanations to defend its assault. Naturally, we would have to include the perspective of the other side as well. Hence the video cited for Hamas' denial. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC) How is that different than the conventional definition of human shield? That seems EXACTLY the definition to me? From the lede of the article you linked "placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Homes are not "combatant targets". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC) I would normally say that is a fair point, except for them being used repeatedly as launch sites for rockets, and the place where the combatants and leaders are. However, in the interest of compromise, is there a way that we could flesh out the current text? Something along the lines of "Hamas has denied used human shields, but has encouraged/praised people to/who go on roofs of homes and buildings to discourage them from being bombed by Israeli forces"? OR some other wording you think accurately captures Zuhri's statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC) You mean like the bombing of the rehabilitation center for the severely disabled that killed 4 patients and their nurse, and it turns out the alleged Hamas member was not even home at the time? I think sentence you proposed is suggestive, and possibly violates WP:SYNTH. Note that the video has been discussed earlier at Talk:Operation_Protective_Edge#Human_Shield. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Not trying to justify any side, but what you do is sort of cherry picking. Most of IAF strikes are against legitimate targets (at least according to IDF intelligence), sites that are used as launch sites, hideouts or missile and weapon caches. Once in a while there are mistakes and wrong or unrelated target are being hit, and these do not represent the vast majority of airstrikes. According to IDF, more than 1500 airstrikes were used, and only very little of these actually hit these targets in which "disabled patients or children: were hit. This is a very small number by any means, although these are the only cases that are being shown in the social media, to provoke emotional responses. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC) "pal watch" is not reliable source, but Washington Times is [6]. However, we all must respect some basic rules, including that this is not a place for discussion, who is to blame for this war. Our personal oppinions on this war are irrlevant for Wiipedia, we must edit without bias. Beside that, there are few other rules 1) 1rr, 2) WP:NPOV, that needs to be respected.--Tritomex (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC) I agree entirely. My original point was that a statement by the hamas spokesperson about is surely notable and relevant enough for inclusion. Readers can determine how to interpret the statements from the various sides on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC) clarification The question is not "Should we say Hamas admitted to use of Human shields in video X" but "Should the video be mentioned, in the context that entities/sources X,Y, Z have brought it up in discussions/allegations about IF Hamas uses human shields". Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Additional sources discussing this quote found after the creation of the RFC http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/24/israel-gaza-human-rights-human-shields/13112057/ http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-hamas-civilians-human-shields/18534 http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/24/hamas-may-be-alienating-other-arabs-but-its-making-new-friends-in-the-west/ http://www.thetimesherald.com/usatoday/article/13112057 http://online.wsj.com/articles/james-t-conway-the-moral-chasm-between-israel-and-hamas-1406243128 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/the-red-alert-that-reminds-us-all-that-war-is-hell/story-fni0ffsx-1226995283529?nk=dcae2acd55233ed7fcd60aca12e5c135 http://www.asianage.com/international/israel-says-hamas-makes-gazans-act-human-shields-736 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/human-shields-are-hamass-pr/article19602451/ http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gold-israel-gaza-proportional-force-20140801-story.html http://time.com/3060203/united-nations-human-rights-council-israel/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/17/aharoni-most-dangerous-weapon-gaza/?page=all Sources from above (expanded so URLs can easily be read) http://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-gaza-residents-acting-human-shields-israeli-forces-258223 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/10/hamas-orders-civilians-die-israeli-airstrikes/?page=all http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729#.U8kvA_nP3z4 http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/hamas-encourages-civilians-to-ignore-warnings-act-as-human-shields-video/ http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12019 Snippets from the relevant sources discussing the quote/video for convinience Newsweek : "Another video published on the site shows Sami Abu Zuhri, the Hamas spokesman in Gaza, encouraging people to use their bodies as human shields to further deter IDF strikes.". USA Today "Netanyahu says Hamas is using civilians as human shields. The Israel Defense Forces issued photographs on its blog Tuesday showing a crowd of people, including children, on a building's roof after Israel urged that it be evacuated.The blog also shows a July 15 video clip of Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri commending people for ignoring Israeli warnings. "The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself," Abu Zuhri said. WSJ "Earlier this month Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on Al-Aqsa TV and encouraged Gaza residents to act as human shields." Herald Sun "Again, Hamas knows that, which is perhaps why its spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri boasted on Al Aqsa TV on July 8 that Hamas’s tactic of using civilians as human shields “has been proven effective”." Asian Age "The Israeli Defence Forces, which circulated a video of Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri encouraging the use of human shields, said that Hamas is instructing Gazan population to climb rooftops and protect its terrorists." TimesHerald (reprint of USA today) Washington Post "The Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, admitted July 8 that Hamas was using the Palestinians as human shields and that this had has proven to be effective." channel4 "Actually Hamas has made no secret of advocating the use of civilians as human shields to try to face down Israeli aggression.A senior spokesman for the group, Sami Abu Zuhri, gave an interview on Palestinian station al-Aqsa TV earlier this month." Globe and Mail "Hamas openly encourages civilians to act as human shields. Here’s what Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri had to say recently on Al-Aqsa TV (via the Middle East Media Research Institute): “This attests to the character of our noble, jihad-fighting people, who defend their rights and their homes with their bare chests and their blood … We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy in order to protect the Palestinian homes.”" LA Times "Against this Israeli effort, Hamas employed a counter-strategy of trying to prevent civilians from heeding Israeli warnings. On July 8, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on local television and called on Gazans to serve as human shields against Israeli air attacks." Time "What makes Hamas’ actions a double war crime is that they target civilians in Israel while exploiting civilians in Gaza and using them as human shields.Hamas is building its terror command centers and weapons storage facilities among schools, hospitals and mosques, showing no regard for civilian lives. Israel’s concerted efforts to avoid harming uninvolved civilians have been well documented. Hamas instructs the people in Gaza to ignore Israel’s phone calls, leaflets and text messages, warning civilians of pending attacks against terrorists. Knowingly, they put Palestinians in harm’s way turning them into propaganda tools. Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said in a television interview earlier this month, “the fact that people are facing Israeli warplanes bare-chested to protect their homes, I believe this procedure has proved its efficiency. And we in the Hamas movement call on our people to adopt this procedure.” Washington times "But Hamas’ “Interior Ministry” has cynically instructed Gazans to ignore these warnings, and has encouraged their people to act as human shields. Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri told the terror organization’s al-Aqsa TV network last week that instructing people to serve as human shields was an, “effective policy,” and one that, “reflects the character of our brave, courageous people.” He continued by blatantly stating, “We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy.” I have notified the NPOV, NOR, and RSN noticeboards about this RFC Survey include as proposer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC) include. The uncharacteristically bitter and POV tone of your reflections are not helping your cause, Nishidani. You usually contribute a well-balanced argument. However, I remain to be ultimately convinced, based on sober language and some bloody good RS. I did not expect the poor argument below from you. That's me editing after 6 cans of Strongbow Cider at 3am. You can do better than that. Please completely rework your argument, and avoid terms like Hasbara. Engage me, don't make me wince. Respectfully, Irondome (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Don't include When I read the quoted sentence, the only message I get is that people are really defenseless and are using their last weapons (lives) to protect their homes, and that, people who are not afraid of death may do every thing possible and hence do every thing to protect their homes. Don Juan says: "When one has nothing to lose, one becomes courageous. We are timid only when there is something we can still cling to." To me, it does not mean that they are encouraged to make a human shield against the planes but to do every thing they can for their homes and not to fear death. Mhhossein (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Include. It's relevant and sourced... why not? -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Include A vague statement encouraging people to "oppose Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone" is nowhere close to a definition of a human shield. It can just as well be read as a defiant attitude towards Israel. There has to be actual evidence of people either forced to, or explicitly being deliberately placed so as to shield combatants from attack, or to shield combat targets, to qualify as human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) --- Update: I have changed my vote to "include" for the reasons given elsewhere. Kingsindian (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Include There are well-sourced evidences that Hamas using civilians as human shields. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Include the exact quote if properly sourced, but not in juxtaposition to the human shields, as per Kingsindian. If there are reliable unbiased sources supporting the human shields, in juxtaposition to the Hamas denial. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Don't change/don't include - I've yet to see a black and white statement from Hamas leaders staying "Stay in your homes so that the Israelis will bomb you and you will be our shields" that's cited by reliable sources, or anything like that... what we have here are vague, unclear videos being referred to by mostly unreliable sources (GatewayPundit for once). I agree with Mhhossein and Kingsindian, essentially. For what it's worth, the article already includes the official Hamas line, as taken from CNN, that they encourage people to stay in their homes because they would be as unsafe (or more) if they were in public streets / areas. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Don't include. Of course it's inappropriate to include this. Even putting aside the largely inadmissible batch of sources, there's no reason to think that human shields are what's being referred to here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Include explained that it's proof of a "human shield" strategy. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Include - The use of human shields is a serious accusation that is backed up by evidence.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Don't include It is original research and requires a secondary source to connect the dots. A human shield is a non-combatant and involuntary. People who stood in front of tanks in Tiananman square were not human shields. Had they instead tied up Kindergardeners and laid them in front of the tanks, those children would have been human shields. TFD (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Don't include because in a highly charged context, the quote, whose context and translation are murky, becomes a reprehensible way of justifying the bombing of a civilian population. There's no way to pretend this isn't a political issue. -Darouet (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Don't include as it's WP:SYN to imply that the statement has any relation with Hamas using human shields. // Liftarn (talk) Don't include, basically per Liftarn. It is an identified IDF propaganda meme, not appropriate to historical narrative, except to note that it is an Israeli meme used to sway Western public opinion. It is a vicious 'spin' on complex events, using one obscure quote to frame a battle strategy which Gazans have no other option than to fight from urban areas, as in every known war, and as Yitzhak Laor writing for the London Review of Books (LRB) entitled a similar strategy, the taking point is to drive home to the world that 'You (Hamas) are terrorists, we (ID) are virtuous.' (LRB, Vol. 28 No. 16 · 17 August 2006 pp.11-12). Every single meme deployed by Israel's Foreign Ministry, the IDF and many users here in Wikipedia to press this 'case' of cowardly warfare by Hamas has been cooked up in defiance of history, Jewish history in its most desperate moments, as Uri Avnery wrote some days ago: For viewers of the Israeli media, Hamas is the incarnation of evil. We are fighting “terrorists.” We are bombing “terror targets” (like the home of the family of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh). Hamas fighters never withdraw, they “escape.” Their leaders are not commanding from underground command posts, they are “hiding.” They are storing their arms in mosques, schools and hospitals (as we did during British times). Tunnels are “terror tunnels.” Hamas is cynically using the civilian population as “human shields” (as Winston Churchill used the London population). Gaza schools and hospitals are not hit by Israeli bombs, God forbid, but by Hamas rockets (which mysteriously lose their way) and so on.' If anyone tried to write the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, using the Nazi antisemitic spin that high casualties were caused by the Jewish resistance when the resistance forces used women and children as human shields, I'd not only automatically revert it: I'd report him. The Poles' resistance in Warsaw is a Jewish resistance. Only yids are capable of the blackmail of putting women and children in the front line, to take advantage of the Germans' sense of scruple.' This obscene crap was reliably noted down by Mihail Sebastian Journal, 1935-1944, Pimlico, 2003 p.238, reporting what the antisemite (to the end of his life) Mircea Eliade said at the time. Worst still, as I have often noted, the Israeli Supreme Court has condemned to IDF for the practice of using human shields, and despite the high court's ruling, the IDF continues to use human shields with impunity. The IDF has consistently used Palestinian children to this end, from Jenin to Operation Cast Lead (see here, only one of numerous cases). Yanir Yagna, a Likud MK publicly called for deploying Palestinian prisoners (many without formal charges against them) as human shield against Qassam rockets. Of course that and dozens of other pieces of rhetorical shit people like myself notice are never worked into wiki pages. Or if they are, it's usually some POV-crank who does it. It was even used of Hezbollah, with even Amos Oz spouting this crap in 2006 ('this is not always an easy task, as Hizbullah missile-launchers often use Lebanese civilians as human sandbags,') only to be informed, if he ever troubled to follow up the technical literature, that Human Rights Watch, in its report on the 2006 Israeli assault on Lebanon, found to be completely unfounded, though it did find Israel had both repeatedly bombed both "individual vehicles and entire convoys of civilians who heeded the Israeli warnings to abandon their villages" as well as "humanitarian convoys and ambulances" that were "clearly marked,"(just as here).Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Threaded discussion 3 of the four sources you cite are RS only in the sense of the abbreviation for rat ####. Please read Human shield, esp. this section and Neve Gordon and Nicola Peruigini, On 'human shielding' in Gaza Al-Jazeera 18 July 2014. Calls by Hamas to stay on and not flee are identical to the calls by Yishuv leaders to Jews in Kfar Etzion and Jerusalem to stay there and not flee. To spin this, as the IDF press handouts have repeatedly as compelling unwilling people at gunpoint to get killed, while militants hide behind them is, frankly, obscene. There are numerous examples from Masada right down to the present day in Jewish history, and world military history, of what is being spun here as a coerced stay-behind behaviour of civilians. Of course, it would be easier for Israel to request that all Hamas fighters emerge from their tunnels and play by the rules of war, as drones and F4 Fighter planes, and satellites pinpoint them, and the ultra-sophisticated guidance systems of tanks and drones liquidate them. That's the premise. Hamas militants are cowards, whereas the whole army shooting at a safe technological distance of miles is heroic, defending the fatherland while killing what remains of the adversary's.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC) So, there are sources that are not rat ####, and in the other articles, we discuss the actions by Israel in a similar context. So your !vote is an include then? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC) No. The Washington Post just picked up the Hasbara, and we know from past studies this is propaganda. No one is editing in significant elements of the damage to the civilian population while people like yourself appear to be avid to press home a known piece of hasbara that implies all civilians deaths are forms of coerced suicide. Israel has, as anyone in the West Bank can tell you, consistently used kids as shields over the last 20 years, it has been condemned by Israel's Supreme Court for doing so, and persists. It now had the shamelessness to accuse Hamas of the very unmanly act its own troops have often employed, even in the last invasion of northern Gaza. My point is that this is an IDF meme, not an element of the battle front, and the function of the meme is to suggest to readers that the casualties in Israel's onslaught, despite 10 documented cases in the first three days which look like war crimes because in Israeli strike after strike whole families were wiped out, are not Israel's fault, but a result, as the IDF put out in the Kaware's case, of Hamas constraining people to expose themselves to the 'innocent' destruction of houses of human habitation. The article is (I could write 20 pages on this) already like an IDF handout, and further attempts to 'screw' the other POV, almost invisible, are unacceptable, esp. since editors here are wholly disinterested generally in any other story than the one spun by the 4th most powerful army in the world and its ally, the United States of Amnesia, whose purity of arms every two years consists in massacring a captive population. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC) My computer stalls whenever I open the Economist. The statement below looks like a reference to the Kaware family incident, it is false, or at least not factual. See under Kaware at List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge. Seven members of a family were killed when they climbed on the roof of their house to act as a human shield, however, their home was still struck despite their action.(Israelis and Palestinians: From two wrongs, ruin, The Economist) Sources at the time of the article 12 often repeated this, and the Economist has taken it up. You need in-depth interviews to work what the motives were. In the Kaware case, it appears some children went on the roof to check out the damage to a solar heating device hit by a rocket (which they took to be a near-miss, as the family thought the danger period had passed and reentered the house). Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC) I removed the addition by Gaijin42 as it violates WP:SYNTH: Statement 1: "...Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the storage of weapons in schools, videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings". Statement 2: "a video of Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri saying 'The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself'." Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC) It does not violate synth, the very first reference includes all of those points. As for the Kaware family, the New York times has a direct quote from the Kaware family saying "Our neighbors came in to form a human shield" Israeli Attackers Warn Gazans Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC) And I note that your quotes dropped the attribution which was "As evidence of Israel's allegations that Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the" which makes it clear that this is a statement by a party (the IDF), and not a fact in wikipedia's voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC) That is the New York Times. The B'tselem report gives a completely different account. There are in fact several conflicting versions, as one would expect from rapid interviews in an area under bombardment. What is known is that this is a meme strongly favoured by the Israeli government spinning of the high civilian casualty rate, as it has been in the two preceding wars on Gaza. On the ground interviews with numerous survivors are numerous, and popular opinion in Gaza denies that their relatives, or themselves, are shot at, bombed or killed because Hamas orders them to behave as shields. You can get this in Peter Beaumont's coverage of the famous Beit Hanoun donkey herder, or in Hamas using human shields? Gazans deny claims, or any number of articles. The reasons people stay put include Hamas's desire that they do so, their own preference to stay knit together in their homes rather than outside, their fatalism (Inshallah), and the lack of nearby shelters. As one person said: "Where do we go to? Some people moved from the outer edge of Khan Younis to Khan Younis centre after Israelis told them to, then the centre got bombed. People have moved from this area to Gaza City, and Gaza City has been bombed. It's not Hamas who is ordering us in this, it's the Israelis." Given the ideological spinning, bravery and defiance even, confidence that standing on roofs saved some houses years ago, why not now, with outs, etc. in short cultural practices and beliefs, and physical difficulties in moving round a war zone, the extensive focus in that section on Israel's singular meme is undue. If the NYTs says one thing, and B'tselem another, on the Kaware family, you just can't cite the former as the true version of people's motives. It may happen to be, indeed, what one member of the Kaware family believed, but that may be an exception. It may be a boast, it may be a way of a survivor proving his loyalty to the Hamas government after a truce, to secure a benefit from Hamas authorities, if he, and they are still alive. Life is complex, motivations idem, and war reportage that ignores these complexities and peculiarities is, just that, POV spinning by military and political parties. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC) I have many issues with Gaijin42's edit. 1. There is a RfC over whether to use the Hamas leader's statement in conjunction with human shields. I opposed it there and still oppose it now. The statement by the Hamas leader is notable, but it is not a call for human shielding, and it certainly does not show that people stayed in their homes because of Hamas forcing them to. I haven't heard any arguments there as to how it counts as human shielding. Even if one calls it "shielding", it does not count as "human shielding" unless the Hamas leader asked them to shield combat targets and not their homes. From the comments there, I do not see much agreement there either. 2. The USA today article simply attributes the "human shields" claim to Israel and mentions the Hamas video and then it quotes the IDF blog directly. It does not render any judgement about whether it counts as human shielding. I don't know if the claim becomes more respectable, just because it is laundered through a source (USA Today) which takes the claim directly from Israel and regurgitates it on the its pages. 3. What about the B'Tselem investigation of the Kaware family mentioned by Nishidani, which deals with this issue in detail? 4. This business of giving warnings etc. There have been reports of Hamas's assurances making people complacent and thus they didn't leave. First of all, the Goldstone commission even last time addressed this issue, saying that in the vast majority of the cases, after the calls to evacuate etc. there was no attack. They concluded it was more of psychological warfare than anything else. This also the point made here: [7] Ordering out 100,000 people from their homes is not a legitimate strategy. Secondly, the responsibility does not end just because you give a warning to evacuate. This has been addressed by B'Tselem in the analysis of the Kaware family. 5. Finally, if this statement is to be included anyway over my objections, I would request that some other word than "evidence" be used since I do not see this as much evidence of human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC) ordering people out of their homes to wander off from a potential danger zone goes back to the 1948 war, and one reason the city of Lydda was ethnically cleansed was to throw 50,000 Arab people onto the Jordanian army and fuck up its food and equipment logistics for war, by forcing on it the duty of coping with civilians. Numerous other examples come to mind of war tactics. Throwing 150,000 people out of their homes by warnings has all sorts of secondary calculations like these (e.g. creating popular disenchantment with Hamas if it can't cope being not the least of them) not only those regarding the need to clear an area so it can be carpetbombed.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC) My objections have been pretty much conveyed by editor 'Kingsindian'. The current placement of Abu Zuhri's quote is strongly implying that Abu Zuhri (and thus Hamas) are encouraging people to shield combat targets and places where weapons are stored. That is NOT what he said and you know that very well, and no amount of sources making such connection will justify its inclusion in the manner you have put here. Never mind the fact that the usage of "human shield" here is entirely misleading to begin with. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Multiple reliable sources have discussed the quote, directly in the context of the question of if Hamas uses human shields or not. If you have reliable sources disputing this association, please present them and include them as a counterargument in the text. Otherwise your objection is WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Which "reliable reference" conflates between the "storage of weapons in schools" AND Abu Zuhri's call for civilians to stay at targeted areas? While the term "human shields" is used, none of your sources interprets Abu Zuhri's statement as one intended to protect combat targets or storage sites. They all seem to agree that it is reference to the protection of people's own homes (how dare they). The content you added and the way it is presented is implying that Abu Zuhri demanded that people stand firm on top of rocket launchers and accept Israel's air strikes, which is a distortion of what he actually said and I believe that falls under WP:SYNTH. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC) It seems to me that the best wording is something like: Israeli has asserted that Hamas uses 'human shields' to defend militants and weapons based on Israeli's analysis of videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings, allegations that Hamas has rejected. Or what would you all suggest? In terms of Zuhri's quote, it's not clear at all (as referred to by many people in the RFC) that's he calling for people to submit themselves into being shields. Putting that spin on it is, well, just that: a certain Israeli-based spin, which is their legitimate POV to assert but shouldn't be written as just a fact. Word it like: Israelis have also cited __'s comment of "__", which they argue is a call for human shielding but Hamas has disputed.? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC) CoffeeWithMarketsObviously various people (including myself) may have issues with some final unknown wording, but I think words roughly to the effect of what you have proposed are workable. Israel (and multiple reliable sources) have pointed to certain events and stated an interpretation. That interpretation disputed. I have no objection to categorizing things as the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV of the relevant parties nor providing space for the contrary POV (assuming such can be sourced)- but several above have stated that the allegations/interpretation cannot even be presented, and that is unacceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC) All of the "sources" used are opinion pieces (and appear to be from highly partisan ones) and therefore not reliable for making the statement that Hamas admitted to using human shields. It is not obvious from the statement that Hamas was admitting to using human shields. They do not say they are forcing non-combatants to stand between them and the Israelis, nor do they say they are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Whether in fact they are using human shields is another issue, but twisting a statement into a confession is tendentious. TFD (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) The Four Deuces Times, Newsweek, LaTimes (right wing rag if I ever heard of one!), UsaToday are all partisan? In any case, the RFC is not "Should way say Hamas admitted it" but "should this quote even be discussed" - The current article text clearly says Israel alleges Human shields, and as part of that allegation points to the video. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) No they are not partisan, but they publish opinions of people of various views, including partisans of both sides. Claiming that an editorial published in one of these sources is a statement made by the publication is misleading. For example you just posted on my talk page a quote that you attributed to the Globe and Mail, which you also cited above, claiming that Hamas had admitted using human shields. The actual source is an opinion piece by Margaret Wente, a highly partisan columnist for the Globe and Mail who, among other things, has written that Canada should become part of the U.S. Do you understand the difference between news reporting, opinions of publications and the opinions of people asked to contribute their opinions to newspaper columns? TFD (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC) I am fine with attributing the claim to some proper source, like Israel and some commentators, or something like that. While it is of course preposterous drivel to me, unfortunately a lot of people, like those who Gaijin42 cited, do believe in drivel; who am I to say they shouldn't get space on Wikipedia? Properly attributed, the inclusion is fine. Kingsindian (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Comparing Arab-Israeli matters to WWII The comparison between "undereported" events and "Vad yashem accounts of the Holocaust" is quite offensive and lacks basic sensitivity.[8] The same goes for misrepresenting Israeli officials with fake/out-of-context quotes (Note: Weissglass says nothing about food) and soapboxing about genocide, "military power out to be a lachrymose victim", et al. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Dov Weissglass:'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' Source:Conrad Urquhart, 'Gaza on brink of implosion as aid cut-off starts to bite,' The Guardian 15 Apr 2006 (the remark was made in February 2006) I don't even know what this talk section is about, having not looked, but I saw this quote and remembered this. Zerotalk 08:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Ah, wikileaks and US cdablegrams corroborating Weissglass's policy. Nothing new, of course, but these basic materials without newspaper spin, clarify the point. Thanks Zero.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Israeli officials have confirmed to Embassy officials on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis. As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to econoffs on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge Genocide/Holocaust analogy was made by Matan Vilnai.'"The more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," .' 'Israeli minister warns of Palestinian 'holocaust,' The Guardian 29 February 2008. 'lachrymose,' was an allusion to a famous complaint by Salo Wittmayer Baron:'“it is time to break with the lachrymose theory of pre-Revolutionary woe, and to adopt a view more in accord with historic truth”,' given a neat exposition by David Engel in hisHistorians of the Jews and the Holocaust, Stanford University Press, 2010 p.56. Yad Vashem's foundation stone was set just after the massacre of Deir Yassin and rises close to that village (1,400 metres away if I remember correctly) whose destruction precipitated the nakba, and on which, somewhat ironically, the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center stands. A curator of the museum who happened to mention this fact was sacked. Do you think I should be deplored for remembering what I read? Cf. Jeffrey C. Alexander, Trauma: A Social Theory, Wiley 2012 p.120. In short, editors in this area should familiarize themselves with the topic (any brief allusion to the real history of this area is habitually dismissed as 'soapboxing' ). Lack of knowledge of both history and who said what means that the obvious seems surprising, if not a travesty of the (lack of) knowledge one might possess. So kindly drop it. I'm busy. Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @Nishidani: The Hebrew meaning of 'shoah' (not 'The Shoah') is disaster, not 'genocide' -- so you can retract that word and future use of Matan Vilnai (or Ovadyah Yosef, for that matter). Itamar Shapira, a self-described "ex-Jew" which you mistakenly call "A curator" (he was a tour guide) was indeed fired. Isn't that a big enough clue? I don't know why you think it pertinent to mention him and the Deir Yassin massacre. Do you believe soapboxing justifies earlier soapboxing? Your comments are long and philosophical. Quotes by "anti-Zionist rabbis" and "ex-Jews" that take things out of context and have little historical accuracy. Promoting political or ideological struggle, e.g. "Just as the Nazi final assault",[9] is prohibited. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. The article on The Holocaust here reads>: The biblical word shoah (שואה; also transliterated sho'ah and shoa), meaning "calamity", became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the 1940s, especially in Europe and Israel.[19] Shoah is preferred by some Jews for several reasons, including the theologically offensive nature of the word "holocaust", ' 'Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai went as far as threatening a "shoah,"the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster. The word is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust,' That Vilnai backtracked and tried to cover up what everyone who heard him understood by the term with the limp excuse that when he personally uses the word 'shoah' he doesn't think of the meaning attached to it in Hebrew and by all Jews, and Westerners, but meant it to refer to a 'disaster'. It's like saying that when you use the word 'apple' no thoughht of the fruit crosses your mind, but only an image of New York or Microsoft's competitor. Sure, yeah. Yawn. Look at the context. You want to remove a source that details a series of Israeli massacres from oral memories of the survivors. Itamar Shapira exercised his right to remark on a feature in the landscape: -as you recall the holocaust, recall that next door there existed a village where over 100 Palestinians were murdered-. He would make an excellent wikipedian editor, but recalling both versions of a country's history, Jewish and Palestinian, is evidently good enough warrant over there for getting fired. You don't understand that. People raised on free speech, democratic principles do. The tendency of editors to find excuses for any remark or fact deleterious to one side's image, while editing vigorously to showcase everything negative about the other side, is why this area of wikipedia is worked in continual violation of the obligation to assure neutrality, whatever one's private opinions.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC) The article on The Holocaust says rightly that the word "Shoa" translation is "calamity". Usually, people refer to the Holocaust the use the term "Hashoa" ( The Holaucaust) or "Shoat yehudei Romania" (Romanian Jews Holocaust), so it seems that MarciulionisHOF is right. Ykantor (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Not to comment on the substance of your discussion here, I would point out that it is doubtful that Vilnai was referring to the Holocaust in his use of the word "Shoa". In modern Hebrew, the word "Hashoa" (with the definite article) universally refers to the Holocaust; but without the definite article, it is often used as a general term for catastrophe. See, for example, this quote by Yair Lapid: "מה שקורה בארץ עכשיו לא פחות משואה אנשים נאלצים לעבוד בשלוש עבודות רק כדי לשלם שכירות" (translation: What is happening in Israel now is no less than a shoa' - people have to work three jobs just to pay rent.) --Ravpapa (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks Rav. I'm aware of the distinction between'shoa/hashoa, which Ykantor points up. The problem is, um, hermeneutic. I was taught to read, and write, with attention to the resonance of words. Freudian 'lapses' didn't begin with psychoanalysis. All of classical and Talmudic exegesis accepts as an interpretative truism that the full range of meanings given a word is relevant to the interpretation of the content. Consider the verbal and cultural context I wrote out below (in response to the premise that somehow these numerous reports of wild statements by senior figures in Israel are, one by one, just 'misunderstandings'). Many sources say you are both wrong. 'shoah'/'ha-shoah' is an equivocation.Both Ynet/Reuters, commenting:'"Holocaust"(shoah) is a term rarely used in Israel outside discussions of the Nazi genocide during World War Two. Many Israelis are loathe to countenance using the word to describe other contemporary events.' and Haaretz are Israeli newspapers that took his comment, as did many other Jewish sources, as utterly distasteful because it evoked the Holocaust. Language works that way. When the town council of Or Yehuda posted a sign outside the cityduring the recent gaza War telling its local boys serving in the IDF: Residents of Or Yehuda are with you! Pound (kansu) their Mom so you can return safely to yours. The word 'pound' means 'fuck/bang' in hebrew slang, and can't avoid that connotation, even if the jerk who thought it up comes back and justifies the phrasing by arguing that 'bang' means (just as bad) 'bomb the shit out of them'. When Professor Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University said that raping Palestinian women was a deterrant to terrorism, though adding that is wasn't meant to be advice to soldiers or, yesterday, his colleague emeritus professor Hillel Weiss called for the annihilation of the Palestinians, saying it is inevitable and won't constitute 'genocide' since that applies to a people, which the Palestinians are not, you don't as an editor equivocate, or run to the defense of whoever said what, as if it were impossible, uniquely for some eminent israelis, among them rabbis Dov Lior, Ovadia Yosef and Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Congregation Etz Chaim in Atlanta, to consider the murder of innocents or genocide itself as an option. If Moshe Feiglin calls for the extermination not only of Hamas but anyone who supports it, and bundling the rest of Gazans into camps where they will await relocation abroad, with a subsidy so Israel can build a nice commercial tourist industry for itself in Gaza(a move supported by Rabbi Ben Packer here), or if Yochanan Gordon calls for genocide, and Ayelet Shaked, a Knesset member groomed as potential prime ministerial material on the eve of the murder of Abu Khdeir, and before the war broke out wrote 'in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”', then it is unwise to pretend, on every occasion that there is a (foreign) misunderstanding, that genocide wasn't invoked, or murder of innocents justified. Update: 'In the post, written Friday and titled “Dealing with Savages,” Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck offers suggestions that range from destroying whole Palestinian towns to uprooting the Dome of the Rock.“There is a war for the land of Israel that is being waged, and the Arabs who dwell in the land of Israel are the enemy in that war and must be vanquished,” Pruzansky writes. . .Pruzansky refers to “the Arab-Muslim animals that span the globe chopping, hacking and merrily decapitating,” and then writes, “At a certain point, the unrestrained behavior of unruly animals becomes the fault of the zookeeper, not the animals.”' Ben Sales, 'New Jersey Rabbi Steven Pruzansky Spews 'Savage' Hate in Blog Post,' The Forward 24 November 2014. Nishidani (talk) 24 November 2014 (UTC) The point Ykantor is that as editors, we are obliged to find the facts, and report them, whatever the consequences, and it is disappointing to observe the large influx of editors now who seem to edit defensively or aggressively to promote an official agenda that appears to read: 'we are incapable of evil, malice, wrongdoing. These are properties associated with the other side.' No one is exempt from evil, and even the devil has, by late report, some good features. Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Wider review: Nishidani I'm having trouble getting past these repeated 'genocide' assertions, as well as the matter of allusions between Arab-Israeli matters and WWII. I am posting for wider review on WP:AE. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC) They are not 'generic assertions'. They are links to documents in the public domain. I am not to blame if so many people consistently make these remarks. Could I counsel you, in your own interests to withdraw that? You came to my page, with a sense of offense over our disagreement at Rafah massacre. The implicit request above was that I clarify what I meant in remarks you took to be injurious. I did so by documenting the kinds of sources that lay in my mind as I wrote those remarks. This was necessary because your misprision appears to come from a lack of familiarity with the facts. You silenbtly passed over my corrections, and challenged a thing or two. I went to the trouble to illustrate in depth the issue as I saw it, which is an editorial problem: namely, learning, whatever one's POV, to know the subject sufficiently thoroughly that you are not discountenanced by anything that might, in an edit, show the unseemly side of an issue. We are under an obligation to see all sides of these realities, not to muckrake for one side, and defend to the last comma the bona fides of the other. Please note that almost nothing of what I know of these things has influenced my editing. I read a lot of trash like the above, but do not rush to cram wiki pages with damning evidence. Unfortunately this is not the case with many new editors. You now use this to report me for a sanction. Now, jumping at that to report what was a time-consuming act of courtesy to clear up something that appearted to bother you as if I had said something indictable, looks as though from the outset you were on a 'fishing expedition.' I'm willing to believe that this contretemps is just typical of a certain newbie naivity, and not gamesmanship. Others may think otherwise, but perhaps you should familiarize yourself with WP:Boomerang and calculate whether your interests are served by making such a complaint.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC) The same comparison: In description of your revert: "In all wars, children have fought. They did so in the Warsaw ghetto" I am not sure that Wikipedia is the right place for such comparisons. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) I must admit (as I said in Russian to you the other day) that I am completely perplexed by recent trends here. In several pages, a notable number of editors have swept in, all intent on making an IDF talking point stick: Hamas uses children as human shields (translation= we aren't to blame for the 557 killed in bombing runs), Hamas uses children in war translation= we aren't to blame for the 557 killed in bombing runs), Hamas uses civilian structures, mosques, schools, and charities to store weapons (translation= we aren't to blame for the destruction of several hundred social centres, mosques and schools). Well, obviously the pages must register these claims, for that is what RS report. When I simply edited in several sources, from Israeli and Jewish commentators, which compare this talking point with the fact that in 1947-1948 Jews in their fight for independence used schools, synagogues and kindergartens and all sorts of civilian institutions to stash weapons, and therefore that this claim (true or untrue) about Hamas is also a fact about Israel's foundational history, shocking if Hamas does it, glorious if Israel did it, the edit is immediately reverted, and several editors complain that I (not Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy, Richard Silverstein et al.,) am making offensive analogies!? The analogy, sir, is in the sources. Today WarKoSign wanted to fuss the casualty page with a dubious source suggesting Hamas used children in several instances. I personally don't find that claim absurd: it's quite possible youths in Gaza have helped their fathers, brothers, relatives in fighting. After all, this, as I documented in detail (Military use of children) is what happened in Europe in 1939-1945, and Jewish youths in Poland such as among the Bielski partisans and in many other places valiently fought against those who plotted their extermination. My objection was to the poor source, and to WP:Undue. The lead there is minimal, and plunking the 'Hamas are contemptuous of children's lives' meme on every page, when it is amply covered on the main articles, suggests to me POV-extremism gone amuck. Nishidani (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) I am afraid that there is something wrong in your understanding of current Arab-Israeli reality when you trying to apply today the WW2 framework to this new, not black & white, reality. May be the reason is that same Avnery, whom you call the "one of the greatest Israelis of our time" (:), that same Levi, and others such your sources are not the most respected men in Israel. Their point of view here, if not marginal, but isn't shared by more than few percents of society. Did you try to read some other authors? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Science, culture, philosophy, art, everything that makes us civilized, comes from the 'few percents of society' (the same is true of everything that makes us barbarous). The premise in your remark is that an idea is sound if a majority underwrites it.57% of American believe in the existence of Satan; 77% believe aliens have visited earth; 46% believe God created man on the 23 October 4004 BC. The only corrective to the general impression one gets from mainstream newspapers that mankind is insane is to read New Scientist sedulousy from cover to cover each week.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Nishidani, observing this farcical interaction reminded me of this quote from Molly Scott Cato: Perhaps most important of all, real education is not always an enjoyable experience. Genuine education is emancipatory and revolutionary, which may be a reason why conservatives distrust it. The good educator challenges the student's world-view and this cannot always be a comfortable experience. You know you are teaching successfully when you see a furrow begin to appear on the youthful skin of your students’ foreheads. This connotes the performance of ‘thinking’, an activity that has been increasingly rare in universities since the advent of the market. (Universities of Transition, Red Pepper, March 2011.) You seem to be doing a good job of producing "furrows" (metaphorical or real) on your interlocutors' brows! And, as MSC points out, the increasing corporate control of university education might (partly) explain why it seems that so few people nowadays are intellectually equipped to see through the framing of issues presented in mainstream sources. --NSH001 (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Perhaps I should just ignore these requests on my talkpage. The human mind is wired so that synaptic maps are formed by associational leaps. Analogy is the natural mode for reducing randomness in the infinite, potentially chaotic linkage of ideas or impressions. It is also the affective template for the roots of ethics in a sense of empathy for the other. Ideology is a system for creating mental buffers or circuit-breaks that hamper the formation of analogies: it is a system for cementing in-group identity by erasing analogy's tendency to cross taxonomic borders, as per the ritual exclamation one was taught to recite inwardly as a child on witnessing calamity befall a stranger:'There, but for the grace, of God, go I.' In ideologically-suffused worlds, this reflex is not only deprecated, it is engineered discursively so that it does not even arise as a possibility. A Roman in Gaul or among the Picts, Cortez in Tenochtitlan were perhaps just illustrating 'nature, red in tooth and claw'. Modernity provides elaborate doctrinal justifications that serve a Han immigrant in Lhasa,a Zionist settler in Hebron, a pioneer rancher on Apache land, a Boer in Transvaal, a Brazilian logger in Amazonia, the squattocracy of Queensland, . . Well, I hope that this can close an unfortunate interlude. I don't have much time these days to edit, let alone explain them to people who are not interested in listening. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Historically children often participated in conflict, and often died as a result. If the article reports deaths of underage militants as something out of the ordinary, then their participation in the fighting must also be represented as something out of the ordinary. If there is nothing unusual in their involvement in fighting, then the number of children dying (513) is notable only for being relatively low - 23% of the causalities vs 44% of general Gaza population.“WarKosign” 11:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I think you miss the point. The fact that some children may have participated in the conflict is, contrary to the way all Israelocentric sources frame it, not anomalous. In Germany WW2, 20% of the civilians who died were children, in Gaza 23% of the casualties were children.20% reminds me of the percentage of German youth fighting in the Battle of Remagen Bridge, 200 I think out of 1,200, made famous but not featuring in the famous The Bridge at Remagen film, all will recall for Robert Redford's panic-sedative 'Hail Marys' as he paddled under fire to the other bank. This doesn't mean that in the case of Gaza, a high percentage of those children died in combat. The numerous and graphically recalled accounts of families of 10-27 bombed to smithereens is evidence to the contrary. Your persistence in trying to lard articles with ill-sourced trivia (using a fringe private think tank's agenda-driven propaganda claim that several children of 513 killed were killed while in proximity to, or abetting combatants) suggesting a nexus between the high number of children killed, and juvenile militancy, is agenda driven, and indifferent to what is required of wikipedians. Please don't write any more on this topic on this page. Do want you are minded to do on these articles, but personally I find all of this cool discussion of how many of half a thousand children killed in 51 one days deserved what they got appalling. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I suppose the difference between "ill-sourced trivia" and "integral part of the debate" is whether the statement promotes your agenda or hinders it. Nobody belittles the number of children - but the nature and reason of their deaths have to be attributed properly. Some of the reported children participated in fighting, some of them were in fact adult militants, some were killed by Hamas's own rockets, some were "urged" to stay at homes, and some were killed by the IDF. Not stating these facts in the article misleads the reader into thinking that IDF killed more than it in fact did. I'm sure that after all the validations are complete there will still remain enough children killed by IDF to satisfy any Israel hater. “WarKosign” 13:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Your editing strikes me as a mimeograph of official IDF or government window-dressing, and utterly predictable, as are your comments. I'm familiar with them because I read press briefings. So it is quite pointless trying to converse rationally here, esp. since any disagreement is implicitly (here explicitly) understood to be symptomatic of 'Israel-haters', of whom, in this 'logic' the President of Israel itself is one, judging from the fact that he said recently precisely the sort of thing detected by a few editors as enmity here. People who think in these terms don't think: they represents official talking-points 'to win the minds and hearts' of the 'majority'. So, do me a courtesy and stay off this page.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Sorry I wasted both of our times. As my usual experience with you, I did not get a response to the essence but a flood of obscure references to unimportant points. You repeatedly accused editors of serving hasbara, yet you follow Hamas's manual almost point-for-point. I will try to suppress my urge to open this page in the future, even if I see other editors making comments here. “WarKosign” 14:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Pathetic Parthian shot, because amnesial. When Hamas defines itself as I have done, calling it 'stupid, terroristic, murderous, and intoxicated by an instrumental indulgence of suffering,' still on this page, you may come back and say that I 'follow Hamas's manual almost point-by-point,' only in the sense that they would be admitting to copying my remark for some future reference text. Hamas is what the rebels of Judea were from the insurrection against Rome, down to Bar Kochba, led often by sicarii. Their cause was legitimate, even noble, their tactics stupid. Perhaps the same can be said of Hamas: they found themselves adopting at one point Israel's model for statehood (assassination, terrorism, massacres and suffering as a horrendous spectre [holocaust] that will appeal to the world's conscience etc.,) as their own, because PLO politics proved only productive of Quislings. Israel and Hamas are just mirrors of each other. There is one difference I admire in the latter, a prejudice I admit to. Courage, fearlessness, something a strategist would not identify as typical of most who have served in the IDF these last decades. One Parthian shot for another is the proper way to end this. This is not a forum for such opinions, but a place to work out how to edit. So that's it. Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Regarding the WP articles on Exceptionalism/ Indispensability Nishidani, which books or scholarly articles do you recommend on the ancient roots of today's delusional belief among almost all countries in the globe that they, and their people, are exceptional or indispensable? Did you by any chance read 'The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome' by Michael Parenti? I recommend it. Additionally, you may want to take a look at an interesting recent article on some of the ancient roots (going back to ancient Greece) of the modern Israeli, American, Chinese, Japanese, UK, Russian, French, German, Spanish, Indian, Brazilian, Nigerian, South African, Chilean, Columbian, Saudi Arabian, Kuwaiti, Iranian (as well as many more countries') power elites pushing their citizenry into the mental illness of falsely believing in their own exceptionalism/ indispensability/ grandiosity/ uniqueness. IjonTichy (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC) It depends on how technical one wants to get or how far one has leisure to read around. There's a good if sometimes abstruse book by Giorgio Agamben called the State of Exception, on the historical roots and philosophical ramifications, which given your mention of Parenti's book, comes to mind because of its excellent examination of homo sacer. But the literature is vast, and much of it psychoanalytic, which is out of vogue, though Freud's remarks on der Narzißmus der kleinen Differenzen, or 'narcissism of minor differences' is a fundamental insight. Generally the works of Norman Cohn are in my view, indispensable for understanding historical trends of paranoia, esp. The Pursuit of the Millennium, Europe's Inner Demons, and Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith. Of course, they are more concerned with paranoid trends in history from messianism to antisemitism, rather than 'exceptionalism', which is in every sense of group identity, as we see from the common endonym of many tribes whose languages frequently define themselves by a word denoting 'people', implying 10,000 out-groups aren't quite people. But more specifically, engineering a notion of 'exceptionalism' is characteristic of all drives towards national statehood. The paradox of this kind of exceptionalism was well put by Ernest Gellner in his Nations and Nationalism: to form a distinct national identity, nation-builders had to mould or rig the micro-world views of numerous regional peasant communities to conform to a fictive sense of belonging to a larger state. You dissolved many 'exceptionalist' internal differences in order to assert an homogenized difference from the rest of the world. Modernization meant cancelling internal differences and exchanging them for a larger difference, that constructed by the new state to differentiate it as distinct from all neighbouring countries. Since democracy is premised on respect for internal differences, there is a natural tension between democracy and nationalism. Nationalism is powerful because it allows maximum expression in a group assertion of being exceptional for individual communities and persons who, sucked into the homogenizing world of industrialism, must sacrifice their personal sense of being individuals qua individuals. It's a safety valve for the loss of a real sense of intimate difference as we are drilled to conform to a broad model of seamless social group-identity. The paradox here is that the United States has a powerful political sense of its version of the fiction, in the idea it has an historic mission as an exceptionalist state, and yet is a democracy. Even in international law, it underwrites general principles and then adds clauses saying it alone is exempt from them (as Noam Chomsky repeatedly points out). It has deep roots, that you can get an idea of by reading any number of works, Jack P. Greene's The Intellectual Construction of America, University of North Carolina Press, 1993, or Byron E Shafer (ed.) Is America Different! A New Look at American Exceptionalism, Clarendon Press 1991 etc. As for the engineering of delusional states of mind, and passing them off as normal, that is inherent in all modernization, and Walter Lippman's Public Opinion is a classic and germinal analysis of the problem. I haven't read Parenti's book. I haven't read for that matter most books I should read. I'll keep an eye out for it.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the detailed information. Talking about Michael Parenti, here is a recent article by him. Reminding us that in all human clashes over the last several thousand years, including but not limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, power elites on all sides of the conflict send low-income and poor people to kill other low-income and poor people and to be killed by them, while the wealthy elites and high-ranking military officers on all sides smile all the way to the bank. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC) The Ghosts of Gaza: Israel’s Soldier Suicides. IjonTichy (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks. A useful summary, perhaps worth inclusion in the article. I don't think that blaming the jihadi elements like Col. Winter gets one anywhere. The IDF's policies haven't changed because of the rise of religious fanatics in the IDF ranks: their presence just makes explaining the usual policies, and criticism of Islamic jihadis, more difficult.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks for demonstrating your extreme anti-Semitism and complete disregard for WP:BLP by calling an honorable Jewish soldier a "religious fanatic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.207.47.232 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Jehovah akhbar! Nishidani (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Perhaps a direct link to this Times of Israel article might be useful.     ←   ZScarpia   13:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (By the way, did you read about Netanyahu's gross, abominable, sickening, insulting etc. comparison between rocket attacks on Israel and Nazi aerial assaults on the UK during WWII? ;) ) Yes I did. Perhaps he got that hyperbole from his father, an excellent historian on medieval matters, but a wild-eyed apocalyptic fantasist with regard to contemporary history.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) From an interview Prof. Netanyahu did with Maariv: [10][11][12].     ←   ZScarpia   02:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Quotes from the book Johnny Got His Gun.   IjonTichy (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Coincidence. I read a long article on that extraordinary man, Dalton Trumbo, some weeks ago.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Yale chaplain forced out by Zionist attacks. The chaplain was forced to resign over a brief letter to the New York Times in which he explained that actions such as the recent Israeli war on the people of Gaza were breeding anti-Semitism in Europe and elsewhere. IjonTichy (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Noted that the day it occurred. He's the last on a list I have of, at last count, 36 prominent academics kicked out of academia or harassed or denied tenure for trying to make a reasonable case for Palestinian rights over the last few years. We have no wiki article on the phenomenon, despite the fact that it is a chronic problem.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC) How is this a problem? Anti-Semites who demonize and tell lies about Jews and Israel should not be brainwashing students. Western universities are infested with anti-Semitism, as can be witnessed with the growing influenced of the racist hate group "Students for Justice in Palestine" in demonizing and slandering Israel on American universities. (unsigned comment left by 190.94.210.123) ZScarpia, care to explain your deliberate mischaracterization of Netanyahu's accurate comparison of the Hamas rocket attack on Israel to Nazi Germany's attacks on Britain? The Gazans are very similar to the Nazis and even have the same ideology of wanting to genocide all Jews. How come you people never post links that cast Arabs or Muslim in a bad light? You always post anti-Israel crap. Here are some things to enlighten you: Fatah official calls for blood to ‘purify’ Jerusalem of Jews Palestinian savages massacre rabbis in Jerusalem synagogue Song urges Palestinians to ‘run over’ Jews “Palestinian” Muslims have a new song, “Car Intifada,” urging Muslims to use their cars to kill Jews 26-year-old Jewish woman stabbed to death by murderous Arabs after being deliberately run over by a car US “deeply concerned” not over recent “Palestinian” jihad attacks, but over Jews building houses Jordanian MPs hold moment of silence for two Palestinian terrorists -- Lawmakers read Koran in memory of cousins who perpetrated deadly Jerusalem synagogue attack, hail them as ‘martyrs’ Hamas praises the brutal murders of innocent rabbis (unsigned comment left by 190.94.210.123) Is that an 'answer' to the documentation above about Israeli calls for a genocidal solution? This is the 'Yes,-but-they-are-even-worse' gambit in the dishwater polemical vein of public discourse on ethics and law. In Italy and Greece, many average people avoid taxes and scream when their services don't function, and their excuse is, 'But they (politicians and bigwigs) steal millions.' So your gambit is proof only of an an-ethical crowd attitude, based on focusing on the sins of others in order to turn the conversation away from one's own faults, shortcomings. It works of course, because, as the poet said Humankind cannot bear very much reality. And as another poet wrote: I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return. One was also told as a child that it is pointless talking back to garrulous airheads with a lopsided sense of outrage, esp. if that outrage is envenomed by a unilateral sense of righteousness and victimization. In any case, you will be reverted if you offload the usual junk of blinkered pathos on this page. So don't waste your time, or mine, further. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC) ZScarpia, care to explain your deliberate mischaracterization of Netanyahu's accurate comparison of the Hamas rocket attack on Israel to Nazi Germany's attacks on Britain? The theme of my postscript was hypocrisy and double standards. A bit of context: recently, a complaint was made about Nishidani's use of the Warsaw Ghetto as an example, the complaint being based on the (bogus) grounds that the ADL has stated that comparisons between the regime in Israel and that in Nazi Germany are anti-Semitic. Now, if supporters of Israel find such comparisons objectionable, shouldn't supporters of Israel avoid making those comparisons about others? If making comparisons between the two regimes is anti-Semitic, then what adjective should be used when supporters of Israel make similar comparisons about others. A case in point, which is why I highlighted it to Nishidani, is Netanyahu's comparison between Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and German ones on Britain during the Second World War [13][14]. The justification comment you left above serves as another case in point: The Gazans are very similar to the Nazis and even have the same ideology of wanting to genocide all Jews. As far as accuracy goes, you might like to read the linked-to Telegraph articles and also look at the Wikipedia ones on Qassam and V-2 rockets. If Netanyahu's speech writer had read the latter, perhaps he or she might not have made the historically erroneous claim that, "There's only been one other instance where a democracy has been rocketed and pelleted with these projectiles of death, and that's Britain during World War Two." Since the total Israeli death toll due to rocket attack is three people, if Hamas is really trying to "genocide all Jews", obviously their current rocket strategy isn't the way they're going to achieve it.     ←   ZScarpia   23:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6 Regarding chronology of rocket fire. Basic claim is: Pre July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas groups. Post July 6 rockets were fired by Hamas. Here are the sources. Some may be ambiguous, but taken together, demonstrate the point, I think. Virtually everyone dates the start of Hamas rocket fire at July 6. The American Conservative "July 6, Israeli air force bombs a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. The bombing ended a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had prevailed since 2011 (probably a typo - me). Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge." Nathan Thrall "As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge." Mouin Rabbani "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid resulted in the death of seven Hamas militants. Hamas responded with sustained missile attacks deep into Israel, escalating further as Israel launched its full-scale onslaught." New Republic: " Then on July 6, the Israeli air force bombed a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Before that, there had been sporadic rocket attacks against Israeli from outlier groups, but afterwards, Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli government launched “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas in Gaza. " The National Interest (Also quotes 3 others in this list) "Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge" Larry Derfner "Then on Sunday, as many as nine Hamas men were killed in a Gazan tunnel that Israel bombed, saying it was going to be used for a terror attack. The next day nearly 100 rockets were fired at Israel. This time Hamas took responsibility for launching some of the rockets – a week after Netanyahu, for the first time since November 2012, accused it of breaking the ceasefire." I found only one which disagrees. It is quite possible that he is simply not differentiating between Hamas and non-Hamas factions. J J Goldberg "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over" Kingsindian (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC) What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC) So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC) It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC) @GGranddad: British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Struck comment of indef blocked and topic banned User:Dalai lama ding dong.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC) @GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC) @WarKosign: There is a considerable difference, both legal and ethical, between a government being responsible for every criminal act "that occurs on its soil", and it failing to punish the perpetrators of criminal acts of its soil. The former is deliberate and calculated criminality; the latter is generally the result of corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency or simply turning a blind eye. It is not synonymous to actual legal responsibility under international law, unless you have sources which disagree with me. Regardless, the idea that, if non-Hamas affiliated elements are firing rockets, you can blame Hamas because "they're responsible for every act that occurs on their soil" is akin to suggesting that the we should directly blame the US government for, say, the Ferguson murder? It's absurd. JDiala (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @JDiala: I could agree with you if Hamas made some effort to stop the rocket fires, or even payed some lip service. Instead it continues praising the heroic action of firing on civilians. How many people were arrested in Gaza for firing on Israel during the ceasefire ? This article says they made some effort, but is there a single result they can show ? Is there a single statement by Hamas that it's wrong or at least that it's against "the Palestinian interest" at the moment ? WarKosign (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC) No offense, but both of you are wasting time debating responsibility. Basic neutral solution, write "Israel considers Hamas responsible". Doesn't matter which Arab liberation militia does what as long as long as it is clearly a racial based terrorist act, Israel can blame either Hamas or Fatah based on whatever information the Shin Beit has (or whatever the Prime Minister feels like). It is not Wikipedia's place to start making disclaimers (unless, there's a really good one that I'm missing? Did a UK resident did the killing or something silly like that?). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Noam Chomsky says "Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing 5 Hamas members on July 7... Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, Israeli officials reported, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8". See Outrage, written on 2 August 2014 in Z Communications. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC) People seem to be missing a really simple point here, which is that rockets are not like pistols or knives, that is, weapons that may be privately owned and distributed. They are a form of artillery, and are therefore mostly used and deployed by state actors, or quasi-state actors like Hamas. To say that non-Hamas sources fired some rockets is therefore absurd; Hamas builds and pays for the rockets, therefore, when they are fired, it is highly unlikely that Hamas knew nothing about it, or had nothing to do with it; rather the opposite. In other words, it is a distinction without a difference. Hamas fires the rockets, one way or another, all of them. Theonemacduff (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC) This article says "Hamas and its affiliates had been firing rockets off and on throughout June", which contradicts the official story that Hamas began firing only as a response to Israel's aggression. “WarKosign” 08:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Now Nishidani helpfully provided this article, supposedly from a "mainstream Western newspapers, written by [a] competent journalist" that says that "on June 29 or 30 did Hamas restart the rocket bombardment of Israeli territory". Currently the article does not say that Hamas began its fire on July 7, only intensified it and took formal responsibility - the only change that perhaps is needed is to mention end of June as beginning of Hamas's fire. “WarKosign” 16:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC) No. One has to weigh the 2 sources, against the several than say differently. I think all of this is one of those issues that demand patience, since there is a source conflict. The simplest way around this, while waiting more definitive work, is to attribute to Sharon and Goldberg the earlier date, and follow Thrall et al., for the assuming responsibility for rockets fired from July 7. Unfortunately, these facts should be ascertainable, but we cannot assume that any of the 9 sources got things right in their respective versions, esp. since no one can figure out whether 29 or 30th. If you don't know which day of two it might be, you don't know. I'm personally amazed scholars can't figure this out, and don't care one way or another whether it is 29/30 or 7 July. But we have to be very careful in this because it is a conflict in sources. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ITIC - (analysis of Gaza Health Ministry's data only): @WarKosign, pls pay attention that ITIC doesn't approve the number of "2,157 killed". As I see, it's their database for analysis only : "The number of names of those killed, examined by the ITIC to date, based on the Palestinian Health Ministry’s lists, is around 900, i.e., about 42% of the number of Palestinians killed (a total of 2,157, according to a report by the Palestinian Health Ministry issued on September 14, 2014). From these lists we have removed duplicate names and added terrorist operatives, who do not appear on them (both for technical reasons and as a result Hamas’s policy of concealment and deception)..." [15] This is the reason why I've added the "(analysis of Gaza Health Ministry's data only)". --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC) @Igorp lj: I based on "From these lists we have removed duplicate names and added terrorist operatives, who do not appear on them (both for technical reasons and as a result Hamas’s policy of concealment and deception)" to say that they don't base their report (only) on GHM. Now I understand what your disclaimer meant - you were referring only to the total number, not to all the numbers by ITIC. They do say, however "After these adjustments, the total number of fatalities examined by the ITIC to date is 1,017, i.e., approximately 47% of the total number of fatalities." - I think we can CALC that ITIC believes total number of fatalities to be 2164 and update the two mentions of it accordingly. “WarKosign” 11:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC) @WarKosign: I'd wait till they finish the work and will publish its results with their CALC numbers. What'd be added at the moment is that they work with somebody's list(s) and count the percentage, not absolute numbers. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC) @Igorp lj: Currently their partial report is in the article with the disclaimer that it's not final and the numbers are extrapolated. Unless we remove it completely, better at least use the correct total number of casualties that they provide. “WarKosign” 11:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC) In my view, the statistics here should be those of tjhe IDF and those of OCHA/UNWRA. The multiplication of Palestinian official or semi-official sources adds nothing. Nor does ITIC help, since it an (un)educated or (dis)interested guess, and a private body. These OCHA/IDF figures 73 vs 55 show the range. Within a few months, when neutral sources publish their results, the picture will be clearer. Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC) @Nishidani: UNRWA with its HAMAS' personnel and "Rockets-inside" - as NPOV source? Are you serious? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Please think before you write my way. No source is NPOV. NPOV is what emerges by presenting all relevant POVs and analyses per WP:Due. And it would help improve your approach here if you grasp the fact that you are under an obligation as a wikipedian to see that, regardless of your personal views, both Israel and Hamas are represented not by rhetorical caricature, but neutrally. The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty. Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Sorry, but after such your comparison as "The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty" I only have to return your "Please think before you write", "you are under an obligation as a wikipedian to see that, regardless of your personal views", etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC) @Igorp lj: Don't be silly. Of course Hamas is not reliable. Only accomplished researchers that happen to agree with Hamas are reliable sources. “WarKosign” 06:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I only adopt to the case of Hamas & IDF what I wrote in the "daughter" topic about what is so similar to attempt to equate Israel with Nazis : : if "The IDF has no better record than Hamas for honesty" would be true ... then we would not met in Wikipedia due to the lack of "Gaza problem", because Arabs would not be longer in Gaza. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ITIC, who admits to ignoring most of the data on casualties while adding 100 non-existent militants to further bias its "reports" is a horrific source. We should not even contemplate using such propagandic arms of the Israeli military. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Most of the data comes from the Hamas health ministry, which has been caught double- or even triple-counting the same names with slightly different spelling dozens of times. It is the international news media which should be ashamed for failing to conduct the kind of detailed, independent studies the ITIC has. BTW, while you have a history of arbitrarily reverting anyone who you feel "looks like a paid editor", it is your edits as a likely sockpuppet and single-purpose POV-pusher that arouses suspicion from my perspective.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @TheTimesAreAChanging: according to No personal attacks, "we should not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. We should comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community, and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks." Mhhossein (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @Dr. R.R. Pickles: - again, it's you opinion only. See from "ITIC at Google Scholar" subtopic above: "++ FYI: "Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center", scholar.google.com, terrorism-info.org.il" It's your own wp:OR till you bring serious RS with ITIC's critics, as well as your repeatable reverts in List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict seem as wp:WAR. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC) I don't dispute ITIC's ability to spread its propaganda, I wouldn't even doubt that a number of editors here work for the organization or affiliates. No honest third party could see value in a source which adds 100 non-existant militants while ignoring most of the data on civilian deaths to get an ideological answer to the ratio of resistant:civilian kills. Israeli organizations often screen data to give ideological answers, just ask Israel's Population and Immigration Authority what's the most popular name in Israel. To "Thetimesareachanging", if thousands of bombs were dropped on my home town I'm sure the victims would share names; I know a few people with identical names. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @Dr. R.R. Pickles: Perhaps you should read ITIC's methodological notes before you announce that they add "100 non-existant militants". Hamas has an official policy of concealing names of dead militants, and ITIC adds names of known dead militants that Gaza Health Ministry "forgot" to mention. The names are in the lists ITIC publishes, as far as I know ITIC is the only organization that is transparent enough to provide complete list with names, classifications and often pictures of the casualties. GHM is openly a propaganda tool of Hamas, yet we give it due place in the article, so whatever you opinion of ITIC is - no reason not to have it too. Name duplications: names of the Palestinians usually consists of two first names, father name and a last name - total of 4 names. It is not impossible to have duplications, but the chance of having dozens of double of triple accidental duplications in a list of 2200 names is extremely low. You can see for yourself if you bother reading any of the ITIC reports before criticizing them.“WarKosign” 18:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC) I really don't care how many anti-Palestine hate-blogs you link to. I did read the ITIC methodology; it's brutally clear that it is a terrible resource; they add non-existant militants and they classify all government workers as terrorists. It is their job to spin the slaughter, it's their sole reason to exist. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @Dr. R.R. Pickles:: "I wouldn't even doubt that a number of editors here work for the organization or affiliates." - IMHO, so insistent repetition of the charges is another violation of the rules (wp:GF as min). --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC) It would be a clear conflict of interest for members of the organizations spoken of in this article to edit the article. I realize you will not enjoy this fact and will continue to attack me for reminding editors of this fact. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @Igorp lj: Assuming good faith is not a policy but a recommendation. Not assuming good faith by itself is not a violation, but is likely to lead to uncivil behavior such as personal attacks or edit warring, which are violations of a policies. @Dr. R.R. Pickles: Thank you for reminding us of Conflict of Interests, it is an important policy to keep in mind. Let me remind you that attacking the character of your opponent instead of responding to their argument is not a good way to resolve disputes, in fact it is only one notch better than name calling. “WarKosign” 06:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I've never attacked any editor's character nor do I have opponents. ITIC openly ignores data, makes up numbers, and defines all government workers as terrorists. There is no way such an organization should have their reports included within an encylopedia alongside serious organizations' reports. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Calling someone a paid editor as a part of an argument is an attack on their character. If you have real grounds for concerns, you should take them with administrators. Try to understand that not everybody believes that Hamas is holier than the pope, and not everybody believes that Israel and IDF are the spawn of Satan, even without being paid. You repeated for at least three time that ITIC ignores data and makes data up, without providing any facts. Can you or any source point to any name that ITIC made up or ignored? Repeating this statement doesn't make it any truer - ITIC is an NGO, like many others quoted on this page, so we have to consider it as reliable as Al Mezan or PCHR who also clearly have an agenda. “WarKosign” 07:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I really don't care if you believe HAMAS is holier than the pope, that has nothing to do with what I am trying to discuss; that ITIC is a joke. I've told you multiple times the ITIC adds no name militants to it's reports, if you read the report you would know this, they added 25 no-name "terrorists" four times for a total of 100 non-existant people. ITIC ignores half of those slaughtered; they know as everyone else does the majority of those slain in this unrecognized other half are civilians, you would know this if you read the report. ITIC counts all government employees as "terrorists", that makes their counting and reporting useless, you would know this if you read the report. Though seeing how you keep getting off topic and ignoring all my posts and sending me threats to revert my edits while you continuously undo my work, I think you know you are wrong but are just trying to hold out as long as possible, where is the report button? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC) You are repeating your assertion for at least the fourth time without providing any proof or source. For the last time, are you able to give a reliable source disputing names on ITIC's lists ? As long as you can't, go ahead and believe anything you want but don't act here based on your believes alone. ITIC is a research organization and you probably are not. If you do represent a research organization on the subject your editing here would constitute a conflict of interests as you surely know.“WarKosign” 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC) [16] Everything I say is in the source. You are clearly pretending to not understand while you continue to attack my edits, I don't see speaking to you as anymore useful as speaking to a brick wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) @Dr. R.R. Pickles:I'm sorry, I don't see "we added 100 non-existant people" in the report. Could you be so kind to give me the quote you are referring to in this document ? Maybe you meant restoring names of dead militants that are "accidentally" missing from Hamas's health ministry list ? Feel free to distrust any single source, this is why we have several contradicting sources and don't have to trust either one exclusively. Either GHM is wrong or ITIC is wrong, we will find the truth in a few months. In previous conflicts eventually Hamas released the names of all the dead militants and the final list was very close to the one released by the IDF. BTW, do you need me to help you file a complaint against me ? Consider reading this first.“WarKosign” 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC) If you would file a report on your poor behaviour, namely your constant reversions, your inability to listen to others, and your constant denial of what is plainly stated in sources, that would be great. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Obviously I do not think my actions violate any policy or I wouldn't be performing them. I do read your claims carefully and so far your argument consisted of very few facts and a lot of emotions, this did not convince me. Not all the editors here will agree with you, I believe that even editors inclined to prefer the Hamas point of view will find your opinions extreme. Each of us is not alone here, editors either find a way to co-exist with editors they disagree with or they find themselves not being editors anymore. Please read up on edit warring and on when reverting is acceptable. “WarKosign” 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC) You say you want to find yourself not being an editor anyone, how does this happen? Can you please make it happen? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) What you never read in the mainstream Western press. David Sheen’s Bundestag presentation. Almost every single point was mentioned in passing in most sources, but in isolation, and often en passant. Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Youre far from being in line with reality with that statement. Sheen's hazzling partner Blumenthal has been elected by the Wiesenthal center among 2013 top antisemites for their gibberish, since log they got all the global coverage they deserve. Same for the current incident in the Reichstag, which was not as violent as the shootings in Ottawa but of similar symbolic importance. The two, on the anniversary of the Nazi pogrom night, tried to hazzle linkspartei leader Gysi, a Jewish member of the Reichstag within the spell mile of the parliament. Thats been enough to have those guys expelled there for a lifetime. "Toiletgate" got all the coverage as deserved, but it would be sort of fringy to believe anyone in the mainstream takes those morons for serious, even within ex-communist linkspartei that sort of behavior is unheard of. Serten (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Like so many people who form opinions quicker than Bob Mundan can draw his pistol, you have no knowledge of the people or the subject, and indeed from the timestamp it is clear that you hadn't taken the trouble to read the link, since you replied within 19 minutes, whilst Sheen's speech to the Bundestag committee lasts 25 minutes. And of that 19 minutes you spent at least several googling the usual blogs that associate criticism of anything israeli with anti-Semitism. The Wiesnthal list is a farce, and Blumenthal, had you listened to the related Russell Tribunal on the Gaza War speeches, was proud to be included in it, along with several other distinguished Jews whose humanity is not compromised by an 'ethics' which draws judgements based on the ethnic identity of the subject. If Sheen and Blumental are anti-Semites, so is Mads Gilbert (BBC HARDtalk - Dr Mads Gilbert - Doctor and Activist) (who is anchored in the practical realities, not in your blogospheres of kibitzing nitwits), and, for that matter, myself. Still, as a philologist, I register the fact here that anti-Semitism now also refers to anyone who has empathy for the dispossessed, doesn't look at the ethnicity of a person before expressing sympathy for his plight, and is not blinded by ideologies of ethnic exceptionalism. But, this is pointless. Go away.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC) I'd add to that that Serten should check his facts better, especially when writing about living people. Sheen, for example, hasn't, as far as I can make out, featured on any Wiesenthal Center list, but particularly not on its 2013 "top-10 list of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel slurs". Gregor Gysi's "paternal grandmother was Jewish, as was one of his maternal great-grandfathers", which doesn't make him, at least in standard usage, but particularly not halachically, a Jew or Jewish.     ←   ZScarpia   20:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Sheen NEVER spoke and never will speak to any Bundestag comittee, God forbade. He was invited by two extremist fringe members of the already extremist Linkspartei, Gysi - which is no practising jew but intelligent enough to count as one - tried his best to get the morons excluded from the premises but could hinder them getting access to the MoPs bureaus. Blumenthal made it on the Wiesenthal list. (UTC) The spiegel covered the issue online, the claim about not maing it into the mainstream press is ridiculous.Serten 02:40, 14 November 2014 'God forbade.' The past tense indicates that, in your view, God had a direct hand in denying to an Israeli the right to address the Bundestag! Germans apparently are as deeply informed of the situation in Palestine as they were of the Holocaust while it was underway. Gottes Wege sind unergründlich. Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC) First you claim Toiletgate is not in the main press, in reality its covered broadly. even the NZZ has an article about it. Now you claim Gysi, about whom the pogromers ran around, has no jewish background but the two progromers are discriminated against. Gosh. Shimon Peres has spoken in the Bundestag, he was invited and it was an honor to have him there. The two morons won't and ain't. Serten 14:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC) While I appreciate your assiduous attempts to document your textual illiteracy, incapacity to construe English prose and make the correct inferences, I'm quite busy, no golden lad but still sprightly, cleaning my chimneys this afternoon, and I prefer to accompany the household routine by reciting memorable poems, not ruminating on the hack jobbery of non-thinkers. Thanks. As I said, go away.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Planned abduction/murder of civilians via attack tunnels: Mhhossein,TheTimesAreAChanging: Will these sources work for you ? "Hamas had a plan," he said. "A simultaneous, coordinated, surprise attack within Israel. They planned to send 200 terrorists armed to the teeth toward civilian populations. This was going to be a coordinated attack. "The concept of operations involved 14 offensive tunnels into Israel. With at least 10 men in each tunnel, they would infiltrate and inflict mass casualties." “WarKosign” 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC) It doesn't matter which newspaper is abused to further Israel's war on Palestine, with all the statements that have been proven false previously any reports coming from Israeli militants and officials should be ignored. WarKosign, are you one of the editors affiliated with the IDF? If you are you would have a conflict of interest and should not be editing articles dealing with IDF's offenses.Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @WarKosign and TheTimesAreAChanging: Both of the sources are quoting what IDF has verified. Clearly, you should seek a third party source for such a challenging claim. You may also find many Hamas oriented sources denying such accusations. Who is right, really? Besides, no real proof is presented on what the Hamas militants aimed to do, even if we accept the news. Did they aimed to kill civilians or militants? were they going to make them scared or did they really aimed to make operation? How do you know? So, more reliable and documented sources must be presented. By the way, we'd better also ask other editors such as Nishidani and Kingsindian. Mhhossein (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Mhhossein's revert is unacceptable. Since he has opted to call in the cavalry rather than defend his inexplicable classification of Vanity Fair as "fringe", I will note that Nishidani used it to source the US arming of Fatah in 2008.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Also, yet another outrageous accusation of paid editing by Dr. R.R. Pickles, which I will strike.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @TheTimesAreAChanging: Thanks, but I think Dr. R.R. Pickles should take the claim back themselves. I haven't had the pleasure of working with this user so far. If the personal attacks continue, I will consider measures that are in my disposal.“WarKosign” 08:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @Mhhossein: What kind of third party source do you imagine we can use ? Some military expert with access to all the data (with full cooperation by IDF and Hamas) that examined the situation and determined that such an attack was indeed planned or not ? Even if there was such a source, it would be immediately contradicted by another expert saying the opposite. I think the best we can do here as with many other subjects is to give enough room for properly attributed claims by both sides as provided by reliable sources. “WarKosign” 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Actually, denial by Meshal is already in the VF article: Mishal insists that “the tunnels may have been outwardly called ‘offensive tunnels,’ but in actual fact they are ‘defensive’ ones.’” When pressed to explain why most of the tunnels actually ended up under or near civilian communities or kibbutzim—not military bases—he concedes, “Yes, true. There are Israeli towns adjacent to Gaza. Have any of the tunnels been used to kill any civilian or any of the residents of such towns? No. Never! . . . [Hamas] used them either to strike beyond the back lines of the Israeli army or to raid some military sites . . . This proves that Hamas is only defending itself.”“WarKosign” 08:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) This story emerged during the war, presumably from 'interrogations' and the usual methods. At the time it was largely ignored by mainstream newspapers. Other than the IDF confirming now its story, in what mainstream Western newspapers, written by competent journalists, is this revelation mentioned? Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Adam Ciralsky in Vanity Fair (magazine) for one.“WarKosign” 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Here and here are a couple more. Enjoy your reading. “WarKosign” 19:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC) @WarKosign: Sorry for the delay. By a reliable third party source I did not mean a source who has access to the data of the both side. I mean a source with no (or the least) orientation toward the parties involved. I mean, we should not write such a challenging material on the basis of no real document! In fact non of the sources say how it is understood that the civilians were of the goals of hamas militants. I reckon, it is not fair to say for sure they were going to kill and kidnap civilians! But I'm in agreement with WarKosign when he says that we should give enough room for properly attributed claims by both sides as provided by reliable sources. It is our Job here to let the Wikipedia readers know the claims of both sides, not for this specific subject but for all of the matters. We have to mention exactly who is claiming X and who is claiming Y and say why they are claiming so. If they have no reasoning behind their claims we can understand who might be right! This is what I believe and that's why I'm upset with how TheTimesAreAChanging is editing this text! I'd like to ask him to make a self revert, because of the problems mentioned above, or to mention that this is just a claim by a party and also add the claims from the opposite partiy. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC) @Mhhossein: I think the sources above match this criteria, all of them attribute the claim to IDF officers. VF article is longer and more details than the others with the author going into a tunnel himself, and also quoting Mishal's denial. If we add Mishal'd denial (paraphrase of what is as quoted above), will it be sufficient in your opinion to consider this segment neutral ? Another question - since this section deals with alleged intentional murder/abduction of civilians, would it be proper to move it to "alleged humanitarian law violations" section ? Alleged attack of civilians is certainly a violation, but how about planning and preparing for one? “WarKosign” 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Neither Glenn Beck's TheBlaze nor Inquisitr are 'mainstream' (what I asked for) sources. Neither are reliable. Vanity Fair is reliable. The content of VF's article is identical to that circulated in late July, and it is called by Ciralsky 'the alleged plan of attack'. Therefore, there is no update, nothing new. We havce a wartime allegation. And so again, why is the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, The Times of London, etc.etc. not reporting this astonishing leak, and why have no further details than those bruited about in July 2014 come forth?Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I agree about The Blaze, which is why I'm surprised its my edit that has been repeatedly reverted. @Mhhossein, I attributed the claim to six senior IDF officials.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC) If six HAMAS officials announced that Israel was planning on nuking Gaza during the conflict would we add it and then balance it by writing that Israel denies their plans to nuke Gaza? Of course not, we would all see it as a clear media play, trying to defame their occupiers. We need to stop writing "IDF says this bad thing about HAMAS", "HAMAS says this bad thing about IDF", does anyone really believe that a nation which commits mass killings will see using the media to their advantage as going too far? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I suppose you also suggest to remove "According to Palestinians on 1 October, Israeli forces entered the Gaza Strip and fired upon Palestinian farmers and farms. No injuries were reported." or "A bomb disposal expert in the Palestinian Interior Ministry said that by 22 August, 8,000 bombs and 70,000 artillery shells, or 20,000 tons of explosives". It is not such a bad idea, I suggested to define an objective criteria for inclusion in the POV section. “WarKosign” 21:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC) You mean we should remove all Israeli media and all reports based on statements made by Israelis?! That is so such a bad idea. I of course only stated that the inclusion of attacks made by warring parties made through media should be questioned. I would never support a racist criteria for inclusion. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Two examples that I provided are actually by Palestinians. I meant that we need a way to decide if a statement by an individual is noteworthy or not. High ranking officials should probably be in, unnamed individuals should probably be out, but there is a wide range of notability between them. “WarKosign” 21:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC) @WarKosign: I'd like to add mesh'al denial. Could you please give me the source? Mhhossein (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC) @Mhhossein: VF article has one, I believe Nishidani already added it. “WarKosign” 05:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Yes, he has done that. But I think it is not covered as it should be. Mhhossein (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Recent change - another source: I noticed this revert. Without getting into whether or not the way the argument is presented is correct (I haven't fully checked), would USA Today be accepted? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC) The new wording that I removed was sourced to The Washington Free Beacon, an organization far from journalism. I do not see your source including any statements on what Abbas believes to have been the overall effect of the attacks on Gaza on Hamas. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC) I provided not 1 but 3 sources. I have no objection whatsoever to removing the beacon as source. Anything else ? “WarKosign” 11:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC) This edit is not only a revert, it is a bulk POV push - it includes a revert of my edits yesterday (without providing any reason), as well as removing ITIC, which violates 1RR and contradicts the existing consensus on representing all the different POVs on the numbers/percents of casualties. This USA today's article may be usable somewhere in the article, but not as a reference for this statement. In the 3 new sources I added yesterday Abbas says that he doesn't believe Hamas won (never actually says that it lost) and Hamas did not gain anything. In this new source he says that Hamas could avoid all the casualties. Taken together I understand them to mean that in his opinion Hamas caused (or did not prevent) death and suffering in Gaza for no gain, but this is WP:OR or WP:SYN unless there is a reliable source that makes this connection. “WarKosign” 07:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Bias in the article: As we all know this article has a very heavy anti-Palestinian bias so I thought I would list some of the problems I see so we can go about improving this article. )No mention of the Israeli occupation of Gaza in the lead )No mention that the two who murdered the Israelis in Palestine were rogues )No mention of HAMAS' goals in the lead despite entertaining Israel's reasoning for its attacks )No mention of Israel targeting homes, schools, hospitals, mosques, factories, the power and sewage treatment plants, politicians, ambulances, journalists, and children )We state that HAMAS refused to "recognize Israel's right to exist, and renounce violence", yet we don't state that Israel refuses to recognize Palestine's right to exist or to renouce violence )We never state that Israel is legally responsible to ensuring the protection of all Gazans )We never state how most Gazans are refugees )We state that HAMAS captured an Israeli soldier, yet no mention of the thousands of Palestinians captured by Israel )We don't state how Israel often stalled peace talks by stating they could not negotiate with Palestine as HAMAS and Fatah were split )We don't state how Israel often stalled peace talks by stating they could not negotiate with Palestine as HAMAS and Fatah were united )We don't state that Israel would not allow Abbas to enter Gaza when HAMAS and Fatah were to rejoin )We state Operation Pillar of Defense began with Israel killing a Palestinian in response to 100 rockets fired from Gaza but we don't state how Israel had killed several Palestinian children (and adults) as the reason for the rockets )We don't mention many details on Israel's attacks on the West Bank. Israeli troops stealing money, flags, shooting civilians, nighttime raids, curfews, kidnapping politicians, are all missing )Israeli attacks are always written as "in response" while the resistant's attacks are not )Several sentences on militants entering Israel is followed by the terse "the Israeli military entered Shuja'iyya ... resulting in heavy fighting", no mention of the atrocities committed by Israel there. )Saleh al-Arouri's comments are reported twice in extreme length even despite it being obvious he was clueless as he believed the three were actually kidnapped and being held for a trade. )We have unnamed "human rights groups" attacking the GHM's body count as inflated )We talk about Israel giving warnings before it bombs people to smithreens, but we don't mention how HAMAS was sending warnings to Israeli civilians before rocket launches )We have an undue weight tag next to the two lines on IDF vandalism of Palestinian homes )Israel's use of Palestinians as human shields is very empty, were are the cases of Israeli troops raiding homes, placing civilians at the windows as the IDF shoots out of them, or how the IDF murdered Palestinians who could speak Hebrew )We never mention that Palestinians have the right under international law to use violence against their occupiers )We have paragraphs on Israel's allegations that HAMAS intimidated journalists but we have nothing on Israel's intimidation, censorship, and murder of journalists )We use notoriously ideological sources like MEMRI, ITIC, Washington Beacon, Arutz Sheva And there are more problems but these are just a few I listed which make it seem as though this article is the property of the IDF. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Most of your comment is a fantasy, but on two specific points: 1) Saleh al-Arouri is the senior Hamas official who directs their West Bank operations, was reported responsible for the kidnappings prior to claiming responsibility, and directed the foiled Hamas coup plot. The kidnappers stupidly panicked and killed the Israeli teenagers after finding they could not restrain all three, one of whom had served in the IDF. The material is mentioned twice because of the "Operation Timeline" section not working until recently, and that section merely repeating information from a separate article regardless of if it is all needed. 2) The myth that Israel hit the power plant, which then miraculously recovered after predictions it would take a year to rebuild, is indeed covered.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Yes, we quickly mention how Israel bombed the plant but we don't mention that Israel was targeting infrastructure in violation of international law which is what I was getting at. If you could add a bit on that or help solve some of the other 21 standing problems that would be great. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Please no one take this seriously. 75% of the things he complains about are already in the article. The other 25% is just POV nonsense.Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Your personal attacks are again duly noted and disregarded. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I'll humour you: To fit with the policy, it was agreed to keep the lead free of disputable claims. The article on Gaza Strip says it has not been under occupation since 1994. If you mean the blockade - it is mentioned early in the background. The fact they were rogues is a disputable claim, and the article includes denial by Meshal as well as admission by Saleh al-Arouri. Do you mean the goal to obliterate Israel ? Their list of demands was mentioned in the article, it is not there anymore. Perhaps it should be restored. Read #Alleged violations by Israel Do you have a source for the claim that Israel refuses to recognize Palestine's right to exist? Do you have a source for this responsibility ? "A refugee is a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted social category of persons or because they are fleeing a war". 97% of Gaza residents are under age of 65 which means they were born after 1948, so they are not refugees by definition. The infobox says that Israel arrested 250 people, 159 of them identified as militants. Do you have a source for a bigger number ? Source? Source? Is it relevant ? Can Israel prevent Abbas from crossing the border to Jordan and then from Egypt into Gaza ? I assume you mean Operation Protective Edge. The Khan Yunnis incident is mentioned: "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid in Khan Yunis killed seven Hamas operatives" and even that is not perfectly correct since there are sources indicated that the militants blew themselves up while examining explosives possibly damaged by strike. I assume you mean Operation Brother's keeper. In my opinion it should have a separate article. Do you have a source describing "Israel's agression" which is not in response to an action of the militants ? Any sources for these "atrocities" ? Check #Alleged violations by Israel. Any source on Saleh al-Arouri being clueless ? He is the handler of the Hamas network in Judea and Samaria, if he is clueless who isn't ? Check the source. You're right, Hamas text message harassment of people in Israel is missing. I agree it is undue. A single case without reliable sources. Someone thinks it is important, some editor thought otherwise and added the tag so it can be discussed. This is a good way to handle disputes without damaging the article. Read up on WP:UNDUE Source ? Source ? #Attacks on journalists We use GHM, B'tselem, HRW, Maannews, UNWRA, PCHR. We use sources from both sides to generate a balanced view. Next time, read the article and check your facts before you write. “WarKosign” 06:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Congrats on failing to discuss a single point presented, your personal attack is duly noted, I'll keep it with the others. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC) @Dr. R.R. Pickles: I did in fact respond to every single of your 22 points, even the silliest ones. I see that you can't be bothered to provide sources, only empty and often factually incorrect accusations. I never referred to your personality or even editing style, so there is no person attack whatsoever. Your repeated implied threats of reporting can be seen as harassment. “WarKosign” 07:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC) WarKosign may prefer to be reasonable and polite, but I say it's time to stop feeding the troll.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC) What made me laugh was @Dr. R.R. Pickles: talking about how Hamas was "sending warnings to Israeli citizens" before rocket launches. Hamas rockets are unguided and inaccurate, which makes them illegal under international law. So even if Hamas was "warning" Israeli citizens and even if Hamas wasn't aiming for Israeli citizens (which they can't do anyway), it's a completely pointless warning. Nonetheless, the "warnings" were propaganda and meant to terrorize and spread paranoia among Israeli citizens. Knightmare72589 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC) R. R. Pickles does have a point - this psychological warfare is not represented anywhere in the article. I'm not sure where it should be added, though - timeline ? military technology ? Perhaps in the section dealing with Israel warning Gaza citizens via text messages before imminent bombing and Hamas claiming that it was a form of psychological warfare ?“WarKosign” 16:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC) You can continue to throw insults and add tags on everything you don't like, this is what I expected as an article can not get this terrible by chance. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC) @WarKosign: What is "Judea and Samaria"? No such region exists. It is the West Bank. The fact that you would refer to it with that term points out how biased you are. JDiala (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC) West Bank of what, exactly? The term only makes sense if the territory is still under Jordanian occupation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC) It makes enough sense for the US[17], Canada[18], the UK[19], just about every member country in the UN general assembly[20], the UN itself[21], the ICJ[22], the EU[23], human rights organizations [24][25][26], the ICRC[27], NGOs[28][29]and even this site. Evidently, it makes sense to the entire world, other than highly partisan, ardent nationalist-Zionist apartheid-supporters like yourself and Mr. Kosign. JDiala (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC) @JDiala:Sure it exists; I was there several times. Judea and Samaria Area is "the historical biblical names for the territory now generally referred to as the West Bank". In this case I just copy-pasted it with Saleh al-Arouri's description from the first result on google when looking him up. You can't know if I support Jewish settlement in the West Bank or not (which is what I assume you imply using the false comparison to apartheid). BTW thanks for reverting R. R. Pickles's nonsense, note you've accidentally violated 1RR there. A few (better selected) quotes from Ban Ki-moon's speech do belong in the reactions article. “WarKosign” 05:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Calling the West Bank as Judea and Samaria is no different than people calling the region of Israel + Palestinian territories as Palestine or Land of Israel. The West Bank was called Judea and Samaria before it was called the West Bank. It's just as legitimate. Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Unity government salaries @Nishidani: You wrote "Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity, and blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNa to Hamas officials". Your source says "Israel prevented the transfer of salaries to 43,000 Hamas officials in Gaza" (without direct connection to threat/opportunity). There are other sources saying that "Barely a week after the national unity government was sworn in, the reconciliation efforts appear to be teetering on the brink over who should pay the salaries of 50,000 Hamas-appointed civil servants in Gaza." and "The salary crisis concerns 50,000 employees, 10,000 of whom receive their salaries from the PA, while the remaining 40,000 get paid by Hamas a total of $25 million per month." Surely if it was Israel blocking the money they wouldn't forget to mention it. “WarKosign” 18:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC) It was Abbas who blocked the payments: In comments earlier this week, Abbas indicated he is in no hurry to pay the Hamas loyalists. He said Hamas should keep paying their salaries "until we agree" on a solution. He also criticized the protests by Hamas loyalists over the salary issue, saying it was a "bad sign."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Let me address WarKosign, who understands that these issues are technical, and require technical details, not slabs of 'stuff'. in para 4 'Netanyahu, who never had any intention of making the necessary concessions, as his own statements would later reveal,' ('Netanyahu: Gaza Conflict Proves Israel Can't Relinquish Control of West Bank,' The Times of Israel 11 July 2014:'“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan” — a reference to the Jordan Valley and the West Bank.') in para 5, immediately after this: Instead of choosing a different path, 'Israel prevented the transfer of salaries to 43,000 Hamas officials in Gaza, sending a clear message that Israel would not treat Gaza any different under the rule of moderate technocrats from the Palestinian Authority.' It's not our brief to question RS, except when they conflict. Esp. one cannot challenge a statement in one RS by, as you do, noting that statement is not mentioned in another source (fallacy of argumentum ex silentio). Still, since you ask, the allusion is to the technical fact that Ramallah transfers funds to Gaza Palestinian banks have remained stable despite the global economic crisis, but have suffered from deteriorated relations with Israeli correspondent banks since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2007, at which time Israeli banks cut ties with Gaza branches and gradually restricted cash services provided to West Bank branches. All Palestinian banks were required to move their headquarters to Ramallah in 2008. Israeli restrictions on the movement of cash between West Bank and Gaza branches of Palestinian banks have caused intermittent liquidity crises in Gaza and the West Bank for all major currencies: U.S. dollars, Jordanian dinars, but mainly Israeli shekels (NIS). 2014 Investment Climate Statement - West Bank and Gaza, U.S. Department of State, June 2014. It is only my assumption but it would appear that, since Israel has veto powers over Palestinian Ramallah bank transfers to Gaza, it let through payments to PA civil servants in Gaza, while blocking the same for Hamas civil servants, since only the former were paid. Under the terms of the 23 April agreement, the task of sorting out Hamas salaries was delegated to a special commission. Under the unity government, Hamas could not pay its own men (apart from the fact it was broke, because that task was officially delegated to the PNA technocrat, I think it was Rami Hamdallah. There is a simple reason for this. Under the terms, Hamas was denied any role in the unity government, to reassure the West that the PNA was exclusively in charge, and that monies to the PNA would not fall into the hands of what some foreign states define as a terrorist organization. The PNA paid its own officials their salaries for two months, but dragged its feet on paying Hamas's cadres. What Sharon states is that Israel was behind this. As often, I do not know where the truth lies (truths don't lie, truisms and self-evident truths do, of course:). All I know is that, as in earlier contentious issues, I write what the best available sources tell me, do not challenge them, whatever my personal views or research suggest, and bid my time until further light is shed on the matter. One could for the moment write 'Israel' reportedly blocked...' if the problem is in the implicit attribution of such a move to Netanyahu.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I see two problems: Attribution to Netanyahu (when the source says "Israel") and connection to the threat Netayahu supposedly saw. It is in the spirit of the source, but it simply doesn't make this connection even implicitly - the statements are more than 2 paragraphs apart. Conflict with other sources (that can't be accused of being pro-Israel). I do not find your explanation about technicalities convincing. According to TheTimesAreChangin's stuff, "In comments earlier this week, Abbas indicated he is in no hurry to pay the Hamas loyalists". The first problem is plain source misrepresentation that is easy to fix by splitting it into two separate statements, same as in the source. The second part can be solved by representing both versions, but I don't see what's the point in having it: "Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity. Either Israel or PA blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNa to Hamas officials." - If I were to read it, my reaction would be "what's the connection and why is it notable?" I suggest to remove the salaries part altogether, maybe the threat/opportunity rhetoric as well since the next sentence quotes Netanyahu opposing the unity government - one does not oppose an opportunity. “WarKosign” 20:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I already suggested the solution to (1), so it is not a problem, - it is not source misrepresentation - almost every newspaper in the world uses interchangeabley what a PM determines and what the policy of his nation is. Please familiarize yourself with usage. The 'White House' is interchangeable with 'Obama'. Can I remind you and TTAAC that sources that are RS cannot be challenged for their content, unless manifestly wrong, or undue. You are both making a procedural error. There is nothing undue in stating that Netanyahu ignored the possibility of alternative responses to the unity government because he regards Palestinian unity as a threat. Almost all observers know he is not interested in any peace deal, as his behaviour, that of the government he presides and his rhetoric consistently underline. There is nothing unusual about Assaf Sharon's observation.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC) What is notable to one person, is not notable to the other. It was notable for the writer, Assaf Sharon. Your objections seem based on dislike to distaste. @Nishidani: Israel is a parliamentary democracy, so the prime minister is not the head of the state (unlike a president in USA. A reference to the White House or to 10 Downing Street is an unambiguous reference to the person who's official residence it is. While there is an official residence of the prime minister of Israel, it is not used as his office and is not used interchangeably. While it is possible that sometimes "Israel" is written instead of "prime minister of Israel" it is more likely that it means "government of Israel", "IDF", "people of Israel" or something else. I am not questioning the source on point #1, I'm questioning your interpretation. The source does not state that Netanyahu (or Israel) decided to block the money transfer because he/it saw the unity government as a threat. This source says that Israel blocked the money transfer. There are multiple other sources contradicting it. You cannot challenge RSs that say that it was Abbas's decision not to transfer the money to Hamas. I wrote "not notable" about my own hypothetical bad version of article and suggested one that I consider better (remove opportunity/threat and the blocked salaries). You are welcome to suggest something else that would match all the sources, make sense and sound relatively good. “WarKosign” 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the lesson, but you persist in ignoring the obvious solution I offered, even in your latest effort. I said you put 'Israel' as subject of the second clause yesterday, and ignoring this you put in a 'failed verification' tag. All you had to do for a compromise was insert 'Israel' as I suggested. Just a note but The President of Israel is not Israel, whereas the Prime Minister heads the government whose policies are enacted as Israeli policies. The President of Israel has nothing to do with this. Why are you asserting I joined the clauses with 'because'? I wrote:'Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity, and blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNa to Hamas officials".' I then suggested this be emended to Netanyahu took Palestinian unity as a threat rather than an opportunity, and Israel blocked the transfer of salaries from the PNA to Hamas officials". In neither case does 'and' in English connote 'because'. If you can point out some language where the equivalent conjunctions for 'and' and 'because' are interchangeable, I'd be curious, as a philologist. There are no 'multiple other sources' contradicting Assaf Sharon's statement. That one source does not mention what Assaf Sharon stated does not contradict him (WP:OR) by the way. The premise here is that if two compatible versions of an event (it is quite compatible for Israel to insist Abbas not pay those salaries, since Israel has veto power over Ramallah banking transfers) exist, but a key detail in one is not in the other, then the key detail is dubious. That is nonsensical as an editorial rule.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @Nishidani: Indeed splitting the sentence and changing the subject of the second sentence to Israel makes the statement match the source so it fixes problem #1. I did not understand that this was what you were proposing yesterday. As for problem #2 - we have Sharon saying "Israel did X". We have 3 sources above (and there are plenty more online) saying "Abbas did X". Are you saying that it is not the same X, or that all the sources actually meant "Israel made Abbas do X" but accidentally forgot to write so ? Unless you have other sources collaborating Sharon, I suggest to consider his version fringe - maybe it deserves a mention, but it is not a part of the event sequence as seen by everybody else. Use of the word and - check WP:SYNTH. The second example of how not to write uses the word and to imply a casual connection not present in the source. “WarKosign” 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC) 'And' is a connective particle, and both points come from the same article. There is no synthesis, but concision of paraphrase so WP:SYNTH is irrelevant. Neither source (1) nor (3) tell one anything, because there are no details. Source (2) is excellent because it gives on some detailed insight. As I indicated above, Ramallah banking is subject to Israeli oversight. The unity agreement made the the new government fully responsible for the employees. But then the PA withheld the salaries of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam military employees of Hamas. it is logical to deduce that transfer of funds from the PNA in Ramallah would run into problems with Israeli authorities, which, given their line (shared by the US) that funding of 'terrorists' is unlawful, would regard the implementation of the reconciliation agreement dealing with the technocrats assuming responsibility for all employees as proof that the unity government was subsidizing terrorism were it to pay Hamas cadres. Now, I don't know where Sharon got his evidence (if you read his philosophical papers, his expertise is in logical and textual scruple) that Israel was behind the blocking of payments. Al Monitor writes not that Abbas blocked the payments but that:“would not be able to pay Hamas employee salaries prior to agreeing on all the details associated with the reconciliation agreement.” read properly that does not allow one to attribute to Abbas the decision: 'would not be able to pay' refers to technical ability, conditional on clarifications of the concrete details that had to be ironed re the implications of the generic declaration that the PNA's technocratic government would take over responsibility for employees. Of course, we can sidestep the crux by writing for 'and the transfer of salaries from the PNA to Hamas officials either blocked by Israel(ref Assaf Sharon) or withheld by the PNA (Adnan Abu Amer, 'Protests by Hamas government workers force banks to close,' Al-Monitor 9 June 2014). This, like a lot of things here, is not a closed issue. My principle is to give all versions without prejudice. Most of what we think we know is just surface scratching. There's an excellent statement of the cognitive bias in a paper Assaf Sharon wrote with Levi Spectre,Dogmatism Repuzzled, on a puzzle by Saul Kripke. I don't presume to know the truths, so I have no trouble with fresh evidence or indications that might destabilize provisory impressions.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @Nishidani: This solution of giving both versions works for me. In such case and would be connecting between two sources so it is unacceptable or even meaningless ("Netanyahu felt threatened and PNA blocked the transfer"). Two statements in the same source (where they are not connected) can be synthesized to imply a claim not in the source using and: "Before the current operation began, Hamas was at one of the lowest points in its history and on June 29 or 30 it restarted the rocket bombardment of Israeli territory". Even if there was a full stop, mere placement of sentences in a sequence implies causality: "It is raining. I will not leave my home today" - no, not because of the rain, I just don't feel like it. “WarKosign” 12:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) @Nishidani: "Almost all observers know he is not interested in any peace deal..." - please list these observers. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Put 'neutral' and 'informed' observers.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Read up on Martin Indyk's views, and read Assaf Sharon's note p.20 that:'His press adviser told Yediot Ahronot that Netanyahu intentionally “led the talks nowhere.”' Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Hmm, that's all for so global conclusion? I hope you know that there are other "'neutral' and 'informed'" sources besides of these two ones that do not agree with them. By the way, who is this Assaf Sharon ("'neutral' and 'informed'"?) whom you so like and placed his own POV almost to all sections of the article as a fact? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I happen not to agree with Mr Sharon on several points in his article, but that is neither here nor there. Neutrality is always a relative thing, as any philosopher like Sharon would acknowledge. He is 'neutral' compared to 95% of the newspaper pabulum cited as the main sources for this article, much of it written by hacks and POV pushers, as you can see at a glance by checking how many of the sources use 'terrorist' in their titles. Like Thrall, Sharon gives a more detached perspective than what daily reportage allows, and the same is true of JJ Goldberg, with whom one often differs. Some years down the line, it is this quality of reportage, academic, or honest, or relatively balanced, which will replace our unfortunate dependence on newspapers. Newspapers have a 'party line' because they write for a constituency. Those three gentleman do not write or spin their texts to palliate national or sectarian interests. They inform themselves deeply, and strive to give a fair overview. Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Regarding to your "how many of the sources use 'terrorist' in their titles". You may like it or not, but the fact is that "Hamas or its military wing is designated as a terrorist organization by Australia,[10] Canada,[11] Egypt,[12] the European Union,[13][14] Israel, Japan,[15] the United Kingdom,[16] and the United States,[17] and is banned in Jordan.[18] It is not considered a terrorist organization by Iran, Russia,[19] Turkey,[20]China,[21][22][23][24] and some Arab nations." One can see that "terrorism" is the common word for Hamas. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC) "He is 'neutral' compared to 95% of" :) Haaretz: Molad (where Sharon is academic director) - 'is "committed to leftist renewal" in Israel...' NGO Monitor (MOLAD, 2012): Officials: Avraham Burg is a founder and chair of Molad. Head of Molad is Avner Inbar, co-founder of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement. Research director is Assaf Sharon, a leader of Breaking the Silence, Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, and Ta’ayush. Director of Policy is Mikhael Manekin, former Breaking the Silence official. Funders: According to an article in Ha’aretz, Molad is “funded by left-liberal foundations and groups from the U.S. associated with the Democratic party...” --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Shocking! Good grief! TAF employs people who believe in the democratic renewal of their country, try to build bridges of understanding, assist people robbed of their land, and whose futures are foreclosed on, philosophical humanists of distinction so 'leftist' they are funded by the Democratic Party of a foreign power, the U.S., (which is no doubt undermining with such diversion of funding, with such handouts, the chance of increasing the $3 billion + annually is forks out to Israel, which uses part of the cash to, precisely, build on Palestinian land in Sheikh Jarrah! Thanks for the laugh. I sometimes need a smile as I retire with a cup of tea to the saddling paddock after a weary day. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Already not shocking, but it's simply strange for me that you continue to name the man with so definite agenda as 'neutral' placing his own POV only as the fact. So this your edit: "Assaf Sharon and Thrall alone would be sufficient to write these sections. Added AS" should be revised & attributed. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC) It's a good thing to try and get the hang of some elementary things. Saying someone whose work you dislike or disagrees with, 'has an agenda' is meaningless, except as an expression of distaste. Those who use it have their own agenda. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. To have an agenda means that “I know that h (my agenda) is true, I know that any evidence against h is evidence against something that is true; so I know that such evidence is misleading. So once I know that h is true, I am in a position to disregard any future evidence that seems to tell against h.” If you can show that Sharon or Thrall are known, in their worlds, for ignoring the evidence, you can say with reason they 'have an agenda'. Scholars, or analysts in the worlds inhabited by the Thralls and Sharons of this world, cannot 'have an agenda' in this sense, because to have one would mean ignoring any evidence that contradicts what they think they know. Unlike journalistic hacks, spokesmen, politicians, and agenda-driven private think tank resident 'scholars', you can't get very far in your career if you are known by peers to constantly ignore, rather than confront, the available evidence. Journalists, politicians, et al. do not have peer review. If Thrall and Sharon as scholars need attribution, then every article cited on the page requires attribution to whoever wrote it and the organ it was published in.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Harassment TheTimesAreAChanging I’m putting you on notice. You have three times made automatic reverts of the rare edits I make, in a way that violates WP:AGF, are incoherent in policy terms and override talk page discussion. This suggests you are targeting my editing to a purpose, i.e.dislike or for harassment. Do this once more, without exercising the courtesy of addressing a perceived problem on the talk page, and you will be reported. (1) first automatic revert with spurious edit summary:’Random blog by assistant professor tentatively recounting a "very convoluted" Arab media report that also mentions Hamas' repeated public statements rocket fire would continue until the end of the blockade is undue.’ This turned out, per the talk page, to be an authoritatively sourced statement, and was restored by another editor. (2) second automatic revert with meaningless edit summary:’ Nishidani, is it that hard to write a logically coherent sentence? (Escalation refers to massive upsurge in rocket attacks until Israel met Hamas' demands.’. 'Premature escalation' is a nonsense expression in English. (3) third automatic revert, with spurious edit summary, generic accusation and a non-policy based ‘rationale. ‘ RV POV-push with bad formatting.’ It also contradicts the verdict of the relevant talk page section where two editors agreed to my proposal and only you, (aside from the now suspended editor MarciulionisHOF, whose remarks were incoherent in policy terms, disagreed. Given it is now effectively 3 against 1, the edit I made, duly discussed, has legitimate warrant to be reincluded. Disagreements about formatting are not reasons for reverting. Editors normatively fix bad formatting. No evidence is given for the assertion that an edit I proposed on the talk page is POV-pushing. It was closer to the source, etc. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC) 1. It was restored by Dr. R.R. Pickles, a single-purpose POV pusher and serial editor warrior, with no edit summary. It is still an additional, excessive, wildly undue incident from a dubious source, but I decided to walk away--even though similar edits by myself had been repeatedly reverted on vague grounds. (I still don't know why Omri Ceren is less reliable than your blog.) In general, I find the sheer number of progressive blogs you pass off as "scholarship" deeply disturbing. 2. That scarcely even counts as a revert. I fixed a completely incoherent collection of words you tried to pass off as a sentence: "According to the allegation, dismissed by Khaled Mashaal as a 'nightmare scenario is a post-hoc justification', "electronic intercepts, informants, interrogations of Hamas operatives, as well as computers and satellite imagery obtained from Hamas compounds", Hamas planned to..." The phrase "premature escalation" was never used, and you fabricated the Meshaal quote. 3. Your edit was much farther away from the source, which is why you added another source to supplement it. Contrary to your "consensus", JDiala proposed and implemented a change to the problematic sentence, which I accepted before you went nuclear with lengthy and undue regurgitation of propaganda. Finally, only one of those edits was a full revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC) 'dismissed by Khaled Mashaal as a 'nightmare scenario is a post-hoc justification' (Nishidani) 'You made up the Meshaal quote.'TheTimesAreAChanging) Adam Cirilsky,' Did Israel Avert a Hamas Massacre?,' Vanity Fair, October 21, 2014 The alleged plan of attack (as pieced together by defense and security professionals through electronic intercepts, informants, interrogations of Hamas operatives, as well as computers and satellite imagery obtained from Hamas compounds during the war) was chilling: a surprise assault in which scores of heavily armed Hamas insurgents were supposedly set to emerge from more than a dozen cross-border tunnels and proceed to kill as many Israelis as possible. Khalid Mishal, the leader of Hamas, also agreed to speak to Vanity Fair, to give his perspective. He insists that such a nightmare scenario is a post-hoc justification and that employing the tunnels to kill Israeli citizens was never Hamas’s intention. You imply you had read the source, and rightly so, justified its inclusion. Therefore, either you are lying to a purpose in asserting I made up a statement directly quoted from that self-same source, or you didn't read the very paper you selectively quoted from. In any case, thanks for demonstrating the quality of your editing, your contrafactual refusal to accept I edit in good faith, and your attribution to me of a practice of inventing quotes (WP:OR), an extremely serious claim in wikipedia and the kind of behaviour that justifiably earns almost automatic suspensionif proven, in what is a comprehensive WP:AGF violation. You have blatantly falsified my record, and that is the fourth instance of your hostility.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I absolutely agree. This user has a clear agenda. His inexplicable removal of a sourced claim, which was by no means undue and provided good balance to the otherwise somewhat pro-Israel immediate events section, because it was somehow "POV-pushing"[no explanation given as to how] and "bad formatting" is nonsense. I'd revert it right now, though I've already crossed the 1RR limit. JDiala (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Why would you try to pass off VF's summary as a direct quote? Given the number of things I read every day, you'll forgive me for not remembering that exact line and using control+find to check every quote in the article when I suspected there was something fishy to your edit besides its incomprehensibility.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC) This is not what this discussion is about, but the source should be either explicitly quoted or paraphrased. This use of the source borders on WP:PLAGIARISM.“WarKosign” 21:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC) The whole text as I saw it entered was full of "" snippets. I don't use "", as anyone familiar with my editing knows. I usually change that to ' ' when I quote a source. TTAAC mightn't know that, but in his original edit summary he did not mention this idea he brings up now, that I was attributing the source words to Meshaal. That would have been a legitimate query had he mentioned it, or, better still, had he simply checked the text and fixed it as what it is, Cirilsky's paraphrase of Meshaal's reaction to the 'nightmare scenario' sketched out. Editors are obliged to check, query, and fix. To erase stuff like that is just edit-warring to a purpose. What caught my eye when I made my rush edit (well past midnight my time, as the sleepy skewed syntax suggests) was the duplicity of this: 'According to "electronic intercepts, informants, interrogations of Hamas operatives, as well as computers and satellite imagery" etc. Here the series of terms are governed by 'according to', which means that the IDF account is a fact. Then the text added that it was 'according to the six Israeli intelligence officials'. The whole sentence should have read 'According to six Israeli intelligence officials'who say they based their account on intercepts, interrogations and informants' etc... (It can't be based on 'satellite imagery'. Satellite imagery gives no indication of a an intention to launch a mass attack in the indefinite future, and frankly using it in this context undermines the claim) That is the sort of devious textual gamesmanship I was endeavouring to edit, by copying and pasting in what VF said of Meshaal's reply, which, had I had my wits about me instead of rushing off an edit before bedtime, would have properly read: 'the allegation, a nightmare scenario dismissed by Khaled as a post hoc justification.' The fact remains that TTAAC consistently targets my edits with ridiculous edit summaries for his reverts, and the post-facto justifications are just that.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC) An edit summary is just that, a summary. The talk page is for detailed discussion. If you want to defend your use of the Haaretz source I reverted, you should open a new section and state your rationale and actually acquire the consensus you claimed to have. Then, I could explain that we already have at least one Meshaal denial that Hamas targets civilians (see "rocket attacks" section of "Hamas violations") and don't need another, ect. JDiala's involvement here is grotesque hypocrisy from an editor who routinely deletes much larger amounts of material with edit summaries like "Sourced but completely uncorroborated and WP:UNDUE" and who violated 1RR as recently as 18 hours ago, with no sanctions (evidently the admin are harder on perceived pro-Israel editors). As is citing "everyone else is probably a paid editor" Dr. R.R. Pickles as a neutral arbiter while condemning my alleged failure to AGF.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC) As stated, you have been put on notice for a dubious pattern of abuseive reverting.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Apparently satellites can be used for detection of tunnels: "American satellites – equipped with special high resolution infrared detection technology – have preliminary findings of around 60 tunnels on the Israel-Gaza border". Information they provide may be used to determine the likely intended use of a tunnel. “WarKosign” 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC) As I wrote:'Satellite imagery gives no indication of a an intention to launch a mass attack in the indefinite future'. Numerous tunnels were known, presumably also by satellite imagery detection, to have existed before the war. No satellite imagery can determine what a tunnel is used for. No satellite can detect the specific intention of tunnel builders (-this one's to kill Israeli civilians'!) It undermines the briefing's seriousness (well, it made me laugh) and that's why I suggested it was stupid to retain it.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @TheTimesAreAChanging:LOL! My (accidental) violation of 1RR was pro-Israel; I was reverting Pickles' borderline-vandalism which was anti-Israel. Regarding the "Sourced but completely uncorroborated and WP:UNDUE POV claims...removed" edit I made, the edit summary has a character limit. I will explain that edit now: the sources used for the claims I removed ("The high success rate (95%) in blocking such plots is due to the very close cooperation between the security forces of both sides") and ("Hamas has put considerable effort into kidnapping attempts through its large network"), [30][31] [32] were unreliable. The first and third of those three sources can be dismissed out of hand per WP:NEWSORG. Furthermore, the third one is an editorial, and the first one refers to Hamas as a "terrorist" group, so its impartiality and biasedness is quite clear(biased claims are allowed, but they must be attributed and be balanced and not undue). The second one from The Washington Post doesn't say anything about whether or not Hamas "put effort into the kidnapping attempts throughout its large network"; it says that is what Israel says. Remember, biased, controversial, or disputed claims must be attributed and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence JDiala (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I beg to differ. Amos Harel writing for Foreign Policy is perfectly good RS. That the PNA polices its own on behalf of Israel and the United States, who pay them, is well known, as is the fact that most of the success rate is due to information given Shin Bet by the PNA.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Occupation WarCosin. this use of 'attribution' for the term 'occupation' is completely wrong. It is the status of Israel's presence in international law, underwritten by the UN Security Council Resolution 271 (15 September 1969), calling on Israel to 'scrupulously to observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation' and by the International Court of Justice's Legal Consequences of the Construction nof a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There's no elbow room for playing mickey mouse with the text. Meshaal was using the standard language of law, not expressing his own opinion. I will revert this if no one else does.Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I will revert it in just a moment. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @Dr. R.R. Pickles: I see that you continue edit warring and again chose to push your version of the article instead of trying to achieve consensus. If you do not self-revert and try to discuss your proposed change I see no choice but to file an arbitration request against you. “WarKosign” 18:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @Nishidani: Ok, I accept that Gaza is widely considered to be occupied. As long as "legitimate resistance" and such are attributed, I can live with "occupied". “WarKosign” 18:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Meshaal's remarks concerned events in the West Bank (3 teenagers) as well. The West Bank is under law 'occupied', however one might like to equivocate on Gaza, referring to aingle judgement of the Gaza boat incident. By the way, much effort went in to pinning the blame on Hamas for being behind the West Bank kidnapping, and now we are told Israeli intelligence says the mass civilian killing tunnel plot upset Hamas's plans. Readers will be laughing at the juxtaposition. Hamas upset its own plans.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Hamas claimed it was a rogue cell, so not really a contradiction there. “WarKosign” 20:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC) WarKoSign, you yourself violated the 1RR. It's clear that Israel is the occupying force in the Palestinian territories. Meshaal actually speaks about the West Bank in this case. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I'm very willing to discuss my edits, I've tried but not a single person has listened or replied to me. I notice you often revert without checking sources, taking part in discussions, does consensus mean your personal approval? You have made empty threats, told me I was breaking rules, and insulted me on many occasions. I don't feel you have any respect for me or other editors. Considering that 99% of the world knows that Gaza has been under a brutal Israeli occupation for 47 years we can say that Israel occupies Gaza; Israeli propaganda does not outweight the truth. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Please avoid adjectives ('brutal') even if they are precise. And don't refer to 'Israeli propaganda'. That there is a 'government line' or hasbara is known, and it is a POV that must be included in every article, per policy. Israelis furnish by their documentation and scholarship our finest witness to events in this area.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @Dr. R.R. Pickles: 1967+47=2014 (?) What occupation are you talking about? There is no occupation since 2005. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC) You are clearly trying to be offensive, can someone please block him? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I'd recommend you to bring some RS approving your version instead of these "offensive" proposals. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC) There is nothing "offensive" in stating a fact, in this case that Gaza qualifies as an occupied territory. One may dislike, as I do, Pickles's tone, but the point made is quite correct. I would add that several editors here are not behaving as policy suggests we should, i.e., by careful attention to what other editors argue or edit in. Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Fact, really? It is a disputed issue and different experts say different things about it. It's very strange though for a territory to be considered occupied when there is no foreign military presence there. Hamas, and before him the PNA, runs Gaza like a mini-state, with its own laws, government, schools, foreign relations etc. Yuvn86 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC) @Nishidani: It looks like that you haven't noticed that my quote concerns to Dr. R.R. Pickles's '"offensive" blocking proposals'. So your considerations about "several editors" have no sense. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC) There is an eagerness to pick on Pickles, but note what is generally going on. E.g. Last night. He was reverted on sight, even when his calls look correct. E.g.this was reverted by User:Veritnight here, but Pickles, though using a stupid edit summary, was quite correct that the source he introduced corrected errors in the earlier sources used. User:Veritnight then went and reverted him soon after on the page where WarKosign has cited his evidence. I happen to agree with Pickles' edit there: the ITIC I have repeatedly noted is not demonstrably RS. Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) @Igorp lj: Under international law, Israel maintains effective control over the region. It controls the airspace, coastline, borders, the crossing of people, and is currently besieging the region to punish the Palestinians collectively for simply being born in Gaza. It is thus still categorized as an occupying power by most respected international institutions. The "disengagement" was a transfer of the several thousand illegal colonialist settlers to the West Bank, also illegally, and a disingenuous withdrawal of troops to make it seem as though control over the region is actually being relinquished. The motive for the disengagement was explained by Dov Weisglass, a confidant of then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was in charge of negotiating and implementing it. "The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Weisglass told Haaretz. "And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a [U.S.] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress." JDiala (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Regardless of these details, the point is that we follow sources and do not use attribution when the view espoused is not, according to an individual (Meshaal), but a matter of international law, i.e., a verified factual situation.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Too many seem to forget that Egypt from the south also controls the border and crossings, yet nobody calls them occupiers. And whatever the motives were in 2005, they don't change the outcome that Gaza is empty of Israelis and run by Palestinians. Yuvn86 (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Strong evidence @Nishidani: Sharon wrote "in possession of evidence strongly indicating the teens were dead". In your version it became "strong evidence in its possession that the teens had been killed". The evidence became strong which is a legal term not applicable here, and suddenly it is not "indicating" but concluding. I tried to add 'hinting' but you reverted it without discussing. I am ok with "suggesting" "pointing" or such. Goldberg detailed what the evidence was and wrote "There was no doubt" but it contradicts Sharon who wrote "indicated". A bullet hole and some DNA (even if it's blood) leaves plenty of hope that a person is still alive. They were "acting on the assumption that they’re alive", which is natural in any search and rescue operation - what's the point in quoting it ? “WarKosign” 22:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC) You cited WP:Plagiarism earlier. I had that in mind in changing 'evidence strongly indicating the teens were dead' to 'strong evidence in its possession that the teens had been killed.'. This is simple paraphrase. You are correct that my paraphrase requires 'suggesting' (not 'indicating' which would close the plagiarism gap, so also teens = three). So write:- ::'strong evidence in its possession suggesting that the three had been killed.' Ya know, you don't have to clear with me correction of my edits if they need tweaking. It's quite within your rights to tweak anything if there is some problem in an earlier representation of a source. As to Goldberg vs Sharon (there are many uses of extensive textual citations of rather trivial matter in the text, and you should not make an exception here). 'Indicate' means 'points out'. Again, as up above, I don't expect sources to agree with one another. Each has a way of saying things. In articles where heavy POV interests are at stake, readers should be given in notes a range of views and quotes, and settle their own minds. Goldberg is right of course: the police lied through their teeth in telling Gil-Ad Shaer's mother that the spent cartridges found 'outside the car' proved the thugs had shot out the windows. The shots were registered at 22:25 near Alon Shvut, going west. The last signal from the cellphone came an hour later, when the car was burnt near Beit Einun, where the cartridges were found, some outside the car. The incongruency was patent, and the story to Mrs Shaer and the other families cruel. There was nothing 'natural' about the operation, which was a political choice dictated, perhaps yes, by concern to find the bodies, but also, as is always the case in significant political decisions, many other tactical considerations. In any case, we should ensure that readers have a variety of perspectives, not just a flattened out compatibility narrative.Nishidani (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I added "hinted" and you reverted it. "Suggesting" is ok. What about "strong evidence" ? This is a legal term that is not applicable here. “WarKosign” 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC) A 'hint' is, in English, something 'thin'. 'Strong evidence' or 'evidence strongly suggests' cannot go with 'hint' as a 'nudge' can't be confused with a 'push'. It creates stylisticf dissonance. I certainly should have replaced it with 'suggested'. My apologies. As to 'strong evidence' being a legal term, I think that is a cavil. A large number of terms in this and numerous other articles bear both a common meaning and, in legal contexts, a technical meaning: 'allege,' 'defense', 'complaint', 'appeal,' 'examination'. I recall writing somewhere a 'close examination,' in the sense of careful reading. Now all one has to do to make the point you make is link close examination to yield an implication that is not intended, i.e., turn a literary practice into a legal method.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC) From an Arbitration Enforcement (AE) Complaint Against Nishidani No action against Nishidani. MarciulionisHOF is topic-banned indefinitely with provision for review after six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Nishidani: User who is submitting this request for enforcement MarciulionisHOF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Purpose_of_Wikipedia Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Remedies Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 13:35, 21 October 2014 Hypebole and misrepresenting Israelis ("genocide"), -- note: three editors make note of this to him (keep reading). furtherance of conflict ("large list"), polemical allusions on Israel ("crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim"), uncivil use of Yiddish. I approached him: MarciulionisHOF "Weissglass's words were taken out of context. Here's the discussion with Minister of Transportation", "could you please remove the offensive text"19:30, 21 October 2014 16:35, 21 October 2014 comparing ("undereported") disputed content from the Arab-Isareli conflict with "challenge Vad yashem accounts of the Holocaust". 10:50, 22 October 2014 Hyperbole repeated ("Genocide"), source for "crushing military power out to be a lachrymose victim" allusion on Israelis is Historians of the Jews and the Holocaust,, irrelevant material, furtherance of conflict ("massacre of Deir Yassin"), 13:47, 22 October 2014 Incivility ("pull the wool"), half-quoting and misrepresenting Israeli notables: Nishidani's quote: 'Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai went as far as threatening a "shoah,"the Hebrew word for holocaust or disaster. The word is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust,') The source continues: but a spokesman for Vilnai said the deputy defense minister used the word in the sense of "disaster," saying "he did not mean to make any allusion to the genocide." . Three editors explain the misrepresentation further: MarciulionisHOF (The Hebrew meaning of 'shoah' (not 'The Shoah') is disaster, not 'genocide'), (<Itamar Shapira> was indeed fired. Isn't that a big enough clue?)12:41, 22 October 2014 Ykantor "Usually, people refer to the Holocaust the use the term "Hashoa" ( The Holaucaust)"14:13, 22 October 2014 Ravpapa <Yair Lapid>: "What is happening in Israel now is no less than a shoa' - people have to work three jobs just to pay rent."14:40, 22 October 2014, Presents knowledge of real interpretation but rejects this ("use the word 'apple'"), NOTE: the logic is backwards. The fruit (original meaning) does not automatically illicit allusions to The Big Apple. furtherance of conflict (Itamar Shapira, a self described "former-Jew"(see Tuvia Tenenbom's book) fired for inappropriate comparison: "He would make an excellent wikipedian editor"). 15:56, 22 October 2014 Ignoring multiple users' input and use of lengthy soapboxing with several off-mainstream examples (e.g. "Rabbi Shalom Lewis of Congregation Etz Chaim in Atlanta") which "justify" earlier soapboxing. ("Many sources say you are both wrong.") Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 15:40, 12 May 2009 Nishidani: "is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely."; Amended by motion 8 to 0, 17:28, 21 July 2011 Statement by Johnuniq: WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. Statement by Ynhockey: the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors. "should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply." If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously topic banned as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict. Also see the block log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Trailing an AE post I noticed these two from after his topic ban was lifted: 26 December 2012 "everything I read on Israel's occupation reminds me of what I used to read over decades of what happened to Jews in Germany, 1930-39" 17:52, 21 November 2012 "Just as the Nazi final assault" The Anti-Defamation League's view of Comparisons with Nazi Germany: Israel is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, directly or by allusion", "The Anti-Defamation League considers such comparisons to be anti-Semitic. Summary of issues: As of 2014, Nishidani presents knowledge that comparisons to the holocaust are a sensitive matter ("A curator of the museum who happened to mention this fact was sacked."10:50, 22 October 2014) but still ignores input on this matter. A single purpose mind about "genocide", rejecting the input of sources ("Minister of Transportation"19:30, 21 October 2014, "spokesman for Vilnai"="That Vilnai backtracked"13:47, 22 October 2014) and native speakers ("Many sources say you are both wrong."15:56, 22 October 2014), is another noteworthy problem. Side-note: self reflection I have made many mistakes in my first month on Wikipedia. The point is to learn from mistakes. Own up to them.[33] And move forward striving to raise discourse and content to a higher level. -- MarciulionisHOF @Sandstein: If you believe Nishidani should continue to compare Arab-Israeli matters to the holocaust I will retract this case and ignore past and future use of this allusion. Please let me know. @Sandstein:, seeing "the same comparison", I will also notify Igorp lj of the outcome. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Note: In recent disagreement about source use, someone suggested to use RSN (which I accepted). I wasn't sure on the best venue to open the issue of comparisons. As it strongly pertains to Israelis, I've asked input from Wikiproject Israel.[34] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Note: I've accepted the input is: "complaint about WWII allusions (e.g. Warsaw ghetto, Yad Vashem accounts of the Holocaust) appears to come from my MarciulionisHOF's own 'battleground' (per diff from 2 months ago). I've also notified @Igorp lj, Ykantor, and Ravpapa:. I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein: Considering the Golda Meir quote in Nishidani's response, I "can see" why everyone thinks I'm the villain POV warrior when I asked him to tone it down and he refused. One of my first diffs on Wikipedia (from two months ago) illustrates it further. Input from others on Wikipedia, asking Nishidani to tone it down -- that's the smoking gun for my removal. I've been doing my best to comply with community input. When someone insults your dead relatives and native language, I believe it ok to say "this is wrong". I guess I was wrong. Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Reply to Nishidani: @Nishidani: Why are Nazi records relevant to Sacco's book?16:35, 21 October 2014 MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Self defense: If I am hypersensitive, it is either because I was blocked for less [35] or because Nishidani was disrespecting my family with his completely irrelevant holocaust comparison (on Rafah massacre). I approached Nishidani in civil manner asking he retract some of his exaggerations. He admits to know it is offensive, but only pursued the matter further. It boils down to whether or not (a) it is "content related" to always compare Jews to Nazis and Palestinians to WWII Jews? (what is the purpose?) (b) is it ok to repeatedly use fringe opinions (Gideon Levy, Rabbi Shalom Lewis) and misrepresentations (Ovadyah Yosef1, Matan Vilnai2) to portray Israelis as threatening 'genocide'? (what is the purpose?) 1 Nishidani ignored the source and exaggerated a cherry pick from a full quote of Yosef to use 'genocide' (on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). 2 Nishidani ignored the source (and the input of 3 editors) and chose his own interpretation to continue using 'genocide' (on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). p.s. he also exaggerated and took out of context what Dov Weissglass said for the same 'genocide' point. Call me "hypersensitive", but asking him to tone it down seems proper, not battleground and a reason to sanction me for his intentional lack of sensitivity. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC) +original complaint about article talkpage and edit summary usage, not user talkpage. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Added not: To use Rabbi Shalom Lewis as source for 'genocide' is a wonderful example of what Nishidani does wrong. Best I am aware, Rabbi Shalom Lewis has never been published by Ynet (Israel's biggest online news provider) or Israel Hayom (Israel's biggest circulation daily). A Google search for his name in Hebrew brings ZERO results. This non-notable in Atlanta (US) says something offensive to his small community (not in any mainstream source). Virulent anti-Israeli sources Iran's PressTV and Veteran's Today quote him. Nishidani uses him(?) to justify earlier use of 'genocide' on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (article talkpage). (He admits to know it is offensive -- so what is the purpose?) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified: 20:29, 22 October 2014 Discussion concerning Nishidani: Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Nishidani: Just a note, Fram. I don't go about on a rhetorical jihad in there, yelling Nazis, Holocaust, at every opportunity. To the contrary. Unfortunately, these resonances of past/present are in the very sources relevant to many pages. If I add the analogies made in Israeli controversies, it upsets people. In other words, while numerous Israeli critics raise this, in regard to Hamas tunnels, the Gaza wars, etc., editors with a clear POV (defense of state honour) get upset. I understand that, but any Palestinian would, I imagine, be equally upset seeing the systematic case being framed into articles recently to corroborate the old hare laid down by Golda Meir that Palestinian hatred of Jews means they are willing to sacrifice their own children to kill the former (We can forgive Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children- We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”'). For many editors, driving this talk point home at undue length in articles is not problematic. They are right, in the sense that this claim is in RS, and thus must be registered. But you cannot, at the same time, protest if sources we report challenge that meme's implicit Blood Libel, to use an analogy we all understand. I'm for absolute parity in narrative coverage. If I were to respect their sensitives as one widespread in many Israeli constituencies, I would have to disregard many Israeli RS and the constituency it represents. I have had to give up close editing of many articles because there is a reflex tendency by several editors to cancel, erase and revert any mention of what, to any Israeli reader, is a familiar resonance ((1) here (2) here (3) here). I don't play maliciously with such sensitive topics, like a bull in a china shop. I just think WP:NPOV, and WP:RS oblige one to give all sides of an argument if that is in sources. Israeli discourse is, as you would expect in a democracy, very open, and critical. Wikipedia shouldn't suffer from the anxieties of, say, the American mainstream press, that often passes silently over themes it regards as 'sensitive' to some readers' touchy sensibilities. We're global and, despite the immense difficulties of trying to edit this topic area, getting more reliable coverage of both sides than is generally the case out there. I believe we should be held to very stringent standards, of course, and trust that neutral eyes can thresh out, case by case, where NPOV intentions are uppermost (fidelity), and where (at it is often blatant in editors drifting in to argue both POVs) nationalist defensiveness or aggressiveness is evidently at play (zealotry). I have linked to Slavoj Žižek's use of Meir's quote because on p.xiv n.9 he makes that distinction apropos, and it is timely for the problem among editors here. Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq: Question: Would a topic ban affect the content of User:MarciulionisHOF? Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Nishidani: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This looks like a frivolous request. These are talk page comments that do not appear objectionable from a conduct policy point of view, or if they are the complainant does not make clear how. MarciulionisHOF should be either sanctioned or warned for misusing the arbitration enforcement process to, it appears, harass others only because MarciulionisHOF disagrees with their opinions.  Sandstein  20:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC) MarciulionisHOF's record since his account was created on 22 August is very disappointing. He seems to be a POV warrior for one side of the Arab-Israeli conlict. The defects of his report here underline my previous impression of his behavior. He has made an appearance on my talk page. At that time I noted him replying to a Discretionary sanction alert with the comment, "Do the project a favor and don't post these as a means of silencing people you argue with. Fascist behavior is uncool. Be cool. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)". I'd suggest a six month topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict across all of Wikipedia. That would also have the effect of keeping him from making more reports at AE on this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I've undone the filer's deletion of this thread and don't have an objection to this proposal.  Sandstein  06:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC) @Fram and Bishonen: As the admins recently interacting with MarciulionisHOF, what's your opinion?  Sandstein  09:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I've tried to stay away from this mess. While I do think that Nishidani would be wiser to avoid all references to the holocaust, nazis, WWII, ... in not directly related discussions, the way that MarciulionisHOF approaches this and most discussions he is involved in is a serious problem where a topic ban might indeed be a better solution than a series of blocks. His edits display a very strong us-vs-them view wrt ARBPIA, and everyone disagreeing with him is lumped together (his contributions to my talk page, User talk:Fram#Holocaust comparisons, are a good example: out of the blue, I am turned into Nishidani's "POV companion" and "buddy", never mind the very strange impression his initial post and section title give to any passers-by). I will not take any action concerning MarciulionisHOF, but I believe that EdJohnstons suggestion is a good one. Fram (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I only watch AE in a lackadaisical way, and had missed this thread, or I would have suggested something similar myself. I completely agree with EdJohnston, indeed I think the sanction should preferably be framed as an indefinite topic ban with an option to appeal after six months. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC). Addition: The user's pointy "takeaway" from this very discussion, posted in at least five different places,[36][37][38][39][40] is another example of passive aggression and inability to ever let anything go. (Here is an example from my own page the other day.) It strengthens my conviction that a ban is needed. To Johnuniq: do you mean, can he continue to post material referring to or hinting at the Arab-Israeli conflict on his userpage if he's topic banned? Certainly not, all of Wikipedia means all of Wikipedia. (For "hinting at", compare for instance the state of his userpage in September, with its implicit attacks on users.[41]) But if you mean would a topic ban affect the state of his userpage as of now — no, a topic ban would refer only to the user's future editing. Of course you could ask him to clean up his userpage, if you think there's still inappropriate material on it. I haven't looked closely. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC). That looks like a pretty clear consensus to me; I've implemented the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC) 2014-12-01 As for 'murder' versus 'killing', my impression is that the former is a legal definition applied to taking someone's life, whereas the latter is generic for the same thing. Did Max Schur kill or murder Sigmund Freud? Many Christians would say he murdered him, making a sectarian-theological and legal judgement. Idem for Koga Hiroyasu's beheading of Mishima Yukio, which, like killing one's wounded companion in Britain's Afghan wars, was, in terms of military culture, an act of pity, though forbidden in law. How does one define Herschel Grynszpan's killing of Ernst von Rath? Legally, it's murder, though the Holocaust was round the corner. The Nazis called it symptomatic of a vast Jewish terrorist conspiracy, just as newspapers habitually call these days any murder with some profound political grievance behind it 'terror'. There is a cultural and technical bias in our use and application of these terms. Murder is distinguished from manslaughter in that in the former there is malice aforethought. I guess as distinct from assassinations which, if made by a state, putatively are not driven by malice, but are cold-blooded liquidations of perceived enemies of that state, though to an outside eye, quite primitive notions of vengeance typical of frontier wars or feuds would be seen to be compact of many such acts. The Israeli indictment against the soldier who furtively changed his ammo case, and shot dead, first Nadim Nuwara, and then apparently, after an hour shot dead Odeh Salameh in the Beitunia killings cites the soldier for manslaughter, not murder, though it is difficult to see how, in the space of an hour one can sight up and shoot two individuals without premeditative enmity of the kind usually defining murder charges. We call them killings, but, had the targets been Israelis, the newspapers would have reported them as murders.   Now, to this evening's movie, hopefully a comedy. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Regarding to your "Russian immigrants were raised in an imperial dictatorship..." (without any smile) as well as for the following your edit's description "Sure, but from a PA perspective, inviting an Israeli investigation is pointless. They only investigate Arab crimes against settlers" - I remind you about wp:NOTFORUM & wp:NPOV rules. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC) (Your friendly neighbourhood stalking Zionist) There may be a grain of wisdom there N. I believe it was meant kindly. Irondome (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Fair enough. It might look like a personal attack, but, it was intended as a sociological message, straight out of a remark by Ernest Gellner, tinctured by memories of reading Richard Pipes's Russia Under the Old Regime (disastrously for my education, the Peregrine reprint of 1977 lacks pp.239-270), to alert several editors why I find their approach perplexing. If I find the travails of 'liberal Zionism' understandable in terms of the peculiarities of American history, I find the confusions of Israel's re-varnished, neo-post-Zionist rhetoric illustrative of the impact of a new constituency, that of the ex-Soviet immigration (everyone knows that the demographic urgency to fill that 'empty land' brought unintended (if obvious to the sociological mind) consequences: the Mizrachi inflow undercut the confident Ashkenazi faith in their enduring primacy by electing the marginal world of Herut to Likud ascendency, just as the Soviet influx altered the parameters by the emergence of Yisrael Beiteinu. It is remarkable that Arutz Sheva has more Russian readers than those who peruse its Hebrew version. I learned Russian from very astute exiles who gave me a wonderful education in how to parse a Marxist literary critique of Lermontov or Pushkin to shovel out the regime rhetoric (a palliative to censors) from what Brodsky would call the 'nitty-gritty' of the kernel, which, contrariwise, addressed the realities. Because of this, I expect people, perhaps unfairly, of that background to thresh out the difference between the chaff of ideology (which Zionism, like any nationalism is), from the substance of facts. Igorp's edit, which I responded to, was not necessary. My original edit gave the bare bones of what happened. His edit added an 'explanation' (how can Israel investigate a crime if it is not allowed on the scene?) That is a defensive adjunct. It elicited my second compensative edit (a fact: 90% of Palestinian complaints to the occupation authorities are shelved; specifically, settlers are almost never indicted for observed crimes for 'lack of evidence', and of 10 mosque arson cases since 2011, none have ever come to an indictment or conviction). It's a pity to me to observe that the culture that produced Osip Mandelshtam, Joseph Brodsky, Boris Pasternak and Vasily Grossman is less influential among contemporaries than Ayn Rant, just as one is disappointed to see how Mizrachi culture's standing is tainted by the recent lyrics of Amir Benayoun, better known now than the music of Berakhah Zephira which so moved Einstein to remember his Jewish roots in 1930. Okay, I admit it: I'm a fossil, with the musky redolence of that collapsed world that once, when it heard the word 'Russian', didn't think of politics, but of a great tradition of humanism where, even under Soviet rule, a first edition of Yevgeny Yevtushenko or Andrei Voznesensky would be sold out on day one, and run through numerous editions within a year, till everyone in Moscow and the provinces had their major verses off by heart, and no longer needed a printed copy, something that was unheard of in the sanctimoniously cultured West. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Always thoughtful and challenging. Your post is appreciated. The colleague known as Irondome (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I would like to discuss the points you make in more depth, when you, and indeed I, have the time. I am basically a Labor Zionist, a sucker for the wonderful 20's and 30's Boy meets tractor type domestically produced films, so heavily borrowed stylistically from the contempory Soviet school of film. I totally agree with your point regarding the intensely rich Russian Humanist/Artistic heritage, which many early Zionists regarded as a cultural and philosophical touchstone, a unique product of a glorious fusion of the Russian and Jewish identity reflected in the gifted individuals whom you mention in your post. This remarkable period created the Kibbutzim movement, and the true beginnings of the essentially Socialist, communal Israel which was stymied in the 70s and 80s, curiously at about the same period when Thatcherism destroyed the huge gains made by the post-1945 welfare state consensus in the U.K, which has had such toxic effects on this society. This Israeli "Thatcherism" also crippled (for some tragic decades) any attempts for an early 2 state solution, which may have been achieved by the 80s. But I am optimistic due to Israeli historical socio-political patterns. Arguably Israel was the only truly successful Socialist state in the world in it's first 3 decades, coupling a radical political synthesis of State Socialism and Anarcho-Syndicalism with a unique freedom in the arena of public and media discourse, both intellectual and popular. I suspect you rather approve of those aspects of early Israeli socio-political development, and you have often remarked favourably on the almost unprecedented and unfettered self-criticism in current Israeli media discourse. When the 2 state solution eventually is achieved (as it will) then these aspects will enjoy a resurgence. A nation which has such a pure and almost masochistically democractic inner dialogue, conducted within the Hebrew media in all its forms, has a foundation of intellectual and humanistic granite, which testify to many of the original left Zionist traits still being in place and ripe for a renaissance of thought and deed. I remain optimistic of a socially aware, radically open Israel which regains the admiration of progressive Western socialism and humanism, as it did prior to 67 as a remarkable experiment. It is a disaster that Ottoman oppression inhibited any similar sentiments of socialism and humanism, blended with a sense of nationalism developing in I/P's Islamic leadership cadres which may have dovetailed with early Zionism. (If you are aware of similar movements that developed, I would be interested to hear) Excuse my ill-formed initial impressions, which I will refine. I hope I am welcome on your page by the way. Yours aye Irondome (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, I largely agree with that, though I am not optimistic as you are. I agree historically, because it is the Israel I knew when I worked there. I must have a coffee to get my post-prandial neurons stirring, but will reply in duke horse. And of course stimulating interlocutors like yourself are always welcome here, it hardly need be said. Cheers for the mo'. Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) A horse belonging to the Duke University Equestrian Team? Bishonen | talk 13:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC). Nope, though topologically not far off, if temporally askew. John Wayne's nickname has inflected some dialect jokes, and this was a common misprint, when not intended, in letters back in the 1940s (so it must exude a rather jaded air, easily lost on someone with the youthful moniker of 美少年). As I said earlier above, one problem with my attempts at being comical is that I have to footnote my jokes. Shades of Mark Pattison in Middlemarch! Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC) [Dubiously.] From Old Horse jalda? Huh. Bishonen | talk 17:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC). Very good! Just a slight correction: Old Horsa:)Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Decisions in politics are, overwhelmingly, when not grounded in ideological obsessions or moral self-inflation (Tony Blair's person decision to trample on what the best legal and academic (Arabist) advice in 2003's invasion of Iraq told him) based on hard numbers calculations, nothing else. Psephologically, there is no basis for optimism. Demographically, the situation overrules confidence for similar reasons: the three constitutive blocks of any viable majority - the religious vote, the Russian immigrant vote, the Mizrachi constituency, all respectively have very rich traditions, but have no roots in the kind of enculturated enlightenment thinking which is required to sustain the institutional fabric of democracy.* Gellner said Russia missed out on the (a) separation of church and state (b) the Protestant reformation (c) the Enlightenment, and all 3 factors predisposed the state to autocratic imperio-religious/slavoiphilic-ethnic thinking. In Israel (a) is deeply problematical (b) is true in the economic sense, (i) in that ethical principles do not conflict with, but rather enhance rationality in the productive sphere, but (ii) not true in so far as ultra-orthodoxy trumps reformist Judaism, tending towards a kind of fundamentalism that is, unlike Protestantism, collectivist and messianic rather than individualistic; (c) the haskalah tradition in Judaism has, after the Holocaust and 1967 and the occupation, dwindled into a fringe of outraged anti-Zionism which liberal Zionism, itself fading as it got compromised with the neo-conservative politics of the U.S,, disowns. The outside world can do little with all this: the battle is essentially between 'Tel Aviv' and 'Jerusalem', but either way, all of these things are swept up in a much larger discourse, in which empires vie for resource dominance and the imposition of a fast-buck-return 'rationality' which will, if it hasn't already, dissolve the old nation-state as a civil and civic construction and replace it with the politics of the jungle. As to Islamicism, this is a trivial thing: in the last decade the West has picked off, isolated or dismantled the three Arab states, Iraq, Syria, and Ghedaffi's Libya, which were secular, two of them protective of significant Christian minorities, and had a relatively high standard of living. They were repellant dictatorships, but so are our regional allies in the Arab world. The states that best embody Islamicism's worst traits, are solid allies of the Western states, despite their largesse to terrorists, while the non-state actors that use it, together with a commitment to social justice and technocratic training (Hezbollah), are dismissed as terrorists and nothing else. Israel is now a key military power in geopolitics, and 'Palestine' is a third-worldish rump-state, a congeries of district statelets or bantustans, with no hand to bid, and nothing to offer in return for recognition. The purpose of Zionism was to create a space where Jews didn't need to think in terms of 'us vs. them', but could grow up, raise a family, work and live out their lives without looking over their shoulder, sniffing a pogrom in the air, or hearing those at times intermittent yet chronic anti-Semitic innuendos even in the finest democracies, not only as one shopped or worked in a factory, but in Yale or Oxford, etc. over casual conversations or between the lines of print: i.e. some place on earth where they could finally be normal people without an identity problem invented by amicably inimical 'others' thrust on them every other day by the ingrained recourse to a millennial toxic prejudice. I don't see Zionism as having solved that effectively. It created an urbane milieu where this dream is now largely realizable, but in an area where a 'they' now penetrates the headlines even more obtrusively, to disturb the equanimity of normalcy, and the 'they' won't go away. It is, to an outside eye like mine, the paradox or irony of the project - the dream to create the normalcy most humanity takes for granted has its nightmarish underside in which the enfranchised minority tormented by prejudice is now a majority threatened by its own ineludible minority of neighbours, who for several decades haven't been allowed the same right, i.e., to live normal lives free of the pressure of demonization. Until that enfranchisement towards the secure sense, even in the unconscious, of normalcy comes to terms with the hidden cost of Zionism, the disenfranchisement of Palestinians aspiring to precisely the same thing, there is no solution. Sometimes an apology can do wonders. This is a very scrappy reflection, digited while listening to a relative's woes over the phone, so, my apologies.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Death of Netanel Arami Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/ Death of Netanel Arami See Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/ Murder of Netanel Arami: The Israeli authorities (after intense lobbying from the dead man's family and friends) have claimed the death to be a "terrorist" death. No one arrested charged, much less found guilty of terrorism, or his death. Delete pr WP:EVENT or WP:NOTNEWS --Huldra (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Speedy Delete. Not a shadow of a doubt the author is abusing wiki pages to make a point. I suggest outside editors look at the page as it was first created by Shulmaven, who has been engaged recently in a crusade to make one-off articles on every Israeli death in pursuit of his thesis that there is a Silent intifada underway, the Jewish people are victims of a massive terror campaign by Palestinians, and the world should be tipped off via Wikipedia. I feel responsible because I wrote this ignored case up in the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014‎ today at 13:10, and two hours later Shulmaven (re)created this article. I say 'recreated' because I didn't know, not following people around, that a similar article had been deleted earlier this month. So it's not as if, in deleting this, I am trying to rid the encyclopedia of knowledge of the case: to the contrary, I wrote a sketch of the essential details of the case there, which this article doesn't essentially add to. - Nishidani 'On 16 September construction worker Netaniel Arami (27) fell from the 11th storey of a building where he was working, closing vents using a rappeller's cables. His family, as well as Israeli politician Moshe Feiglin and some websites, suggested he had been murdered by Arab co-workers. The police initially insisted his death was accidental. In late November, it emerged that Shin Bet had arrested three suspects on suspicion it was a nationalistically-motivated crime. They were subsequently released for lack of evidence. The investigation is now treating it as a terror crime, and his family have been recognized as victims of terror.[55][56].' So my suggestion to delete is not 'ideologically motivated' or an example of some 'activist' censorship. Correcting Huldra. The only three Palestinians on the tower were arrested on suspicion, detained and interrogated and then released for lack of evidence. We just don't know anything at the moment, other than a fact and some suspicion. Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC) 'likely to inflame tensions, already used in inflammatory ways, and all the more notable for that.' Oh, good-oh! It was designed for incitement, using wiki pages. I guess I'll just have to lull myself to sleep singing Amir Benayoun's recent song, which has gone viral in Israel for the same reasons. G'nite.Nishidani talk) 22:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC) I closed the previous AfD and just compared the two versions; I suppose they're different enough so deletion via WP:G4 is not warranted, but I'd like it if another admin would look at it. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Untrue The three suspects were arrested after "police investigators noticed that the cable he was tied to had been deliberately cut and decided to open a murder investigation."[42]. It is now confirmed as murder and as an act of terrorism.ShulMaven (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) @Drmies: I've also compared the two versions just now, and while they are not identical, I feel like the differences are somewhat superficial. The sources are different, but come from the same time period. Some claims have simply been moved to different sections; for instance, claims about about comparisons to other incidents now appear in the Death and controversy and Political fallout sections instead of just in a single section. The section about this topic in the context of criticism of the government (Repercussions) is even less specific than before. I don't see a lot of new information that addresses the "lasting consequences" concern of the last AfD. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC) The article is now substantially different because within the last 24 hours the victim's family have been officially declared victims of terrorism, i.e., a deliberately committed murder committed for ethno-political reasons.ShulMaven (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC) The deleted version contains this article from September where the WP article noted that it was being investigated as an "apparent" act of terrorism. That the investigation has now concluded does not seem like strong evidence of persistence I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC) On second thought, after reviewing these newer sources, I believe that alone does push it over the G4 threshold, so I will also decline the G4 speedy. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Jethrobot, I only had a cursory look at the sources. Thanks for checking it out. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Drmies, I did ask you to un-delete article before I wrote a new article, but received notice that my request was deleted form your talk page.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC) ShulMaven, you posted that on my user page, I see now. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Investigation is ongoing. Just noting that this is still an evolving story, there may be more arrests, more evidence. Certainly there will be more coverage.ShulMaven (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Keep facts of the case changed today. It was known to have been murder during the first AFD. There was a gag order put in place by security services at the time of the AFD, so that although some editors suggested that a decision be deferred until a gag order was lifted, others argued for deletion. Now the gag order has been lifted and this murder has been confirmed as an act of ethno-political terrorism. More to the point, the death gained notoriety because of the political support and public demonstrations demanding that the police investigate. Not an unfamiliar scenario in any country, but certainly the sort of thing that makes a murder GNG.ShulMaven (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC) There were only 3 Arabs on the site. They were taken into detention on suspicion of murder, for nationalistic motives (ergo terror). Following 'an extensive interrogation', and following a review of the case by the State Attorney's Office, it was determined that "there was no legal justification to keep them in custody.(Israel Hayom) What we have been seeing is a massive campaign by the family, and far right wing politicians like Moshe Feiglin running parallel with the investigation, that has now endorsed the view that this was an act of terror, with no evidence against the only suspects in the case. Shulmaven is, nolens volens, actively using Wikipedia to promote that view here. For all I know, it may be terror/murder. But the only fact in the public arena is that the ropes were 'cut'. If that obvious state of the ropes was known by the police since the 16th of September, why did they keep insisting for some weeks it was an accident? This is a very weird story. If the 3 suspects were thoroughly interviewed and nothing emerged that could pin a viable charge of murder on them, or even keep them in provisory detention for a longer time, how can their intentions be defined (since no other Arabs were on the site) as terroristic? The handling of this in the news has been intensely 'political' and makes no sense to any attentive reader. There would be a case for the article if, once the hysterical replication of the few facts is dropped, a case is actually made, with real evidence, leading to detailed coverage, analysis of the suspects/culprits and trial. We have at the moment, zero, posing as a certainty, and to use Wikipedia when the facts are so thin, while the gossip is immense, sets a parlous precedent (incitement). Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Delete per WP:EVENT. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Speedy delete as a recreation without significant change of a page deleted via AfD. If a speedy is declined, delete as WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:EVENT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC) As indicated above, there was a significant change. The assessment by the authorities changed from murder (more common) to terrorism (less common). Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC) The version of the article that was deleted also claimed it was terrorism. G4 isn't about whether factors external to Wikipedia changed, it's about whether the article that's recreated is substantially the same as the one that the community decided to delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC) The circumstances changes, as indicated -- the authorities' position changed. And that was in turn reflected by a change in the RSs -- new RS articles reflected that change. That's a significant change, along the lines that makes a call for speedy delete a hollow request. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Speedy delete for all the reasons expertly articulated by the fine editor Nishidani; the entire article is extremely WP:POINTY DocumentError (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Speedy keep, as minimum according to this Drmies's decision about prev. version's deletion At any rate, that the GNG appears to be met is not that relevant (it was a noteworthy death, noteworthy for the news); what is relevant is that such a death needs to have lasting consequents of some kind or another, and this is not yet proven, obviously. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC) There are already new consequents and RS say about new ones after the gag order will be lifted . --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Keep. Seems noteworthy and sensational, and the event is likely to continue to inflame tensions, and already has been used in inflammatory ways, and is all the more notable for that. I don't have any view about the legitimacy of the accusations. But it is appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about this significant, notable event. Keeping the coverage balanced is a matter for editing and for Talk page discussion, not for AFD. There are numerous reliable sources including this Times of Israel coverage (that is already included in the article). --doncram 20:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Keep - whatever the problems with its creation, the article seems to be about a notable death. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Keep, per DonCram, Bearian, and it meeting GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (GNG reads: 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This is fascinating to me because (1) WP:EVENT says Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. The article is trumped up, as any experienced editor can see at a glance. Perhaps those who vote 'delete' assume what they see should be obvious to eyes inexperienced with I/P sourcing guidelines. This may not be obvious to the very experienced outside admins whose judgement is very important for a neutral, policy based perspective. Seeing that this will be approved, for the record I will note down why it, like many other articles of its kind, is a fudge. The article seems to show extensive coverage over time. It has 27 citations. Examined these break down into Arutz Sheva (9), actualite israel (1), Alya Express News (1); Jewish Pulse Radio (1)=Arutz Sheva; JNS.org (1); JerusalemOnline (1) (13 articles from sites that are not considered reliable for facts. Arutz Sheva being an extreme right wing settler organ, the rest being mainly obscure and derivative. Mainstream RS mention this over 2 months on about 9 occasions, concentrated in 3 days. The event was not reported in any general Western newspaper I know of. Analysis by dates 12 February 2014 1 article (WP:OR by Shulmaven) nothing to do with this article Sept 19. Three days after the event. 1 source non mainstream RS (The Jewish Press). Sept 21 (non-RS Jewish Pulse Radio = Arutz Sheva) Sept 22 Arutz Sheva Sept 23 I from The Jewish Press Sept 30 Arutz Sheva (1), The Times of Israel, Haaretz October 1 (Arutz Sheva) (1)The Jewish Press 1 October 2 Arutz Sheva (1) November 3 (WP:OR) nothing to do with this article. November 20 Arutz Sheva: a political tirade about no Arab labourers being employed in the Knesset in a settler organ citing it en passant as an apparent murder, before the gag was lifted) November 25, 1 article (Jerusalem Post) November 26, 9 articles, actually 8 articles. The mainstream picks up the story (6 articles mainstream, 2 are not RS:2 of them are one (Marissa Newman note 1, note 23). In RS terms, the death was briefly noticed twice at the time on 19/23 September though not by mainstream Israeli newspapers was picked up 3 times Sept 30-Oct 1. On 25-26 November (Jerusalem Post, Ynet, Haaretz, The Times of Israel The Forward JTA) all picked up the announcement of 1 item of news: that the reported death was now classified as terror. All the rest is reportage from the ultra right wing margins of a dubious source with a notorious contempt for Arabs, namely Arutz Sheva, which represents the settler constituency and is the only rag which kept the fringe chat on the boil. Thus we have the report of the death(mid September) and 2 days reportage it may be a crime (25-26 Nov) in the mainstream. The sourcing is thus a Potemkin village act that falls to pieces in terms of WP:RS and WP:EVENT. Once the mainstream press made the gag order news, it has dropped interest, because there is nothing to report further. I appreciate admins are often overworked and cannot see the obvious in the details, but sometimes it goes to farcical lengths:) Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I've reviewed your very long post. Assuming I didn't miss something by getting lost in it, I don't see your post as convincing. I still stand by what was said by editors DonCram and Bearian, as though I had said it myself, and I stand by it meeting GNG, which is the key to wp notability. I'm not sure that your POV (amply reflected in your choice of language, above) is reason to delete an article that meets GNG, which this one does. Plus, why there are a host of articles that you didn't mention. For example, look at all the (many more recent) articles here and here and here and here and here. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Keep - article may or may not have problems. but the article subject is notable per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Since WP:GNG does not seem to apply, given the analysis above, I'd appreciate the courtesy of people actually responding to facts, rather than making quick atmospheric judgements. I may be wrong, but the mainstream newspapers in Israel have mentioned it on 2 days, over two months, and no (mainstream) newspaper across the globe, thought it worthwhile picking up or following. That suggests little national impact, and no international impact, which, per WP:EVENT means that this fails.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Israeli media were all over it. Haaretz is one of Israel's smaller newspapers, circulation less than that of Yedioth Ahronoth by an order of magnitude. It was covered internationally by JTA and the Jewish newspapers of France, Britain, Spain, Argentina, the US, Australia, and Canada....ShulMaven (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Not accurate. Nishidani omits statements by Members of the Knesset, omits coverage in Haaretz, ignores independent reporting by The Jerusalem Post and the Times of Israel pretends that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency wire service, only ran a single article, ignores coverage in Hamodia, and who knows what else, not to mention slurring news sources he does not like..ShulMaven (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Fudging again. I do not list commenta, I list the type of articles that have been used to report the event by source, and date, including the papers you cite. Of 25 sources, a full half are unusable, and most of the details comes from Arutz Sheva, which hosts crackpot conspiracy theorists (Obama,'most contemptuous and hate-filled Apologist-in-Chief,' panders to Islamic terrorists and considers Israel a hostile power!!!!) and which has been the major vehicle for pushing this (so far) non-story and has yet to obtain a regular licence. And is being increasingly pushed into Wikipedia these last weeks, despite a general tacit agreement not to use that kind of disreputable sourcing. If this case is not media hype pushed by noted political extremists and this settler media outlet, but rests on evidence, as yet unknown, that leads to an indictment, I'll race you to write the appropriate article. So far we have sheer speculation and, unlike every terrorism story from Israel, it has been totally ignored by the international mainstream press.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Opinion articles by MKs (members of Israeli Knesset) used to source MKs' opinion. Those by opinion columnists used to support sentence re: ongoing references to incident by opinion columnists.ShulMaven (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 'Ongoing'? The story as reported by the mainstream, emerged 25-26 November, and then died in its tracks. No one is mentioning it these last 4 days. It is a blip so far. This could change, but wiki doesn't (normatively do blips, especially those showcased byb marginal, and ferociously polemical inferior sources.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I might note Shulmaven that you keep adding minor non RS (letters home from a PhD student in Melbourne mentioning his name en passant in a list, really! etc.) mainly sources for the same 3 unit time frame (Sept 19-22, 29-2 October, November 25-6, and not actually following them. One important source was added: This where Ben Hartman talking to Larry Derfner on Tel Aviv radio on the 26 November, when the overwhelming bulk of reportage is located, blows up the whole reportage in the Israeli media as a misconstruction of what the court documents say: A rough paraphrase: (He fell to his death. It was described as an accident. The only people at the scene was a co-worker and a couple of Palestinian workers in the building. Speculation arose he’d been killed by cutting cables possibly because he was Jewish. Today the court partially lifted a gag order allowing it to be said that earlier after the incident happened, the Shin Bet arrested 3 men and held them and questioned them on suspicion of killing this man but then later released them when it determined that as there was no way to really to connect them to the crime or prove it. That’s the only thing that 100% confirmed today but from that it has been extrapolated in a lot of the Israeli media it has been presented that it has been 100% considered to be a terrorist crime. It's more accurate to say that they have been investigating it as a terror attack and they arrested people in connection with that but haven’t been able to prove that. What Hartman says is that the court records gave no evidence indicating it was a nationalist crime rather than a work accident, but simply said an investigation of it as a terror act had been conducted and the suspects released since there was no evidence. What Hartman noted was a media inference not justified by the facts revealed, whatever your fringhe sources (Arutz Sheva shouts). There was a political judgement to call it 'terrorist', a classification which allows the debt-ridden amily compensation. You cite the source, then fail to alter the article in accordance with what the source says, because it conflicts with the thesis you are pushing, from Arutz Sheva etc., that this is a terror murder. Hartman says this is, so far, an illegitimate inference from media hype. (He may be wrong, but if you cite a source that contradicts what you wish to claim in the article, you are obliged to include everything, not just use the source as one more proof the incident is 'widely discussed' to pass WP:EVENT.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I think that explains why foreign reporters based in Israel have ignored the story: there's nothing to it (so far) except local political use of the event in terror discourse, and no facts to write about (so far), except that a thorough Shin Bet investigation of the 3 Palestinians at the site led to their release after a week, for lack of evidence. It may be a crime, but it may be what the police reported it as for some weeks, a work accident (spun out as a terror crime by the family and political friends). Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Delete per Nishidani's analysis of the sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Delete Although I declined the speedy on the basis of new sourcing, I agree with Nishidani's evaluation of the sources. This is a bit of an edge case with the November coverage, but I ultimately think it does not clear the need for persistent coverage or our criteria for events. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Delete and Userfy. Nice analysis of the sources by Nishidani. It may turn out to be a notable death, but that cannot be determined as of now. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Comment Maybe a good idea for now it to userfy it and move it back to article space when and if there are significant changes? --I am One of Many (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Fine with me. There are unlikely to be developments until the security gag is lifted or an arrest made.ShulMaven (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I changed my opinion to userfy. My view is that once it is clear that there are important implications of his death, it will clearly be notable. I suspect that it will happen. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Delete -- As per WP:EFFECT & WP:GEOSCOPE. The subject is not significant enough globally to keep. - Maduwanwela (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Delete - It is a death in region chock full of murders and revenge killings for those murders, and the cycle goes on and on. This is simple WP:NOTNEWS; while a tragedy, it is an abuse of this encyclopedia project to use it to catalog each and every casualty in the Israeli-Palestine war of aggression. I also note some of the same, Israeli POV-pushers here and in a recent DRV, ones that have been pushing this same sort of stuff for years on this project. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC) That begs the question of whether widely covered murders and revenge killings, with GNG coverage, should not be covered because there are many of them. If it's terrorism, this isn't notable? Terrorism is inherently non-notable? Actually, that's confusing real-world "notability" with wp notability. For us, notability doesn't mean "there aren't many" (or else we wouldn't cover all major league baseball players), but rather "does it attract GNG coverage?" Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Everything attracts some degree of coverage these days, but the simple "I saw it in a source so I must create a Wikipedia article about it" mentality no longer carries water, if it ever did at all. Matters that are routine news stories, local in scope, or one-event wonders, we exercise editorial discretion and separate thru truly newsworthy from the run-of-the-mill. As of 11/23/2014, 286 people have been murdered in New York City this year. It is reasonably certain that there is some coverage to be found in some newspapers for each of those 286. It's a big city, shit happens, and I doubt any of those 286 have an article here. In this case, it's just another Israeli killed by just another Palestinian in a region fraught with violence for decades. Shit happens, and not many of those individual deaths are encyclopedic, despite your personal best efforts to make them so in this project over the years. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC) The debate is now closed. The above discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article. The result was delete. User:Nishidani's evaluation of the sources pretty much makes the (very weak) keep arguments moot, and there was no proper counterargument offered. Clear consensus that this fails WP:EVENT. This is how sources should be evaluated in every potentially controversial AFD. Secret account 23:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC) From Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN): CounterPunch I've come across a few references to CounterPunch which, I note, has a number of links from article space. I see from this page's archives that CounterPunch's reliability has been discussed briefly before, but I'm unclear as to what the general view is of this source's reliability. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC) It has a strong political agenda and bias. It's probably about as reliable as FrontPage Magazine, which would be its counterpart on the right. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC) CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Zeq (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC) I prefer to remove links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right. Jay's comparison to FPM is apt. Relata refero (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself. *** Crotalus *** 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Exactly how I approach it. Relata refero (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Ditto. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Agree with Relata refero. It depends on who writes there. In itself it cannot be called a reliable or unreliable source (the same goes for mainstream papers though). One might add that, contrary to what was asserted, it doesn't have a 'strong political agenda', except for those unfamiliar with it, since the views expounded in its pages can not be affiliated with those of any political party. Its regulars include an economist who was an undersecretary for the Reagan Administration (Paul Craig Roberts), former analysts for the C.I.A., libertarians, ex-Wall Street Journal journalists of repute, historians of repute, senior officers of the American military (Col. Dan Smith), many academics, etc. It opens its pages to what are called fringe views, but also to quality analysts from all areas of controversy. It is equally critical of the Democratic Party as of the Republican Party. It has a strong record for quality reportage on certain key issues that has proven, in retrospect, more accurate of the inside-stories in matters like WMD in Iraq, the politics of the war on Terror, and the invasion of Iraq. CounterPunch was prescient on the present economic crisis long before 'mainstream' newspapers started to talk about possible sub-prime problems and the structural dangers of derivatives-trading. It is, yes, highly critical of Israel, but most of that material comes from varied voices within Israel or the north-American Jewish world, from Uri Avnery to Michael Neumann. It does not have a 'line', however, since its regular commentators have disagreed quite vigorously on a one or two-state solution. In short, Counterpunch is what is called a muckraking magazine, hosting a great diversity of prominent critics, academics, writers and journalists, from Diane Johnston, Gore Vidal, Uri Avnery, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Fisk (one of the West's best writers on Lebanese affairs and history), Oren Ben-Dor, Frank Menetrez, Gary Leupp, etc., to name a few off the top of my head. The comparison to FrontPage Magazine, is completely off-key. If Counterpunch has an agenda, it is in getting informed reportage from around the world that is not on the Front Page Magazine, and cannot be qualified as a 'left' wing mirror of a right-wing rag, for the simple reason that many who write for Counterpunch are far too critical of the ideological or political left to be denominated under that vague and lazy rubric. What applies to it, applies to all sources: a judgement of quality, which can vary as much there as it does in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, mainstream papers which have proven to be far less reliable as sources on several major events of the last decade than Counterpunch.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC). Nishidani's point about the heterogeneity of views and reputations on offer is well taken. I agree, too, that some of the sources most reliable by our standards have shown themselves to be problematic recently when it comes to the bigger picture. (Read Michael R. Gordon for gory details.) But the difference is that (a) CounterPunch prides itself on heterogeneity and giving space to marginal views; by focusing on the things in which they were right about facts, we would be subject to selection bias, and would not get useful information about the probability of them being right about facts. (b) As a self-defined muckraking magazine, it cannot be expected to hold itself to the same standards of fact-checking and confirmation using multiple independent sources that newspapers we consider reliable by our metric at least nominally honour. (c) As a magazine devoted to heterogeneity of views and reputations, it cannot be immediately assumed that publication in it makes the opinion of the contributor notable by our standards. Relata refero (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Applying the WP:V criteria of having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", is CounterPunch cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Indeed a good point. In the end, that's all that matters. We must all resist the natural tendency to see publications we agree with as inherently more reliable and neutral (really, any mag that publishes Chomsky, Fisk, and Churchill is left-leaning, and these days paleo-conservatives have more in common with the left on major foreign policy issues than anyone on the right). I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right, e.g. Chomsky for Counterpunch, Pipes for FPM. - Merzbow (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Since when is Daniel Pipes notable in any way similar to Noam Chomsky? Chomsky has a very wide and international notability in several areas of scholarship and political commentary, whereas Pipes certainly does not. Do you mean that within arch-conservative cultures Chomsky is regarded as a wackjob the way that Pipes is amongst those of the far left who even know who is? While I get the similarity here on Wikipedia in terms of perceived POV, let's not delude ourselves about the notability of minor ideologues (vs. quite major ideologues).PelleSmith (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC) To quibble a minor issue in Merzbow's point above: Fisk's main output is for The Independent which isn't left-leaning but centre. OK, UK centre = US far left, but we have to live with that. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC) From Talk: 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre Counterpunch is not an RS for facts, especially in contentious articles. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC) The debate was indecisive. You quoted one opinion, and the discussion is 6 years old. If the animus challenging a report by a political scientist (Ramsy Baroud) who is thoroughly familiar with the factional politics of a little known organization (PFLP) challenges Baroud's report because it is in Counterpunch, on the basis of some old discussion, I'm looking forward to hearing, Epeefleche, from you and others as to why here we have Arutz Sheva (used 4 times); Israel Hayom, an Israeli tabloid rag run by a US Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson as a mouthpiece for one politician, Netanyahu, used 4 times, once snuck in via Hebrew. There is a Knesset Bill which has passed a first reading banning the paper’s free distribution; Algemeiner; jspacenews.com; nrg.org )Hebrew) New Jersey Jewish News; The Hollywood Reporter. Fox News. ‘Examples can be multiplied ad nauseam but the mere existence of Fox News’s stable of commentators whose stock in trade is preying on their audience’s fears and hatreds is more than sufficient to make Nbussbaum’s point’ Alan Ryan ‘In the Spirit of Maya Lin,’ New York Review of Books October 9 p.43) I.e., your selective protest isolating just one, Counterpunch, of many sources in the article as problematical because it shows selective policy bias. It happens to be 'dis-establishmentarian'. I look forward to editors telling me why, in particular, Arutz Sheva and Israel hayom are reliable whereas Counterpunch, for a very nuanced analysis of an obscure political group, is not.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Because some of these things are not like the others. Counterpunch is a political newsletter that primarily features opinion and analysis; when it does investigative journalism there is some actual reporting, but most of the content is a re-analysis of material originally reported elsewhere - and it does not attempt to cover the daily or weekly news. The New Jersey Jewish News is typical of local Jewish newspapers worldwide, i.e., it does reliable, original reporting in its region, reprints national and world Jeiwsh news drawn from wire services, and offers analysis and commentary. Arutz Shava is a constantly updates news source with a great deal of original reporting, and also analysis and commentary; so is Fox News on a larger scale. But, then, so are the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, The Guardian,,Le Monde and Haaretz, and Fox News. All of these, like Arutz Sheva (which differs in that it is local to Israel and Israeli news) are unlike Counterpunch because they are constantly updated news sources, that do publish commentary and analysis inflected by the politics of their respective publishers, and that select what to cover according to their particular biases, but that strive to report facts substantiated by journalists on their news pages.ShulMaven (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I agree with Epeefleche that Counterpunch is not a reliable source for facts, especially concerning contentious issues. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I also agree with Epeefleche that Counterpunch is not a reliable source for facts, especially concerning contentious issues.ShulMaven (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Counterpunch We have 4 sources for the statement, all issued on the day of the murders, repeating the same information. We had from Ramzy Baroud a piece written 10 days later which analysed claims and counterclaims in an historical light. Just editwarring without examining sources is pointless. This is the lay of the textual land, copied to allow resaders who don't read links to actually check. Note 2 Ben Lynfield The Independent 18 November 2014 The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a small left-wing group within the Palestine Liberation Organisation that is usually dwarfed by Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement and the militant Hamas organisation, came to the fore today by claiming responsibility for the attack on the Jerusalem synagogue that left four worshippers dead. Note 10 Jodi Rudoren, Isabel Kershner,Israel Shaken by 5 Deaths in Synagogue Assault, NYT, 18 November 18, 2014 The Israeli authorities arrested 12 relatives of the assailants, family members said. Local news organizations said neither man had previously been arrested, though a cousin was among the 1,000 Palestinian prisoners released in a 2011 exchange for an Israeli soldier held captive for five years by Hamas, the Islamist faction that dominates the Gaza Strip. That cousin was affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a militant group that celebrated Tuesday’s attack and claimed credit for it. Note 25. Robert Tait, Jerusalem synagogue axe attack kills four The Telegraph 18 November 2014 The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a secular Left-wing organisation, took responsibility for the attack. Family members said they did not know if either men belonged to a political faction, although another cousin, Jamal Abu Jamal, is known to be a prominent PFLP member and was recently arrested by Israeli security forces. Note 26 PFLP claims responsibility for Jerusalem synagogue attack The Hindi 18 November 2014 A Palestinian left-wing group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), said on Tuesday that two of its members were responsible for the deadly synagogue attack in west Jerusalem earlier in the day that left four people dead. The PFLP said in an e-mailed press statement that the two attackers are members of the group, and that “the attack was a natural response to the Israeli attacks on Jerusalem and on the Palestinians”. Rabah Muhana, a senior PFLP leader from Gaza, said in an e-mailed press statement that “the Palestinians should work hard on making the Israeli occupation of our territories illegal by unifying our efforts and ending the internal Palestinian division”. He called for an end to the security cooperation with Israel and for “intensifying armed resistance together with focusing on the Palestinian diplomacy to end the occupation and gain back the legitimate rights of the Palestinians”, Xinhua reported. Note 2 (now reintroduced) RAMZY BAROUD The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists Counterpunch 27 November 2014 written 10 days later, after investigating sources. When news reports alleged that the two cousins behind the Jerusalem synagogue attack on 18 November were affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a level of confusion reigned. Why the PFLP? Why now? Then, Ghassa and Odai Abu Jamal attacked the synagogue. The initial assumption was that the attack was also the work of individuals, before reports began linking them to the PFLP.(link to Ben Lynfield in the Telegraph To begin with, there can be no easy answers. In fact, the PFLP’s own muddled responses suggest an existing tussle within the group, if not politically, at least intellectually. Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, the movement’s militant arm issued a fiery statement, but refrained from taking responsibility.(link to the PFLP’s website It neither took responsibility for the attack, nor did it declare the attackers to be its members. Instead, it merely conveyed the Israeli accusation that the assailants were affiliated with the PFLP. Another statement (Arwa Ibrahim Conflicting reports: Were the Jerusalem attackers PFLP? Middle East Eye 18 November 2014) declared the attackers as heroes, yet still took no responsibility.) It matters little whether the cousins who attacked the synagogue in Jerusalem were affiliated with the PFLP or not; the repeated muddled statements by the group – justifying the attack, explaining it, owning it and disowning it all at once- matters more. This confusion is becoming symbolic of the PFLP following the signing of Oslo. And while there are those who employ clever language to maintain the group’s radical status, NGO perks and socialist prestige, others expect a more serious discussion of what the PFLP is and what it stands for after two decades of political failure, for which the PFLP, like Fatah and Hamas, should also be held accountable. Extra Note not used by us, but citing Baroud. Arwa Ibrahim Conflicting reports: Were the Jerusalem attackers PFLP? Middle East Eye 18 November 2014 , updated 29 November 2014. There has been a raft of conflicting reports regarding the cousins’ affiliation to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) - a revolutionary, leftist organisation that gained notoriety in the 1960s and 70s for a series of aircraft hijackings - and whether or not the group had claimed responsibility for the incident. At least rhetorically, armed-resistance remains a central component of the PFLP political posturing and literature. This may explain Tuesday’s conflicting reports. “These two statement are likely the result of wrangling between factions of the PFLP, those mindful of the status quo, and the more revolutionary elements,” said Baroud. At the same time, a tradition of honour among Palestinian resistance groups to claim the affiliation of any person who carries out an attack against Israel could also explain the situation, according to Baroud. “If someone is a martyr in Palestine, it used to be acceptable for everyone to claim that person belongs to their group. By everyone saying he/she is ours, it becomes more difficult for Israel to crackdown on a single organisation,” he explained. While several media sources have reported that the PFLP has claimed responsibility for the incident, sources on the ground in Jerusalem confirm that no formal statement has yet been made on behalf of the group. Furthermore, a spokesman for the PFLP said Wednesday that it was "premature" to talk about his organization's responsibility for the attack, reported the Jerusalem Post, leading observers to infer that the operation may not have been organised by a group at all but occurred upon the attackers’ own initiative. Analysts say that while reports remain unconfirmed, non-factional attacks have been on the rise in Israel. “We’ve seen this pattern over the past few weeks - most prominently from Hamas which keeps some distance from actions while describing them in a positive light,” said Ofer Zalzberg, senior Middle East analyst at the International Crisis Group (ICG). “This kind of action is more effective in harming Israel. It means that Israel cannot react with a full-scale operation against the organisation and is left to deal with individuals as the less organised [the operation], the more difficult it is for Israeli intelligence to detect it in advance,” Zalzberg told MEE.'Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC) The RSN clearly does not view Counterpunch as an RS for facts, especially disputed facts. If Nish thinks that he would like to get new input from the RSN, because he feels somehow the publication has changed its ways, he is free to do so. But this has been considered by the RSN, and the consensus view (not just the view of one editor) was that it should not be relied upon for facts. Nish - feel free to ping us here if you open up a new discussion at the RSN, for the use of Counterpunch as an RS for disputed facts in this article (where the NYTimes and others says something that Counterpunch disagrees with). Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Agreed, and I'm having difficulty following the block of text above, and am not sure what it has to do with Counterpunch. Coretheapple (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Agreed. Counterpunch is garbage. I would spend time creating an argument for my assertion but it would be just as easy to find another source and move on. Cptnono (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Don't be silly, CPTONO. Counterpunch has a large range of academics, reliably published authors, ex-members of the Knesset, Ex-Undersecretaries of the United States government, ex-CIA officials, historians, economists, and notable journalists. I myself only read 'name articles', those written by competent specialists and carried in that journal. Epeefleche. It is a fact that the organization was named as claiming responsibility for the attack. It is a fact that articles in Al-Jazeera and Counterpunch go into this in detail and cast doubt on the attribution. To remove evidence that the claim is contested is to push a POV. The proof that this is complex is given above, and though Coretheapple seems to think it TLDR, no one who read it has replied to the points made. There is nothing wrong with citing the widely mainstream-published Ramzy Baroud for his views on this point, with attribution. It is a fact that Baroud went through the Arabic sources, and a fact that he has an intimate knowledge of the factional politics, something the other journalists we cite do not have.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC) A source that is proud of its muckraking and that receives criticism for being extremist isn't something I would seek out while writing an article. In regards to well-known contributors, Matt Damon is a great actor but Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was still shit. Is there really not another source?Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC) You appear to be unfamiliar with a term you take to have only pejorative implications. Read Muckraker, which refers to 'investigative journalism' as one of its main characteristics, as opposed to journalism which simply rewrites what the wire-services relate. By definition, exposures of corruption in high places cops criticism as extremism: the New York Times is moderate and was complicit in the invasion of Iraq scenario building, which was regularly exposed at the time by journals like Counterpunch. It publishes Paul Craig Roberts, the founder of Reaganomics; Michael Hudson, a former Wall Street trader; it hosts retired CIA intelligence officers like Raymond McGovern,and Kathleen Christison, or analysts for the Pentagon like Franklin Spinney, or Congressional Budget analyst Winslow T. Wheeler; or historians as various as Vijay Prashad, Gabriel Kolko and Patrick Cockburn. These are neither extremist nor identifiable with some collective 'leftie' movement. The cast of that journal is strongly libertarian. The crack about Matt Damon is slapdash because, analogically, one cites the Matt Damons on Counterpunch for their analyses, not for the venue. To invert the logic of your analogy, Judith Miller is a lousy journalist, but her writing for the New York Times doesn't make that august mainstream source, or the Wall Street Journal, thereby disreputable by wikipedia standards. If Ramzy Baroud's analysis is wildly off the mark, full of egregious errors, or seamed with rhetoric, you might have a case. But Baroud's analysis is informative, level-headed, and notably more nuanced than the immediate march of on-the-spot rumour recorded in the 4 sources we earlier had. Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Source in question: Ramzy Baroud, 'The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists,' Counterpunch November 27, 2014. Is Ramzy Baroud writing for Counterpunch a reliable source for facts concerning the obscure Marxist splinter group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine? I tried to raise a discussion on this, providing detailed sources that showed that the text at 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack was false, by citing Baroud's article. This was dismissed by a mechanical reference to an, to me, inconclusive debate back 6 years ago, at RSN. I don't think a single, dated, unsatisfactory discussion here can be taken as binding for eternity as though it were established policy. My view is that one must examine the quality of the source (Baroud, not Counterpunch), the standing of the author, and the nature of the material requested to be used. It turns out that later sources I turned up confirmed what Baroud had documented, yet regardless of this (a good test of reliability) some editors just refuse to accept him, since the article appeared in a journal they appear to dislike. Counterpunch 'muckrakes', a perfectly legitimate branch of Investigative journalism which was the particular area of expertise of its founder Alexander Cockburn, and of one of its leading writers Patrick Cockburn, an expert on the Middle East. It specializes in getting over authoritative opinions that are not aired in the mainstream press. Counterpunch exposed the New York Times presentation of the fabricated data leading to the decision to invade Iraq (and was cited by mainstream historians like Chalmers Johnson for doing so. See his The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, Macmillan, 2007 pp.351,352,363,364). The mainstream source got everything wrong, and Counterpunch proved it. It publishes ex-Wall Street financial experts turned academics like Michael Hudson, Reaganite economists like Paul Craig Roberts, retired CIA analysts like Franklin C. Spinney, U.S. Senate national security expert and Congressional Budget specialists like Winslow T. Wheeler, Christian political conservatives like William S. Lind, historians like Robert Fisk, Israeli Knesset figures and pundits like Uri Avnery and Ari Shavit, historians like Gabriel Kolko, Peter Linebaugh and East Asian specialists like Brian Cloughley and Gary Leupp. None of these are known for their ideological brow-beating or slipshod use of facts, for example. To the contrary. They are polished, notable and established experts in their respective fields. As to Ramzy Baroud, he is an Arabist, has 3 well-received books to his credit, and as a journalist, publishes widely in such mainstream press outlets as The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Times, Arab News, The Miami Herald, The Japan Times, Al-Ahram Weekly, Asia Times, Al Jazeera etc., as well as working on a late doctorate at Exeter University. Baroud's Counterpunch article is scholarly, analytic and cites all the statements by links to the relevant primary sources in Arabic etc., so they can be independently confirmed. In reply to Cptono's note about editorial control over content. Well, why is it partisan I/P editors never raise queries about quality control the following sources used throughout the article, none of which is known to exercise editorial control on fact checking, none of which to my knowledge has a reputation for reportorial or in depth accuracy by area specialists, and many of which are dubious. The answer is, they are all, save 2 'friendly' to a POV (which Baroud's article is not). Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned. The Hindu Al-Araby Israel Hayom.(once in Hebrew six times in English), a free distribution paper created by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate on behalf of the Israel PM Binyamin Netanyahu. Notoriously partisan. The Jewish Press, an orthodox hence sectarian community newspaper. Algemeiner Journal notorious partisan Jspace community paper PFLP website Primary Source The Daily Star (Lebanon) (3) Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts La Información Dominican Republic University newspaper Sputnik (news agency) mouthpiece of the Russian federation, i.e., political. Daily Sabah Turkish paper created this year The Hollywood Reporter New Jersey Jewish News Independent outsider reviews of this issue would be appreciated. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I disagree with inclusion for the following reasons: CounterPunch has historically been less than suitable here at RSN (attribution has been a way to use it for prominent opinions by established writers) Regardless of the author's merit's, what CounterPunch deems appropriate to publish and what they have potential editorial control over is problematic. The source has been called "extremist" but I think it is safe to simply say that they tend to have some sort of agenda and are contrary to the point of sensationalism ("edgy" is a nice way to put it). I question the appropriateness of a needlessly long quote and even giving it a potential page hit through the ref section. Ramzy Baroud doesn't seem that prolific at a glance. I'm not as familiar with the writer as others but nothing jumps out as so important that it receives weight (attributed in the text or not). A Google search shows what could easily be considered a heavy bias.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Question. We are under an obligation to be neutral and coherent in our application of policy. If these are your criteria, why have you raised no objection to the many sources I have cited above, which have been used to document the article. They all fail the high bar you set for Counterpunch(none of those sources, furthermore, can boast of the quality contributors some of whose names I have listed as published by Counterpunch). Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Stop it. I have raised my objections (as did a few other editors on the talk age). We should wait for others to chime in instead of dragging your IDIDNTHERERTHAT to AE..Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Both you and Epeefleche have misinterpreted (see below) a RSN discussion. It is perfectly normal to request clarification as to why you object to Counterpunch and a Palestinian author, while quietly accepting sources all over that page that are POV-pushing, mediocre, and fail RS. Neither on the talk page, nor here, will either of you clarify this point. I too certainly think this should be reviewed by independent outside editors, but in the meantime, I am perfectly in my rights to request that vague pronouncements and a failure to actually do anything but rehearse an opinion be clarified. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC) I believe it is long-settled here at RSN that Counterpunch is not an RS. This is especially the case for anything controversial. I see no reason to change that judgment. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC) It wasn't settled, and your judgement is a mischaracterization. 11 editors pitched in. 3 were neutral. One was dismissive. 7, a majority, tended to suggest it was citable for opinions if the author was notable, or the opinion of 'substantial interest'. I.e. whether Counterpunch is citable or not depends on who is writing, and the editorial circumstances (substantial interest of point cited, which is the case here). ChrisO posed the question. No longer active. Neutral PelleSmith (corrects hostile characterization of Noam Chomsky, a contributor to Counterpunch) neutral Itsmejudith (corrects characterization of Robert Fisk (a Counterpunch writer) as left-leaning. Neutral Jayjg. Negative (‘strong political agenda and bias’ a 'left wing version of [[FrontPage Magazine’) Zeq (banned editor): ‘CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts.’ Relata refero. No longer active. removes links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right. Crotalus horridus No longer active. ‘None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself.’ Merzbow (No longer active: ’I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right.’) User:Blueboar User:eleland User:Nishidani (Agree with refero, i.e. ' It depends on who writes there.') So, back in 2008, in a short discussion, Counterpunch was not dismissed out of hand. The majoir commentators put an unless/if condition on citation. Both Epeefleche and Cptono are taking it as a thumbs down, when the verdict was mixed and conditional. Secondly, the question I posed is not whether Counterpunch is reliable, but whether a notable author specializing on the I/P area, who, unlike all the other newspapers cited in the article, examined the primary Arabic sources, and correctly noted what the newspapers on day one failed to note, is citable. If we say he isn't, we are potentially laying down a precedent that a notable author/specialist cannot be used to correct an error on Wikipedia if his views are only cited in a non-mainstream newspaper. That is fatuously absurd.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC) There is now another discussion below on this. To get things on track, it would be awesome if people completely involved could discuss if: A) Counterpunch is reliable? and B) Is the author Ramzy Baroud's and/or his column significant enough to warrant inclusion? Edit in question: here. Article is 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack (by the way, if we had another source we wouldn't have to even worry about it)Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC) We should not give carte blanche to Counterpunch as a reliable source - although I can see the appeal to editors who want to push controversial points. However, in this particular case I think it's reasonable to cite it, since it's reasonably well aligned with what we get from genuinely reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Bob -- Tx ... I think, actually, that the rubric is that where there are "genuinely reliable sources" that state x, and others such as Counterpunch that state "close to x", we are to cite to the genuine RSs for the proposition they support. Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Actually, EP, Baroud gives a very detailed analysis, not 'close to x', but 'x' and much else (w, ..y,z). The article is far more comprehensive than the other newspaper reports, which (a) got it wrong or (b) got it right but were minor 'RS' not quite your western mainstream press, and were overlooked. The question is not therefore 'Is Counterpunch reliable' (I don't think any mainstream source is reliable in itself, and try to multiple-source in this area to make sure details are not partisan). The question is, 'Is Ramzy Baroud's article a qualitatively solid one' for the detail in question, and only secondly, 'does its appearance in Counterpunch invalidate it as a source?'Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Stop replying to everything. We can't get a reasonable consensus going when you run away with the conversation. You are obviously outnumbered on the article. You failed to create a neutral request here. We finally have an outside editor providing some reasoning but you just won't stop. So far we are looking at 4 editors to 1 with 1 involved going your way. No one else is going to chime in if you won't stop commenting. Just shut up for a couple days and let it run its course. This is why you get bullied.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Are you familiar with wiki boards? Questions are asked, and discussions take place. Through rational exchanges, a consensus is met. One does this to avoid mere vote/opinion stacking. This is the procedure I follow, and your repeated interruptions of my attempts to engage with interlocutors in a thoughtful analysis of the issues is, as you allow, 'bullying'. Wikipedia is not Athens, still less am I Socrates, but you are behaving like a sulking Callicles in the latter part of the Gorgias. I regret personalizing this, but you keep needling, rather than addressing substantial points. So let's drop the animosity. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC) "Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned (@Nishidani) It's not correct information. It was banned as radio station before 10+ years and I've already notified you that there is legal Galei Israel station in this radio niche. What we are talking about as a source now is Israel National News - one of many different quoted sources in a broad Israeli media spectrum. "Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts" "Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, The Jewish Press" are "Notoriously", "partisan", "orthodox", "sectarian" your personal views & negative characterisations of these sources make no sense without concrete examples proving their not-reliability. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Israel National News was rendered legal by a law that was then repealed, so it appears to operate without a license. It is used all over Wikipedia and is thoroughly opinionized, with an overwhelming concern for reporting emotions and weird theories. No respectable journalist writes for it. All the other sources (Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, The Jewish Press, etc) are browbeating, sectarian and not mainstream. I don't use them, but I don't run a campaign to elide them at sight automatically, without even consulting the cited page to evaluate it, as several editors are doing. Nishidani As noted above - Counterpunch is usable for opinions cited as opinions. It is not specifically known for fact reportage, nor is it considered a secondary reliable source for claims of fact. At least per discussions here. Collect (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC) I'm fine with attribution. But the question is not about Counterpunch, but whether a scholar and widely published journalist like Baroud, when he publishes, not an opinion piece, but an analysis of numerous Arabic reports (in this case regarding an obscure group of militants), can be summarily dismissed simply because his report was published in Counterpunch. Our stringency about RS is not ideological, but functional: it aims to ensure factual reliability above all. It is being used however, selectively (against anything that throws light on the higher intricacies of Palestinian factional politics) here, by editors who reflexely remove Counterpunch at sight, and let the blogging opinionizing of minor Israeli sources pass without challenge. This is what I find deeply disturbing. No coherence in editors' excision of material. Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC) What is the verdict of the 2008 discussion on Counterpunch? There is a dispute above in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard on d Ramzy Baroud about the interpretation of a prior discussion's results, concerning Counterpunch as a source. Almost no outside editors have pitched in as yet (topic may look too complex). Could experienced wikipedians please read and interpret precisely the 'majority view' at this discussion which took place in 2008. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC) I don't know if 2008 tells us much anymore, but I fail to see why Counterpunch should be considered a reliable source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC) There have been a number of editors throughout the years who have argued that it is not rs. The argument is that the magazine presents writers whose opinions tend to be on the left, which is not a valid reason for exclusion. Most of these editors use the term "left" to mean someone who would never consider voting for The Tea Party or UKIP. The fact is that most articles are written by respected journalists whose articles are also published in the most repected news sources. Robert Fisk for example "holds more British and international journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent and has been voted British International Journalist of the Year award seven times." Ramzy Baroud's articles have been published in hundreds of newspapers. The only issue I would mention is that columns are rarely reliable for facts and something only reported in one source is rarely significant. A 2008 discussion does not bind us today. TFD (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Opinions of people notable in a field should always be allowed when properly cited as their opinions. Amazingly enough, opinions are not facts, thus the cavils about this source or that source being biased in their presentation of facts is a tad useless when considering using properly cited opinions. Collect (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC) There is also a problem in our facts vs. opinion distinction. What appears to have happened is that 4 mainstream newspapers within hours of the incident reported that the PFLP had claimed responsibility for the atrocity, drawing on one wire service. This is in wiki use a fact,(both the fact that they reported this, and a fact that the PFLP claimed responsibility). Fisk as an historian and journalists is reliable for facts,- and it would be odd to argue that his books can be cited for facts, but a piece of his in Counterpunch cannot be thus cited because he uses that venue. I think Baroud's reportage with links for what the PFLP websites say is reliable. Attribution is the solution, surely, not blanket dismissal of the medium in which this or that article appears.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Dude. CounterPunch has been brought here more than once. Stop trying to make arguments based off of a single discussion. This might be in regards to yet another attempt to put it in or it is based off of above. If it is the latter, just chill out and let the conversation develop without freaking out. Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC) At my age, I am a dud, not a dude. I came to this board because shouting 'garbage' at a source as you did, is not a sound argument. It is just an attitude. Secondly, my analysis shows that both you and Epeefleche are distorting the result of the 2008 discussion. Thirdly, you opposed Baroud, and supported a text that is now known to be false. Fourthly you had a thin number majority to enforce the suppression of Baroud, and refused to reply to detailed analyses showing that the conclusion you drew about the 2008 discussion was incorrect. WP:IDONTLIKEIT was thrown my way. So I have requested neutral colleagues to review. At the moment, it would appear that the issue is far more nuanced than you would make it out to be. I don't freak out or get inflamed to the point that editors ask me to chill out, so please desist from the hostility. This is a request for technical construal of a discussion, and a review of the merits of including a scholarly source, and attitudinizing or not assuming good faith are atmospheric noise. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC) I see no reason why CounterPunch should be excluded from consideration as a reliable source because of its radical leftist stance, or because of its sour view of Zionism and Israel state actions. The founder, Alexander Cockburn, was a highly respected writer for publications as widely varying as The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal and The Nation. CounterPunch writers are real journalists. CounterPunch sources are referenced in more than 140 Wikipedia articles. The CounterPunch source should be considered a notable opinion, and its conclusions should be enough to question the "facts" of other sources. If CounterPunch says one thing and another source says another thing, then none of the sources ought to be conveyed to the reader as fact. Instead, the conflicting opinions should be attributed. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC) If a video accompanies a text by an 'alternative' news outlet does this affect our definition of RS? In the WP content area I work in, much of one side of a complex reality is ignored or underreported, though covered in part by sources I personally try not to use except when the context or authorship of the piece seems to justify using them. At Skunk (weapon), some editors are claiming that Haggai Matar, 'WATCH: Police spray putrid water on Palestinian homes, schools,' +972 Magazine Annie Robbins,'Videos: Jerusalem Skunk,' Mondoweiss cannot be used. These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers. They are of high relevance to the Palestinian side. Haggai Matar and Anni Robbins are journalists. Matar writes in Hebrew, worked for Haaretz and Ma'ariv, and won the 2012 Anna Lindh Mediterranean Journalist Award. Annie Robbins's works for Mondoweiss. I am less sure that she fits the profile, but her article is not what we normally understand as blogging. It is documented reportage. The objection is that these are blogs. +972 Magazine has quite a lot of journalists who publish in Israeli Hebrew-language newspapers, and some like Larry Derfner, former editor for the Jerusalem Post and Mairav Zonzein are published in mainstream Western newspapers, and mainstream Jewish journals like The Forward. The two articles in question hosted by +972 Magazine and Mondoweiss contain videos illustrating the journalists' reportage. Does the presence of videos documenting what the text refers to validate these as sources specifically for what the WP article describes? My view on such borderline cases is contextual, whether the source informs, or rants, or just opinionizes. I see both of these specific sources as examples of straight reportage of an otherwise under-described (in Western mainstream media) events. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC) I have no real expertise here, but my guess would be that the Matar piece would qualify as a reliable source, based on the reputation of the author, and that the Robbins piece might qualify as corroboration of Matas if such were deemed to be required. I would tend to agree that blog posts which are obviously of an opinionated nature probably can't be used, but I think we have in the past found that blog entries of some newspapers and news sources do qualify as reliable, and if these meet similar criteria, as I think they probably do, they would qualify. The presence of videos in some sites, like perhaps Joshua Bonehill-Paine's website, given the, um, reputation of the site and its author in general, might be different, but those would I think be separate cases from this one. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Blogs that can be presumed to have decent editorial oversight - New York Times, BBC etc - are usually ok. Are these comparable? I must add a pet peeve: we do a lot to ensure that people with poor sight are not massively impeded here on Wikipedia (I know that we are not perfect) but I've been seeing a lot of videos of late and they are almost always useless for the deaf. It is because I am deaf that I can't comment here on whether, for example, the video is being used in an original research manner, an analogous example of which can be seen in a thread at Talk:Bhagat Singh today where someone tries to extrapolate a religious belief from appearance in a photograph. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC) I wish I knew of a way which we could use to maybe do something like wikisource does on some pages, like for instance this one, which could be set up to show the video on one side and a transcript of the audio on the other. I'm not at all sure that we could necessarily do that without some real copyright problems, or maybe extremely high standards of content, to not intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent what is being said. I honestly don't have a clue what could be done there, but maybe the foundation might be able to arrange transcripts of some sources on one of the sites. Maybe. But that would probably have to be done by the foundation itself. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Both the +972 magazine article and the Mondoweiss article have text accompanying the videos. In my understanding, blogs are rightly viewed as extremely iffy in so far as they are personal views, and we try to build up the data base of our articles on facts. When one has, with +972 magazine, an on-line medium that does a lot of translating of what the Hebrew press reports, is run by professional journalists, many who have solid curriculum vitaes as professionals, and report otherwise relatively neglected issues, with an accompanying video that 'verifies' that we are not dealing with personal opinions for an incident or event, but objective occurrences, then I think our rationale for challenging the 'blog' is substantially weakened. The editors opposing this material are opposing it because they mechanically erase at sight anything on their black list dealing with the reportage of incidents in the West Bank. They do not, to my knowledge, show any passion or alacrity for applying the extremely stringent reading of WP: RS they use here, to any Israeli-interest events. I don't think this blatant instrumental, partisan use of rules shows any concern for wikipedia's factual objectivity. To the contrary it uses the letter of a rule in a mechanical, technical way to violate the spirit of NPOV coverage. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC) I do not understand why this question arises at all. May be because it is based on such incorrect base as: "These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers" See the following examples which I found in one minute: IDF uses 'skunk bomb' in Bil'in demo jpost Jerusalem: Between Ferguson and Damascus jpost Land Day: 1 reported killed in Gaza ynetnews Jerusalem Arabs: Police using riot control means for collective punishment haaretz Jerusalem mayor orders crackdown on Palestinian area to curb riots haaretz ... & besides of Israeli use of skunk water fuels anger in East Jerusalem ft Israeli Skunk Spray Effectively Dispersing Violent Arabs (2 Videos) jewishpress Unrest by Palestinians Surges in a Jerusalem Neighborhood nytimes Israeli ‘skunk’ fouls West Bank protests arabnews So I do not see any need for those two biased & not reliable sources. In my opinion, NYT, Haaretz, and arabnews is more than enough :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC) It is underreported. I've searched extensively over the 6 year period in which it is, according to observers, used frequently, and found very little information. To call a source 'biased' because it reports a Palestinian POV is not to understand that in Wikipedia, NPOV consists of balancing POVs. Most of what strictly qualifies as 'mainstream press' coverage in the I/P area comes from Israel and the United States, and the reportage is notoriously skewed to one side. Any incident involving Palestinian violence gets world-wide massive and detailed, ongoing coverage. Most incidents reported in Ma'an News Agency as violence to Palestinians has no echo in the Western press. There are 10 incidents per diem on average of violence or clashes throughout the occupied territories, and you're 'lucky' to see one reported in a week in the mainstream foreign press. Systemic bias is at play, and while I subscribe to a strong reading of WP: RS in my editing, I have no problem in using minor sources as here where I approached a minor Israeli news outlet as usable if the information is otherwise underreported. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Nishidani, What I wonder why does it have to be reported on every single incidents you found? For that you opened a page List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 or 2014 or 2013. You have on the page the fact it was and is still used, you have names of places, you have a few examples and then you move on and criticism of the way it is used by Israel. At some point the article seemed like an index for any news reports you could put your hand on. Do you now put on article for Tavor any time it was used? I don't compare and I think the Skunk article should reflect the problematic use but between that and obsessing over it, there is a big distance. Ashtul (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC) What's that got to do with the price of fish? I've been silent for 8 years on the fact that editors have dedicated an enormous amount of their time and mainspace on a unilateral classification of types of violence of Palestinians against Israelis. The Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel alone has twelve articles registering by year rocket attacks. User:ShulMaven's Silent Intifada, which started out as the usual monocular focus on a series of incidents in which Palestinian acts of terrorism were highlighted, was hived off, by common consent, into a List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014, which I helped then build, and then created the new page for this year. The premise of POV-pushers creating this stuff is that an incident is worthy of article-length description if an Israeli/Jew is injured. These are all well-covered by RS. If an editor like myself reports violence against Palestinians, rarely in an article, mostly in lists, then the sources are fine-combed to complain of violations of a very rigid reading of WP:RS. That is the point here. Any source is fine for violence to Israelis, but only the New York Times etc., if they ever notice, (which they don't mostly) is a valid source for violence to Palestinians. When you have videos reporting an event attached to an article, written by acknowledged Israeli professional journalists, this should pass all reasonable standards for WP:V and WP:RS. Yet one group grouches. There is one difference, in the work I do in this area: I define the article to refer to all incidents of violence Israeli vs Palestinians, as well as Palestinians versus Israelis, in accordance for once with WP:NPOV. I don't scour for results. I read the newspapers, and add events as they occur, and have an impact on either side. I don't obsess. I watch what editors do, and try to ensure that this encyclopedia comprehensively covers all sides to a conflict, rather than being a vehicle for one state's complaints.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Caution-2015-01-06 Unfortunately, in December, your selective choice of sources and the same selective edit, only confirming your point of view - See HAMAS: "are Nishidani's last edits NPOV?". Today, (diff), it seems me close (sorry), to some kind of falsification. I have to remind you again that selective choice & quoting is a violation of the rules of NPOV. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I think you are well-meaning but this is silly. I can't do everything you and others may want - this is a collegial workplace where we each contribute and, collectively, build articles. No one is expected to figure all the angles. Specifically, when I look at most WP pages, I see that most editors do little to improve the article, or rather, put in bits of stuff they note or like, without reading the page. What was remarkable about the page in question, which I went to edit in the article on Bennett and that incident after reading about it in The Times of Israel this morning, cited in your diff, is that, reading it before editing I noted it cited Fisk minimally, ignoring most of what he said, which is a far more horrendous account of what actually happened and the mechanical nonsense spun out by the IDF in justification. Please note I could have added dramatic accounts of bits and pieces of over a hundred bodies being picked up in body bags, of bits of kids' bodies stuck on burnt trees etc. It's there. And the text before my edit was mainly concerned to contextualize the reasons (justifications) for why Israel fired on a UN compound, and accidentally killed 106 people. I fixed that, and then added Bennett. You complain that I was obliged to add, what you now, in garbled English (please correct it) added (getting there of course by pure chance, not following me around) Indirect Drucker's evidence denied then Deputy of Bennett, who called them "Vanity of vanities, nonsense, a pile of bullsh*t", Haaretz daily's defense analyst Amos Harel and others . . (verb?). I think facts are important. I laugh at the way we have reactions sections, listing the usual spokesperson claptrap of shock at some I/P news report. No one reads that crap because it is predictable and meaningless. Just as no one is interested if Bennett, in reaction, brushed off the story by mixing an inane allusion to the preacher's exclamation " הֲבֵ֤ל הֲבָלִים֙ " in the Book of Ecclesiastes with the manure pats one finds in a cow paddock. By all means, exercise your right to add such outbursts. I myself am waiting for serious details of Bennett's role in the incident, which may or may not emerge, i.e., field reports. If you are worried about partial or partisan editing on that page and numerous other I/P articles, there are hundreds of editors you should worry about, not just me. Look at editors like Baatarsaikan whose silly edit to the page show she is unfamiliar with Robert Fisk, an historian with a book that goes into great detail on that incident and period, who was on the spot when the massacre occurred above him on the hills, and interviewed everyone in the UN and Fijian high command, and the survivors, that very day, within hours, and for weeks and months afterwards. As for the rest, this place is packed with lazy editors who are ignorant of everything but the concept of POV, and can't read anything except to figure out if the enemy is insulting them in this or that edit. A new year augury is that you avoid temptations to fit the mould of that type, the partisan Wikipedian who only edits in terms of what she or he thinks is the potential political fallout of any one else's contributions.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC) p.s. please don't use 'refute' for 'dismiss'. Bennett 'dismissed' the report by brushing it off as a heap of shit, and laughably by using a biblical phrase 'vanity of vanities' that is meaningless in context, a sputter of evocative terms resonant of Weltschmerz, wholly inapplicable to the situation. 'Refutation' refers to a logical and factual rebuttal of, or reply to, a charge or accusation. I note several editors recently consistently ignore this simple but crucial distinction. Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Speaking of Fisk, this is a good, if somewhat emotive example of why some people like him and myself regard this part of our discursive universe as utterly contaminated by topsy-turvy 'logic'. Nothing makes sense in what is passed off, daily, as commonsense. But you're under no obligation of course to read it. Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC) From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: User who is submitting this request for enforcement Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Davidbena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced : WP:ARBPIA -- general 1RR restriction Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 14:33, 11 January 2015 removed "Palestinian" 22:47, 11 January 2015 removed "Palestinian" , thus violating 1RR per ARBPIA If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Notice about ARBIA in September 2014, by NeilN Additional comments by editor filing complaint He has been given opportunity to self-revert, but declines to do so. Huldra (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) User:Number 57: His first edit was a revert of the long-standing text, removing the word "Palestinian". As you correctly points out: it had been in the article since the start. Davidbena has now removed it twice, in one day. Huldra (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) User talk:HJ Mitchell: I read the first diff as a revert of long-standing text, a partial revert from this edit. 2nd diff, the same. Huldra (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff Discussion concerning Davidbena Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Davidbena: User:Huldra seems to be pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel by its action in the winter of 1948, when I have insisted that she remain neutral, and not to politicize the situation. Specifically, User:Huldra prefers to mention Bayt Nattif of October 1948 as a "Palestinian-Arab village," when I propose that it is far better to simply write "Arab village," since in October of 1948 Bayt Nattif was then under the direct governance of the new government of Israel, based on the partition plan relegated to Israeli and Jordanian authorities by the dissolved British Mandate. To suggest that Bayt Nattif was, in October of 1948, a "Palestinian-Arab village" is to suggest a sovereign governmental body by the name of Palestine given charge over the village's affairs when it was actually the new State of Israel that had been given charge over its affairs. To avoid this seemingly contentious issue, I have suggested keeping the introductory lines neutral in accordance with WP policy of WP:NPOV and by simply writing "Arab village." (For a greater summary, see Bayt Nattif's Talk Page (bottom section) Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Question: What is the proper way of seeking professional advice from experienced editors, without abrogating the WP guidelines which look with disdain on "canvassing"? Honestly, how can I go about seeking professional counsel and advice? If anyone notes my own words, I have actually called out for advice, rather than asking editors to side with me in this dispute. Davidbena (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC) User:HJ Mitchell, as far as I'm concerned, the issue has already been resolved. As for the use of the words "lands owned by the Palestinian-Arab village of Bayt Nattif," we have often seen the word "Palestinian" used in our generation, especially by Arab writers, in the context of the overall Israeli-Palestinian issue, i.e. with a political connotation. I was simply asking the editor to avoid this word because of its "political" connotation. I have since allowed her edit to stand. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Number 57 Not sure whether I am uninvolved, as I have been editing related articles, but as far as I can see, the first edit is not a revert of any other edit (the very first version of the article used the phrase in question), so Davidbena has only actually reverted once. Number 57 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC) @Huldra: I think you misunderstand the concept of a revert. A revert is reverting some or all of a previous edit to the former version. If an edit is doing something for the first time (which the first edit here is), then it cannot be defined as a revert. Number 57 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 Davidbena has also been violating WP:CANVASS over the same issue: [43] [44] [45] [46]. Zerotalk 00:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani: No violation, but, David, (you asked for advice), your reasoning is deeply defective, and you are trying to establish a precedent that would affect several hundred wiki pages. When the impact of an edit is so far-reaching, it requires consensus. Your reasoning is defective because the verb 'to be' (was) describes a continuous state. It was a Palestinian (under the British Mandate for Palestine) Arab village. The argument that, once its inhabitants were driven out by a conquering Israeli army it became overnight therefore 'governed' by Israel and therefore became 'Arab' not 'Palestinian', is meaningless. The village was blown up (partially on the suspicion that some of the villagers had destroyed a Palmach relief convoy to the Etzion Bloc earlier in January that year), and nothing remained to be 'governed'. The article is not about the village on 23 October, 1948, but the historic village that existed until the Palmach brigade blew it to pieces. It is customary to define such places as Palestinian Arab on Wikipedia, 'Arab' satisfying an Israeli POV that Palestinians did not exist, and 'Palestinian' to satisfy Palestinian traditions that they did exist before 1948 as well as before 1967. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Davidbena This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. @Huldra: Unless the first edit was a revert of a particular edit, it does not count as a revert for the purposes of enforcing the 1RR. @Davidbena: Please either provide diffs for the allegation that Huldra is pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel by its action in the winter of 1948 or strike it. If you do neither, you risk being sanctioned for a personal attack. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC) As mentioned above, there's no evidence that the first edit was a revert, and that Davidbena was even aware of the 1RR rule in particular (the discretionary sanctions notice does not mention it). Leaving this open until the personal attack issue mentioned above is resolved. In response to Davidbena, we're all volunteers here, so there's nobody around to give you professional advice. As to other advice, you might ask on community fora such as WP:VP. Sandstein  16:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC) From the talk page of User:Cptnono I don't mind, indeed I relish the stimulus, of hard challenges in editing from any userr. But Skunk (weapon) is getting farcical. Would you do me the courtesy of looking at edits like this. It is wrong on all technical grounds, invites edit-warring, and is not healthy for the encyclopedia, regardless of POV merits. Of course, a request is not under an obligation, but while I almost never agree with you, your editing is rigorously based on a respect for wiki protocols, and there lies my trust that you can examine that page fairly. Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC) @Nishidani: The level of tagging and adding language that dismisses a source is not good for the Skunk (weapon) article. I think the article could easily be fixed in a way that will satisfy both you and the other editor. I'm not convinced that Who Profits From The Occupation (WPO) is RS from looking at their 'about us' page. Ma'an has been problematic in the past but looks to be growing into the real deal. I would be surprised if those sources couldn't be replaced with pieces from less biased organizations. I think that other easy ways to reduce the appearance of "propaganda" include: Beefing up the lead and product sections with general information Trimming the history section of individual incidents. The primary concern is the notion of collective punishment. There is a strong argument that the problem exists and a simple paragraph should be sufficient. I also do believe the other editor is treading on shaky ground. It is obvious a lack of experience but it is still not acceptable. Is there an admin that can explain possible sanctions while still being diplomatic and understanding of how green the editor is?Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I think my record will show I have steered away from Ma'an, until relatively recently. Reading it now regularly, I find it toned down, fairly focused on names, facts and incidents and quite reliable for them. It also frequently cites the Hebrew Press coverage which is only otherwise available to me in Mondoweiss, Tikun olam, and other websites not deemed generally acceptable. Since NPOV requires both sides, and there is little out there that records things reliably from a Palestinian perspective, I think it qualifies by now. As to Who Profits From The Occupation (WPO), it is a joint Israeli-Palestinian activist research group. We in practice allow a good deal of citation to the IDF, its allied (i.e. IDF-funded) research centres or groups like Israeli Intelligence & Heritage Commemoration Center or the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) etc., but we label any research group like WPO 'activist' and non-RS thus not-usable. I am a contextualist: I try to judge everything according to the context. I read a document thoroughly to see if it is useful, careful, well-supported by evidence/ proof and footnoted, regardless of some formal mechanical or technical idea of what is, or is not, RS. The three papers I have read from WPO are all thoroughly sourced and internally verifiable. That does not make them free from errors in accuracy - but our mainstream newspapers never footnote or source themselves. In this case, in the paper we cited at Skunk (weapon), we have an academic un-hysterical presentation of documented analysis in a field lacking so far in good sources. In these cases, one uses such sources, I would think, until better ones, preferably books with a good academic imprint can replace them. I'm quite happy with your suggestions, which are sensible, and ready to work out a a solution on the talk page of Skunk (weapon). It's hard enough doing these articles when editors don't understand the rules or lack experience. Don't want to drag you there, but if you could briefly outline these and/or other suggestions there, then I'd deeply appreciate it. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC) As to admins, I think they're overworked, and only to be called on when necessity demands it. Ed Johnston obliged when User:Ashtul was having problems, and a note led to him reverting. I think it too early to bother admins with the other editor. These requests always tend to look like one is using admins to win a point, and are a last resort.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Regarding the WP article on the Israeli settlement named Carmel, the two articles from Haaretz and the New York Times which I introduced there have really a lot of excellent material on the farming, commercial activities and industries at that settlement. I had that in mind when I read them, particularly the Haaretz article. I hardly have much time for Wikipedia, what time I have is devoured by pointless bickering that eats into productive additions. It was obvious to me in adding the excellent Haaretz article the other day that there was an hour or two of work needed to balance out the article with details on life, work and productivity. But, fuck it, I can't do anything. My real complaint with editors is that when a source like that is used partially, as I did, because of lack of time, they don't study it closely and add everything else in it that balances the perspective. I should do that of course, but every edit I do takes a long while, since I usually check several other sources as well before I do it.The material on the Israeli 'positive' side's there, and should be harvested. If you or anyone has time, they'd save my honour (lack of time these days) by filling it out.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Much like on the ground, it is fucked. It feels like "The only winning move is not to play". I'm fortunate that I care more about my local sports team in Seattle that working towards a good and then featured topic makes editing more enjoyable. I do agree with you that that 0404 publisher looks questionable. Oh snap... TOUCHDOWN SEAHAWKS.Cptnono (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Lucky bastard! My first home was near a golf course, like my second, and I live in a country with none within 30 miles, and even there they charge like wounded bulls. I've just realized that editing Wikipedia was probably a life-choice dictated by the fact that Italy provides me with no golf links, and their soccer is boring. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC) If we could all just walk around in the grass for one hour every other day, then life would be better. It is a goddamn shame. Cptnono (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Systemic bias: he who pays the piper calls the tune On 'mainstream source bias, and many links to relevant analyses that show the corruption that threatens many of our sources Stephen Walt 'Hacks and Hird Guns,' Foreign Policy 9 September 2014.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC) As to the recent flutter of insults here and here i.e. 'Listen, you. When I get a hold of you, I'm going to gull out your eyes and shove them down your pants so you can watch me kick the krap out of you,' I much prefer the imagery in that antipodean idiom.’May your balls drop off, bounce off the turf and turn into bicycle wheels that backpedal up your coit.’Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Let's just let him or them waste their mornings. Who cares, really?Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Sounds good. I'll keep blocking as it's no trouble for me and makes more work for them :)  —SMALLJIM  10:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I'll remove reduplications of the same stuff in the interests of page economy, and here I'll just add for the record a few more accidentally removed. Sometimes, we need to conserve abuse to document the kind of 'toxic' atmosphere of hostility in which some of us have to work. Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC) (1) Dirty Jap. It was a wonderful moment when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. (2) You'd better watch your back, Muslim. Nazis like you are known to die of asphyxiation; (3) You and George Galloway are gonna get it. You'd better watch out. (4) You squinty-eyed yellow menace - I'm going to kick your irradiated ass! Nishidani loves having anal sex with George Galloway, and together they have orgies in which they rape Palestinian Arab children - The Arabs children's parents love to watch. That's how sick and twisted Arab culture is. --- Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Someone with "issues", clearly. Hopefully, he restricts himself to getting his rocks off calling people he disapproves of paedophiles and nazis and imagining himself handing out beatings rather than editing articles.     ←   ZScarpia   22:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Not for an article but, cripes, such is one man's war against terrorism Lisa Goldman, How Bibi Tried To Make Paris All About Him The Forward 12 January 2015 For those who haven’t been following the story, Netanyahu crashed the national solidarity event despite President Hollande’s explicit request that he stay at home. Then, after the VIP reception at the Elysee Palace, cameras for a local media outlet caught him elbowing aside a female French minister as he tried to jump the queue for the bus that would transport the group to the starting point of the march. Finding himself relegated to the second row at the march itself, he shoved aside the the president of Mali and inserted himself in the front row, one down from Hollande himself and within eyesight of Angela Merkel.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC) I liked especially the last bit, how he "marched with world leaders"...and then he Crops Out PA President Abbas From Photo Released Of World Leaders At Paris Rally when tweeting the picture. Noted. Huldra (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Well, dear. I always thought politicians were supposed to be sharp, cunning, cluey, devious calculators and manipulators, but, this and the earlier stuff suggests this is not the case. Such patent, easily exposed, crassness means, that he hasn't the foggiest notion of how others view him. He's Mario-magician'd Congress, but no one else. What are Auden's lines? Here great magicians, caught in their own spell, Long for a natural climate as they sigh Beware of magic to the passer-by. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Paris: Little and Big Monsters:   "Glen Ford and Paul Jay discuss the march against terrorism in Paris and the participation of leaders of countries who have committed and encouraged various forms of terrorism and war crimes." The Real News "Circus of Hypocrisy": Jeremy Scahill on How World Leaders at Paris March Oppose Press Freedom. Democracy Now! IjonTichy (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks. Yeah, double-think, and loads of hypocrisy. Under Berlusconi's Bulgarian edict, top journalists like Enzo Biagi were expelled from the national RAI network. Over the years, brilliant comics like Daniele Luttazzi, Corrado Guzzanti and Sabina Guzzanti, Michele Santoro, all experienced career problems after political pressure was waged on networks, to name but a few. Vauro Senesi contemporary Italy's most proficous and genial vignettista was likewise punished for revealing ahead of time the trumpery of trhe pseudo-reconstruction of Aquila after the great earthquake, and got into hot water for mocking Fiamma Nirenstein who pretends to be 'objective' about Palestinians while having a house in occupied territory, when she joined Berlusconi's party, crammed with fascists with a tradition of defending Mussolini and his racial laws (Vauro was eloquently defended by the wonderful Yiddish theatreman, singer and thinker,Moni Ovadia . All fired, shifted, told to piss off. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC) 'The reproduction by Charlie of the caricatures published in the Danish magazine seemed to me appalling. Already, in 2006, I had perceived as pure provocation the drawing of Mohammed decked in a turban in the form of a bomb. This is not so much a caricature against Islamists as a stupid conflation of Islam with Terror; it’s on a par with identifying Judaism with money!. It has been affirmed that Charlie, impartially, lays into all religions, but this is a lie. Certainly, it mocks Christians, and, sometimes, Jews. However, neither the Danish magazine, nor Charlie would permit themselves (fortunately) to publish a caricature presenting the prophet Moses, with kippah and ritual fringes, in the guise of a wily money-lender, hovering on a shlomostoppedstreet corner.'Shlomo Sand, A Fetid Wind of Racism Hovers Over Europe, Counterpunch 18-20 January 2015.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Netanyahu's Elbowed Presence in Paris. Shir Hever: "Netanyahu responded to the terror attack in Paris by calling on French Jews to emigrate to Israel. Netanyahu's statement is a clear attack on France. This is a vote of non-confidence in France's ability to protect its own citizens. And it's also contributing to the very dangerous and worrisome rise of anti-Semitism or anti-Semitic ideas, which is when people associate everything Jewish with everything that represents the state of Israel." IjonTichy (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC) It's election time in Israel, and new evangelical fundamentalist Republican party majorities hold Congress and the Senate. I'm sure the fellow knows all the flak that would fly in Europe, but Eurabia is not his constituency, and the feisty banana-republican thumb-in-your-eyes circus act was intended for the only two state actors who have an impact. Politically, his egregious vulgarity and offensiveness was quite 'rational.'Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Good analysis and insights by Max Blumenthal.   IjonTichy (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Wie geschickt sich Abbas an Merkel ranschleicht :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I missed that. Of course (a) the Bild is a dumb tabloid, which is underlined by the introductory lie to the piece: Deutlich zu sehen ist es auf den Fotos bei Palästinenserpräsident Mahmud Abbas (79), der sich und seine Fatah-Bewegung nie deutlich von der terroristischen Hamas distanziert hat. This is a contrafactual hasbara meme, so Bild merely served as a witless pipeline for the Israel Foreign Office. It ignores the fact that France invited neither Netanyahu nor Abbas. When Netanyahu insisted on being present, France duly, per diplomatic NPOV, invited Abbas. Neither was designated to march in the forefront. Netanyahu elbowed out a French minister to get on the bus, elbowed his way to be in the front line, (Abbas was in the third row, and appears to have (been) moved up after Netanyahu made his move. Still, thanks. The slow achievement of parity by Abbas when Netanyahu tried to disrupt and take over the parade was missed by the sources I'd seen. Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Max Blumenthal says: "Netanyahu's politics, just as they align with those of the Tea Party in the U.S., are of a part of the far-right parties in Europe, the party of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the National Front of Marine Le Pen in France, the Swedish Democrats in Sweden, who are simultaneously anti-Semitic and pro-Israel. All of these parties align on the issue of Islamophobia. And Netanyahu's Israel, to them, represents a Fort Apache on the front lines of the clash of civilizations.   So Netanyahu, by his or through his arrival in France, is aiming to undermine French liberalism, to undermine small-r French republicanism, and to advance the hopes of these anti-E.U. far-right parties, which are now completely aligned behind a Likud-run Israel. Netanyahu's presence, everywhere he goes, is deeply divisive. He represents Israel as the ethnocratic apartheid state it is. And his natural allies are those who support Israel for that reason and because they would like to advance those same values in their own countries."   IjonTichy (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "hasbara meme", "Blumenthal says", ... - Guys, do you really take all this nonsense seriously? :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC) I'm still thinking over what Blumenthal argues. Not convinced, but then again, I take a lot of time to form an opinion, and when I do, I can explain it. I don't hyperventilate.   Regarding 'Hasbara meme', you may have a point. The phrase may be a grammatical tautology, and redundantly pleonastic. Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC) 0.22 bullets Probably this ought to be mentioned on one of those pages I don't like to edit. Note the link to an audio recording of the IDF commander assuring a group of settlers that his guys are using live ammo and getting lots of hits. My old man had a 0.22 rifle for shooting rabbits but one day a rabbit looked him right in the eye and he put the rifle away for ever. Zerotalk 06:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Coincidence. I read that yesterday while adding material from B'tselem to the Susya page. Probably one needs a separate page on the thing I've been noting over several years, and its in the old intifada reports: the use of a team of 2, spotter and sniper, in clashes ( the point of departure for such an article would be this). One picks out the target, usually a youth who looks like a leader, and then the other shoots him, often (as here) after a provocation is staged. Your father's reaction was mine, when we shot an owl once. I was only 13. Never touched a gun for personal use (aside from cadet training until I was expelled as a pacifist after getting the best record in target firing with a .303!), or trusted groups, after that.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC) BY the way, here is more evidence why Arutz Sheva should not be considered a reliable source. Compare this account in the Times of Israel (mainstream more or less), (Stuart Winer, 'Two settlers arrested for shooting Palestinians,' The Times of Israel 20 January 2015)with the version (Ido Ben-Porat, Ari Yashar, "Scandal" as Samaria Guards Arrested Instead of Arab Terrorists,' Arutz Sheva 20 January 20155) in the settler organ. While the latter does indeed provide many details one would like to use, its overall reportage states as 'facts' what are the versions given by the settlers whom the police indictment now states faked the whole scene. Because they confuse evidently falsified stories with facts, the evidently real details (precise locations of shepherd, one of the settler gunman is part of an elite IDF unit) cannot be used. (Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC) The Arab rock throwing terrorists caption is awesome in that A7 article. At least have a picture with a throwable rock. nableezy - 20:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC) From Talk:Islam and antisemitism: Biased The whole article is written based on the Sunni hadith and references. Both, Sunnis and Shias have different view on the Jewish people that was summoned here [47]. All hadith presented in this article are not accepted by the Shia muslims. Please consider adding content on this issue to the article with reliable sources. Thank you. RebSmith (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Reliable Sources on Antisemitic Verses in Quran Pamella Geller is certainly a reliable source for the opinions of Pamella Geller and the people she represents. She and others consider a number of verses in the Quran to be antisemitic. Those verses are listed. I've added additional references that also view the Quranic verses as antisemitic. It could be disputed that the Quran has antisemitic verses, and certainly there are Muslims who would argue this, and perhaps there should be a subsection under the Quran header that discusses this point of view (provided the section is not original research). Some Muslims would argue that there is no antisemitism in Islam, but that is not the point of this article. Wikipedia should be a source of information. Just because we disagree with a source doesn't make it unreliable. RebSmith (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Pamella Geller is considered an extremist even by mainstream Jewish scholars like Deborah Lipstadt. Put her opinions on her own page and don't make Wikipedia a mirror of her outlandish views. You even used her opinion without attribution in the section title. The second source you give does not mention antisemitism. Spencer and Bostom wrote books, so what? A whole book is not a source. The obvious fact that your sources are all from the right-wing anti-Islam group of writers also means you have not attempted to follow policy. Zerotalk 08:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Ditto. There are numerous scholarly works on the subject. Where controversy exists, we are obliged in writing for an encyclopedia to use sources that exhibit meticulous care in interpretation. There is no place here for political shouting-matches. Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC) This article really does need a rewrite. If you took a look at the list, it included verses from the second link that were not included in Pamella Geller's list. The second link doesn't say "antisemitism" but it does say "disparaging". Indeed, Pamella Geller represents a view that many consider extreme. She was even banned from speaking in the UK. Her confusion of Islam with modern day radical Salafi movements is abhorrent. Her list of antisemitic verses comes from Robert Spencer's analysis. Many people would consider Robert Spencer as representing the views of Islamists in relation to his analysis of Islam. I believe it would be nice for this article to include a list of controversial verses from the Quran that both Robert Spencer and his cohort, as well as the Islamists, view as "disparaging of Jews". Islamists draw from these verses as well to justify their antisemitism. Pamella Geller & Co. draw from these verses to justify their analysis of Islam as "Jew-hatred". The former, as well as the latter, groups should be mentioned in this article. If my additions have appeared in any way to have infringed on the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia, it is due to simply not having enough time and not doing a good enough job at displaying the content. It would be nice to have you all work constructively with me in trying to improve this article rather than flat out rejecting any inclusion of relevant information to the reader. Thank you. RebSmith (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Deleting this kind of useful collection instead of refining it and sourcing it more effectively is by definition a political shouting match, shouting down the topic instead of helping it be covered in an encyclopedic fashion on Wikipedia and is a gross violation of policy. Kindly refrain from destructive and tendentious deletions. The whole article stinks and should be rewritten, but any encyclopedic coverage of the topic must include Koran verses that are foundational to Islamic anti-Jewish thought. If this is disputed between different Islamic schools then cover the dispute in an encyclopeic way here. Deletion is not the solution to incomplete content.Bkalafut (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC) May I add that WP is an encyclopedia built piecewise by amateurs and there is no obligation for any to have a comprehensive coverage of the sources. The process is meant to lead to encyclopedic content. Somebody who does not know well or understand importance in the overall scholarly discussion of the left-wing anti-Islam group of writers or Islamist writers is not enjoined by WP policy from contributing. WP is not an experts-only affair and to represent NPOV as requiring every edit to be comprehensive treatment of the sources is way out of line with the site's history and policies. I suspect it is a deliberate falsehood wielded like a club for tendentiousness's sake, but we're supposed to assume good faith, so consider it a clarification. Be constructive.Bkalafut (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC) NPOV is not required of every edit, but it is required of every editor. Speaking generally, not particularly about anyone here, editors are violating policy if they make no effort to promote neutrality in articles. That could mean putting in all sides of a debate or it could mean adding one side that is underrepresented. A simple way of putting it is that every edit should make the article better (which includes policy-conformance) than it was before. Zerotalk 01:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC) My objection is very simple. Of course there are passages that inveigh against the Jews. Of course anti-Semitism exists, in Arab countries as well. But in Biblical, Talmudic, Quranic, New Testmental contexts, just citing either primary sources for 'anti-Semitism' is polemical and unhistorical. The only way this kind of material can be used is when specific verses are cited by reputable Arabists as pointing to what we now call anti-Semitism. One cannot retain a list from a twit, and then remove the twit's name, and proceed to document it alternatively. By a similar technique, one could get some (they abound) netspeak listing the use of 'Jews' in a hostile context in the Synoptic gospels (far more contexts yield this) and plunk it down as proof of 'Christian anti-Semitism'. The state of the art scholarship doesn't allow this, since most of those documents were written by Jews, or members of a Jewish sect, in dispute with more traditional Judaism, and threshing out what is generally 'anti-Judaic' from infra-Jewish polemics is difficult, and can only be followed by close attendance to what reputable scholars argue. The same goes for the large number of anti-Christian or minim attacks in Jewish religious literature. People who rush into this either do it in a scholarly manner, or they cohabit with shit-stirrers, in an age when playing the racist/religious zealot card, (predominantly against Muslims while all keep quiet about the dirt under their own ethno-religious carpets) is of tidal proportions. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality only finds a defense in fidelity to qualitative scholarly arguments on these sensitive issues, and I cannot for the moment finds a parallel with what goes on in "fixing" the Islamophobic image into Islamic articles in articles on other faiths. As it stands, this editing is political, not historical. Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC) The list has substantially changed. Verses have been added and more verses have been documented where they are used by Muslim clerics in their antisemitic comments. What is a "twit"? I'm unfamiliar with that expression, but I do assure you that the editing was not politically motivated (I in no way endorse the opinions of Pamela Geller). The only reason that I used Pamela Geller's list to initially begin was because it was the most comprehensive and used Robert Spencer's material, which draws from antisemitic Islamist writings and statements. Yes, I do understand that Robert Spencer is political, but he is accused on representing Islamists (from several Ahmadi Muslims). So, I decided it was easiest to start with that list, then source it and change it (which is what I've done, although it is not done). But please consider reading Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. On side notes: Although I understand this is a matter of opinion, I would contest the idea that there are more "hostile contexts" to Jews in the gospel than in the Quran, and I would also contest the philosophy that history is not political. RebSmith (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Also, I just want to emphasize this. Pamela Geller's opinion doesn't come from a vacuum. It has been argued by Muslims that She and her cohort (Robert Spencer) represent the view of Islam that is in line with Islamists. In light of this, I believe it perfectly responsible to consider her opinion on Islam (in the context of the Muslims who criticize her arguments). RebSmith (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Also, if we want to talk about reliable sources, it could be argued that the opinions of Western academics are not reliable, even if they have "Islamic Studies" degrees. The only truly reliable sources on Islam are those with ijazah. I've had Muslims tell me this, and it is one of the reasons they reject the recent self-declared Caliph al-Baghdadi of ISIS (although he has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies, he doesn't have an ijazah). RebSmith (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Nonsense. 'Western' academics are anyone in the world, from any ethnic background or religious or secular tradition, who has a doctorate attesting to analytical competence at the highest level by a college of peers, of different ideological religious or personal persuasions. 'Western' is a technique of comparative textual analysis and peer review to achieve provisory knowledge, not ultimate understanding. To use the old cliché there is no intrinsic reason why we should believe an 'emic' statement is more correct or authentic or closer to the facts than an 'etic' interpretation (Emic and etic). Indigenousness yields no intrinsic epistemological edge over outsiders. A doctoral degree by an insider is no prophylactic against stupidity, and in this case, encyclopedias give more credence to scholars who know eight or a dozen semitic languages and the respective cultures and history, than to scholars who know only what they have read or been taught by one of the many traditions in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. As for anti-Semitism, it was a product of Western civilization, which almost exterminated the Jews, whereas Jews have survived in the Middle East for millennia without any known attempt to wipe them off the face of the earth, and the roots of anti-Semitism come from Christianity (and from Christianity's Judaic heritage, where extermination in the name of God, as in the Book of Judges, was inscribed in its theological mythistory).Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC) In regards to Western education, this is not my opinion, but according to Islamic tradition (at least Sunni tradition). An ijazah requires personal training by (at the feet of) a learned scholar. How can we write about Islam and consider the opinion of Western academics on par with or have even more weight than those who have ijazah? To me, this is clearly a Western supremacist point of view. The roots of Western culture and Christianity are Judaism. If we follow the logic in your thesis that the "roots of antisemitism come from Christianity", then we will ultimately arrive at the conclusion that the roots of antisemitism are Judaism and Semitic. If you've ever actually read Mein Kampf, on the other hand, you would understand that it is in competition with Christianity and anti-christian [[48]], and if we consider the pogroms conducted prior to Hitler, you will find that they were conducted in direct violation of Church teachings and orders (and simply mob frenzy with perhaps a touch of pre-Christian (pagan) ideas). RebSmith (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I do also find this article Oldest synagogues in the world quite telling. I wonder why Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE etc are not listed... We know that Jewish tribes did live in some of these places during Mohammad's time (7th century). What happened to all of their synagogues? Perhaps it is just due to the article itself not reporting correctly... Synagogue construction to me represents a tangible indicator on the flourishing of a Jewish community, and the history of a synagogue (its construction and destruction or conversion into Church) should mirror the state of the Jewish community in the local area. I am not at all convinced that by simply looking at the history of synagogues across the former Islamic empires, you would come to the conclusion that the Jewish community was flourishing there. Many synagogues were popping up throughout Europe during the height of the Islamic empires. Why? And why were there 9 million Jews in Europe pre-World war II, while the population of that was much smaller in the Middle East? We can talk till we are blue in the face about antisemitism in Europe and how Islamic empires treated the Jewish populations better, but the remnants of these Jewish communities (or lack there of) speak for themselves. RebSmith (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Rebsmith, in your hands the section you have been editing might as well have come directly from Geller's website or from some Islamophobic youtube video. Not the slightest, teeny weeniest attempt to provide balance is evident, just an cherry-picked compilation of sources supporting a particular viewpoint. Have you even looked for Islamic sources which deny the interpretation of those verses? Instead you link to some cleric who nobody ever heard of before the quotes he generously provided. Nishidani's "we could do that too" is not an idle comment; with a little time one could compile a similar list for Christians against Jews, Jews against gentiles, whatever you like. But we won't, because this is not what Wikipedia is about. It simply isn't possible that we will keep this material in the form you have constructed it. Zerotalk 01:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Come on. It's hard to work on something when I'm busy fighting to retain content. Please see my "to do list". It would be very helpful if you guys chipped in on developing this section rather than trying to delete everything. I only have so much time in one day to work on something like this when I'm busy with my own life. For balance, I am going to Ahmadi Muslim sources, who I know interpret the Quran in a very tolerant fashion, as well as Hamza Yusuf and other scholars at Zaytuna College. It should be noted that what you see there is not cherry picking. If you don't understand how influential the scholars of Al-Azhar University are in the Muslim world, then you shouldn't be commenting on Islam. RebSmith (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC) This is an article on Antisemitism. I am first citing the antisemitic stances. Then, I will include the rebuttal of those stances. If you want to help develop this subsection: "Muslim Interpretation for Tolerance of Jews in the Quran" or some such title, here are some news sites [[49]] and [[50]] to know which clerics you should investigate. Also, look into Hamza Yusuf in what he has to say about the Quran and Jews. He's quite good at representing a very tolerant stance on Islam. RebSmith (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Ok, here is a reference that should be used by Hamza Yusuf:[[51]]. RebSmith (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC) This article is already a travesty of what we are supposed to do on wikipedia, noted for the crap which we allow for Islamic-related articles, while we sedulously block fringe lunatic ravings, or authoritative figurehead dopespeak, abundant in other monotheistic quarters, when it is used to characterize Christianity and Judaism. 'Across the Muslim world, depicting Jews as apes and pigs is quite common' and so is depicting Arabs as insects, animals, beasts, bacteria. I have a private list of dozens of such remarks made recently: I don't make an article of it, or draw generalizations about 'across the Jewish world Arabs are likened to primitive beasts or insects'. What has been done here can best be understood by comparing it to another article, which is in an indifferent state, Christianity and antisemitism but at least tries to subscribe to encyclopedic demands for quality sourcing. That article is not distracted by fingering and corralling a huge list of ultrarecent statements from the fringe (WP:Undue) to make a case. It gives a scholarly review of the institutional, theological and historical moments underlying Christian anti-Semitism as a tradition. This article does start by an attempt at scholarly overviews, but then from note 124 to 215, it goes into overdrive to scour for contemporary expressions from an assorted scramble of obscure or otherwise figures, to create a picture of endemic anti-Semitism in Islam. The authoritative views of Bernard Lewis ('According to Bernard Lewis, there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes.[24] )' is noted, only then to be overturned by a huge blast of contemporary idiotspeak often from the fringes, while any reaction from the Islamic clerisy critical of what this shiekh or that mullah said, is ignored. I could imagine someone coming along to plunk what rabbis like the Ovadia Yosefs (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/shas-spiritual-leader-abbas-and-palestinians-should-perish-from-this-world-1.310800 here) Shmuel Eliyahus (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Eliyahu-advocates-carpet-bombing-Gaza here), Dov Liors (http://www.timesofisrael.com/hardline-rabbi-calls-to-cleanse-israel-of-arabs/ here), and David Batzris and Shalom Lewis and their ilk to make a case for Judaism and anti-Arabism, misconstruing 2000 years of complex thinking by slanting the subject to a focus on contemporary ravings. The Christian anti-Semitism article deals with the institutions, structure and theology as elaborated over time, relating to anti-Semitic currents in Christian tradition. What we have here is a hundred examples of the Terry Joneses, Stephen J. Andersons, Stephen Sizers, Jeremiah Wrights of this world, material we do not stuff into every article on Christianity. Secondly, no use of primary materials, unfiltered by scholarly citation and analysis, is allowable in this kind of minefield because it suggests WP:OR. For everyone of those statements, there is a literature of analysis, hermeneutics, and refutation even. One could make a marvelous case for both Judaism and Christianity being favourable to ethnocide or genocide, starting with Deuteronomy 7:16 by using the techniques employed here. For this reason I will revert you, and ask you to work out collegially here the material you have added, so that it respects Wikipedia standards.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC) You are dissembling. Because there appears to be some original research--but even this is only due to style problems all of it is taken from the references--you blanked all of the edits, which clearly represent secondary sources. It appears that you are trying to do this for reasons of POV and/or violation of fringe. Kindly cease edit warring or I will have to request a block.Bkalafut (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Lets take a look at the material returned here: Completely unsourced: The Quran is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims believe to be a revelation from God. Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril), gradually over a period of approximately 23 years. Muslims regard the Quran as the most important miracle of Muhammad, a proof of his prophethood, and the only revealed book that has been protected by God from distortion or corruption. There are various interpretations of how Jews are presented in the Quran. Some Muslim clerics have used Quranic verses to justify antisemitic statements, while others have used Quranic verses to argue tolerance of Jews. Some Western trained academics view the Muslim antisemitic interpretations of the Quran as recent (19th century) phenomenon drawing from European antisemitism, while others insist these interpretations are historical and rooted in early Islamic history. Subsection titled Quranic Teachings and Annihilation of the Jews - not a single secondary source, with the second paragraph being completely unsourced. Subsection titled Jews are the "eternal" enemies of Muslims - one cleric's views do not a religion make. Belongs in the article on Subsection titled List of Quranic Verses Considered "Antisemitic" or Disparaging to Jews - sourced either to unreliable sources (I'd say a Regnery published book by Spencer is unreliable, but that may be up for debate, but JVL and Pamella Geller aren't reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#Pamela_Geller_blog and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Sources_for_casualties_relating_to_I.2FP some of the things that JVL hosts are fine, others are just webpages by random people and this one is nothing more than a number of verses with no reliable source commentary on them), or to primary sources (the Quran itself). Material requires reliable, third party, secondary sources to be included. In short, that entire edit returned material that violates WP:OR and WP:RS. I'm removing the material on that grounds. nableezy - 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Could whoever supports retaining this material explain how it is not a straightforward violation of both WP:OR and WP:RS? Thank you. nableezy - 19:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC) The correct thing to do would have been to remove the paragraph, not revert the edit which restored both that paragraph and kilobyte after kilobyte of properly sourced material. It is difficult to assume good faith if you blank 10X to remove X. Looks like an attempt to cement vandalism. Please keep it civil.Bkalafut (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Uhh, I outlined what was wrong with the kilobyte after kilobyte of material, and none of it properly sourced. nableezy - 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I've put back the paragraph and it is now completely sourced. Nothing I've included has WP:OR. Hamas (which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) clerics represent a large section of the Palestinian population and are respected by governments in the Arab world (Qatar). I'm not exactly sure how you can call these opinions fringe when they are representative of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the few free elections in the Muslim world, the Muslim Brotherhood won across Egypt, one of the most populated Muslim countries and Hamas won in the Palestinian territories. It seems idiotic to have an article on Islam and antisemitism and not include any views from modern-day Muslim clerics on this topic, as well as call their views "fringe" simply because they are contrary to the views of Western non-Muslim academics. RebSmith (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Quranic Teachings and Annihilation of the Jews - This clearly comes from the secondary source: Bostom, Andrew G. The legacy of Islamic antisemitism: from sacred texts to solemn history. Prometheus Books, 2008. Jews are the "eternal" enemies of Muslims - How is a Western academic's view more important than a Muslim cleric's view on Islam? This section is not to say that all of Islam is this one cleric's view, but Muhammad Hussein Yacoub is representative of certain Islamists' view on Jews and has gained notoriety in the English speaking world for his view. List of Quranic Verses Considered "Antisemitic". Just because you disagree with a source doesn't make the source unreliable. There are four sources there, two are scholarly and two are from commentators, in addition to the actual Muslim clerics that use these verses. RebSmith (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Hamas ... clerics a large section of the Palestinian population and are respected by governments in the Arab world That gives the game away. Get an obscure cleric from some Muslim enclave to say something eminent Muslim clerics would, as often as not, dismiss as hillybilly nonsense, and you can say that it 'represents a large section of the Palestinian population'. Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) ?? Qatar views Hamas as an "humanitarian organization". Your comment "from some Muslim enclave" and "hillybilly nonsense" give away your view of the Palestinian people. RebSmith (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC) But please, by all means, add content from "eminent Muslim clerics" that says this is "hillybilly nonsense". RebSmith (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I find it absolutely insane to have an article titled Islam and antisemitism and for editors to refuse to include popular modern-day Muslim sources that hold an anti-Jewish interpretation of the Quran. This interpretation has been discussed in many scholarly works: Bostom, Andrew G. The legacy of Islamic antisemitism: from sacred texts to solemn history. Prometheus Books, 2008. Kramer, Martin. "The Salience of Islamic Antisemitism." Full text of a lecture delivered by Prof. Kramer at the Institute of Jewish Affairs in London and published in its “Reports” series 2 (1995). Webman, Esther. "The Challenge of Assessing Arab/Islamic Antisemitism." Middle Eastern Studies 46.5 (2010): 677-697. Clear, A. "Muslim Anti-Semitism." (2002). Zeidan, David. "The Islamic fundamentalist view of life as a perennial battle." Middle East Review of International Affairs 5.4 (2001): 26-53. My intention was present this interpretation, not with Western academics sources, but with Muslim sources. The article should include this interpretation, as well as the mainstream scholars that rebuke this interpretation. It seems that some Wikipedia editors are engaging in gross censorship of this topic. RebSmith (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Christianity therefore should include any outrageous or controversial remark made by every Florida pastor, Congolese evangelical, Chinese Baptist, Alaskan Methodist, Aboriginal Anglican, Indonesian revivalist, Mexican fundamentalist, Brazilian Seventh Day Adventist, has been recorded as uttering, about the Bible and any contemporary political issue or contiguous people? That is the trick being played by polemicists, and by editors here. The only way this error of WP:Undue fishing for a POV purpose, is to look at the academic scholarship on the problem, which tends not to be hysterical, and to get its facts straight or its interpretations less seamed with the urgency of utter conviction and persuasive necessity. I think anyone with a University degree understands the statistical rort liable here (A billion Muslims, perhaps half a million clerics, and we have just a baker's dozen of hysterics to represent them). Nishidani (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC) If there is a large group of people endorsing that opinion (even if it is a minority opinion), if academics have taken note of that opinion and have written copious amounts of material on it, if that opinion is influencing geopolitics, and if there is a Wikipedia article made to address this opinion, then, yes, we should include it in the Wikipedia article. RebSmith (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry, but whether you think it is nonsense or not, you are required to provide secondary third party reliable sources for material. What one random cleric says isn't that. And directly quoting from the Quran without secondary sources discussing what you are quoting is a straightforward violation of WP:OR. Quoting from that policy: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. nableezy - 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC) From WP:IRS: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. In a discussion on Islam and anti-Antisemitism, using Muslim clerics as a source would be perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policy. RebSmith (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC) And for the record, none of my content was OR. RebSmith (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC) And let's make sure we are clear on something. Primary source - Quran. Secondary source - Muslim cleric. Nobody said that a source has to unbiased. It however has to be reliable. Which means, quoting from the policy, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and later editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. If there is some cleric who has published his work through a publishing house known for its fact-checking, then by all means include him. But some random person on the street that MEMRI got a clip of is not that. And, for the record, oh yes it was. The entire compilation of verses is straightforward OR. It is using a primary source and providing your own interpretation of it by virtue of its inclusion, without any reliable secondary source provided to back up that interpretation. Yes, you are clear on that part. What you seem to be missing is the reliability of the secondary source. nableezy - 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) The list was clearly sourced, although it could have been sourced better with the actual page numbers from the books. Nonetheless, it was due to the secondary sources that this edit war began. Say what you want about the reliability of the sources, but it was not OR. And for the record, I wouldn't call renown clerics from Al-Ahzar University nor the leadership of Hamas "some random person on the street." MEMRI is reputable and fact checks, identifying who, when and where. I understand that you take issue with the Muslim clerics' POV. That's your problem with an ideology not with reliability. RebSmith (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC) The list of verses were clearly sourced to the Quran. You need reliable secondary sources including such verses, specifically, to include such a list, otherwise it is original research by WP:SYNTH. As far as renown clerics nor the leadership of Hamas, uhh no, you still need published reliable secondary sources. You have no idea what I think about any of this, so no you do not understand, and my issue is with using reliable secondary sources in an encyclopedia article. MEMRI has been discussed at WP:RS/N multiple times, and no, they are not reputable, and at times they have blatantly distorted what a person said. nableezy - 03:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I find no mention or discussion of MEMRI at WP:RS/N. I do understand that it's been declared a "pro-Israel" organization given its selection, but its materials are used in major reputable new organizations, from the New York Times [52] to the Washington Post [53], as well as academic articles [54] [55] [56]. The onus is on you to explain how it isn't a reliable source. The list of verses were sourced to: a) Robert Spencer's book, b) Andrew Bostom's book, c) Pamela Geller's website, d) The Jewish Virtual Library. I hadn't had time to source each individual verse separately before complete deletion of the material. It was a compilation citing secondary sources. How in the world is that OR? The proper behavior in this situation is not to delete but to put up a notice of possible unreliable sources or improperly sourced material. I find this whole debate suspicious of a coordinated effort to block relevant information on this specific topic. If you look at the current subsection of the article as it stands, you have this kind of discussion: "Frederick M. Schweitzer and Marvin Perry state that references to Jews in the Quran are mostly negative." or "According to Tahir Abbas the general references to Jews are favorable, with only those addressed to particular groups of Jews containing harsh criticisms." or "According to Bernard Lewis and other scholars, the earliest verses of the Quran were largely sympathetic to Jews." without detailing anything about what Muslims actually believe about the Quran or their interpretation. There isn't even any mention of Naskh! which makes me very suspicious of the entire subsection (Note that there is another Quran subsection that appears to be a POV fork in the article). There are no Muslim sources, by which I mean no one trained as a Muslim scholar is actually cited. Imagine if we were to write an article on Judaism only citing Muslim sources or Catholicism only citing Protestant sources... This makes no sense. The analysis provided by the academics provide no understanding of the actual subject at hand. Even this comment, "Thus, Kramer concludes that there is no doubt modern Muslims effectively make use of the Quran, using Islamic tradition as a source on which antisemitism today feeds, but it is also a selective and distorting use.", is out of left field as it provides no context to what Kramer is discussing. I understand it perfectly only because I am well aware of the views to which he refers. I was attempting to cite those particular views in an easily accessible manner with legitimate Muslim sources to provide context to the reader. Unfortunately, people wish to block this content. There are people who fear this particular interpretation, but failing to add relevant information (that's even mentioned by a source in the article) isn't good encyclopedic behavior. RebSmith (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC) First, kindly keep your opinions to yourself. I have views on your motivation, and they aren't exactly glowing, but I keep them to myself. Back to the point. On MEMRI, see e.g Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_8#MEMRI, or for a reliable source showing their shoddy work here. Pamela Geller's website is a complete non-starter, see eg Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#Pamela_Geller_blog. Her blog is not a reliable source, full stop. Spencer I dealt with below. Bostom is probably fine, even though he is a medical doctor and not a historian of religion, but it may be fine. JVL is just a list of verses, and their website isnt a reliable source by itself, though it may host material from other reliable sources. Random websites are not reliable sources, please please please go actually read WP:RS from start to end. It is extremely difficult to have the discussion when you seemingly refuse to actually look at the requirements. You can include a Muslim scholars views where that scholar has been published by an organization with a reputation for fact-checking and strong editorial control. That does not mean any random comment a newspaper or MEMRI picked up. And for somebody to come here with Pamela Geller as a source and then accuse others of not engaging in good encyclopedic behavior is sadly not the most foolish thing Ive read on WP talk pages, but its up there. nableezy - 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Please read the entire discussion above if you question my motives, as well as the reason for using Pamela Geller as a source on this particular topic in the first place. I clearly state my reasons and motivation. This was to be simply an initial start. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be an ongoing process where the end result leads to encyclopedic content, but it is hard to work on an article when people just blank delete rather than put up notices and discuss. If you look at the history of this page, you will find that it was I who insisted on discussion. This article is far from encyclopedic content as it stands. As for MEMRI, even the article you linked says "Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations". It is full of innuendos and doesn't present anything concrete against the organization. It's only contention is that it doesn't translate all of the Arab world, but only selects the most inflammatory. It is good behavior to know the criticism of a source when using it. Knowing this, MEMRI thus provides a good source for identifying antisemitic sentiment in the Arab world, at least who supports it. If I wanted to find out who was saying anti-Nazi comments and had anti-Nazi stances, I might very well get this from pro-Nazi organizations provided that even the critics don't dispute their content. Clearly, from that article you linked, no one is disputing the translations of MEMRI, it simply casts suspicion, which can be cast on any source, including (and especially) academics. RebSmith (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC) To do for the Quran section 1) Add subsection on Muslim sources that use Quranic verses to preach tolerance of Jews. 2) In the subsection Western academic analysis of the Quran -Reorganize into parts: a)those claiming presentation of Jews in Quran is mostly positive, b) those claiming that presentation of Jew is mostly negative, c)those claiming that antisemitic interpretation of the Quran is a recent phenomenon, d) those claiming that antisemitic interpretation is historical. -Cut and paste discussion of ahadith on Mohammad that don't focus on the Quran into the appropriate hadith section. RebSmith (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Pagination When using books as sources, please provide pages. This may necessitate some work in the Koran verses section as not all verses are mentioned in the two books covered. But note that this is reason for improving the article, not reverting it to 2 days ago.Bkalafut (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC) The list of Koran verses may be unencyclopedic. I would prefer it be removed. Thoughts?Bkalafut (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC) OK, go ahead. RebSmith (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC) You guys realize now that the Koran verses section unsourced and undocumented, was the germinal cause of the friction? All this fuss for nothing? Please cease dissembling. It was inappropriately documented, and you and your cadre were blanking it instead of fixing the documentation. Whatever was the "geminal" cause, your deletions were inappropriate. You cannot justify disruptive POV editing by some provocation. ("Part Y (the citation style) of the article is bad so I'm going to revert X and Y and Z.") You were caught red handed. If you cease making excuses we can move on constructively. If deletion was the most appropriate action it should be discussed here--as I did. I put up the "synthesis" warning and brought up whether or not putting citations of each verse was a better option than deleting. Bkalafut (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) This stuff has to be shown to be WP:RS. If it passes, which is unlikely, then it is necessary in each case, when we use a book, to cite the exact page, and provide, optimally, as I did in the lead, a link. Fazlur Rehman Shaikh, Chronology of Prophetic Events, (2001) p. 50 Ta-Ha Publishers Ahmad Hussein Sakr, Understanding the Qurán, Page xii, – 2000 Gray Lambert, The Leaders Are Coming!, WestBow Press 2013(Georgia Institute of Technology, Dr. Gray Lambert was awakened to the realities of the Christian faith through materials that emphasized the teachings of Christianity related to the return of Jesus Christ. Dr Lambert has served with distinction in ministry, teaching, and business and is listed in numerous Who's Whos. He received a letter of commendation from the 400-member diaconate at the First Baptist Church of Houston, Texas,) Bostom, Andrew G. The legacy of Islamic antisemitism: from sacred texts to solemn history. Prometheus Books, 2008 (no page ever given) http://www.memri.org/report/en/print754.htm http://www.altafsir.com http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2042.htm http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/muslim/041.html Sahih Muslim 41:6985 Spencer, Robert. A Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't. Regnery Publishing, 2007 (no page ever given).Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I must note that it's standard elsewhere on WP to have to argue that something is 'not' a reliable source unless it is obvious that it is not. (For example, it had to be argued that Naomi Klein was not an RS about Milton Friedman.) I reject the standard you attempt to impose on this discussion. Bkalafut (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Let's start with Spencer's book. No reviews found which treat it as unreliable. Favorable coverage by the Middle East Quarterly. The author's work (more broadly) is well treated by reputable magazines such as National Review. He's a popularizer, yes, but popularizers qua popularizers aren't non-RS. One may say he has an opinion (but don't all working in that field have them?), but I need not remind you that biased sources aren't unreliable by virtue of their bias. I've done more than is necessary here (the burden is on you, not me!), you prove now that this book is not an RS. Bkalafut (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Do you know what Middle East Quarterly is? Or National Review for that matter? I cant find a review of this book in any serious source, but of another I can, at least some of which applies to this book as well. Asian American Law Journal published by University of California Press: Before making an attempt to understand Spencer's arguments, it is necessary to place the book in its larger political context. The Truth About Muhammad is published by Regnery Publishing, a subsidiary of Eagle Publishing, whose website proclaims itself "the leading conservative publisher in America." Regnery has also published a series of "politically incorrect guides," including The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South (and Why it Will Rise Again) and Robert Spencer's first New York Times bestseller, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer often puts forth grand assertions about Muslims and Islam without providing any substantive or reliable evidence. Spencer's unfounded statements about Islam reveal a major substantive flaw in his work: his failure to acknowledge the alternative and diverse discourses on Islam and the interpretation active today in Muslim communities. Middle East Quarterly and National Review? Please, that isnt more than enough, thats knowing how to use google and calling it a day. nableezy - 04:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC) So you found an article which itself just blusters but doesn't actually state where and why Spencer or this book has been unreliable. MEQ ran the only serious review of the book--these days MEQ is even peer reviewed (and seemingly better than Asian American Law Journal in what it accepts, in that it requires evidence!) Spencer is the premier popular historian of Islam in North America, and commentator on Islam as it is practiced by Islamists, in North America. This is why he is a contributor to National Review (do you know what it is?) and First Things and a frequent radio guest, etc. But let's get down to brass tacks here. Books that are as popular as Spencer's yet unreliable typically get their unreliability exposed somewhere. Consider the work of Naomi Klein, Ian Plimer, or Bjorn Lomborg, for starters. If the best you can do when asked to show Spencer to be unreliable is to say that somebody else, also without providing any evidence, says so, you fail, and you are in the wrong in this discussion. "I do not like Robert Spencer" is not the same as "Robert Spencer's book A is unreliable because X, Y, and Z".Bkalafut (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Please do tell how Deepika Bains (B.A. Berkeley in whatever) and Aziza Ahmed (M.S. Harvard School of Public Health) in an opinion piece in an Asian American Law Journal are reliable sources for a review of a book on Islam, while Andrew C. McCarthy (former assistant U.S. attorney who has prosecuted terrorist) and Bat Ye'or (a prolific writer on Islam for decades and has been used as a source by the likes of Bernard Lewis) are not? If reliable sources simply mean those that comply with a specific point of view, then Wikipedia is a failure. RebSmith (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC) A law review journal is peer-reviewed and published by a university press. Bat Yeor lol, wow. nableezy - 14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC) You are confusing authority and reliability. Please adhere to WP:RS or get out. You are deliberately disrupting the discussion and your "lol" contributes nothing except incivility. What is your agenda here? You are not here to build an encyclopedia.Bkalafut (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Jesus Christ, can you please for the love of anything you hold holy actually read WP:RS? *Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. * Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Peer-reviewed works published by a world renowned academic press is presumptively reliable. Im getting a bit tired of asking you to read the basic policies of this website. And you got some nerve telling anybody to get out. And then telling somebody else that they are the one being uncivil. nableezy - 19:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Some of the above sources were derived from Quran article. It was an attempt to let the reader know what the Quran actually was. I think the contention that "Muslims believe the Quran was verbally revealed by God to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril)", which was sourced to Gray Lambert, was never in dispute. Nor "They consider the Quran to be the only revealed book that has been protected by God from distortion or corruption." (which sourced to Ahmad Hussein Sakr). The http://www.altafsir.com was simply a link to the relevant text of the hadith mentioned by a cleric. This is what the website says: "ALTAFSIR.COM is a completely free, non-profit website providing access to the largest and greatest online collection of Qur’anic Commentary (tafsir or tafseer), translation, recitation and essential resources in the world." MEMRI has been used by major news organizations and academic articles (see above for in prior section for examples) as a source - but here the secondary source isn't MEMRI, it was the Cleric. MEMRI is simply the translation of the cleric, and the publisher of that translation. This source http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/muslim/041.html simply links to the text of a relevant hadith (Sahih Muslim 41:6985). RebSmith (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC) The point you miss is that the Qur'an (and anti-Semitism) has been subject to extensive analysis, philological and historical, by competent specialists, thoroughly trained in the necessary tools and languages. Therefore it is quite pointless, given the abundance of scholarly work on all of these passages, to use inferior, popular, secondary sources, or primary sources, mugged up or indexed or referred to by authors, controversialists who have no peer-reviewed competence in the topics. Altafir.com again is a primary source: primary sources mean nothing unless interpreted competently, since, esp. in Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic contexts, they are swathed in exegetical notes, glosses and commentary. To ignore this is to verge on WP:OR. Memri is not a reliable source. See our article: Critics charge that it aims to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, through the production and dissemination of inaccurate translations and by selectively translating views of extremists while deemphasizing or ignoring mainstream opinions. . .Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity. They state that MEMRI consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets.' I don't question many of the things Memri translates. I do question editors who use its minute scrutiny of Arab discourse to pick out the worst, and present it as a representative opinion (it may be, case by case, but you can do the same 'job' on Israeli or Western sources, and the effect is the same: to skew perspectives towards a unilateral focus on hatred, while ignoring contrary evidence, which is abundant. I'm all in favour of letting it all hang out, as long as WP:NPOV is scrupulously adhered to, and the only way to do that is by careful use of scholarship, attentiveness to source bias, elimination of agenda-driven islamophobic editorialists and writers. I see no evidence of this sensitivity in the editing here.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I do not know who has a phobia of islam. But supposing we substitute for that word "opposed to Islamism", what you propose is starkly against both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. WP is not an encyclopedia which draws only on scholarly sources. Please stop appealing to WP policy if you have no intent to follow it. And you acknowledge yourself that MEMRI is an RS, so it is done, MEMRI will be treated as an RS and not cut out because you prefer only other sources.Bkalafut (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Nishidani, do you not see the title of this article? It is labeled "Islam and antisemitism". So, it needs to identify what that antisemitism is. As for sources, let's get this straight. Primary source - Quran. Secondary source - Muslim cleric. Publisher of translation - MEMRI. If you have a problem with the source, you should tell us why a particular cleric shouldn't be included or why they aren't relevant to the discussion or why the particular cleric is unreliable or why MEMRI translation of them is unreliable. Of course there should be a discussion on the scholarship surrounding where antisemitism in the Muslim world derives. I never suggested taking any of that content out of the article. But to completely censor material that identifies the actual antisemitic content, even when its from scholars of highly regarded institutions or from clerics associated with the leadership of Hamas, is ridiculous. RebSmith (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC) The lead EJ has done the sensible thing, and locked the article. The lead I wrote however has gone out, when, in the edit-warring, no one, to my awareness, contested it. I have asked EJ to consider its reincorporation as uncontroversial here. If on the other hand, someone did object, or challenged it, and I missed it, please note that here. It's not of course definitive, but it is not, surely, what we were to-and-froing about?Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Are there any objections to restoring that lead, then? Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Alternatively, editors can vote pro or contra for its restoration.Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Please provide diffs, one to the article as is and another to RebelSmith's lede. Nobody but you knows what you're talking about. Contra until discussion around those has taken place.Bkalafut (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC) In your reverts here here here here here The lead I wrote remained untouched, from the moment I posted it. If there is some diff that challenged that lead I can't see it. Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC) The lead has a blatantly anti-Christian POV. The article is Islam and antisemitism, not Christianity and antisemitism. RebSmith (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC) That is an opinion. Unfortunately, all of the serious literature notes that you cannot handle the topic of anti-Semitism (a Western concept born within the bosom of Christianity,) and Islam without looking at the impact of Christian prejudice on Islam. The lead simply reflects that. The question is 'how and why has anti-Semitism, historically rooted and concentrated in European Christian culture, diffused into the Arab and Islamic world? 'Jeffrey Herf, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence, Routledge, 2013 p.xi. 'The old and stale anti-Jewish stereotypes that appear in European Anti-Semitism, and have been copiously replicated in Arab and Muslim anti-Semitic writings, have of late affected some new twists, concurrent with the enhanced anti-Semitic mood in the West.(Raphael Israeli, Muslim Anti-Semitism in Christian Europe: Elemental and Residual Anti-Semitism, Transaction Publishers, 2011 p.7 'The history of Jew-hatred in the Islamic world is not as intense as that of the Christian world. Jews have generally had a tolerated and protected status in the Islamic faith, in contrast to the demonization of Jews as Christ-killers, which has been so much a feature of Christianity through the centuries. . .In modern times, parts of the Islamic world have also been influenced by antiSemitic conspiracy theories that have their origins in Christian Europe.' Toby Greene, Blair, Labour, and Palestine: Conflicting Views on Middle,Bloomsbury Publishing USA,2013 p.170. ' A principal source of anti-Jewish prejudice and hatred in the Middle East is the Arab Christians, few of whom have renounced, as required by the Second Vatican Council, and parallel Protestant guidelines- the inherited teaching of contempt in favor of the new teaching of respect.'Marvin Perry, ‎Frederick M. Schweitzer Anti-Semitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present, Palgrave Macmillan 2002 p.14. 'Antisemitic libels previously typical of Christian anti-Semitism and staple propaganda of Nazism, such as the blood-libel, now form a regular feature of Arab propaganda. . .It must be concluded that there now been a confluence of Christian and Muslim anti-Semitism in the Middle East, for which the brokers were the Nazis.' Hyam Maccoby, Antisemitism and Modernity: Innovation and Continuity, Psychology Press, 2006 p.151 'The reason why anti-Jewish feeling has existed in all Christian culture for centuries before it appeared in a deep sense in Islamic culture is that the status of the Jews in Christian mythology has always been much deeper than it ever was in pre-modern Islam. It is part of the fundamental myth of Christianity that its divine founder, Jesus,. was opposed as an enemy by the Jewish leadership, who actually brought about his death by their false representations of him to the Roman leadership as a danger to Rome.' (something Islam lacks) p.148 (There is no parallel, he continues, in Islam with this) These and many other sources make the connection, view it as intrinsic. These are not my views. They are the views of various authorities, and must be duly registered here. The lead as I wrote mirrors a number of views of key scholars on major themes, which the text then develops. To be defensive about one religion, while hauling in truckloads of material critical about another, is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia, let alone polite society (if that still exists).Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC) The lede focuses too much on importation of anti-Semitic tropes from Christendom. It is thus inappropriate for an article about antisemitism in Islam. You may treat the topic of imported vs autochthonous antisemitism in the body of the article. Strong Contra as lede is POV relative to article. Bkalafut (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC) No, the focus is from the sources. When sources discuss the impact of Christianity on Islamic antisemitism, and do so regularly, that belongs. nableezy - 19:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC) The lede focuses too much on importation of anti-Semitic tropes from Christendom. Leads summarize. One strong thesis is that anti-Semitism in Islam came from contact with European prejudices. It is supported by the eminence grise of the topic, Lewis, and many other scholars. It has to be there for that reason. Please note, that so far, neither of you has introduced, or shown familiarity, with any of the standard scholarly works on the subject. Your unique contribution is scare-monger additions or primary sources culled from them. No page numbers, nothing...Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC) WP:RS, A reminder of its content for those who cite it without apparently reading it Wikipedia is not strictly about scholarship and the popular commentary has a place, too,.Bkalafut (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC Articles should be based on 'reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:SCHOLARSHIP Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. On articles riven by scholarly disagreements, but amply covered by academic work, there is no place for 'popular commentary'. This is particularly true of inferences and deductions drawn from translations of ancient books.Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Then you must replace or augment the reliable popular sources with reliable academic sources, not write an NPOV article with the material from popular sources removed just because you cannot abide popular sources. This is what appears to be what you propose and is indeed the most charitable description of your earlier uncivil behavior. It is blatantly in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The bit you cite: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" argues my point and not yours. Please stop being obstinately against this. If you're going to strut about braying like a jackass in accusing somebody of not reading something he cites, you had better read it before you stick it in his face. I caught you in dishonesty once again. I get no enjoyment from that. Bkalafut (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC) No, he must not do any such thing, and you really need to chill on calling others uncivil. Referring to others edits as vandalism, calling somebody a jackass, making completely asinine accusations of socking, and generally acting as though you have learned more about the policies of this place in your 656 edits as opposed to Nishidani's nearly 37,000 or Zero's (an admin by the way, one of the reasons it was so foolish for you to call him a sock of Nishidani) 22,000+ is both uncivil, disrespectful, and, to be blunt, foolish. Kindly learn something about the topic you intend to write about instead of searching high and low for the most garbage sources that can be found on google, because the people you are arguing with actually know a thing or two about both the topic and the way this place works. Things that might have passed you by in your 656 edits. nableezy - 19:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC) No matter what my logged-in edit count is (or how many times you've been topic-banned), I was not born yesterday. If somebody cites policy at me when it actually supports my point of view, I'm going to call it as I see it. You two have been blustering this whole time ("braying like a jackass" in colloquial English--but you read that, in bad faith, as calling you a jackass) and attempting to chase off a new editor by preferring reverts to quick remediation. And I don't care who an admin is or is not. If a guy is going to jump in and ratify a bully's actions using the bully's language, it's a sock in spirit if not in substance. Are you here to build an encyclopedia or not?Bkalafut (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC) All I see here is someone who registered a few weeks ago, coming straight to this obscure and difficult article, and in editing it, showing a profound nescience of policy, not to speak of the subject, while exhibiting a profound dislike for one half of the subject. The other who has made 600+edits in over a decade, and just happened to be galvanized into action by my editing this one article. Okay WP:AGF but there is, so far, no evidence of either understanding how to debate policy and the topic. All I hear is a plea for popular sources written by dilettanti, some of whom (Spencer and Geller) are behind organizations classified by the Anti-Defamation League as hate groups. I mean you have to be really off the planet to think there is a skerrick of intelligence in anyone who can seriously campaign to 'Stop the Islamicization of America. That we should have to make an argument about the inappropriateness of input from such sources on a technical article is proof that this place is not run on efficient lines, but demands masochism from the serious.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) While I agree with you, Nishidani, I think this matter is in need of outside intervention because it doesn't seem like either RebSmith or Bkalafut is going to read the relevant policies and guidelines or cede an inch. I recommend bringing the matter to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard soon, as this discussion keeps going in circles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I thought of that, but, judging by the unfocused argufying here, I expect that one would get more of the same. I regret every minute spent from books, and being tied up in endless procedures. In the real world, the problem is obvious, the solution is simple: encyclopedias require scholarship, not animus, nor opinions. If people really think popular books by dilettanti associated with hate pressure groups trump the work of great scholars like Bernard Lewis or Reuven Firestone, and if wiki has no simpler efficient efforts, to ask such editors to read up on the serious world of scholarship before venturing onto articles that require delicacy of judgement, and humility before the accumulated erudition of the academy, then it's rather a pointless exercise. You're right of course. I just can't stand the prospect of more banter. Enough. I need some humour from Clive James, after wasting a day here.Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC) It's quite clear that you are engaging in censorship on this particular topic and that you seek to misrepresent my position. I've never advocated for not including academic scholarship on this particular subject. Nor will I ever do so. I didn't touch the analysis of the Quran included by Western academics. So, please don't build up a straw man here. It is quite obvious that you are not abiding by Wikipedia's own policies Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It is also obvious that you are pushing for a particular point of view under the veil of academic authority, while refusing to include truly relevant material. To have an article on Islam and antisemitism and not include what Muslim clerics (from prestigious Islamic institutions or from leadership positions within Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah or the Iranian government) say about how the Quran represents Jews is truly the height of censorship. You are bowdlerizing this particular topic. I simply added content that contained sources you find bias or offensive (please note that this is very different than being unreliable). Everyone here has only reaffirmed that MEMRI is considered a reliable source. No one has demonstrated that Robert Spencer isn't a reliable source, merely that he offends. Your claim that he (and others) are dilettanti is ridiculous considering that one can argue the same thing about a Western academic analyzing the Quran. And I'll end this comment with a quote from Edward Said in his book the Orientalist: The Orient and Islam have a kind of extrareal, phenomenologically reduced status that puts them out of reach of everyone except the Western expert. From the beginning of Western speculation about the Orient, the one thing the orient could not do was to represent itself. Evidence of the Orient was credible only after it had passed through and been made firm by the refining fire of the Orientalist’s work RebSmith (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC) You are quoting again a source you are unfamiliar with, as is obvious from the silly blooper of citing it as the Orientalist. It's called Orientalism, which states what you quote on p.283. Robert Spencer dismisses Said as a soi-disant scholar who destroyed Western studies of Islam. For how wryly dismissive a deeply competent scholar of Islam Mark LeVine can be of Spencer's ridiculous uses of old texts to describe the contemporary world, see the former's response to one of Spencer's articles here (it) 'falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, the author of the source you cite for your analysis of “hudna,” ‘Umdat as-Salik, died in 1386) to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue. This is probably not the best way to understand what Muslims think about various issues today; just as basing the opinions of Jews solely on the writings of Maimonides or even Americans based solely on the views of the authors of the Declaration of Independence (or better, the Magna Carta) would likely produce a distorted understanding of contemporary views. But such thinking is among the primary ideological moves in Orientalism and the larger discourse of imperialism (if saying this makes me a “Saidist”–a term I’ve never encountered before. Shouldn’t it be “Saidian”?–then so be it), as evidenced so well in James Mill’s 1817 primer for British imperial rule of India, the History of India, which argued with great fanfare, and just as great error, that the thousands year old “Laws of Manu” were a primary basis for understanding, and so governing, Hindu society. . .Moreover, you seem to think that all you need to do to understand Muslims is read religious texts and look at extremists. The 99.9% of Muslims who don’t engage in violence against the West, the vast majority of whom don’t base their life of the ‘Umdat as-Salik (however important it might be for religious scholars), whose lives are incredibly diverse, complex and conflicted, and whose dreams for their futures and those of their children and their societies are in fact quite close to ours, just don’t seem to count much to you' Someone who is listed by organizations that document this nonsense as engaged in defamation of Muslims, should not be a source for Wikipedia articles. It is pointless continuing this conversation. The burden is on you to show that the Spencer, Geller and Bostoms of islamophobia are adequate to WP:RS. Go there, and make a case. Any page on an institution that contains very large numbers of adherents must optimally employ high quality sources. See Wikipedia:BLPGROUP Nishidani (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC) This is really rich. Your quote makes my case. To discredit my argument with a minor error rather than face it and address it is ridiculous. You make the fallacy of thinking that because I cite Robert Spencer or Andrew Bostom that I endorse their opinions, and because of this fallacy, you contend that I am unfamiliar with Robert Spencer's take on Said. I was equating all "orientalists". You call one a "dilettanti". I'm saying that they can all be called dilettantis, which is why we should include Muslim sources, but all those sources you wish to brush off as "hillbilly nonsense". The above argument centers on Robert Spencer, and let's actually get into the criticism of him by Mark LeVine: "(Robert Spencer) falls into the orientalist trap of trying to use Islamic legal compendiums dating back well over 600 years (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, the author of the source you cite for your analysis of “hudna,” ‘Umdat as-Salik, died in 1386) to define for all times what Muslims think about a particular issue." and "Moreover, you seem to think that all you need to do to understand Muslims is read religious texts and look at extremists". Clearly, Mark LeVine is not contesting Robert Spencer's reliability on certain interpretations of religious texts, nor is he contesting Robert Spencer's reliability on "extremists" stances. He is contesting Robert Spencer's analysis as representative of the majority of average Muslims. No one is claiming this. Robert Spencer doesn't even claim this. You simply don't want to use Robert Spencer nor Andrew Bostom because they are very critical of one particular orientalist perspective, that European Christianity infected the modern-day Muslim world with antisemitism. But just think about this thesis, it's a classic orientalist perspective on par with "those savages couldn't possible develop any idea, good or bad, on their own". RebSmith (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC) What I find ridiculous is this: Robert Spencer's book that I cited got favorable reviews from Bat Ye'or who has been used as a source by Bernard Lewis and other scholars. And the conclusion is then that Robert Spencer isn't a reliable source while Bernard Lewis is. Obviously, we can consider all of these sources as reliable in the field of Orientalism. Bernard Lewis's thesis should be mentioned in the body, but so should the criticism of it provided by both Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom. What I would like to see with the Quran section is separated into two section: the Orientialists (Academics trained in the Western tradition studying Islam and the Muslim world) and modern-day Muslim sources (here, I don't mean Muslims trained as Western academics. I mean Muslims trained in the Islamic tradition). The Muslim sources section should have two parts: 1) Muslim sources who use the Quran to say negative ideas about the Jews (with their particular arguments) 2) Muslim sources who say that the Quran views Jews positively (with their particular arguments). The Orientalist section should also be divided into two sections similarly as well. In an entirely different section that is not under "The Quran", there should be a discussion about the roots of modern-day Islamic antisemitism with sections divided into the different theories (Israeli occupation, European Christianity, Nazism, Islamic tradition, etc.). RebSmith (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Muslim Clerics as sources Here are a list of the Muslim Clerics that I used for the anitisemitic interpretation of Quranic verses: Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais Algerian cleric, Chemseddine el-Djazairi Yusuf Al-Qaradawi ‘Atiyyah Saqr Yunis Al Astal Muhsen Abu 'Ita (Hamas Cleric on Hamas sponsored television, he is a veteran of Hamas leadership [57]) Muhammad Hussein Yacoub These clerics should be considered reliable sources WP:RS on Anitisemitic (or anti-Jew) interpretation of Quranic verses unless determined otherwise. RebSmith (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Ah yes... Nishidani thinks these men are "hillbilly" and their opinions "nonsense" ... lol RebSmith (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC) A few of these people are notable and the opinions of those few are also notable. The problem here is ably illustrated by your list. Why did you only list clerics whose opinions are (you believe) supportive of the story you wish to tell? Have you looked for clerics whose opinions of the same verses are different? (Try searching for things like "Quran Jews misinterpretation" and you will find many to choose from.) Basically this is cherry-picking of the first order, a violation of WIkipedia's core principles. As well as that, most of what is claimed to be the opinions of these people comes to us not directly but via the anti-Islam machine. Have you looked for alternative opinions on what these clerics believe? Zerotalk 01:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC) From WP:Cherrypicking: Deletion or debate Contradiction may justify deleting contradicted information more weakly sourced, but often it justifies presenting both sides of a topic, as by leaving intact the original statement and adding a new statement, so readers can know multiple perspectives. Which course to follow depends on the case, but hypothetical examples may illuminate the difference: *An author says something is true and a year later retracts the statement. Usually, only report the later statement or nothing at all. The exception would be if the earlier statement remains especially notorious after the retraction and must be discussed even though it was retracted, but that is rare. *A book says that according to one religion only persons A, B, and C are prophets but according to another religion only persons D, E, and F are prophets. Although that is contradictory, in an article about both religions both statements should be reported, perhaps in the form of a fully disclosed disagreement. The reason is that the book is itself relying on two other sources, each of which may be authoritative for its own subject but not for the other source's subject. *A book's title appears to be a statement of fact but the author, inside the book or elsewhere, denies what the title says is correct as a statement of fact. This did happen with one book, the title of which placed one class of people as superior to another class, whereas inside the book the author denied that superiority. This can happen because a publisher wants a catchier title in order to encourage more sales, and some publishing contracts take control of the titles away from the authors. We do not ordinarily report a fact on the basis of a book title alone, but in a case like this we would be especially unlikely to do so. Qualification probably does not require deletion or even debate, as long as significant qualifications are reported. I've mentioned before in this talk page, but I fully intended to add the opposition of those opinions. I've previously mentioned that I specifically intended to add Hamza Yusuf's opinion on this particular topic [58]. He constantly speaks on it [59]. In addition, the Algerian cleric, Chemseddine el-Djazairi, listed was added to refute the idea that Jews "descended from apes and pigs". An entire sect of Islam, Ahmadi Islam, would vigorously refute the antisemitic perspectives made by the mentioned clerics. RebSmith (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Compare this article with Christianity and antisemitism. Here we have notes 113-205, half the text, documenting specific instances of anti-Semitism and Arabs. In the Christianity and anti-Semitism article, nothing of the sort. No one is fingered. No editor has gone and crammed in dozens of names and instances one can get in two minutes, of evangelical, protestant, catholic etc., pastors and priests making anti-Semitic statements, from readily available sources: Frank E. Eakin,What Price Prejudice?: Christian Antisemitism in America, Paulist Press, 1998 Skipp Porteous, Anti-Semitism: Its Prevalence Within the Christian Right, (Great Barrington, MA: Institute for First Amendment Studies, 1994 Skipp Porteous Anti-Semitism:Its prevalence within the Christian right The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance & Pluralism in America, Anti-Defamation League 1994 Names, just a few randomly clipped off the net of people strongly identified with Christianity who have made anti-Semitic remarks or are anti-Semitic. Rev. Dan C. Fore, former head of the Moral Majority in New York Jerry Falwell John Hagee Pat Buchanan (here) Pat Robertson (here) Gerald L. K. Smith founder of the Christian Nationalist Crusade Rev. William Holmes McGuffey McGuffey Readers Since 1982, Mott Media has sold a whopping 100,000 sets of the Readers, which are widely viewed as antisemitic and widsely used by Christian to home-educate their children. Rousas Rushdoony, Presbyterian minister Tim LaHaye, former leader of the Moral Majority Donald Wildmon the Methodist minister who heads the American Family Association (AFA), Pastor Pete Peters Steven Anderson Pastor Arnold Murray The Shepherd's Chapel Bishop Richard Williamson Thomas Robb Surrey priest Reverend Stephen Sizer Father Tadeusz Rydzyk Father Andrey Evstigneeva (Russian orthodox) Lutheran Reverend Mitri Raheb Pastor Herman Otten Robert Grant Methodist antisemitism It's easy to 'frame' the narrative you want to jerryrig. What you and other editors here have done is what anyone could do for Christianity and anti-Semitism. But fortunately, that page is free of this gaming (probably because, the Religious Right is cultivated for its support of Israel, and it is important to lampoon Islam, as the common enemy.)Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Look, I am not trying to do anything. There is real theological debate within Islam today about the Jews. You can clearly see this raging on with articles like this [60]. Whether it is due to the influence of European anti-Semitism or has its roots in Islam itself or is the product of Israeli occupation of Palestine is contested by orientalists (I would like to add that Bernard Lewis is a Zionist himself [61] and blaming it on European anti-Semitism may be considered a pro-Israel POV). I agree that the notes 113-205 are not very useful to anyone. My thoughts are that if they contain commentary on Islam or Islamic history, they should be incorporated into the appropriate sections, otherwise, they shouldn't be in this article. I'd like to see this article completely reorganized into several sections: Quran, Life of Mohammad, The four rightly guided caliphs, apocalyptic theology, the Dhimmi, Medieval Islamic empires, the Ottoman Empire, Modern-day Sharia governed countries (as defined by the OIC [62]), roots of Islamic antisemitism. RebSmith (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC) RebSmith (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC) The article is not about Islam, but about anti-Semitism and Islam, and while I agree the article needs extensive work, and while I concur that anti-Semitism is a notable issue in the modern era certainly, an article on Islam (with the vast majority of its adherents outside the West, where we are writing this) should respect the same criteria observed in Christianity and anti-Semitism. I advise the use of the vast scholarship on this because (a) scholars often disagree on fundamentals, (b) authors generally don't get far in that world being a bigot in their books, whereas being a media controversialist is the primrose road to success and accolades, (c) major non-academic financial bodies invest substantially in denigrating Islam and Arabs, and much of what one reads has to be carefully assayed for its integrity to the facts and disinterest in distorting them. (After giving a dry-as-dust lecture on the intricacies of György Lukács's exposition of Hegel, and its relevance to modern nationalist ideologies illustrated by my citation of numerous pseudo-academic scholarly books, a senior scholar ignored the epistemology, and just asked me who paid the people who wrote that stuff. I didn't know. So he told me: 'Just follow the money trail', meaning I was taking seriously ideas that were floated as if they had intrinsic interest. In his view, those 'popular ideas' had no merit, but were produced because it was profitable to support their diffusion in the public mind.) This is true of all prejudice - public hysteria is the aim. A serious scholar will take several years to analyse a problem; in contrast, the 'public intellectual' or controversialist survives by quickie 'analyses', and rarely takes the trouble to master a foreign language, live among its speakers, absorb its complexities, work his or her way into their world-views, and measure the culture in its historic depth. The temptation of Wikipedia editors is to use search machines to come up with evidence to support a preconception they have come across - one that may seem full of verisimilitude. The only barrier against this temptation is to read deeply and broadly. If one does that, even the glamour of controversy fades, as one slowly absorbs the intricacies of understanding other worlds. That is what I aspire to do here. I have no problem in documenting anti-Semitism, wherever it exists. I have very strong objections to any use of anti-Semitic (or anti-Christian/anti-Islamic) accusations for manipulating the public imagination one way or another for political ends. Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Typology of views on the relation between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism Yesterday, the following typology of views on the relation between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism was introduced, subsuming widely diverging views on the nature of this relation under the following three headings: Not the same Not necessarily mutually exclusive Interlinked Note that this typology doesn't only constitute WP:OR – it is outright nonsense. Noone would reasonably consider the two (exactly) the same, while everyone would acknowledge that they are not mutually exclusive, and in one way or other interlinked. So all of the personalities cited here would fall in all of the three categories, which however wouldn't clarify their real perspective at all. Also, the reworded heading "Anti-Zionism versus antisemitism" already suggests a non-relation, while the nature of the relation is what the section is all about. So, while I'm not going to revert this nonsense within the next 24h again, others might do so. Note that I'm not against giving this article a better structure. But clearly, if an edit is WP:BOLD, and if a number of contributors consider it too bold, then we need to discuss it here trying to find a consensus. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC) For several decades, anti-Zionism was predominantly unrelated to anti-Semitism, being in the Western world overwhelming a position associated with Jewish criticisms of the Zionist project, and, in Palestine and further east, related to a political struggle for that land not primarily motivated by hostility to Jews qua Jews. Unless the article has a history section (every time I try to begin to write one it gets wiped off the page) showing the diversity of meanings associated with both Zionism and anti-Zionism, and the shifts through time, the page will remain a meaningless jumble, because we don't know, in each case, what aspect of either is being referred to. Noam Chomsky and Uri Avnery are, for example, opposed to Territorial Zionism, but strong supporters of the state of Israel. Israel Shahak was a Political Zionist opposed to Religious Zionism,etc.etc,etc. Attempts to make an essence of either Zionism or opposition to it and then make them face off, as though they were two simple antagonists, are flawed in principle.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry, Nishidani, you may be mistaken here. Israel Shahak, who I was privileged to know, was explicitly anti-Zionist. Noam Chomsky, on the other hand, calls himself a Zionist even when promoting a position (a unitary bi-national state) which most people would consider anti-Zionist. RolandR (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Are you saying that Shahak was opposed to the foundation of Israel in 1948? I was using the term 'Zionist' in that sense, in the historic sense used by Laqueur that Zionism as a project finished in 1948, when its fundamental aim was accomplished.Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC) No. I am saying that, whatever his views may have been forty years earlier, by the late 1980s Shahak was opposed to the policies and practices of the then-existing Zionist movement. I fundamentally disagree, as do all anti-Zionists that I know and work with (and that is a very large number) with Laquer's definition. In fact, many Zionists would also disagree with this, seeing the state of Israel as a tool to achieve the Zionist aims, rather than as the goal itself. There has been extensive discussion of this in Zionist circles for the past fifty years or more. (In using the term "Zionist aims", I am not referring to or implying some sort of nonsensical Jewish global conspiracy, but rather the stated aims of many Zionists: the "normalisation" of the Jewish people, "inverting the pyramid" of diaspora Jewish class structure, creating a spiritual centre for the world's Jews and other explicit positions).RolandR (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Roland, I agree with you on what you are saying. But, at the same time, as an editor, I have to follow what the numerous sources on Zionism in all its shades, state. My problem is that I see, not specifically in those anti-Zionists who have a profound and articulate mastery of that discursive tradition, but in the representation of anti-Zionism by its adversaries (in Israel and the diaspora), an utter conceptual confusion, a reflex boiling down of 'Zionism' with all of its internal contradictions and meanings, to one thing, which, if opposed, means the anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic (when not proof of the so-called "self-hating Jew"), because Israel is putatively the quintessence of Judaism, instead of being, as I think it is, perhaps the most parlous threat to its great tradition since the Holocaust. Playing the anti-Semitic card to defend whatever Israel as a state does, will, unless opposed vigorously, undermine Israel, as it encourages a recrudescence of anti-Semitism in the old sense.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC) I don't wish to add more smoke than light, but many of the authors cited would completely disagree with this claim and assert that Anti-Zionism has always involved (even sometimes from Jewish commentators) a distinctive element of prejudice and malice against Jews primarily because it is the Jewish state. As for the suggestion that NC and UA are 'strong supporters of the state of Israel', why has Israel banned the former entry since 2010?[63] There is value in distinguishing between those who see little overlap and those who see the two phenomena as inseparably joined at the hip. Cpsoper (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC) The failure to distinguish the two is often a matter of deliberate political choice, to make a case that, for example, people who oppose Israel's colonial project in the West Bank are, ipso facto, antisemites. Thus the ADL comes up with the laughable idea that the most anti-Semitic country in the world is the West Bank, where, they assert, 93% of Palestinians hate Jews as Jews, not because in their daily lives, a system engineered to make life a hardscrabble struggle to get water to wash oneself, or permission to cultivate more than 12 tomato plants, or visit one's family a few miles away through detours that make the trip a 3 hour negotiation through checkpoints, or struggle to have one's Fulbright scholarship award implemented, is run by people with guns who justify the intricate machinery of prejudice against the occupied, as necessary to secure, and those wonderful settlements flush with water, schools and modern conveniences over the road, a homeland for Jews in a world that persecutes them. If the 200 million Christians in the world (10%) who face daily restrictions and humiliations in 60 countries, used that logic and their "brethren", reading day in day out detailed coverage of every instance of such persecution, rallied to the idea they all had to be gathered into a Christian homeland, at whatever cost to other secular, ethnic communities there, you'd get the development of a similar pattern. Yield to the strong pressures to think from within one specific ethnic or religious identity at what happens to any one of "us" anywhere, and you will get, as a general result, a sense of panic at being a member of a 'uniquely' targeted group which would muffle any discourse, like that the Chomskys of this world, articulate, for the indispensability of universal values in secular states.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Short remark: I don't think this polemic is helpful. We should focus on our agreements, not celebrate our disagreements – otherwise we'll never come up with a halfway viable consensus. --PanchoS (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC) I wouldn't disagree that there was a time when anti-Zionism used to be predominantly associated with Jewish anti-Zionism, while Zionist ideas were mainly discussed within Jewish circles. This however already started to change with the early opposition against the first settlements in the 1880s and 1890s. From then on, a second strand of non-Jewish anti-Zionism evolved that more often than not overlapped with some of the forms of Antisemitism. With the wide dissemination of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" starting in the 1900s, this non-Jewish anti-Zionism increasingly became a cover or actually a projection for the widespread antisemitism in both the Arab world and Europe. From then on, it was no longer possible to easily distinguish the two. Things got even more complicated with the foundation of the state of Israel, with different interpretations of whether the Zionist project had been completed or remains a continuing struggle for Jewish self-determination. It is hard to uphold that Jewish anti-Zionism wasn't ever tainted by one or the other form of antisemitism – undoubtedly a number of anti-Zionist, European Jews were influenced by the general population's antisemitic prejudices. Other Jewish anti-Zionists however managed to draw a clear line, as did a few non-Jewish anti-Zionists. Now as @Nishidani: stated, the anti-Zionist authors cited in this section are referring to very different aspects or framings of Zionism and, accordingly, of anti-Zionism. Many of them try to establish their own definitions of what exactly the Zionism they're opposing actually constitutes. While many of these definitions may be legitimate – finally there is no single authoritative definition – this matter of fact needs to be carefully taken into consideration by us. Thus, we need to be very careful with typologies or oversimplified characterizations. I think it is possibly and I agree with Cpsoper that there is value in distinguishing different strands of criticism. But what we may not do is establishing an WP:OR typology ourselves. Nishidani might be right that in order to be remotely able to put these quotes in a meaningful context, we'd really better start with writing a really good history section, possibly even a background article History of anti-Zionism. Our easiest starting point might be improving and expanding Jewish Anti-Zionism and condensing the respective section anti-Zionism#Jewish Anti-Zionism to a comprehensive summary. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC) With the wide dissemination of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" starting in the 1900s, this non-Jewish anti-Zionism increasingly became a cover or actually a projection for the widespread antisemitism in both the Arab world and Europe That's way out of focus. The protocols only began to have a minor diffusion in partial translations in into Arabic in the mid-20s, mostly written by Lebanese Christians. You have to distinguish opposition to policy from the way it is spun, i.e. the British army, experienced in handling the concrete effects of government policy on native populations, thought Balfour's plan a prescription for chaos - they were correct- and opposed it for practical reasons: the Zionists responded by spinning this as reflecting traditional British anti-Semitism (cf.Richard Meinertzhagen), this as early as the 20s, while the influx of East European Jews after WW1, many from areas like the Ukraine where savage pogroms had devastated their communities, produced, in local Jewish newspapers, a rhetoric that native Arab opposition to the takeover of Palestine by immigrants, was just 'antisemitic', since the template through which they perceived persecution was from their experience of the traditional, if by then protocols-influenced murderous anti-Semitism implemented by Symon Petliura and Anton Denikin, and the White Volunteer Army. The older Yishuv, thoroughly at home there, were hostile to these new Zionists: they were disruptive of traditional arrangements between Jewish and Islamic communities, in their ignorance of the local culture and inability to understand Arabic. They could see that the anti-Semitic charge laid by these newcomers had nothing to do with it. All wiki articles ignore this strain between the Yishuv and the Zionist project, reflecting the Zionist spin. Many classic anti-Semites were pro-Zionist, precisely because Zionism offered to 'fix' the 'problem' of Jews in Europe by getting them shipped off and out to Palestine, something well documented which makes statements identifying anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism farcical. By the same logic, one could argue, gentile pro-Zionism is anti-Semitic (which among American evangelicals it often is,-just as it was with Balfour, but that is, in newspaper coverage, mostly swept under the carpete),etc.etc.etc. The only way to handle this is to refer to specialist studies for everything, written by historians who are not directly involved in polemics. Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC) I find this entire discussion bizarre, and a digression. There is a body called the World Zionist Organisation. It has its own structures and policies, and it has quasi-governmental powers in the state of Israel and territories it occupies, while not being answerable, even nominally, to the citizens or residents of that state. Anti-Zionism today means opposition to the policies and practices of this body. If neither Zionists nor anti-Zionists accept that the Zionist movement and project came to an end in 1948, it would be presumptuous of us to claim that it did. I agree entirely with Nishidani about Balfour, I have written articles about this[64], and I will be writing more towards the centenary of the Balfour Declaration next year; but I doubt that this can be considered a reliable source. RolandR (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the link. I agree with everything in that analysis (though surprised, but then I'm not an expert, at the dating of Storrs' Jewish Ulster remark to 1917. I'd always thought that was something he wrote retrospectively in his 1937 memoir). I apologize for any annoyance in the above. My problem is that here (a)I am obliged to work under wiki procedures (which do not oblige editors to actually understand a subject before contributing to it), that (b) the article has only one pointy version, the major one now, of a dozen interpretations of Zionism, and anti-Zionism is simply, by implication, the opposite (c) that good sources say both terms are used imprecisely (d) that a lot of sources, from Wistrich to Ottolenghi make frankly silly definitions of anti-Zionism, which however are by wiki rules, to be admitted, and therefore, I feel obliged to sort out the conceptual mess, via RS. An article cannot be written well unless one defines the topic precisely. Comprehensive sources on anti-Zionism, other than Yakov M. Rabkin's, which has predominantly a religious focus, don't appear to exist, and much of what we have is hostile and muddle-headed, even by reputable scholars.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Regarding Storrs, the remark is indeed first noted in his memoirs, published in 1937; but he there uses the phrase, in quotes, as the belief in British circles in Jerusalem in 1917. It is not clear that he is quoting himself, but he is certainly quoting something said at the time, not twenty years later. There are some other comprehensive works on anti-Zionism. Apart from several collections of essays and articles (notably in Khamsin magazine and the related anthology Hidden Agendas), there is Ran Greenstein's Zionism and Its Discontents, Gabriel Pitterberg's The Returns of Zionism, Laurence J Silberstein's The Postzionism Debates, and Ilan Pappé's recent The Idea of Israel. Those are just the titles that come to mind immediately; I could produce a much longer list given a couple of days. I agree with much of your criticism of the article; my problem is that I am too closely involved, and could be considered to have a conflict of interest, so I try to limit my editing here. RolandR (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC) That's very helpful, and I'll look into those bibliographical indications today. Precisely because you have an intimate knowledge from the inside, your close supervision of the work here would be indispensable, even if only as a corrective overseer (to avoid, as you say, WP:COI). As to the Storrs thing, given my background - though most of us have roots in the south, we had 'refugees' from Ulster fleeing the kind of madness you saw in later times with Ian Paisley and I naturally thought 1917 was too early to make a natural Ulster Protestant enclave-Jewish Palestine enclave analogy, since this wasn't juridically formulated until around 1920, then consolidated in 1922 (from memory). I guess however that it might well have been what top British military echelons would have thought in the wake of the Easter Uprising in 1916 of what was necessary and then would reemerge when the Balfour plan was announced in late 1917. I've always been interested in the analogy given the seminal impact the Irish tactics in their rebellion against the British had on the Lehi/Irgun school of 'thinking'. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC) I have looked further into this, and the phrase "a little loyal Jewish Ulster" was apparently quoted in an article in the Daily Mail in 1923 by journalist Joseph Jeffries. He notes the phrase as having been used by a "mirthless Zionist propagandist" in 1917. I don't have access to a reference archive in which I can check the Daily Mail from then, but I'll keep looking. RolandR (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Now this is really interesting! Just the sort of thing Zero0000 loves to ferret out and track down. here are some notes that might help. J. M. N. Jeffries, The Palestine Deception 1915-1923:: The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, the Balfour Declaration, and the Jewish National Home , (ed.) William M. Mathew Institute for Palestine Studies (USA), Inc. 2015 would have the article but it doesn't seem to be searchable to pin down the page and context. It must have been in wide circulation since then because the Australian historian Keith Hancock, who visited Palestine in the summer of 1936 (and was philosemitic: when he was fronted by Nazi youths in Marburg in 1934 he famously turned on their anti-Semitic haranguing by telling them that he was an Australian Jew, that General John Monash was an Australian Jew who beat the shit out of Germans in WW1,a and that all Australians were Jewish, one of the lost tribes. His experiences in Palestine however made him change his views, to adopt sympathy for Palestinians. he wrote to his friend Charles Hawker that 'The British govt. has lost control in Palestine –it just takes the bumps from both sides . .Arab cities are the only ones we blow up . .The Mandate is a shadow: the reality is the exodus of terrified Hebrew from Poland and this invasion of Palestine behind our tanks..And our realists not knowing whether to make a Jewish Ulster in the Arab world or to permit a Smyrna massacre.’ (Contextually that must be around December 1936-Jan 1937, before Storrs' book was published). The details are in Jim Davidson, Three-Cornered Life: The Historian W.K. Hancock, University of New South Wales Press, 2010 p.164.Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC) This is unusual, in a way, coming from Hancock. His sympathies were English, his paternal grandfather had married a Mary Higgins from Londonderry, etc. I gather in any case that in his contribution, Keith Hancock ‘The Medicine of the Body Politic’ in Keith Hancock, Richard Thomas, Edwin Latham,Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs vol.1:Problems of Nationality, 1918-1936, Oxford 1937 p.482 he notes that analogy once more:'He envisages the Jewish community as a majority in Palestine and Trans-Jordan, but as a minority in the larger Arab world. ... It will, in short, be an Ulster in the Near East ; it will be an imperial mission like that of the European settlers in Kenya.' Mathew's website has a variant on this: 'As a minority community in the larger Arab world, it would, in W.K. Hancock`s paraphrasing at the time, `be bound by necessity, no less than by gratitude, to uphold British interests in the Arab world. It will, in short, be an Ulster in the Near East` (this, as may be recalled, being Herbert Asquith`s nightmare).' Aside from the “principled” objections to Zionism currently advanced by the left. You have many practical objections often based on fear, confusing the two is not helpful. 1: Could a Jewish state defend itself 2: Could it develop and maintain an economic base. 3: Would diaspora Jews be forced to move to said Jewish state. 4: Would a Jewish state negatively affect diaspora Jews. Still a sore point among Jews in certain career fields such as American and other countries military, security service and foreign policy establishments who feel that their loyalty is questioned.Jonney2000 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Read Rabkin's book. This has nothing to do with the 'left'. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Ultra-Orthodox Jews are so detached from public life outside of Israel that their religious ideologies both pro and anti-Zionist have little baring on the Jewish question. Frankly rehashing that history by some on the left is very damaging.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC) As I implied, everything I have said in comments above, comes from arguments within the Jewish anti-Zionist tradition. Our function here is transcribal, reformulating what sources regarding a topic say about that topic. Since our job is to write the topic per sources, the point of the talk page is to clarify what sources are saying. Familiarizing yourself with the history of the topic would be useful.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Is that a personal attack? I am very familiarized with this topic. Jonney2000 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC) The one history on the topic of this article is by Rabkin. From your remarks, it appears you are unfamiliar with it. If so, read it, since it is indispensable for writing the history section.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Starting from:'The Judaic opponents of Zionism are thus often absent from Israeli historiography. Aside from a few monographs and collections of texts devoted specifically to the history of the relations between Zionism and Judaism, the great majority of histories of the country written in Israel and elsewhere make no reference to the rabbinic resistance. .. The opponents of Zionism hailing from liberal Judaism are even less visible in the historiography both of Zionism and of Israel.' p.11 Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Thanks Nishidani for agreeing about the value of categorising commentators by view, as long as the categories are widely acknowledged. I haven't yet had the pleasure of reading Rabkin, the article comments that his history 'has also been criticised for its "combative writing style and a selective use of history." One critic wrote that: "Rabkin can't resist from widely citing people who name-call and painting all Zionists as evil" and that this style of writing "diminishes the credibility of his argument'. The work may be detailed, but it sounds tendentious and in the round we'd need care re WP:RS/AC. He too seems part of the fray, and this is corroborated by his political activities. Per, RR, the WZO's platform does seem to serve as useful focus for the definition of opposition to Zionism. Cpsoper (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC) I don't take any notice of the opinions of reviewers, critics etc. who can't get beyond dismissive generalizations, particularly if they are added to pages by editors unfamiliar with the books or work of authors involved. I read 50 pages of the French edition last night and can see no trace whatsoever of evidence supporting that kind of mechanical disparagement. To the contrary Joseph Agassi and rabbi Baruch Horovitz testify to the quality of the scholarship. They seem to underline what he documents, the intense pressure, financial and otherwise put on any Jewish critics of Zionism, which include withholding financial support and even shutting down Talmudic centres whenever one of their members came out with criticisms of that ideology (for me, Zionism is just another ideology, nothing else. it has no relationship to the way modernity understands social practices, being grounded in religious myths, imposed by sheer force, and defended in its contemporary colonial ambitions by cynical prevarication). As to 'tendentious' that would apply to everything written on the subject (Wistrich, Ottolenghi, Marcus etc.etc.), depending on your perspective. In any case, we don't make, as editors, metacritiques of RS. It is totally irrelevant, once the RS status has been determined, which is self-evidently the case for Rabkin's work.Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC) From Talk:Zionism: The notion of "re-establishing" the Jewish state should be queried - this is of course the use of langauge to prejudge the conclusion. The sense it which it is being "re"-established is very peculiar to Zionism and Judaism. It is as though the Romans were to "re-establish" Britannica in Britain today. (It is not like the Native Americans who very justifiably could argue the need to re-establish themselves in North America.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.114.39 (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Israel was national home for Jews once, and the goal of Zionism was to make it a national home again, i.e. to re-establish it. It is very much the same as Native Americans (assuming they lost their national home). If Romans were to re-capture Britannia, they would certainly be re-establishing the province. The prefix "re" indicates repetition, and it is indeed the case here. *Not* using the prefix for Israel is biased, since it's an attempt to hide the fact that Israel was the national home for the Jewish people in the past. “WarKosign” 08:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC) "national home", there were several Jewish kingdoms, who weren't always sovereign. The terms of "re-establishing" portrays that there was a unified Jewish kingdom whose native inhabitants were expelled and only to return, ignoring all the different places that some Israelis today belong to; Yemen/Russia/Argentina/Ethiopia.. Its inaccurate and generalizes, a simple google search shows that "re-establishing" is overwhelmingly used by Jewish sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Another problem with "re-" is that it implies some similiarity between the modern country of Israel and an ancient state. None of these ancient states were defined as a "Jewish state" or a "Jewish homeland". Not to mention the fact that the Hasmonean state was arguably more of a "Hellenic Judean" state than a Jewish state, and the "Kingdom of Israel" has no archaeological evidence supporting its existance. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC) I strongly disagree, Romans never argued Britannica was 'home' - what nonsense, they came from Italy. Whereas every passover welcomes the prospect of a Jewish return to Jerusalem. The religious foundation of Judaism and Christianity is based on the old Jewish state, and its reestablishment under Zerubabbel, Yeshua, Ezra, Nehemiah, only wilful ignorance can deny this. This is extremely similar to North Americans or Australian aboriginals reestablishing their own state, in a since occupied land, as genetic studies of Levitical lineages confirm[65]. That there are differences from Herod's kingdom, which was imposed on the inhabitants of Judaea by force, is of little relevance, it was a predominantly Jewish state then now and it is now. Cpsoper (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Which "Jewish state" exactly are we talking about? "North Americans or Australian aboriginals reestablishing their own state", thats ethnicity not religion. Anyone can be a Jew. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC) This is right. This is also true from other perspectives - what it means to be a Jew today is different to the ancient term Ioudaioi or equivalent, which had a geographical sense as well. And the modern state was established by followers of Rabbinic Judaism, a sect whose forebears the Pharisees were a very small minority in ancient times. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC) You are engaging in original research, and even that you got wrong. See Who is a Jew? - there are many definition, and it's open for interpretation whether Jewish state means religion or nationality or both. Nobody in their right mind would think that re-established State of Israel is identical or even similar to ancient kingdoms. "Re-established" refers to national home, not to a specific type of state. It's a plain fact that this land once was a national home for the Jews (by some definition), and now it is again. Please refrain from edit-warring and do not repeatedly apply a change that clearly lacks consensus. “WarKosign” 09:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC) @WarKosign: you wrote that "plain fact that this land once was a national home for the Jews (by some definition), and now it is again"; that is an incorrect statement. In fact the opposite is true - the land within the borders of 1948 Israel had technically never been any kind of "homeland" for Jews. Ancient Jews, or more correctly "Ioudaioi" were from "Iudaea", a region in the West Bank. Jews were not from the Paralia coast, or Galilee or the Negev, although some of those peoples did convert under the Hasmoneans. I am focusing on the Hellenic period because any interpretation prior to that period must be based solely on the Bible, and Wikipedia does not quote the Bible as fact. But even if we did follow the Bible the same holds true - Biblical Judeans were from Judea, a region not included in 1948 Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Actually, more correct would be "Yehudim" which was/is the Hebrew pronunciation of Jews. Though "Am Yisrael" and "Klal Yisrael" are used by the religious as well. Iudaea is the Roman pronunciation of Yehuda. The word Jews is short for Judeans, which is the English pronunciation of Yehuda, in Hebrew it's Yehudi. When speaking of re-establishing the Jewish Homeland, Zionists are referring to before the Roman destruction, not the Hellenic period (for example, Masada is an important icon in Zionism) Drsmoo (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Hi Drsmoo, Hellenic was before Roman. I think you are confusing with Byzantine. Does your comment mean that you agree with my overall point. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Yes, Hellenic was before Roman. Your statement that the land within the borders of 1948 was never a homeland for Jews is factually incorrect. Your choice of the Hellenic period is strange and arbitrary as well. Drsmoo (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) @Drsmoo: If it is factually incorrect, please explain why. "Jews" / "Judeans" are named after Judea, a region not included in 1948 Israel. If you think I am missing something, please explain. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) I feel like there's a disconnect here. I don't see what your argument is? Are you saying that the actual location of the Jewish homeland doesn't matter, because the name of the people is "Jews" are therefore it can only be the most geographically limited version Judea, regardless of where their homeland actually extended to? Even that argument, which isn't relevant to the discussion to begin with doesn't make sense, as Judea included the provinces of Samara, Galilee, and Edom, though the general area was predominantly Jewish even before then. Maybe you should consider asking Jews where they consider their ancient homeland to be? Drsmoo (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC) I am simply saying that the closest one could come to for a concept of "homeland" for ancient Jews / Judeans is the region they were named after - that is the region of "Judea". Your point about inclusion of Samaria, Galilee and Edom is mistaken; the expansion of the Hasmonean state into those regions was temporary, for less than 50 years, and anyway is totally irrelevant to the concept of "homeland". Your argument is as absurd as saying that Persia was part of the "Macedonian homeland", because it was temporarily part of their empire and they expanded their culture within in. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Those regions were all part of Judea, why are you focusing on the most geographically limited version? They were part of the Jewish homeland before 44 CE as well. Jews have been quite consistent about where their homeland is for over two thousand years. Who do you think you are telling them what their homeland is? This is also well documented in history books written about Jews. Your personal animus, while legitimate as far as your feelings as an individual, has no bearing on an encyclopedia article. Btw, I sent you a message on your talk page, I hope we can continue to collaborate effectively. Drsmoo (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Because the homeland of the Judeans / Jews was Judea, the homeland of the Samaritans was Samaria and the homeland of the Galileans was Galilee. Judaism expanded into the adjacent terroritories under the Hasmoneans, and when the Romans came along they temporarily applied the name across the whole area. Cutting to the chase, this question between us boils down to "what is a homeland", and when considering an "ancient Jewish homeland" where should we draw the line when considering who were the "original Jews". On a separate note, your statement "Jews have been quite consistent about where their homeland is for over two thousand years", couldn't be less true. The influence of Zionism on Jewish thought has been so massive that it has affected the Jewish memory and perspectives on history. This is not a Jewish-specific issue but a worldwide nationalism-specific issue. Nationalism fools its learners into thinking that the way we conceive history today is the way we have always done. See Historiography and nationalism. That you believe the sentence you wrote suggests you have yet to test some of the narratives you learned over the years from less-than-scholarly sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC) No, the homeland of Jews is Judea and Israel, and has remained so. Your claim about the "influence of Zionism on Jewish thought" is both insulting and ridiculous. I went to Yeshiva for over ten years, both orthodox and ultra-orthodox, and read LOTS of texts that were hundreds and thousands of years old. This is similar to a "discussion" we had on the Jews talk page where you claimed that Jews never considered themselves descended from the patriarchs until recently, only to be confronted with reality. As someone who studied in a Yeshiva for over 11 years, reading many, VERY old texts that are central to Judaism, your claim is profoundly and demonstrably wrong to an amazing degree. But here are just a few, let me know and I'll add as many as you could possibly read. "Have mercy, L-rd our G‑d, on Israel Your people, on Jerusalem Your city, on Zion the abode of Your glory, on Your altar and on Your Temple. Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily in our days, and bring us up into it, and make us rejoice in it, and we will bless You in holiness and purity"- from the Hagaddah (this is what Jews read on Passover, btw, as I pointed out to you before, and have continued to read since around 300 CE) "A person should always live in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly inhabited by non-Jews, and not in the Diaspora, even in a city that is mostly inhabited by Jews. For all those that live in Eretz Yisrael are as if they have a G-d, and all those that live in the Diaspora are as if they have no G-d." - This is from the Mishnah (Ketubot) It was written around 300 CE "And to Jerusalem, thy city, return in mercy, and dwell therein as thou hast spoken; rebuild it soon in our days as an everlasting building, and speedily set up therein the throne of David. * Blessed art thou, O Lord, who rebuildest Jerusalem." From the Siddur (this is what Jews pray from, in case you were wondering.) In fact, of all the religions on earth, there is likely no other one that holds a physical place to as much centrality and importance as Israel and Jerusalem in Judaism. Your perceptions of Judaism are incredibly incorrect and profoundly ignorant Drsmoo (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC) @Drsmoo: I am sorry to push this as it is clearly sensitive, but I think perspective could be helpful here. Imagine if I took your words and amended them to have been spoken by a Muslim: "I went to Madrassa for over ten years, both Sunni and Wahhabi, and read LOTS of texts that were hundreds and thousands of years old." How would this give an editor any right to a more balanced and encyclopaedic perspective on Pan-Islamism than any other editor? And to suggest that Zionism has not influenced mainstream Jewish thought profoundly is absurd. Perhaps the most visible proof is that every mainstream synagogue built today exhibits the Star of David in pride of place. Perhaps your Yeshivas did too. Yet many Rabbis and synagogue leaders do not realise that it is basically a Zionist symbol, and has no religious value. The same is true for many of the currents in modern Judaism. Look at the way certain prayers and holidays have been emphasized over the last centuy. Sure the longing for Jerusalem has always existed in the religion, but prior to Zionism it was but a quiet corner. To the quotes you brought, the first and third only underpin my point as to Jerusalem (in Judea) being the focus, not the coastal region, negev and Galilee. As to the Mishnah quote, that says nothing about it being a homeland, only that it is holy (as Christian and Islamic writings also state). In fact it acknowledges that many cities in the region are not mostly inhabited by Jews, which is inconsistent with the concept of a homeland. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Don't be sorry, it's just very clear you know very little about Judaism, which is fine, this is an opportunity to learn. If I said something about Islam that was clearly incorrect, I would welcome correction from someone that was knowledgeable about the history of Islamic thought. I would never try to claim that I knew more than them about Islam. Your claim about a "quiet corner" is also laughable to any Jewish person. I see that you started a new talk page topic as well, which is strange as it's about the exact same subject as this one. In any case, I started reading it, it talks about the term ancestral land as something common to nationalism. There's a flaw in your logic though, in that you didn't bother to actually be aware of what Jews have been writing about the subject for thousands of years. More so, something that's been central to Judaism for thousands of years. Most startlingly, you didn't even bother to look, yet you spoke with such confidence about something you know absolutely nothing about. The idea of Israel as the ancestral homeland for Jews is absolutely fundamental to Judaism. For example, just using the term "Homeland" we have " "The Romans completed what the Greeks had started and exiled the Jewish people from their homeland." - Radak (This is from the 12th century) "The Jewish people when in their ancestral land, by contrast, will have to depend on the rain to irrigate their land. As a result they will realise the need for their G’d being well disposed towards them as else He might withhold the required rainfall at the appropriate time for securing their success in the fields." - Daat Zkenim (13th century) "Our sages have said that the expression "your tents," refers to periods when Israel is at peace in its homeland, whereas the word "your dwellings," refers even to periods when the Land and Temple of Israel is in ruins." - Isaiah Horowitz, Shney Luchot Habrit, 16th Century) It boggles my mind that you read something about modern nationalism and therefore thought you could just dismiss Judaism. Btw, your uncivil accusation in the edit commentary is uncalled for. There is no tag-teaming, but there is consensus. The combination of wilful ignorance and conspiracy theories is a bad look. Drsmoo (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC) It really boggles my mind when you bring up mentions of Islam and Judaism as if this is a religious conflict. The core of this is a political conflict, and bringing up some random quotes is WP:ORIGINAL at best. If your so knowledgeable about Jewish history and its link to Zionism, why don't you publish a book, professor. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Oncenawhile brought up both Judaism and Islam, I only responded to his incorrect religious claims. Nothing I posted is linked to zionism btw, just fundamentals of Jewish religion. If you went to the most anti-zionist Satmer/Neturei Karta member they'd tell you the same thing. Drsmoo (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC) That's a biased view of fundamentals of Jewish religion. I don't think Hebrew bible says you can, for example, ethnic cleanse people. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Actually, you are wrong. According to the bible, god commanded genocide of several peoples, and of course performed several genocides himself (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). Looks like the bible is not a good guide for morality. “WarKosign” 12:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Interesting, well its always good to be an atheist. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) @Drsmoo: thank you for bringing those quotes. They prove my point to certainty. I did the same as you, and searched through the tens of the thousands of texts on the Sefaria Project. In all those texts, these are the only three I could find which use the term homeland or equivalent in the sense we are discussing it here. But I then took it one step further and looked at the Hebrew text. You will find that both Radak's and the Tosafot commentary are very different in Hebrew. Again the inaccuracy of these modern English translations is another example of how Zionism influences Jewish thought subconsciously (again, this is a trait applicable to all religio-/ethnic- nationalisms). As to the early modern Horowitz quote, his mystical writings were and are not representative of mainstream. So a pitiful three out of tens of thousands becomes none. So, I suspect you have stopped finding "quiet corner" laughable. The themes you believe so deeply in are not as deeply embedded as you have been led to think. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC) You just said random words but didn't actually respond. A bad translation? Not mainstream? Those aren't responses. We're not actually having a debate btw, I'm telling you about Judaism. The point has been made as I'm not only talking to you. Drsmoo (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC) @Drsmoo: Have you read the Hebrew versions yet? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC) If you want to make the claim that it's a bad translation then substantiate your claim. The point regarding homeland has been established, as has consensus. If you'd like to continue this debate, feel free to head to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism as we're no longer talking about Zionism. Drsmoo (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Drsmoo, ok since you were not willing to read them yourself, here are the Hebrew excerpts in all their glory: Radak (no mention of "the Jewish people from their homeland"): ואיל הם מדי ופרס, ולפי שמלכו בבל נקרא מלכותם איל, והנה רמז מלכות בבל ופרס, אע"פ ששלחו גלותם, מלכים מהם האריכו גלותם ואחרו בנין הבית והעיר Daat Zkenim (no mention of "The Jewish people when in their ancestral land"): שהיא ארץ מישור שאדם יכול להמשיך מים לשדותיו מן הנהרות כמו שעושים לגן הירק הנזרעים על שפת הנהר אלא היא ארץ הרים ובקעות ואין אדם יכול להשקותם כי אם למטר השמים תשתה מים ותמיד אתם צריכים להקב"ה ולכך הזהרו במצותיו כדי שיוריד לכם מטר בעתו The English translations you posted above from Rb. Élie Munk appear to have been influenced by Zionist thought. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Hmm, I thought you were going to post an alternate translation, no contradiction here. This discussion has been settled, if you'd like to continue with your conspiracy theories about Judaism, feel free to start a topic at Wikiproject Judaism Drsmoo (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC) So you have not been able to find a single pre-modern source about Jewish homeland. Correct? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism Drsmoo (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC) @Drsmoo: you made a clear statement relevant to the edits at this article that "The idea of Israel as the ancestral homeland for Jews is absolutely fundamental to Judaism". The quotes on which you based this judgement have since been proven to be nothing of the sort. And the discussion has provided another proof point as to how nationalism has infected Jewish thought, such that even neutral people like yourself can be misled. So, do you withdraw your statement, or can you provide new evidence? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) This talk page isn't for screeds against thousand+ year old Jewish texts, if you'd like to continue discussing Judaism, feel free to discuss it at the appropriate talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_JudaismDrsmoo (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your withdrawl. Your intellectual honesty is appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Ancestral homeland" is more accurate than Palestinian return to Israel, considering the vast majority of palestinians have never lived in Israel (or pre-israel mandatory palestine) and have no place to return to. In comparison the ancestors of most Jews did live in Israel, so it is their ancestral homeland, but they are only metaphorically returning to it.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC) The phrase "Jewish homeland" is itself a product of revolutionary westphalianism. It's a reassertion of the right to sovereignty over land long controlled by foreign empires. "Israelite" was once synonymous with "Jew", and "Palestinian" was even used to mean "Jew" at times. Only recently has this become controversial.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [break] 2016 discussion [66], [67]. Not only do we have more results for "establishing" but "re-establishing" is almost exclusively used by Jewish related sources. 1780 vs 32, thats an overwhelming majority. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC) WarKosign please do not edit war. WP:ONUS is very clear "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Unless you can support its inclusion with high quality reliable sources, the "re-" cannot remain in this article. Anyway, you say that "re-established refers to national home", but "national home" has no meaning in ancient times. Wikipedia does not state national myths in its neutral voice. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Please don't. WP:ONUS is clearly about adding new information, here we are talking about removing content that had long-standing consensus. The appropriate policies are WP:TALKDONTREVERT and for now WP:NOCONSENSUS.“WarKosign” 10:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC) All the policies which you are linking to should be followed by all of us here, including you. ONUS is applicable here because this part of the original edit [68] made 19 months ago was never discussed. The first part of the edit (re irridentism) was discussed at /Archive_15#Irredentism.2C_nation_state.2C_objectivity..., but the reestablishment addition was forgotten in the chaos and never discussed. No consensus was ever gained for its conclusion. You may argue that silent consensus was there, but that is the weakest form of consensus. Now that a discussion has been opened, it is clear that such consensus does not currently exist. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Unless actual scholarly support can be shown for its inclusion, the "re-" will be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Here's one eminent official source, 'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States - (1) recognises the historic significance of the 50th anniversary of the reestablishment of the sovereign and independent modern State of Israel.'[69]. Cpsoper (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Rodney Frelinghuysen is not an expert on this subject. He is a politician. The Senate and House are full of politicians. The US Senate and House have been considered to be pro-Israeli for many years, and therefore are non-neutral from an academic perspective. The Senate doesn't accept human cause of climate change [70] but Wikipedia doesn't follow their lead there either. Politicians are not scientists and are not historians. They are non-expert and partisan in almost every field. This is an academic question, so we need high quality academic sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Even if high quality academic sources are found, sources mentioning "establishment" probably outnumber them. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Honestly I think that kind of proves the point. The US Congress at present time is a decidedly pro-Zionist body, and the language it uses reflects that. Wikipedia, unless Im mistaken, is neither pro or anti Zionist, and our language shouldnt be indicative of one of those stances. nableezy - 05:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) The aim of Zionism was to establish something. A statement that the "establishment" was actually a "re-establishment" is not a neutral statement but part of the Zionist argument that they were morally entitled to it. The article should mention this argument, but using it in Wikipedia's voice would be a travesty of NPOV. It would be like using "redeem" instead of "purchase" for land acquisition, which has similar Zionist credentials. Zerotalk 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Let me point out to how the Balfour Declaration states "establishment". Makeandtoss (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Wholeheartedly agree with Zero. nableezy - 23:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC) The section is about aims of the Zionist movement, not about the Balfour declaration. Returning to the Jewish homeland is common parlance and re-establish is used in the Israeli Declaration of Independence. The sentence "Zionism is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel" is factually correct. Drsmoo (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Ok, its about the aims of the Zionist movement, but its the encyclopedias voice discussing those aims, and using "re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory" uses a Zionist POV in the encyclopedia's voice. Much like saying "appropriating Arab territory for a Jewish homeland" would be an anti-Zionist POV. Language such as return or re-establish, or conversely colonize or appropriate, are not simply "factually correct", they are POVs of the parties involved. And frankly, I dont even see why this is being argued over if it isnt POV. Establish would include "re-establish" in its definition, whereas re-establish would not necessarily include the set of things covered by "established". So why even argue against using "establish" instead or "re-establish" if it isnt endorsing some POV? nableezy - 05:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC) I appreciate your reasoning and line-of-thinking but personally disagree. I think the inverse of colonize/appropriate btw would be something Bush-like, like "liberate". I don't perceive any positive/negative connotations to either establish or re-establish. If the sentence instead used "the modern establishment" I think it would work, but with the current sentence structure, not having re-establish would seem to imply that there wasn't a Jewish homeland there in the past, which, although some believe that, is incorrect. Drsmoo (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Another prominent witness for 'reestablishment', though if Congress is seen here as a profoundly partisan body, perhaps other editors will choose to disregard its library too. Reestablishment is a simple statement of fact, it is POV to censor the historic existence of a Jewish state in the same territory, and that this had a prominent role in motivating early Zionists. "Reestablishment" is a statement of romantic nonsense. There are many disconnects between the ancient history of the region and modern Jews / Judaism / Israel. There isn't a single similarily one could choose that holds up to any serious scrutiny. Which is why no serious scholar would ever use the term. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) "No serious scholar" sounds like it's setting up for a No true Scotsman fallacy. It's a strange statement to make as well, given that essentially every history book written about the Jewish people includes their origins in Israel/Judea. Drsmoo (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) You are avoiding the point. A vague sense of origins is very different to claiming that a state or homeland in the modern world is somehow the same as the political arrangements of ancient times. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC) No one is talking about a "vague sense of origins". It is a very concrete, tangible, and well-established origin. Drsmoo (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Prove it then. I suspect you have no idea how nationalism has warped the history of every people. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Check the sources in the article on Jews: "The Jews ... also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East.". Anything else you need citation for ? “WarKosign” 05:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC) It's not surprising to see that, despite initial claims to the contrary, the intentions of recent edits are in fact to deny history. Drsmoo (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Friend, throwing around accusations gets us nowhere; I could equally well sit here and accuse you of "denying history". Shlomo Sand has been mentioned; are you familiar with Israel Finkelstein? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC) You claimed that a historical fact wasn't a historical fact, that is a textbook version of denying history. Israel Finkelstein is an archaeologist and biblical minimalist who believes that the Kingdoms of David and Solomon were either very small or didn't exist, and instead believes that Omri was the more prominent Jewish king. That has nothing to do with the expulsion from Rome, the Roman-Jewish wars, or Jewish history in the region, all of which are extremely well documented. That somehow these thousands of years of history were claimed to be a Zionist Mythology is baffling. Perhaps Josephus was a Zionist Mythologist in 75 CE. Drsmoo (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia does not consider Old Testament biblical history to be hard facts. When Jospehus wrote of that period, hundreds of years before his own, he used the Bible as a source. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC) You're referring to Antiquities of the Jews. I'm talking about The Jewish War Drsmoo (talk) 11:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Right ok, your "three thousand" years statement was confusing. The classical (Greco-Roman) part of Jewish history is relatively concrete. On that we are agreed. As has been acknowledged above, the "homeland" of the Hasmonean state was the region of Judea. Temporary territorial conquests do not make a homeland. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) @WarKosign: if you still support "re-" established, please could you be clear exactly what you think was reestablished? The Hasmonean state? The Davidic Kingdom of Israel? The exiled Jeconian Kingdom of Judah? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Note that Establishment of Israel has 340k results and Reestablishment of Israel and Re-establishment of Israel combined have 93k results. So it all really depends on what you put in quotes. Anyway, "re-established" is objectively true. Was "Israel" reestablished? No, that's arguably a nationalist concept dependent on the idea that the modern israel is a continuation of the ancient one. But a "Jewish state" was objectively reestablished.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Specifically which historical state was objectively re-established? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Also, look at the hits you get in googlebooks for the links you posted. "re-" or "re" gets you theological works. Just "establishment" gets you secular works. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a secular encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia. You are just trying to exclude Jewish theology from Wikipedia by your claim. If something is part of a religion for thousands of years, of course it's going to be in theological works. Are you seriously claiming that the Jewish homeland is a modern invention? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC) My point is simply that the question of whether something was "re" established is a question for historians, not for theologians. And yes, modern scholarship does indeed suggest that the homeland concept is a modern invention. To understand why, you need to understand what a "homeland" really means. It is a deeply charged political concept which appeals to the most basic instincts of the human mind, which at its worst can be used as a tool to justify making people do terrible things to other people in its name. We are all human beings, and very much alike, and only fight due to the burden of history as we have been taught to perceive it. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Well, then let me be one more voice in the chorus telling you that you know nothing about Judaism then. Do you also go and tell the Pope he's not Catholic enough? It is extremely ludicrous and insulting to say that the homeland is a new concept. It is not something that you should be publicly agreeing with. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Can you prove it? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Well, I've heard Catholic monks exclaim, on the election of Francesco:'Finally a Catholic Pope!' In any case, Judaism, like any great religion, is a very complex culture. I've yet to see an editor in here showing much awareness of its vast diversity. Most editors think it is interchangeable with modern Israel or Zionism.Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC) I don't think anyone said that, but what was said was that Israel as a homeland is not a modern invention and it's insulting for someone to come around and tell Jews that it is. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC) One can keep using this as a forum to give one's opinions about one's own ethnic group, but no one should presume to be a spokesman for others of the group. If rabbi Isidore Loeb wrote:'nothing proves that the present-day Jews who reside in most of the European states are the descendants of the ancient Jews of Palestine and strictly of the Semitic race', and it was published in a Jewish journal, and aroused absolutely no controversy, it was because in France, Austria and Germany in his time, before Zionism took off, it was a normal view to entertain. I've read it very frequently in history books concerning that period. So, how can you state it is insulting for the homeland concept to be denied, when it was entertained widely by Jews before 1948? (Of course I know it is grounded in Jewish liturgy, which a community for millennia recited: but when given the choice of a new homeland in the 20th century, the overwhelming choice in eastern Europe was, rationally in my view, the United States, or, as it was called then 'the New Zion'. When black slaves sang for centuries O Canaan, sweet Canaan, I am bound for the land of Canaan they didn't think this meant they'd jump the next boat for Palestine.)Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) So you found one rabbi, one whom I never heard of and is not part of mainstream Jewish thought. As for going to the US over the Holy Land, I'm not sure how serious you are trying to be. One very major reason why people went to the US was because it was safer and more established. There were people who tried or went to Israel but the community was poorer, the country was poorer and it was not a feasible solution to migrate to. Even so, that never took away aspirations for the homeland, just that it's not feasible at this time. So again, to say that the homeland is a new invention is wrong and starts to approach a point that should not be approached, to delegitimze the Jewish homeland. No matter when and no matter where, Jews pray to return to their homeland. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC) So you don't know anything of the history of Judaism's relationship to Zionism. I've updated for you some details at Timeline of anti-Zionism. You think I've found one example. I said Isidore Loeb's view was a commonplace, and instead of taking the hint, you just assumed it was a one-offer. Well, yawn, here's another. Adolf Jellinek emphasized that ‘Jews did not have any national characteristics, as such but “thanks to their universalism they adapt and absorb qualities from the nations in whose midst they are born and educated.’ ‘We are at home in Europe and regard ourselves as children of the lands in which we were born and raised, whose languages we speak, and whose cultures make up our intellectual substance. We are Germans, Frenchmen, Magyars, Italians, and so forth, with every fiber of our being. We have long ceased to be true, thoroughbred Semites, and we have long ago lost sense of Hebrew nationality. Robert Wistrich ‘Zionism and Its Religious Critics in Fin–De-Siècle Vienna,‘ in S, Almog et al. Zionism and Religion, Brandeis/UPNE 1998 pp.140-158 pp.142) In other words, please focus on sourcing, and drop the guesswork.Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC) I don't think you understand what homeland means. Can you point me to any pre-Zionism usage of an equivalent phrase to "Jewish homeland" in Jewish writings or prayer? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) This has already been done, fyi. Drsmoo (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC) You tried but failed. It is the original text that matters, from mainstream sources. In all of the Sefaria Project you found nothing to support modern usage of Jewish Homeland. If it is so easy and so obvious, surely you can prove me wrong. At the moment this feels like avoidance tactics because you don't want to admit failure. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC) So aggressive and uncivil, and so wrong. I love the excuses though, I'm not really interesting in "convincing you" even though I already have most likely, as I have enough experience to know when someone will make up any excuse in order to have the last word. Ie ""oh that one doesn't count because, hes a mystic, mystics dont count now, new rules. Oh, they said it's so important that one should live there even if there are more non-jews? Well then it can't be a homeland, those are the new rules." After that I stopped caring because it was clear you'd been answered and would just say anything in order to continue arguing. Drsmoo (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC) You are overinterpreting disagreement with you in personal terms. The problem is not convincing yourself, but seeing if others disagree with you and how to resolve the points of contention. I can see no aggression in Oncenawhile's remarks, as opposed to careful evaluation of sources. I happen to agree with him. You have no consensus here.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC) It's an assessment of content, not personal. Drsmoo (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC) @Drsmoo: below is a summary of our discussion on this topic as I see it: Drsmoo: ""The Jewish Homeland in Israel" concept is core to the Jewish religion. It is not a modern invention" Oncenawhile: "OK, please provide proof" Drsmoo: "I have searched through thousands of works of Judaism on the Sefaria Project and have found these three relevant quotes" Oncenawhile: "In the original Hebrew, the first two quotes do not support this at all. And the third quote is not from a source representing mainstream Judaism" Drsmoo: "How dare you question me, I don't wish to continue this discussion. I also intend to stop you having this discussion with other editors such as WarKosign and Sir Joseph." It doesn't matter to me or anyone that your initial attempt to provide proof for your position did not hold water. But giving up the discussion so quickly it just looks like you are running away. Why not show us all the proof if it is so obvious. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC) , no, it's just that it's not worth it to discuss with someone so clearly biased. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Your inaccurate assessment aside, if we as Wikipedia editors chose not to discuss things with other editors every time we perceived them to be biased, these Talk pages would be empty. In our limited interactions I have come to perceive you (Sir Joseph) to be one of the I-P arena's most exteme POV pushers, yet I believe there is value in us discussing to benefit the encyclopedia. It is precisely our diverse viewpoints that can make Wikipedia such a valuable resource. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC) 2015 discussion Does anyone else feel like the article has pro-Zionist bias, or is it just me?? Shiningroad (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC) @Shiningroad: Is there any specific section you would like to point out as possibly biased ? “WarKosign” 11:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) This article is definitely biased toward Zionism. Every legitimate criticism of Zionism is basically dismissed by referring to various proponents of Zionism who explain away and rationalize the obvious self-contradictions and faults of Zionist ideology, such as its racist underpinnings, it's inherently undemocratic and colonialist nature. There is no real reference to what Zionism has brought about in the real world: the effects of Zionism on the indigenous Palestinian population, the apartheid conditions under which they are living, the brutal confinement and periodic bombardment of Gaza. There should be a whole section devoted to ethno-nationalism in general, of which Zionism is one exemplar, comparing it to other forms of ethno-nationalism. There could also be discussion about how Zionism has come to be accepted while other forms of ethno-nationalism (South African apartheid, Nazism, etc.) are condemned. This article could be improved and made more neutral by adding more perspectives and commentary critical of Zionism. I would suggest including statements about Zionism from Palestinian-American scholar Joseph Massad, from journalist Ali Abunimah, and from Professor Steven Salaita. All of these writers clearly distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism, as do many Jewish writers. Mention should also be given to contemporary Jewish groups like A Jewish Voice for Peace which are actively working to raise American Jewish awareness about the effects of Zionism that run contrary to values of democracy and mutual respect amongst peoples and religions. [User: jasper good] 19:38, 1 Jan 2016 (UTC) Note that according to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 you as a new editor are not allowed to edit this talk page, so your post above should be reverted or at least ignored. “WarKosign” 21:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Yes it is bias as it supports a poisition that Zionism is alien to Judiasm. How about this section? This section is wrong OUTRIGHT and the title doesn't match the content: QUOTE: Religious anti-Zionism amongst the Jewish Talmudic Many other Hasidic groups in Jerusalem, most famously the Satmar Hasidim, as well as the larger movement they are part of, the Edah HaChareidis, are strongly anti-Zionist. One of the best known Hasidic opponents of all forms of modern political Zionism was Hungarian rebbe and Talmudic scholar Joel Teitelbaum. In his view, the current State of Israel is contrariwise to Judaism, because it was founded by people who included some anti-religious personalities, and were in apparent violation of the traditional notion that Jews should wait for the Jewish Messiah. 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)~ Please define "Jewish Talmudic".... This whole thing is like a page out of the Elders of Zion. 96.57.23.82 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC) It does feel like that, yet on the other hand it is a page about Zionism. I assume you mean it shouldn't be biased toward anything, but Zionism has slightly accomplished it goal, so it only seems to be biased because it does describes the complete actions of Zionism, which are more on the winning side of the coin flip — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.252.209 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Another less common meaning is the political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews." Could we get a source for this. I feel like it's a endorsing misuse of the word. Supporting Israeli citizens and as a whole the country of Israel does not equal being a Zionist. It's a classification extremists use so as to call people anti-Zionist if they criticize Israeli politics. Should not be on the Wikipedia page if it's such a weak connection with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.101.38 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Oxford: "A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel." Webster: "an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel" reference.com: "a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel". Nowhere it says whether the support comes from Jews or non-Jews, so perhaps we can drop the "by non-Jews" part. Anyone can be a Zionist. “WarKosign” 07:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Statement "Opposition to Zionism in principle has also been charged as racist and as fostering the segregation of peoples that should seek peaceful coexistence." I hope this is some kind of joke..Makeandtoss (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC) @Cpsoper: Makeandtoss (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC) It is the view of authors of the references, in widely cited sources. Cpsoper (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC) @Cpsoper: by saying " that should seek peaceful coexistence", you are presenting this as fact, needs to be rephrased. Anyway " fostering the segregation of peoples that should seek peaceful coexistence." sounds a bit of a spinoff of the source used. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Cpsoper, you say thise sources are "widely cited"? I highly doubt that. Please prove your statement. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Terminology: 'anti-Semitism' vs 'racism' I'm curious about something. When we describe the events in Europe that motivated Zionism, they are labelled anti-Semitic, but not racist. Is there a reason for choosing one over the other? BabyJonas (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Ancestral Homeland in wikipedia's neutral voice Please could the various editors who are pushing this please read this chapter: Kaiser, Robert J. (2004). "Homeland Making and the Territorialization of National Identity". Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World: Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism. Psychology Press. pp. 229–. ISBN 978-0-415-33273-6. Such a concept is non-neutral for every nationalism. Zionism is no different. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC) The jewish people originated in Israel- their language, religion, culture, identity, was born there. It's all explained and sourced very well in the article Jews. This article isn't saying "jews were there first and zionism liberated them from the oppressive yoke of the arab and british colonialist squatters". That would be non-nuetral. The article is simply acknowledging a fact. Saying "their self-declared homeland" is weasel. "Homeland" is probably better than ancestral homeland for nuetral voice though, less frills.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC) @Monochrome Monitor: Hey, Monitor. Well, I would say that the problems begin with your first words: "The jewish people". The notion of people is completely modern. This Jewish nation you speak did not exist – could not exist – until modern times, and even then only in the minds of Jewish nationalists. There is a reason that nationalism is regarded as such an impoverished political concept. Einstein, for example, famously regarded it as "an infantile disease". As always it seems, I find myself unable to disagree with the great man! --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) That's patently false. You obviously know nothing about Jewish history and nothing about Albert Einstein (on the contrary I know quite a bit about both, including general and special relativity). Friend, it is you who remains doggedly ignorant of just what utter garbage is nationalism, not to mention Einstein. Here is the Einstein quote on nationalism (and others). Have you even read Hobsbawn's slim overview of the topic? --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel [to serve as President], and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. For these reasons alone I should be unsuited to fulfill the duties of that high office, even if advancing age was not making increasing inroads on my strength. I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation among the nations of the world."--Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 13 June 2016 :::@BowlAndSpoon: If you want to know anything about the ancient origins of the modern Jewish (UTC) people you can begin by reading about Israelites. “WarKosign” 06:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC) WarKoSign. You should know by now that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Does this mean you are saying that "re-" established and "ancestral homeland" relate to the Israelite state(s)? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) I was referring to BowlAndSpoon's false claim that the notion of Jewish people is modern. However, you are right: the historical record that tracks the origin of the Jewish people all the way back to Israelites and clearly shows that Canaan/Land of Israel/Palestine (region) is indeed "ancestral homeland" of the modern Jewish people, so re-establishment is the correct term to use. “WarKosign” 08:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Again, Wikipedia articles cannot be sourced in an argument. We reflect what the best available book sources say (which are rarely used in these articles).Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Ok. I think that is where most who use "reestablished" are coming from as well. There is a problem though. Whilst "Israelites" are considered to have existed, scholarship simply uses the term Israelites to refer to the people and culture which inhabited the region at the time. There is no evidence that these people were really Israelites in the form that we know them from the Bible. The most important part of this is that there is no archaeological evidence for the Israelite states described in the Bible. So in Wikipedia's neutral voice we cannot talk about reestablishing a state whose only evidence is Biblical. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Apparently you missed these well-supported bit from the lead of Israelites: "The Israelites ... inhabited part of Canaan" and "The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites ... evolved into the modern Jews". Again, re-established refers to a rather vague "national home", not to a specific state or an exact territory. Note that I'm talking about history, not religious narrative. “WarKosign” 09:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Again do you realize that this argument is fideistic? Why persist in this strategy? Every editor on Wikipedia knows it is not a Reliable Source? Don't believe me. Look at the evidence. The prevailing academic opinion today is that the Israelites, who eventually evolved into the modern Jews and Samaritans, were an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites who had resided in the area since the 8th millennium BCE.[7][8][9][10]. (7) Tubb 1998, pp. 13–14 Please note that there is no indication in the bibliography on that page as to what book is being referred to. It happens to be Jonathan Tubb, The Canaanites, University of Oklahoma Press 1998 pp.13-14. On those pages, Tubbs states that Canaanite identity is not Israelites alone: it has been subsumed under many names, Phoenicians, Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites, etc., and that a speaker of classical Hebrew, but not of modern Hebrew, would have no problem in making himself understood there. There is no mention of the transition to modern Jews (WP:OR) (8) McNutt, Paula (1999). Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. p.47 (failed verification. Fraudulent use of sources. There is no mention of the link to modern Jews: WP:OR) (9) K. L. Noll, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction, A&C Black, 2001 p.164:‘It would seems that in the eyes of Merneptah’s artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups.’ ‘It is likely that Merneptah’s Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley.’ (failed verification. There is no remark here that the Canaanites became Israelites became modern Jews. To the contrary Noll argued (he doesn't say 'the academic consensus is') that Israelites were one of several Canaanite groups. Ther is no mention of the link to modern Jews. WP:OR. (10) Stefan Paas Creation and Judgement: Creation Texts in Some Eighth Century Prophets, BRILL, 2003 pp.110-121, esp.144 (failed verification. There is no mention of modern Jews in this study of creation tales in the prophets. WP:OR So kindly drop this bad habit of using Wikipedia articles, esp. on this region, as sources for your 'information'. Most of them are bullshit, so far, unfortunately, full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and POV fantasies mainly edited by people with a political mission and zero knowledge of the topics.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC) You now wrote "vague national home", yet when I wrote "vague sense of origins" above, you and Drsmoo disagreed.... Vague is right, and is precisely the problem. As to Israelites, I agree with that - but the question you are missing is "who does academic consensus think Israelites were?" As I wrote above, scholarship simply uses the term Israelites to refer to the people and culture which inhabited the region at the time. There is no evidence that these people were really Israelites in the form that we know them from the Bible. So concluding that Israelites inhabited Canaan is a circular conclusion - archaeological Israelites are defined as the ancient inhabitants of certain regions of Canaan. And that some Israelites evolved into Jews doesn't mean that Jews inherit rights to the whole Israelite region. These Israelites also evolved into Samaritans, Galileans, Ituraeans, Edomites, etc. Some Israelites became Jews, but Israelites and Jews are not the same thing. Either way, the key point is that Israelite states are (a) unknown outside the Bible, and (b) not the same as a Jewish state. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Again, I'm not discussion religion, only historic facts. People historian call Israelites lived in Canaan. Their descendants continuously inhabiting the area for centuries. Their modern descendants, the Jews consider the general area of historical Canaan their ancestral homeland, and I don't see how anyone can dispute it - it's a historical fact that the land was homeland of their ancestors. There is nothing vague about sense of origin. The origin is an accepted historical fact. The vagueness comes from incomplete knowledge of the historical borders of the homeland, and of course it changed over time. You are insisting on territory of the southern kingdom - why not the area ruled by the Hasmonean dynasty ? “WarKosign” 10:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Their modern descendents" should be "Some of their modern descendents", specifically the ones that lived in Judea. Your logic is like saying that the Garden of Eden is my homeland because my earliest ancestors were said in the Bible to have come from there. Jacob is considered by secular scholarship to be no less fictional than Adam and Eve. This is the connection you are missing. As to the Hasmonean state, that's exactly my point. The homeland of the Hasmoneans was the small principality of Judea. They expanded for a short period of 50 years. Territorial expansion does not make a "homeland". Oncenawhile (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC) I did not know Garden of Eden was a historic location. Was anything interesting found during excavations ? Any fossils of fruit trees, or perhaps of talking snakes ? Who said Jacob was a historical figure ? Historical Israelites were named after Biblical Jacob by modern historians, but there is no reason to assume this is how they called themselves. Whatever was the exact extent of the ancestral homeland, it's well established that it (mostly) corresponds to (a part of) modern Palestine (region), and this is why Zionist chose to concentrate their efforts to re-established their homeland in roughly ("vaguely") the same place. If this is the problem, we can think of a way to clarify that ancestral homeland borders were likely very different from modern Israel. “WarKosign” 11:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Ok thanks, appreciate this. If we are to use "re-establish" we need to be clearer on what we have in mind as the historical precedent. Wikipedia can't accurately refer to the Israelite states as being either "Jewish" or historical. Which leaves us with the Hasmonean state. It would be helpful if we could find some scholarly sources which tackle this question. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) And Jews have considered themselves to be a nation longer than the Greeks. Jewish nationalism is an ancient concept. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) The assertion is an ideologeme. For one the concept of 'nationalism' over the last century, has been considered to be a peculiarly modern, post Enlightenment concept not to be anachronistically retrodated to antiquity. (b) Modern nationalists the world over have tried to underwrite the antiquity of their 'nationalism' by citing material from Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Indian classical sources etc.etc., but they are referring to different realities, and in discussing this scholars typically put 'nationalism' in inverted commas, flagging its disputed nature for early polities. (d) There is ample trace of Greek 'cultural nationalism' from the defeat of Persia 479BCE era onwards but whatever it was was different in being 'cultural' not 'ethnic' or 'territorial'. Alexander 'Hellenized' the peoples he subjected. (e) so-called Jewish 'nationalism' was a religious, not a pan-ethnic concept in its 5th century roots: it consisted of a religious definition, excluding 2 categories (I) Samaritans, who dominated in Samaria (ii) the am ha-eretz, the majority of farmers, who failed to follow the strict regimen of religious regulations set down by Ezra and Nehemiah: that too fails the 'nationalist criteria' because it is not-inclusive, but exclusive of the same ethnos; (f) Judaism's theological thinking about identity arose out of memories of an early Israelitic state in parts of Canaan, not all of Canaan. The religious definition of that territory is not all of Canaan. One could cite dozens of other points, but Jews are descended from a Middle Eastern population, which, by OCE, did not appear to consider 'Judea' (for that was where the idea was fixed, not Samaria, or Galilee, or Philistia) as its 'homeland' as we now take that. The branch populations have a meme that insists on that origin. It does not correspond to an historic reality, but is a belief cultivated for millennia in the cradle of rabbinical thinking which forged this sense of collective identity. In other words, this is a religious belief, not an historical fact.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) The simple solution is to write 'for Jews', or 'in Judaism ... is considered', etc... Anything else is just doctrinal. The encyclopedia cites used from the Jews, refer to conversion. Converted people by definition don't hail from the ancestral homeland.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC) We all know "palestine" used to mean something different than it does today and that the term was appropriated towards a specific political end. It's anachronistic by today's usage.--Monochrome_Monitor 05:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Everything in this field is 'anachronistic' beginning with the fantasies of the Bible.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC) "re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel" and homeland An attempt to summarize the long winded discussions above: "Re-establishment" doesn't refer to any specific historical state, but to a general sense that Jews came from the region. The fact that Jews and Judaism are defined in their name by the region of Judea, a region which was not included in 1948 Israel, is deemed irrelevant. When searching google books for re-established vs established, the latter outnumbers the former many times over. And not just by quantity but by quality. Most of the books using "established" are history books, whereas "re-established" is found mostly in theological works. Whilst the concept of "homeland" has been shown to be considered by academics as a deeply partisan nationalistic concept, it is proposed that Jewish nationalism is different and more ancient than other nationalisms and the concept of a homeland in Judaism has existed forever. No evidence has been provided for this, but it is deemed to be correct because it feels like common sense. Is my summary missing anything? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC) "Re-establishment" refers not to a "general sense", but to a concrete fact that ancestors of the Jews lived in the region. The name of the Jews indeed comes from the region of Judea, but the area inhabited by ancestors of modern Jews changed over time and at certain periods covered much larger area. I had no chance to check thousands of books using the terms "established" or "re-established" to assess the kind of works they represent. I wonder how you managed to read them all so quickly. Even if you did, it would be original research and therefore useless. My guess is that many of the books that avoid the term "re-established" are partisan works opposed to Zionism. Opinions that some researchers share with you is not "shown to be considered by academics". Drsmoo provided multiple quotes from primary or secondary sources showing how Jews considered themselves to be a nationality, and Judaism's connection to its homeland, but apparently it's "no evidence" for you. Your summary lacks correctness, otherwise it's nice. “WarKosign” 11:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) @WarKosign:I personally wouldn't waste my time with people not interested in learning, especially after consensus has been established in favor of re-established. As you can see there was no actual rebuttal to the quotes I posted, of which there are infinitely more. The current discussion obviously has nothing to do with Zionism which is why I proposed it be moved to the wikiproject Judaism talk page. Drsmoo (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Where do you get the idea that consensus has been established in favor of re-established? nableezy - 19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC) @WarKosign: "the area inhabited ... over time" is not the same as a "homeland". German people inhabited much of Eastern Europe for centuries but it isn't considered part of the Germanic homeland As Makeandtoss says, google's statistics are very powerful. If you look at the links provided by Monochrome above, you just have to look at the top 10 or 20 books of each to see a very significant difference I know the thread is hard to follow but Drsmoo's quotes have been thoroughly discredited. Two by looking at the original Hebrew, and one by confirming that the quote did not reflect mainstream thought. So there really is no evidence. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Google does the reading for you. [71], [72] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC) That is strong prima facie evidence for the fact that 're-establishing' is rare, pointed usage, whereas 'establishing' is the default term. The state Israel established in any case in 1948 was, as Steven Runciman once remarked ironically, not in the classic territory of Israel (Judea, and perhaps Samaria) but in Philistia. Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC) WarKoSign. I hate these arguments, firstly because they are never resolved through the standard precedures of evidence (2) give some editors a sense that there is a ganging up attitude against Israel or Jews, that must be resisted (3) experience shows that the definitions given (Jews) are irremovable - enough editors can block any attempt to suggest an intelligent modification of what is a standard article of secular faith these days. therefore remonstrating that it is unencyclopedic is futile. The idea of Judaism as a 'nationality' came late, and predominantly by reacting to the European wave of nationalisms.Zionism drove the change from the religious definition of Judaism current down to the 19th century, to the ethnonationalist concept, in perfect mimesis of Western ethno-nationalist ideology:'Zionists defined the Jews as a nation in order to destroy the exclusive authority of the rabbinate to say what a good Jew was.'; It is an absolutely typical remark for a 19th century rabbi likeIsidore Loeb to remark at the time that:'nothing proves that the present-day Jews who reside in most of the European states are the descendants of the ancient Jews of Palestine and strictly of the Semitic race'(‘Reflections on the Jews,’ in Mitchell Bryan Hart (ed.) Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880-1940, UPNE, 2011 pp.12-20 p.17.); British Jewry opposed the Balfour Declaration by asserting the standard view of 19th century orthodox rabbinical thought in Western Europe: Judaism was a religion not a nationality, they agreed; the conflict between the orthodox religious definition and the secular Zionist nationalist definition was endemic before 1948: Joseph Neusner puts it nicely, the Jews in israel are a nation (after 1948), the Jews in diaspora are a religious community. So, anyone who asserts Jews have always been a nation/nationality is (a)ignorant of the history of the concept or (b) repeating what one was told as a child in school.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC) The conception of Jews as a nation is rooted in actual nationhood and the hebrew bible. Zionism is just one form of jewish nationalist thought. Since early medieval times when european nations were born Jews were considered a "nation among nations", resident aliens, and they identified as part of the jewish nation. The conception of jews as merely a religious community is a modern haskalic idea, Jews only began to identify more with their state than the jewish nation after their emancipation. Zionism did not create jewish nationhood, it reawakened it. The quotes you cite are part of a late 19th-early 20th century debate on the nature of jewish collectivity. They do not reflect jewish identity pre-1800.[73]--Monochrome_Monitor 04:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Case in point. Anyone who asserts otherwise is (a) ignorant of the history of the concept or (b) reading shlomo sand.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "reading shlomo sand" This is just an ad hominem, ergo worthless. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Anyway, I think a good compromise between re-establish and establish, one that recognizes jewish history in the land while not claiming direct lineal connection to that history, is "establishment of a modern jewish homeland" or something akin to that. The wording isn't perfect.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC) That's a reasonable compromise. As to your argument, further up, citing Witherby (that is a philosemitic attack on Napoleon's ambition to naturalize the Jews as French and assure them some reconnection to Palestine.No! That's a mission Providence assigns to our Protestant England - it's a fanciful dialogue, by an Anglican, not testimony to what 'Jews' thought), or making large-scale generalizations ('jewish identity pre-1800') is pointless, such phrasing is as meaningless as 'catholic identity pre-1800'/'French identity pre-1800'/Buddhist identity pre-1800 etc,.etc. People in the pre-modern period followed their particular local traditions, and did not conceive of a generic identity of this kind embracing all under one ethnic or sectarian banner. Pre-1800 means what religious texts say that can be taken as referring to a 'Jewish identity', not whatever 'Mountain Jews', 'Berber Jews', 'Yemeni Jews', 'French Jews', etc. actually thought. One doesn't use Catholic clerical texts down to the period of, say,Maria Edgeworth to imagine what the 'Irish' thought. The result would be utter nonsense for what the various Irish communities, riven as they were, might have thought from one period to another. Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC) How about we end this lengthy discussion and focus on one important thing. Whether the article will use "establishment" or "re-establishment" will only depend on its usage by reliable sources, discussing history and quoting random Jews won't help. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Different regions of france make different wines, that doesn't mean the wine isn't french. Jews had their own minhags but they were all Israelites and their literature shows they identified with one another as such. Anyway I used an english source to show how jews were perceived as foreigners in the countries they lived- and jewish sources at the time are mostly yiddish, which I'm not particularly well versed in. But translations are available for many medieval jewish texts if you bother to look.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC) I don't really find Jewish history interesting, so I won't bother to indulge in its details. In the meantime, we have Zionism; a modern political movement. You might say that this movement is also formed by Jewish history, but who exactly are we to dig up history and form our own conclusions? Since we are on Wikipedia, the definition of Zionism should be given by reliable sources. All we have to do is search for what the sources say, we are literally discussing 2 letters. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Encylopedia britanica's definition: "Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel)."--Monochrome_Monitor 21:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC) [74], [75] Makeandtoss (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Unless you want to base Wikipedia upon Britannica Makeandtoss (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC) "re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel" Again, the nationalist fantasy begins right in the outset. Sovereignty? "It too is a modern invention. … [T]he concept of sovereignty was beyond [medieval jurists …] [T]he appearance of this abstract concept, which relegates the 'sovereign' to the status of a mere servant of the state, signals the emergence of modern political understanding." This is taken from a review in the current edition of the London Review of Books. Again: the very concept of sovereignty did not even exist until the sixteenth century – so how the hell can it have existed thousands of years ago? And so how can this Jewish sovereignty have been reestablished in the 20th century? Just completely absurd. The typical nationalistic fantasies and ignorance on display here are both absolutely stunning and completely tedious. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC) You're talking about the westphalian conception of the right to sovereignty. That it not the same thing as nationhood in the sense of an ethnos. The latter is ancient. Anyway, I don't particularly care what you have to say considering your hateful bona fides.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews Unhistorical and ideological meme repetition. The primary aim of Zionism was for Jews to have a homeland, an autonomous nation anywhere -Uganda, Argentina, you name it. It quickly pushed for Palestine, but the purpose was to get a life free of anti-Semitic harassment. Palestine was not the ancient homeland of the Jews. It was the religious heartland of Judaism. Jews, like Phoenicians, their cousins, have always moved around, and you are confusing the religious ideology that has become a cultural property of a Jewish tradition, with the complexities of history. In 4,000 years (Netanyahu's frame of reference) Israelites/proto Jews exercised unchallenged sovereignty over part of that land arguably for a few hundred years. Geographically this was inevitable, because like all crossroads in history, it cannot avoid being the zone of conflict of empires north, south, east and west. A compromise was suggested, and you are complicating it by insisting the usual religious clichés form part of the language.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Can I ask what exactly the disagreement here is about, pertinent to the article? Is it merely disputing whether the result of Zionism constituted an establishment or a re-establishment? BabyJonas (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC) @BabyJonas: Yes, but goals as well as results. “WarKosign” 07:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC) The issue is, can one state in wikipedia's neutral voice the words used in a specific political movement's programme, describing its project as the 're-establishment' rather than (as many editors think better sources, and neutral) the establishment of the Jews in Palestine. It is contested also 're-establishment of Jews in their ancestral homeland' is contrafactual, because, though Judaism has intense religious, cultural and also ethnic ties to the Middle East/Near East, to specify an unknown as a truth (excluding conversion and the vagaries of history) the ultra-fideistic view that all Jews have a direct or indirect line of biological descent from the Jews who once dwelt in ancient Israel's various kingdoms is unproven, and unprovable. In the Babylonian Talmud, for example, you can find the view that Babylonia is the homeland of the Jews, and that the Shekinah is there, among them, and no longer in Jerusalem. The ideological construction ignores historical dissonanced with its premise. Hence to be on the safe side, we go for the most neutral formulation, not the ideological formulation (in the view of editors like myself).Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC) If we're talking about a homeland, I think the Zionists might have a case for calling it a re-establishment, because the notion of whether a region constitutes a homeland depending on the Zionists themselves. But if we're talking about a modern state, it's unequivocally an establishment, because there was no prior modern state to justify reestablishment. So why not refer to the modern state as an establishment, while later in the article, we refer to the homeland as a reestablishment, in line with the Zionist perspective this article purports to describe? BabyJonas (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC) There is no doubt that State of Israel was not re-established, since Israel never was a modern democratic state before. The word "re-established" is used in the article 2 times (and once again in a direct quote) to describe Zionists' intention to have a homeland for the Jewish people in the roughly the same place that once was the homeland of the Jews/Hebrews/Israelites.“WarKosign” 21:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC) "Roughly" indeed. Jordan could have been considered "roughly" the place that once was the homeland of the Jews, for example, the Tribe of Gad. Now lets assume Emir Abdullah I of Jordan established the Emirate of Palestine, while Jordan was left for Jewish settlement. Could we really consider Zionist goals then, to "re-establish" their national homeland in "Jordanea"? I know the land west of the river is more historically connected to the Jews than the eastern side, but the comparison strikes an understanding that this argument is not logical at all. As far as I am reading, the users who are against "re-establishment" are providing several historical and scholarly evidence while the pro-"re-establishment" term users are just busy restating the same argument, which is "roughly" correct. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Makeandtoss, I don't think geography is relevant to the isolated question of establishment or re-establishment. Focusing entirely on the terminological dispute, one can re-establish a state for a people, regardless of where the state is located. But regardless, if we have a way of incorporating both, why not do both? BabyJonas (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC) It is relevant. Prior to the establishment of the Emirate of Transjordan in 1920, there were no defined borders of "Palestine". So in the Belfour declaration of 1917, which "Palestine" exactly were they talking about? The dashed blue line is the 1919 Zionist Organization proposal at the Paris Peace Conference, including almost all populated Jordanian cities. [76]. "Roughly" doesn't work here. Not to mention the Philistines. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC) You can re-establish a state in a different location, but the context here implies that modern state of Israel is just the modern version of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, including its population. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC) ) The Elephant in the Room The definition of Zionism should per policy come from Zionism's original declared aim. The aim set forth in the foundational document of Zionism, the Basel programme: Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine. It remodulates the Balfour Declaration in the same way. The latter stated the aim was for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. So how on earth do we get the odd version on this page, with its 'Land of Israel' and 're-establilshment' jargon? I.e. We have Zionism . .a political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land Where in the official documentation of the Zionist founders does this 're-establishment' phrasing and 'Land of Israel' wording emerge? Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Nowhere, I believe enough evidence was provided against the usage of "re-establishment". Makeandtoss (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC) From what little I've seen, the typical language is not re-establishment, but of "restoration" or "return," which is broadly synonymous with the idea of a re-establishment. If we want to portray the truth about Zionism, this seems to be necessary. You can quibble over the term "re-establishment," but I don't know if there is any basis to deny the concept represented by terms like return and restoration. BabyJonas (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC) [77], [78] Basis to deny this is that they are ignored by most reliable sources, even primary sources like the ones Nishdani showed!! Makeandtoss (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC) I'm not talking about "re-establishing". I'm arguing for the broader concept engendered by language like "return" and "restoration" which might be captured in the term "re-establishing". Has Nishidani provided sufficient evidence refuting that there is no broader concept that is captured by language like "return" and "restoration"? BabyJonas (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Nishdani doesn't have to. WP:BURDEN Makeandtoss (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Then why did you bring up his sources? Nevermind. Let's leave aside the burden-of-proof hot-potato and take seriously the question of whether this broader concept has a role in Zionism or not. Here's one source: Edward Said's Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Victims (Social Text No. 1 (Winter, 1979), pp. 7-58): The three ideas that depend on each other in Hess and Eliot-and later in almost every Zionist thinker or ideologist-are (a) the non-existent Arab inhabitants, (b) the complementary Western-Jewish attitude to an "empty" territory, and (c) the restorative Zionist project, which would repeat by rebuilding a vanished Jewish State and combine it with modern elements like disciplined, separate colonies, a special agency for land acquisition, etc. Note the strength of Said's claim: the restorative Zionist project are present not only in the work of Hess and Eliot, but later in almost every Zionist thinker or ideologist. Elsewhere in the paper he cites Hess' Rome and Jerusalem (1862): What we have to do at present for the regeneration of the Jewish nation is, first, to keep alive the hope of the political rebirth of our people, and, next, to reawaken that hope where it slumbers. When political conditions in the Orient shape themselves so as to permit the organization of a beginning of the restoration of the Jewish state, this beginning will express itself in the founding of Jewish colonies in the land of their ancestors, to which enterprise France will undoubtedly lend a hand. France, beloved friend, is the savior who will restore our people to its place in universal history. Just as we once searched in the West for a road to India, and incidentally discovered a new world, so will our lost fatherland be rediscovered on the road to India and China that is now being built in the Orient. Note the language: rebirth, restoration. Another quote, from the paper, this is Said himself: One needs to repeat that what in Zionism served the no doubt fully justified ends of Jewish tradition, saving the Jews as a people from homelessness and anti-Semitism, and restoring them to nationhood, also collaborated with those aspects of the dominant Western culture (in which Zionism exclusively and institutionally lived) making it possible for Europeans to view non-Europeans as inferior, marginal, and irrelevant. Said's analysis here tells us, in no uncertain terms, that at least one of the ends of Zionism was restoring them to nationhood. What should we make of all this? We should acknowledge two things: 1. that we've been too focused on the word usage "re-establishment" and forgotten to take a broader, nuanced picture of the concept behind the word, and 2. once we look at the broader concept, rather than the word, we see its fingerprints all over Zionism, under the language of rebirth and restoration. BabyJonas (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Please note the words "in almost every Zionist thinker or ideologist" in your quotation, as they fatally undermine your case. The fact that this idea is an essential part of the Zionist position is exactly why we must not write it in Wikipedia's voice. That conclusion doesn't even depend on whether it is true or not. The rules require us to describe ideological positions as the opinions of those holding them, and we are forbidden from taking sides. Zerotalk 04:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC) My comment was to engage with one specific line of discussion: The claim that no sources support the idea that Zionism is characterized by re-establishment. Here we have a critical source (Edward Said) who emphatically describes Zionism in these terms. Your point is something else: That we must not write it in Wikipedia's voice. I personally have a similar, but more nuanced view: (1)If we are talking about the modern nation-state, it's establish, not re-establish. (2)If we are talking about homeland, it's re-establish, not establish. (3) If we are describing the Zionist perspective, it's re-establish, not establish. (4) If we are describing the Wikipedia perspective, given NPOV, it's establish. BabyJonas (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Edward Said cited Moses Hess, who wrote over 3 decades before the doctrine known as Zionism was formulated. Said is describing an ideology, not a reality. The foundational documents in German and English speak of Palestine, not Land of Israel. Essentially you agree with the points made above regarding Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, which requires us to ascribe to Zionism the aim formally outlined by its founders, namely: "Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine. For the attainment of this purpose, the Congress considers the following means serviceable: (1) the promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine; (2) the federation of all Jews into local or general groups, according to the laws of the various countries; (3) the strengthening of the Jewish feeling and consciousness; (4) preparatory steps for the attainment of those governmental grants which are necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose. Herzl commented in his diary: “Were I to sum up the Basle Congress in a word - which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly - it would be this: At Basle I founded the Jewish State.” The Second Congress explicitly spoke of the colonization of Palestine The Homeland concept only starts much later, when the endorsement of the British Government is achieved, and intense lobbying then takes place to insert 'ancestral homeland' and 're-establishment' in language drafted on the issue by the Great Powers and the League of Nations around 1922. Even then, 'Palestine' the default term, being neutral and not religious, emerges in Zionist thinking as not 'the Jewish homeland' of Judea, but by 1923 it encompasses in the Carlsbad conference, a claim to all of Transjordan, and Palestine, just as Chaim Weizmann admitted in 1919 that the northern border of this 'home' would be set not by criteria of establishing Jews in the area they once dwelt in(ancestral homeland), but by economic calculations, and hence would extend into Lebanon (Litani river) and Syria (Yarmuk river), etc.etc. In short, Zionism's later public language is all rosily religious and ethnic rights ideology for international consumption, speaking of 'reclaiming' a specific lost area', but its real aims were, and this accounts for its success, were meticulously grounded on an extremely secular pragmatic analysis of resources and demographics to carry a projected large part of world Jewry, completely indifferent to the actual historical realities of ancient Israel. So we go for the original classical language of Zionism, and should not tinker with later educational indoctrination which speaks of a 'Land of Israel' or 'reestablishing' an ancestral state. Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Can you summarize exactly what it is you are arguing for? Is it just the wording in the lede? Or are you making a more sweeping claim that no mention of re-establishment should be mentioned whatsoever in the article? BabyJonas (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC) I am noting, as do others, that the definition in the lead is a piece of political rhetoric that does not reflect the declared purpose of Zionism in its classic formulation from 1897 to 1917, when the project found official endorsement. Classical Zionism did not speak of 're-establishment' or the 'Land of Israel'. It might help you to reflect on this statement, as it is subsequently outlined on the same page:In 1948, the State of Israel regained its independence and sovereignty. The following remarks aim at deleting the ‘re’ in ‘regained’. By no means does that make the present State of Israel less independent or sovereign. The scholar,Ernst Axel Knauf, starts out by making a statement which almost everybody would disattentively read and nod at, and then pulls its assumptions apart by showing home a-historical and slipshod the premises it contains are.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Okay, thanks for clarifying. And you believe all the official, stated literature on Zionism unequivocally repudiates the notion of "redefinition"? Does it render the language clearly incorrect, or is it just not the preferred language to use? BabyJonas (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Zionism has an immense literature of official and unofficial declarations. It's not a matter of Zionism repudiating this or that, but how Zionism defined its purpose, as stated in all historical books on the topic for the period indicated. The language we have is someone's POV spin, a widely circulated meme about the religious definition of Palestine as the 'Land of Israel', and the idea that somehow in all of Palestine there was once a Jewish homeland. It is true that Jews had a homeland in Palestine, so did a dozen other peoples, including Samaritans, Arabs (from at least the 4th century BCE), Phoenicians, Aramaeans, Idumeans, Edomites and the dozen tribes, Amorites, Hurrians, Egyptians, Hittites, Philistines, etc.etc.etc., and the heartland of the Jewish Palestinian population after the 7th century BCE was in Judea and its hinterlands. If Zionism had been less given over to myth, and precise, it would have said it aspired to re-establish the ancestral home in Judea, and perhaps more boldly, Samaria,though the latter had an estimated population of 500,000 Samaritans, not Jews in Talmudic terms, through most of that period. In stating the homeland in Zionism is in the Land of Israel, it is also implied that the homeland of the Jews was not Palestine, but the territory from Lebo Hamath to the Brook of Egypt and east to the Euphrates river, which was not what Herzl and earlier Zionists said. Throughout nearly all of its history (excluding the David Solomon romantic fiction's spin of a Dual Monarchy, for which there is zero archaeological or epigraphic evidence) it was subject to foreign powers. This is known to all scholars of antiquity but not to Zionist or many editors here. So the language used is not factual but distorts in simplifying a very complex situation in the ancient world. None of this alters the fact that Jews have a profound cultural attachment to that land and its Jewish history. The simple thing is just to stick to the official Zionist definition of their aims, and not try to spin history one way or another.Nishidani (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) I see your point, but my question is this: Are you arguing that the official Zionist definition unequivocally rules out any notion of re-establishment or the like? I want to drill down into whether the official Zionist definition is in clear contradiction to the claim of re-establishment. BabyJonas (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC) The whole sentence we have is a concoction by editors. On Wikipedia we follow source language. The source language for Zionism is in its official deliberations on aims set forth down to 1917, duly set forth. Anyone can construct a definition that challenges this: i.e., Zionism is an neo-colonial movement which aims to expel the indigenous people of Palestine from their homeland and replace it with Jews from anywhere on the planet, on the basis of a Biblical fantasy and a rabbinical tradition. A lot of people would define it thus, and have solid evidence to interpret what it does that way. We don't use that, as we don't invent the concoction we have. We use reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Well, you're focused on Reuters' index of 'terrorism'. Imagine what it is like for a normal reader of events, doing a small, arcane little page on reports on violence in your area, and having scruples that disallow him from adding to 'acts of violence' incidents of a kind that have occurred several times every day and night for 49 years to a captive, disarmed population under military occupation. Technically, every time an Israeli unit enters a Palestinian home after midnight usually, the practice is to smash things, and 'teach them a lesson'. That is both violent, and fits the definition of damage. It is reported only in Arabic sources regularly, and merely hinted at in Ma'an. We don't use it, so your workload is less, as is mine, but the reality is radically underdescribed. It is a form of systematic state terrorism, as defined in the Geneva Conventions and the relevant literature. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I'll transcribe just one page from Ben Ehrenreich's 448 page book which has just come out. He has an interesting ancedote from an Israeli checkpoint duty soldier who tried to soften up the intrinsic harshness of these places for local Palestinian kids by handing out a snack called Bamba to them. One kid took it and then shared it with the kind soldier. Ehrenreich‘s account runs: 'He opened the bag, and offered some to Eran. They sat and ate the chips together. When the boy walked off, Eran felt ecstatic. He could finally be the man he wanted to be, a soldier who was loved for his kindness and who at the same time, as he put it, “was protecting my country from a second Holocaust.” When he got back to the base that night, he was ordered to eat quickly and prepare for another shift, not at the checkpoint but on a “mapping” expedition into H1. He was still so high from his success with the Bamba that he didn’t mind the extra work. The routine was simple:’You go into houses in the middle of the night, get everybody outside, take a photo of the family, and start going around the house, destroying things.” The idea was to search for weapons, “but we also needed to send a message,” Eran said, to make sure the residents never lost “the feeling of being chased.” (It’s awkward in English, but it’s a single word in Hebrew. His officers used it a lot, Eran said.) His job was to draft maps of each house, charting the rooms, the doors, and the windows. “If at some point there was a terror attack from that specific house,” the army would be ready. That night, they searched, trashed, and mapped two houses in Abu Sneineh. It was snowy and cold. When they were done, the sun had not yet risen, so their officer chose one more house, apparently at random. They forced the family outside and into the snow and went in and started searching. Eran opened the door to a child’s room – he remembered seeing a painting of Winnie-the-Pooh on one wall – and had begun sketching when he realized that there was someone in the bed. A young boy leaped out from under the covers. He was naked. Startled, Eran raised his gun, aiming at the child. It was the kid from the checkpoint that afternoon. “He started peeing himself,”Eran said,”and we were just shaking, both of us, we were just standing there shaking and we didn’t say a word.” The boy’s father, coming down the stairs with an officer, saw Eran pointing a rifle at his son and raced into the room. “But instead of pushing me back,” Eran said,” he starts slapping his kid on the floor. He’s slapping him in front of me and he’s looking at me saying,”Please, don’t take my child.. Whatever he did we’ll punish him.’” In the end, the officer decided that the man’s behavior was suspicious, that “he was hiding something.” He order Eran to arrest him. “So we took the father, blindfolded him, cuffed his hands behind his back and put him in a military jeep.” They dumped him like that at the entrance to the base. ”He stayed there for three days in a very torn-up shirt and boxer shorts. He just sat there in the snow.” Eventually, Eran summoned the courage to ask his officer what would happen to the boy’s father. “He didn’t even known what I was talking about,” Eran said. “ “He was like, ‘Which father?” Eran reminded him. “You can release him,” the officer said. “He has learned his lesson.” After cutting the plastic ties that bound the ma n’s wrists, untying the blindfold and watching him run off barefoot in his underwear through the streets, Eran realized that he had never given the maps he had drawn. He hurried back to the officer’s room. “I really fucked up,” he told him, apologizing for his negligence. The officer wasn’t angry.”It’s okay,” he said. “You can throw them away”. Eran was confused. He protested: wasn’t mapping a vital task that might save other soldiers’ lives? The officer got annoyed. “He says, ‘Come on, Efrati. Stop bitching. Go away.” But Eran kept arguing. He didn’t understand. When it became apparent that he wasn’t going anywhere, the officer told him:”We’ve being doing mappings every night, three or four houses a night, for forty years.” He personally had searched and mapped the house in question twice before with other units. (Ben Ehrenreich, The Way to Spring: Life and Death in Palestine, Penguin 2016 pp.202ff.) I've read several of these kinds of reports every day for a decade, alluded to by even Ma'an as 'raid on a house' (with a person arrested), and none of the details books like Ehrenreich's have reported for several decades (and which anyone who knows the literature from 1933-1941 on the Jewish angst over of Gestapo house searches should recognize as being identical). If you take the officer's word for it, at a low estimate this practice works out to mean (3x365x49) something in the range of 53,655 incidents of violent storming of people's homes, on the pretext of 'terrorism' or 'to avoid a second Holocaust', in order to haunt Palestinians with a constant fear of being 'chased'. If you add that to Jeff Halpern's estimate (War Against the People: Israel, the Palestinians and Global Pacification, Pluto Press 2015) that 48,488 Palestinian homes have been razed by Israel's army of occupation since 1967, or that 87,305 Palestinians have been injured by military actions since September 2000, then the perspective on 'Terror' you get in your chosen source starts to look shaky. We report none of this. Abu Sneineh, where this incident took place, is in H1,that 18% of the West Bank, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority according to the Oslo Accords, where Israeli troops were never to set foot, and therefore was one island where a Palestinian might feel totally 'in his own land' free of the occupation. So if you're spaced out by my neglect of spacing in one or two edits, just think of the broader context, which is an empty space altogether and means both what you and I do captures almost nothing of the real world we are supposedly annotating there and on other pages.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC) From the talk page of user: Bolter21 I'm wondering what you think about my recent edits to Jerusalem. I'm not trying to canvas you, I'm just trying to decide whether it's worth pursuing considering the fact that the article will never be sane and I'm probably getting into edit war territory. (consider "the selectivity required to summarize some 5,000 years of inhabited history is often influenced by ideological bias or background. The periods of Greek sovereignty in the city's history are important to Greek nationalists, who claim the right to the city based on descent from Ancient Greece, of which Athens was the capital. In contrast, Turkish nationalists claim the right to the city based on descent from the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the city until recent times.") That would never happen though since only the jews' capital is controversial. Crazy fucks.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC) I didn't see anything special with those edits to be honest.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC) By the way, Happy New Year!--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Well do you see anything special about this edit? [79] (Nishidani will revert it for sentimental reasons) שנה טובה ומתוקה! --Monochrome_Monitor 08:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I agree with the edit and the principal, but is is obvious that a revert and a long discussion will follow.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Lol I was right! About who would revert it I mean.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I'm not a sentimentalist. I'm a realist. I read Anthony D. Smith's The Ethnic Origin of Nations before either of you were born, and even discussed this issue with him. He classifies Palestinians as an ethnic group without a political nation. I don't have a conflict of interest here. I've pointed out at great length on the talk page the fundamental flaws in the opening definition of Jews, with its insistence of a direct ethnic tie of descent from Israelites, etc.etc.etc. but I have the courtesy of not touching that page. Many editors who blindly support that WP:SYNTH travesty are unusually focused on how Palestinians are to be defined (not as they define themselves) by refusing to allow any right to be defined in similar terms as Jews in Israel, the state that is their adversary, are defined, i.e. as an ethnonational group, and it doesn not look like an example of editorial neutrality. I commend Bolter on this. He argued with vigour on the talk page, but hasn't tried to push his view onto the article. That shows delicacy. I wish more editors had at least a tingling of discomfort about charging in to define them. And writing, as above, as if this were just a game, is distasteful. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC) but I have the courtesy of not touching that page: [80]. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Yes, quite correct. I know you are the world's leading authority on diffs from my 49,000 contributions to Wikipedia,-and that you keep asserting there's evidence there I'm an antisemite - and I stand corrected. I have contributed frenetically over 8 and a half years precisely 0.21% of edits to that page, the serious ones all being mechanically reverted. I did so while using the talk page to the extent of contributing 3.36% of its content, to try and reason over why that specific definition breaks all wiki rules, otherwise rigorously applied to Palestinian definitions. Now could we drop these opportunities to disrupt a conversation and score points? Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC) All you had to do is not pretend to be better than the people you disagree with. I know that's difficult for you, but try to resist the urge and then I won't have to prove you wrong. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC) I suppose, I may be wrong, that you invariably use personal sneering in my regard because you know in principle I won't report it. In any case, please stop. It's boring.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC) That's ridiculous, you've reported me more than once. What I would like is for you to stop criticizing others for things you do too, particularly in such a way that says you're better than them. I think I've made my point so I won't be responding to this further. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "By refusing to allow any right to be defined in similar terms as Jews in Israel, the state that is their adversary, are defined," shows this is an emotionally loaded issue for you. The difference with Jews is that's a common definition of the term. Ideally it would say, or a convert to their religion, Judaism. This is different. The sources are all indirect and it's patently obvious palestinians are not an ethnic group- again, see the template "ethnic groups in palestine".--Monochrome_Monitor 21:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Lemmie jump in amd say that while I personally believe the Palestinians are an ethnonational tool for the destruction of Israel (Zair Muhsain said it first), I don't think I can stand and have an argument about a complex topic about Anthropology since dispite the fact I do read about it, I dont understand it much like Nish and putting my views in articles is not my primary objective. My primary objective is to remove other people's views fron articles (as long as they violate NPOV or just wrong). The subject of Palestinian ethnicity is not fundemental like the State of Palestine subject, in which people used rational arguments to hide the fact the SoP is not a state (Been there several times, didn't feel like a state either). Anyway feel free to continue this juicy argument here in my talkpage and maybe it'll be fruitfull. I am in a small wiki break but its nice to see some red notifications with spice (what am I even saying)-- (its bolter logged off)Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I think they began as an ethnonational tool for the destruction of Israel but now they've become a nation through a shared experience of suffering and israel-hatred. Your spelling is delightful as always bolter :) --Monochrome_Monitor 04:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Palestinian nationalism began 50 years before Israel was founded. Becoming a nation "through shared experience of suffering" and dislike of "the other" is exactly how most nations were constructed. The day you learn to consider other people's identities as having equal weight to your own, will be the day you can proudly say you are a full member of the human race. In the meantime, you should look into your own heart and consider how you lost the ability to see others as you see yourself. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC) None of us are, Oncenawhile, 'full members of the human race', except in the sense that 'full' can, in some dialects of English, mean 'drunk'. I agree with your point philosophically, but being a 'full' member of the human race is a project not a realized reality, for anyone.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Once again (still?) not full members of the human race. I just delete Oncenawhile's posts to my talk page. He's a sad little dude with sad little habits. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Why think Oncenawhile was portraying Jews as Nazis, when he was saying what Bernard Levin (Now read On, Cape 1990 p.21), and numerous other writers and thinkers, have often said: 'Have we made ourselves wholly self-contained - - to the extent that we cannot recognize other people as human ('She was nothing'), because we have dehumanized ourselves?' Or compare this speech by Robert F. Kennedy, since it has the same language, about extending full humanity to people denied it. Your analogy comes straight after complaining of my use of analogies. In any case, can't Bolter and I and a few others have a chat to talk through differences without this kind of barb?Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC) To be honest, I don't really give a damn what the Palestinians do with their nationalism. They can establish 72 states for all I care. The main problem with their nationalism is things like this, or this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. And cosmopolitanism is a false idea that will probably bring total devastation if someone will actually try to implement it, like in for example, a scenario in which the EU will start dissolving European governments and become a single country. Cosmopolitanism is like trying to make lions act like sheep, humans simply do not work like that. Back to Falasting.. Regardless of the roots of Palestinian nationalism, if the Arabs knew how to fight a war and Israel would have been destroyed in 1948, today there were no "Palestinians". The Jews didn't become a nation until the Nazis made them one, and same is for the Palestinians and their Nakba. The only differences are that the Jews already have 3,500 years of history while the Palestinians created themselves based on fictional colonial borders and the Zionist ethos is about the future while the Palestinian ethos is about the past. I really don't see any good future for the Palestinian society, with or without a state. The fact Palestine is a fractured dictatorship for more than a decade proves this, and it is not a superficial notion, when you look at Syria, Iraq or Libya. Yoav Gelber has a paragraph in one of his book, that sumerizes my point and it goes like this (translated by me): The answer to the question who commands who and where was the key to understanding the structure of the Arab force. Months of speculation did not led the Haganah to clear conclusions in this matter. The ties between the Arab League Military Committee, the Arab Higher Committee, the emergency committee in Jerusalem, Qawuqji in Samaria, Shishakli in the Galilee, Jihad al-Muqaddas, the cities' commanders and units of the Arab Liberation Army in the cities, the units of the Transjordanian Legion and Frontier Force in the Arab cities, the national committees and the municipalities – all of these were a puzzle that the Arabs themselves couldn't solve, while the Jewish and the British couldn't even understand it in hindsight --Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Read the history of the Irgun and Lehi 1936-1947, groups that played a key role in securing a Jewish state by resort to the deplorable terrorism whose Palestinian reflexes you rightly abhor. But I'll drop this conversation, which I thought was supposed to just talk about the anthropology of defining ethnic groups, because of the new disturbance to the relative equanimity with which we occasionally talk things over. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC) The Irgun later made peace with Egypt, but the Palestinians are still shooting people in restaurants--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Racial odium consists in regarding all people belonging to an ethnic group as culpable of some defect, crime, attitude, intrinsic to them by virtue of the nature of their identity i.e. refusing to treat them as individuals, one by one. What is anti-Semitism, but seeing a 'Jew' as not the person who he or she is or may be, but as already thoroughly known from the collective smearing streotypes about 'Jews' current in several quarters? When you say 'the Palestinians' in the above context, you are painting them as ineludibly branded as terrorists, culpable, responsible, for what some in their ranks have done. It's the same logic, of collective guilt by mere association, the fact of having the same ethnic background or nationality as thugs or murderers. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) The Palestinians are not terrorists, they are a tool used by terrorists.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC) In what way are 6 million people in Israel/Palestine tools of terrorists?Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC) When at first they are absorbed by Arab countries and denied civil rights in them and given a status of refugees for eternity. At first the PLO did not claim Gaza and the West Bank, they only claimed the "source of the refugees". While Egypt treated Gaza like a trash can, Jordan treated the West Bank as the other half of their kingdom. Suddenly when the Jews, sorry.. the Zionists, conquered Arab lands (WB, GS and Golan Heights), this is where the "Palestinians" come into place again, now not only refugees, but also under occupation. The Palestinian ethos is not about creating a strong, advanced nation with a high standart of living, the Palestinian dream is to put Israel in the dock and to make them suffer for their actions in 1948 and to alloy the Arab need for dignitiy, which was lost everytime they lost a war against Israel. It is already a religion. Now the Palestinian teenagers are born into bad circumstances, though not worse like in Syria, but far from sufficiant, and they are told by the people around them they have no future, and instead they are told to seek martydom, for their nation, for their religion, or for themselves. They see the Palestinian leaders praising the martyrs, they see the "heroic" death of their neighbors being celebrated by all of the village... They simply want to be "something" and the agenda is the Palestinian society advocates death over life so those teens go and stab soldiers, civilians, you name it. The IDF does the same, when they make propaganda videos of soldiers with gopro cameras, going in "exotic" regions like Nablus or Gaza, equiped with "awesome" gear and generally feal good with themselves and this is why so many teenagers in Israel still want to be combatants, but at least in Israel, death isn't praised by any large source but only the "pinch of radicals" as we like to call them. When a Jewish person burns a Palestinian family, you will have an endless debate, on hundreds of issues, including the right-wing in Israel, refusing the recognize the fact that a Jew murderes civilians. When a Palestinian teen stabs a 13 year old girl in her bed, there is no debate, he is a hero. If you disagree, you better keep it to yourself. Even if the person didn't even hit anyone, but only waved a knife, he is a "martyr", or a person whose death is holy. An Israeli soldier killed an injured terrorist and for 6 months he is in arrest and trial, with a debate that continues. In the Palestinian society you won't see such a debate, even for the most brutal killings, and not the extrajudicial killing of a criminal. This whole "popular resistance" is not just "desparate Palestinians stabbing people", this is a strategy, by the Palestinian leadership, to stay on mainstream media, and in the end of the day, recieve their luxury UN Security Council desicion to fuck Israel in some form, that will make them happy. I don't expect much from the people who murdered one Jordanian king, started a civil war while trying to murder another one and also tried to take over Lebanon. Some of those actions were made on behalf of the good will of the Soveit Union, which simply wanted to combat US' little friends. (By "the people" I mean the leaders and organizations of the Palestinian people, which are practicing two dictatorships in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Well, no point arguing then. Vague ideas and great historical overviews are fine. But the people who decide what's to be done usually combine hard analysis of the economics pros and cons. This doesn't quite apply here, because the Israeli occupation, as most analyses show, is deleterious for the Israeli short and medium term economy. As a Rand Corporation study indicated recently, were Israel to disengage from the West Bank it would benefit by $123 billion over a decade with a 5% rise in pro capita wealth, Palestine by $50 billion, with a 36% improvement in pro capita wealth. Why Israel remains has nothing to do with terrorism nor security, but (a) the whole occupation is sustained by an identitarian religious myth and (b)The obvious solution is not politically practicable, any more, for any person who wants to get elected to the Knesset. The occupation has led to a $300 billion cost in obstructed development for Palestinians, at a cost of a mere $50 billion for Israel, amortizable as having a long-term benefit return over cost when Israel completes its integration of that land. I'll just note that the West Bank and Gaza on the eve of the occupation in 1967 in your age group (15-17) had 44% of the youths in secondary school. Israel had 22.8% of the same age group.' Then Israel took over. What happened in the West Bank under occupation is too complex for a chat; things like the fact that immediately following the Oslo Accords, the West Bank began to deindustrialize, losing by 2010 88% of its predicted pre-1994 growth (IMT) increment; or things like not being a beneficiary of %150 billion in economic aid like Israel but having to face occupation losses equal to 84% of the local Palestinian GNP, or that as the authoritative World Bank (note a hive of Hamas/PLO executives and militants) estimates the cost of the Israeli occupation of the refusal of Israel to cede control over Area C, as it undertook to do in 1994, costs the Palestinian economy 3.5 billion annually, or that As for Gaza, how that was dedevelopped is the subject of Sara Roy's 'The Gaza Strip:A Case of Economic De-Development,' Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Autumn, 1987), pp. 56-88. I guess none of this matters. Terrorism makes headlines, and terror determines popular thinking, on both sides of the Green Land. The deeper issues are expendable.Still, you're young. Go out and enjoy yourself. None of our opinions will have the least impact of what will happen. Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC) When a society, condone and glorifies murder, murder will happen. No matter how bad the situation is. Though I don't have a source, I am most certain that there is more corolation between a social acceptence of terrorism and terrorism, rather than poverty and terrorism. The reason why terrorism is most common among Muslims in the 21st century is becuase in the 21st century, the majority of those who condone terrorism are radical Islamists. I do not think that the prize for blowing up busses is a sovereign state, but the Palestinians condone the violance anyway, believing the killings of Israelis are going to change anything, while in reality, it seems to only worsen their situation and has a deep connection to the radicalization among Israel's youth who later enlist to the army as fighters. The result is always the same: more dead Palestinians, which most Palestinian leaders use either as a tool against Israel in the UN or against Israel in Israel.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Terrorism? In 6 years (2010-16) the village of Nabi Salih had nearly 60% of its members (350 people) shot or injured by IDF soldiers firing on them during their weekly protest marches to reclaim their land. I know, they were 'rioting'. Not one Israeli soldier, backed by the most powerful army in the region, was ever in danger from a disarmed population, on their own land. If you want to breed hatred, even a terrorist here or there, that is the perfect way to go about it.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC) This might sound very anachronistic and millitary minded but you don't surrender to "weekly protests", you don't award them. Radical settlers know that and they enjoy it with the Temple Mount and other areas. The solution to that will only be to kick Naftali Bennet and his friends from the coalition. He is starting to feel like our Hitler. Back to Nabi Salah. I"ve heard from first source about the Nabi Salah protests (my high school was as "lefitst" as you), and while it sounds like a "hamble village protesting the occupation of its spring by foreigners", in reality, it is a cinema show, that cynically uses the villagers in order to create headlines. People come from all over the world, who want to feel heroic and fight for justice, coming and making provocations on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, which seeks to put the "Palestinian problem in the headlines". Already in the past it was discovered that PA officials are present in the village and create an "army" of youth for the violent riots and there are already dozens of cameramen waiting to take the picture of their lives. The PA and foreign organizations fund this "army" and the so-called Israeli "anarchists" just love this place. This is the sort of the stuff the brings the EU to spend tax money for more provocations, leading to pressure on Israel leading to the UN security council desicion the Palestinians want so bad, so they won't have to sit and refuse to accept Israel's fair offer, and now conveniently for them there is a clown leading Israel. By the way, funny thing, Aleppo is smaller than Gaza, yet has about the same amount of civilians. A section of it has 300,000 civilians completely trapped under siege and in the last 14 days close to 400 civilians were killed (and if you compare the death per residence, the Aleppo death rates are actually twice as harsh as Gaza, without considering the fact not all 500 Gazans who were killed in the first 14 days were civilians), but it seems the world didn't really care too much about. AJ+ which posted several videos during the operation in Gaza, only cared to publish one video, talking about the war crimes made by Shimon Peres. CNN didn't post anything special about Aleppo. Still nice to see the BBC and Reuters, posting around 5-6 vidoes in the last 14 days. Social Media? Nothing. And no I havent shifted to the right.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Where do these 22.8% and 44% numbers come from? They seem pretty unlikely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC) I cited the source years ago, registering the details on 2 articles, from which they have often been removed, and I keep having to put them back. See Culture of Palestine and Education in the Palestinian territories. The divergence is probably explained by the impact of massive Mizrachi immigration from the mid late 50s. It comes from my own copy, so I can't link it.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Hi Nishidani would you mind typing out a short quote from the source? I looked online (see the google books version at Elias H. Tuma; Haim Darin-Drabkin (1978). The Economic Case for Palestine (RLE Economy of Middle East). Routledge. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-317-59856-5.) but I couldn't find it. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC) There's much there that is forgotten of what the state of Palestinian society was like before the occupation. In any case:'Almost universal education was characteristic of the 15-24 age group, while almost two-thirds of those going to school had over nine years of schooling. 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 high 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.'p.48. They add also that from 1956-1967, the student population in the (later) territories grew by 7.% per annum, way aboved the annual 3% increment in population growth. High school participation grew annually by 12.8%. Tertiary, college entry grew from 800 (1959) to 5,000 in 1966-7 (p.49). The occupation began of course and these pseudos all dropped their pretenses to be really enjoying the benefits and prospects of universal free compulsory 12 years of education provided by Jordan, and reverted to type by becoming Muslim-Arab-Islamic-terrorist/stone-throwing 'donkeys', driven by millennia of anti-Semitism. 50,000 home demolitions, 600,000 gaoled, 30,000 wounded in the first intifada, 91,000 thousand since the second, these are all irrelevant trivia that had no impact on the way Palestinians think or behave, etc.etc..Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC) That sounds even less likely. While I have no problem believing the Palestinians had higher education levels than their host countries because of UNRWA run schools, I have serious doubts they were higher than in Israel, both for practical (ei infrastructure) and cultural reasons. Israel already had a couple of world class universities and was forced to and very cognizant of its need to rely on its human capital. Also a drop from 80% in primary school to 20% in secondary doesn't sound likely at all. Here are some relevant statistics about edutation in the Middle East at the time, although it doesn't specifically mention the Palestinians. Notice that it says that in 1969 the enrollment in both primary and secondary in Israel was 81%. The source Oncenawhile posted doesn't seem to support 44% in secondary school either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC) '1969 the enrolment in both primary and secondary in Israel'. I cited the secondary school statistics for 15-17 year olds, very specific. The source was a book written by 2 Israeli economists, Elias H. Tuma, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of California, and Haim Darin-Drabkin, a UN consultant on land policy. Their bibliography indicates they rely on Israeli official statistics. 29& of Israeli high schoolers went into vocational education in 1960, and that rose to 44% by the end of the decade, and large nos of those were Mizrachi. Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC) In any case, the point was, Palestinians in 1967, in econometrics, had an excellent educational basis for economic take-off and high growth (that is their conclusion) - much better placed that Arabs in surrounding countries. Bolter appears to think that a military occupation and total control of the land resources has no relevance. These things, if read, are ignored.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Considering that reviews (and the title) say this book is polemic, and that it contradicts other sources (not to mention common sense), I am fairly sure those numbers are incorrect. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Well. I've read the book. There is no polemical content. It is a technical analysis, written by men who were authorities in their fields. I read one or two reviews which were devoid of intelligent content. There is nothing in the title that is polemical. You've not shown where it contradicts other sources: Tuma has written extensively on that field. 'Commonsense' is an empty term, subjective. Your commonsense may suggest it is impossible that Palestinian youths at that age had statistically a better level of education than the average Israeli. The source says otherwise. It may be wrong, but the writers are highly qualified experts precisely on this area. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Bolter, your comments are interesting to read, and you are clearly a thoughtful and balanced individual. I'll add just two further comments to this: Robert Pape has studied every suicide attack in the world since 1980, evaluating over 4,600 in all. He concludes: "What 95 percent of all suicide attacks have in common, since 1980, is not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention, often specifically a military occupation, of territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. From Lebanon and the West Bank in the 80s and 90s, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and up through the Paris suicide attacks we’ve just experienced in the last days, military intervention—and specifically when the military intervention is occupying territory—that’s what prompts suicide terrorism more than anything else."[81] You have also enquired before why do so many neutral people with no skin in the game support the Palestinian cause, despite the inhuman methods of those who commit terrorist attacks, and why is Israel singled out for criticism when so many other countries do bad things. These all tie back to the same point - military occupation. As Pape says, military occupation is the single biggest factor in motivating terrorism. And Israel's military occupation of Palestinian land is by far the longest military occupation in modern global history. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC) It is one of the "beautifull notions" out there that "only if we stop occupation, there would be no terrorism". Funny enough, while 95% of sucide bombings according to Pape are made against occupations, 99% of the suicide bombings are made by Muslims. What do you assert from that? That suicide bombing is the result of Islam? Anyway I checked his theory, and it most certainly the absolute opposite of the situation in 2015. If you look at the statistics you see that most of the suicide bombings were not really by occupied people. ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia; Islamist rebels in Syria; Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan; al-Shabaab in Somalia, al-Qaida in Yemen. Out of the 875 suicide bombings doccumented by the GTD, I saw no more than 5 that you might say are cuased by occupation. The attempted suicide bombing near Ma'ale Admumim, two suicide bombings by the PKK, one by Uyghur seperatists and two by Tuareg seperatists. So either Pape's argument is outdated, or he is drunk from his pacifism. It is really fun to say "if the US didn't invade Iraq in 2003, there wouldn't be terrorist attacks", but it seems that while the US left, the suicide culture of the Middle East stayed.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Terrorism is a culture. You can have terrorism, only when you live in a society that endorses terrorism, publically or covertly. In Israel of 2015, you hardly have any terrorist attacks (one in 2014, three in 2015, apparently zero in 2016) and you hardly have any "honor killings" within families or between different ones. It is the Arabs and Muslims, who collectively still live in a regressive culture, in which murdering people is seem as legitimate by at least 1%, which is all it takes. And I am not an Ashkenazi Elitist, I can openly say that the oftenly called "Jewish-Arabs" (i.e. the regressive Mizrahis) are also sharing some of those cultural views on murder, as murder is generally more common among them. At the time of war, even the most cultured Ashkenazi people, lived in an environment, that endorsed things like this. You might say that in an occupied community, the chance of violance being endorsed by the people and leaders is higher, but I am not quite sure how this is fighting an occupation. In Israel, the only places where you see a long of racial violance is among the radicals who are able to justify and endorse it. Among the Ultra-Orthodox and Ultra-Nationalists.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Pape doesn't say "directly caused by", he says "in response to" occupation, and that the "vast majority of suicide terrorists hail from the local region threatened by foreign troops".[82] Your second post is great. Your two observations: "1%, which is all it takes" and "in an occupied community, the chance of violence being endorsed by the people and leaders is higher" are very balanced. Obviously it's not as simple as remove the occupation and suddenly hatred will turn into romance. All (!) that is needed is an acknowledgement within mainstream Israeli society that the root cause of the problem is occupation not anti-Semitism or other forms of fundamental hatred. What the solution is from there is clearly a highly complex question. The biggest barrier to peace is propaganda. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC) I don't think we should be preaching here, one way or another. It helps to have an exchange, analytical, data-based, at times just to get to know each other better. Bolter's argument is 'ontological' (Arabs,Muslims, terrorism) and arguments of an historical-economic-sociological order generally make no impact. They are two different modes of thinking.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Exactly Oncenawhile, when you see the MKs in Israel saying things like "all terrorists must die", someone will shot a wounded terrorist. The propaganda in Israel is a bit more complicated, because all of Israel's mainstream media, Channel 2, Channel 10, Ynet, Haaretz, Walla! etc. are all condamning of such actions, while the only media in contrast is things like Arutz Sheva, Channel 20 (you probably never heard of it), 0404 News and Rotter news, which except for Arutz Sheva, is a compilation of facebook-page-like websites and television shows, hosted by people who don't really understand too much in the reality, and bring stories that are not really important but present them as news. (For example, channel 20 made sure everyone will know that the Hebrew Wikipedia voted to delete an article about a terror victim, and brought "professionals" to talk about it). Still the mainstream media in Israel is written by the Left (Channel 10, Haaretz, Walla!) or by the centre/centre-right (Ynet, Channel 2) and not by the pro-settlement, religious-nationalist bloc of the right, which represents a too big portion of the Israeli government. The only ways to condone violance in Israel is through small facebook pages, mostly viewed by youth and soldiers, like the one owned by Yoav Eliasi and yet he does not directly condone violance, but does what Israel's right does all the time: shame the left and deny that Jews are wrongdoing, which is very different from what the Palestinians are doing, who are not denying wrongdoing, but simply deny the "wrong" part. While right wing Israelis will say "A Jew didn't murder Muhammad Abu Khadeir, the is a libel by the Arabs and the Left, the kid was a suspected homosexual and was killed by one of his family members", in the Palestinian society, you will see the reporters in PA or Hamas owned media, always using the a spesific language for describing assailants, regardless of their actions, always calling them "martyrs". The amout of people in Israel who have the guts to publically call Baruch Goldstein a "martyr" on mainstream media and if he does, he is going to recieve shaming. Most of the Israelis will tell you they dispise Baruch Goldstein, saying "he is not Jewish", "He doesn't represent Israel", on the same weight as the Muslims saying "ISIS isn't Muslim", "They do not represent us", but with the Palestinians, the people who don't represent them are people like Mahmoud Abbas, which "dares" to come the funeral of a "Zionist war criminal". The anwer to the question "why do Palestinians support stabbing attacks" is the same answer to the question why did the Germans supported the Nazis. While not all Germans supported the Nazis, the majority did and the minority was either silenced or didn't dare to speak. The Palestinians are ruled by a dictatorship called "national dignity", and it is simmilar to the same dictatorship that starts to take over many Jewish minds in Israel, called "Complete Israel" (not "Greater Israel") and many of them are generally nice people, who don't hate Arabs, don't know much about the conflict.. don't really care to understand what is going on, but when you talk about "dividing the Land", they will answer "NO! Why will we give up lands? for what? This is our land!, Why are the Arabs needing lands? They can move to Jordan! Last time we gave them lands it ended in the death of 1,500 Jews! Are you crazy?", is if someone formatted their brains with a disc. The difference is that the Palestinians didn't have a Ben Gurion to supress the radicals, they simply are radicals. While my people are also radical, at least "it is not their problem", their radicalization is not really going to change anything, becuase they are not the ones under occupation. If the Palestinians made Satyagraha instead, today there was no State of Israel, simply becuase we were deep in the Mediterranean Sea. I don't remember who said it, but there is a quote, saying "The best way to defeat Israel, is to make peace with it".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC) The anwer to the question "why do Palestinians support stabbing attacks" is the same answer to the question why did the Germans supported the Nazis. You didn't explain why the Germans supported the Nazis, but forget it. "The best way to defeat Israel, is to make peace with it" The logical form of this example is:- An occupying power can only be defeated if the occupied people sue for peace. I can think of no example in history where this applies. In fact it is pure fantasy. Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC) U.S. Admits Israel Is Building Permanent Apartheid Regime — Weeks After Giving It $38 Billion. --- Ijon Tichy (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC) I think we're spoiling (I feel responsible) Bolter's youth and leisure. These arguments, posed in this way, are intrinsically inconclusive, like the peace process itself. All one is left with is an obligation to understand the mechanisms of why a resolution of that conflict is politically impossible. There's an abundance of obscure studies on that, any one of which deserves more attention than following the froth of news channels, newspapers, social gossip, facebook, etc. Bolter shouldn't feel obliged to keep up the conversation, which has in any case,served its poipose.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC) The following was originally written by user 'Monochrome Monitor,' but Nishidani added the links. Nishidan's edit summary was: "Annotating a toddler's version of a copyright violation from the Ministry for Hasbarah: I didn't drop anything about entine. I have always defended him as a source. I have never defended yanover, I agree jewishpress is a crappy source except for info on america's modern orthodox. You think I have no individuality? Your responses are boilerplate anti-israel rhetoric. "Fizzle in the guy", "oppressors", "carpet bombing". It's ridiculous. Calling vietnam genocide is also ridiculous and appalling to people who have known real genocide. (Intent to destroy a people in whole or in part? I think not) 1. The "500 children killed" meme is a figure published by Hamas which includes adolescent fighters. 2.It's ballsy to compare Hamas to jewish rebels against the romans, I'll give you that. 3. Jews in the Bar Kochba revolt were fighting against foreign domination, hamas is fighting against a lawfully imposed blockade implemented because of their belligerence. Israel occupied the territories because they were used to wage war against it, occupied judea to weaken the persian empire. Israel isn't concerned that the rockets will kill massive numbers of people, they have the iron dome for that. They are concerned about the fact that most of their population is hiding in bomb shelters and daily life cannot continue until the barrage stops. Hamas uses unguided missiles that are cheap to produce, the iron dome uses guided missiles that are expensive to produce. As the missiles continue they are losing a lot of time and money, and their population is panicking. You also say that "more palestinians died than israelis". That's not how proportionality works. It's the proportion of civillians (sic) killed to legitimate military objectives accomplished, not one side's deaths to another's deaths. [Israel is defending its country], not expanding it. Gazans live in a modern society despite their lack of high-tech weaponry to kill Israelis. Gaza has luxury cars, iphones, fancy hotels. If you're rich of course, most people live in poverty, but that's class stratification for you. It's asymmetrical war fare. For asymmetrical warfare a 1:1 (israel's figure) or even 2:1 (hamas's figure) civilian:combatant ratio is actually pretty great. Compare it to the afghanistan war's 4:1. You focus on the 'suffering of Gazas (sic)- which I agree is immense, and the feeling that its a great injustice. But think about it. Why would Israel WANT to make gazans suffer? Even assuming they don't care about them at all (as the demonizers say) its a waste of money on expensive munitions and a source of international opprobrium. It is in their interest to minimize civilian casualties. My empathy for suffering is distinct from my conception of justice. Justice is not making sides suffer equally in warfare, or else Germany should have carpet-bombed los angelos like we did dresden.- .--Monochrome_Monitor 19:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC) FYI: I've got it into my head to do from 300-500 of these articles [on Australian native people], overhauling the whole area. It's pretty scandalous that wiki has virtually zilch of the rich ethnographic harvest over the last century on that erased history. You look at numerous town articles, like one I read yesterday on Coen and find out that their history begins with a European, 1623, Jan Carstensz, and then jumps two and a half centuries till gold was discovered. Not a hint that the Kaantyu and Wik-Munkan tribes lived there and left extensive ceremonial sites of totemic stone lines, or ant-bed sacred sites used for complex increase rituals, and intricate papers exist sifting the last murmurs of those tribesmen speaking distinctive complex languages , papers that endeeavour to claw back some lineaments of their obliterated cosmologies. I don't care if the articles aren't read. I do care to see that those victims of genocide are memorialized encyclopedically. I'll probably never finish it, but it must be done, eventually. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC) And the Zionist me looked at the map of the peninsula and asked myself "why don't the Australians prop up a port city there?".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC) See Sahul Shelf. Don't want to despoil you of an illusion, but you're not a Zionist: you're an Israeli with a neo-liberal outlook someone confused with Reagan-Thatcherism, caught up as is natural in a doctrinal system that forms part of Israeli national life, but probably an historical impediment to 'normalization'. As to the 'port city there', that is exactly what was attempted, first at Albany Island, then Somerset, and by various entrepreneurs and multinationals, American, English, Chinese, Japanese, etc. The logic was - there's huge wealth there, let's develop it. I guess you are aware that the creation of a Jewish state in north Western Australia was an option on the boards back in the 30s. Australians tried to barge in with a cotton-industry and, predictably, turned part of the Kimberley wetlands into a dustbowl in 10 years. By the way, there's a fascinating chap Howard Goldenberg who's been interviewed about his experiences up north, here a list of the interviews here, or the quick one here. Well worth listening to. Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC) I don't see how being a neo-liberal (which I wouldn't completely identify as) interferes with being a Zionist, which is more of a nationalist identity rather than an economic one. The fact I support liberal ideas and do not feel racist toward Arabs, doesn't mean I want to live in a binational state or worse. I support the most democratic option of a Jewish state. If the Arabs were smart, they would follow the Druze and be our "dogs" for 50 years, until they would be strong enoguh politically to hold the Jews in the balls, but instead they choose to sit in the opposition, doing nothing and receive only 50% of the votes from the Arabs. I am confident that this scenario will never happen, becuase the Arab parties are Islamist/Communist/Nationalistic and very corrupt. And I always say, that the best way to save the Jews, was to bring them to Israel, because the US is not an option, because many Jews were marxist, while most of the Jews would not leave everything behind and move to Unganda, Austrialia, Alaska or Madagascar. If you could gather a couple thousand Jews, infused with nationalism to Israel, they would fastly establish a community that would appeal to the rest, and that's how it grew. Now we are seeing the American Jews being less Jews and more American and they do non-Jewish things, like voting for politically-correct-establishment-allies-corrupted-warmongers like Hillary Clinton. In other words, I prefer to give the authority to people of my own kind, and not live as guests in a different country, so if we fuck up, at least we can take responsibility for it. Having no other choices is sometimes better than having multiple choices.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC) (Plot spoiler: The following stinks of condescension.) Well, you're very young, and like vast generalizations, that by their nature cannot be debated. All ideologies, and Zionism is just one little ethnonationalistic variation, tragicomical in its anachronism, give those who grow up within them an infinite series of pat responses that are all utterly predictable. The one certain consequence is that a nationalist, qua nationalist, has nothing to say, because he must yield authority to a form of public discourse that takes precedence over experience, or imposes its interpretations prescriptively over how anything is to be experienced. I've had variations of this conversation with Soviet-or Chinese-area Communists, Hungarian or Ukrainian patriots, Japanese and Korean nationalists, Italian fascists, neocon economists, rednecks, American grand strategists, etc. The language looks different in each case, but if you boil any stretch of it down to a propositional content, it reveals the same closed structure, absolutely impermeable to reality- They're all very eloquent on the big picture: once the conversation is steered to details, personal experience, the intricate complexities of specific historical moments, they get uncomfortable. If I told you that I prefer to give the authority to people of my own kind, and not live as guests in a different country translates into I defer to authority according to the ethnicity of the person wielding it. If the ethnicity is the same as mine, it has more traction on me than it would were it exercised in exactly the same manner by someone whose ethnicity differs from mine. (in very practical wiki terms you give the lie to this because you do not assign automatically more intrinsic merit to a 'pro-Israeli' editor's POV than that of his or her adversary in an edit dispute, but try to evaluate the merits of various proposals rationally) This is a tribal attitude. Of course, we're all free to embrace whatever set of values we prefer. But neoliberalism is diametrically opposed to tribalism: its fundamental premise is that the individual is a rational agent best positioned to determine his own choices, and that any collectivist interference in or hindrance to that individualist ethic disrupts the natural optimal allocation of resources in a way detrimental to both the individual's pursuit of happiness and his society's overall wellbeing. The whole project of liberalism is hostile to tribalism (communitarian values, redistributive justice, governmental intervention), which is regarded as a key drag on economic rationality. Like all ideologies, Zionism reckons it can reconcile both, and pragmatically, this works out as Matthew 6:3.'doing acts of charity, do not let your left hand know what your right does'.Nishidani (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC) As a citizen of the State of Tel Aviv, I am well aware of the tribalism and "anachronism" of my views. While I think "anachronistic" is a way of saying "I don't like your notion, but I will criticize it for being outdated", I do accept the idea of tribalism, just like I support the idea of eating - I am a human, and that's what human do. "People of my own kind" do not translated to "Jews", people of my own kind translates to "allies", i.e. most people who have lived in this country for the last 68 years. I won't oppose the notion of a Druze or even Muslim Prime Minister, as long as he is not an: Islamist, Communist or Nationalist (Arab nationalist). All of those three groups, which form the Arab parties in Israel, are hostile to all I believe and not only hostile but also foreign. "My own kind" are the "sane majority" which excludes: radical-left, radical-right, Halachic, islamist, anti-Zionist and ultra-nationalist, these are the people I deem foreign and/or hostile to my ideal state. Marxists, of any shape and form, whether they are "Democratic Socialist" or "Progressive(=Regressive) Left" are not welcome. People who put nationalism as first priority, or people who reject the non-Kosher democracy are not welcome. People who think that you should not defy Israel's construction rules, unless you build on Arab property should be removed from the government. People who get angry at the police for not stopping honor killings, but on the same time refuse to cooperate with the police are not welcome. People who sympathize with the Palestinian cause and/or want a binational state and/or Pales. right of return, are welcome to move to Gaza and live under Hamas. People who shut "the Arabs are cancer and we don't make peace with cancer...everyone who said [population transfer]..is not Jewish, is not Democratic - Jewish Blood on their hands!" should be tortured by the Shin Bet. All of these groups are welcome to be a minority in my country, but I will not submit to them, and those groups, who are a minority in Israel, tend to be the majority in many other countries. My agenda is not the agenda found in Germany, France or the United States, and I do not want to be a minority in those countries. My agenda can only be found among most of the Israelis and some of the world's Jews. In other words, the Jewish state, which still has a majority of "my own kind" and is still democratic, has the best potential to care about my interests, becuase my interests are shared by most of the people here, with all the disagreements, wars and shitty politicians and I wish to conserve that and not submit my life to the Halacha or to a broken Cosmopolitan world, which is a ticking self-destruction bomb that refuses to look at reality in the eyes.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC) And as I said before, I do not think I am a neo-liberal.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Just to clear up a misperception. When I said anachronism, I was referring to Tony Judt's essay. Of course it upset the chattering classes, but it is an exemplary, if obvious, application of historical analysis and sociological reasoning, something regarded with distaste in Zionist discourse.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC) "A state for Jews" and "A state where Jews have privileges" are two versions of the same thing, but the writer decided to use the latter to define the concept of a "Jewish State". The Arabs are not constitutionally second class citizens (I've read Adala's list of laws, total bullshit), they are de-facto second class citizens, because the tools of Israeli democracy stand in front of their face, but Arabs were never a democratic people. It seems hundreds of years separate us from Arab democracy, which is today synonymous with Authoritarian–Marxism or Theocratical–Islamism, which are usually the outcome of democratic projects in the Arab world. The writer is ultra-biased: he completely mislead the reader by very good manipulative tactics. For example, he shows three options in a dilemma: To leave and dismantle the settlements; To annex the territories; To cleanse the country of Arabs. He explains the problem of the second option, saying it will create a clash between "Jewish" and "Democratic". He explains the problem with the third option, saying it is "fascist", but he does not explain the problem with the first option. The ignorant reader clearly understands from the lack of criticism of the first option, that it is the only option, and he would never guess the reason why Israeli withdrawal can't be done so simply, is because Israel doesn't want to create the world's largest terrorist base, while startig a civil war at home. Speaking about fascists, the manipulative writer uses the revisionist past of the Herut movement, which he deems as fascist, to try and construct an thesis that explains the Likud party is actually fascist. As far as I know, the Herut movement was not fascist. It was nationalistic, but not fascist and its later ideological father was the first with with the balls to make peace, and with Israel's biggest enemy at the time, Egypt. The movement under Bibi also accepted democracy and continued to implement the Oslo Accords dispite them opposing it in the previous Knesset, which is more than what Marwan Bargouti or Hamas will ever offer with the death of the Dictator. The next point the writer makes in order to convince us the Likud is fascist, is that Ehud Barak supports the assasination of "Paletsinian politicians". He asserts that assasinating Palestinians is "political assasination", but the Palestinians are not a state, and their politicians are actively involved in terrorism against Israel (or if you want, "resistance"), including Arafat, Abbas and the rest. Is assasinating Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi "political assasination"? What about assasinating fascists? Look at the politicians the Palestinians assasinated: Abdullah I of Jordan, Wasfi al-Tal and Rehavam Ze'evi. The avarage Palestinian leader is worse than Meir Kahane in his terrorist, but if his assasination is a "fascist made-political assasination", then the assasination of Kahane as well as Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane, Meir's son, was made by fascists. So can we please go on and talk about assasinating "fascists"? The writer talks about Sharon and Olmert as "bad guys", but Sharon was the one who disengaged from Gaza, while Olmert created the Realignment plan and was the closest ever to reaching an agreement in the Annapolis Conference, which was the main cuase why he is now in jail. So this article is anachronistic. It doesn't matter who sits at Israel's cabinet, the condescending writers, looking at the Jews with double standard, will always find a way to delegimize them. Another way of seeing this writer doesn't really represent reality is the way he says "There are indeed Arab radicals who will not rest until every Jew is pushed into the Mediterranean, but they represent no strategic threat to Israel" yet Hamas was elected in 2006. Everyone who observed the Palestinian community with honesty since 1920 knows the reality did not change. Recently discovered Benny Morris agrees with that notion, which was surprising. The Second Intifada is all the proof needed. Later the writer adopts the Benjamin Netanyahu Doctrine: Frighten them with Nukes. Yeah, Israel has nukes, and? What does that prove to you? That Israel is North Korea? They are the strong and the Falastinyyun are the weak, cause in the 50s Israel created nukes, long before Israel occupied the West Bank or Gaza. Give me one good reason for Israel to destroy its nuclear monopoly. And the writer blames Israel's North Korea-like behavior to the world's loss of faith in the US which supports it, but the reason why the world is loosing faith in the US, especially in 2003 was because of this. Also, Russia and Qatar do a fairly good job at spreading anti-Western agenda worldwide. But NO, the Jews are to blame. We also killed the dinosaurs apparently. Reaching only half of the aritcle, I really have no interest in continuing to read, it"ll probably be the same things I hear all day. Frankly, most of this article's ideas can be found in comments made by actual anti-semites all accross the internet, which shows exactly the only outcome of this article: to arm ignorants with "rational" arguments to justify their love for roasted Jews. It reminds me of the shameless arguments made by Adolf H... Sorry, by Ilan Pepe, which is amazingly worse than Gideon Levy. (And I really don't mind comparing Pepe to the Furher, he has done the same with me).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Your comments are very primitive. I've read 3 books and numerous essays by Tony Judt. You haven't, but have a huge set of opinions about what he studied in profound depth for several decades on the strength of an unfinished glimpse at one article he wrote. As to the bold off-the-cuff adolescent generalizations, like 'Arabs were never a democratic people,' well, a jejune reader of Israel Shahak's books might slip into the temptation of replacing Arabs with 'Jews' above, since Shahak's argument is that the whole emphasis of Jewish religious tradition is theocratic, ethnocentric and anti-democratic. But to do so would be to commit the same error you make, identifying a cultural essence from one thread of tradition and sticking it as a destiny on people ethnically related to it - which is typical of what dyed-in-the-bull nationalists always do. Like it or not, Islamic civilization for 1,300 years has adorned with magnificent architecture and splendid poetry, to speak of just a few things, everywhere from India to Morocco, Sicily and Spain, and any heir to that civilization can feel profoundly in debt to the way that tradition inflected the world, not to speak of the fact that it was the only place Jewish communities thrived for over a millennium free of the lethal hatred and anti-Semitism which the West inflicted on Jews (I know, dhimmitude: yawn). One of my most moving experiences was waking at dawn in Beit Sahour to a muezzin's call over Bethlehem. Israel is now suppressing this inimitable part of the historic landscape of its nook in the Middle East by banning that, too, as 'noise pollution'. I'll copy a passage I once wrote out based on a memoir by a NYT journalist:'A devoutly Christian ancestor of Anthony Shadid, to cite one unforgettable example, lived in a Greek Orthodox village, Marjayoun just north of Palestine, side by side with a small but devout Sunni minority, and on occasion the fellow would ascend the minaret and do the muezzin a favour by sharing the burden and singing out over the town the prayers of his Muslim neighbours. His voice was famous for its sweet, powerful euphony, and the gesture, lending his gift to the faith of a minority, secured a conviviality we can no longer imagine.' This is called tolerance, and it is what is fast disappearing from our collective landscape. Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sub-Section

Community discussion on WP:Expert retention

The following is mostly a direct copy-paste, or a minor paraphrasing, of select quotes from WP:Expert retention: "... Wikipedia is consumed by its own nonfeasance. Tribes of influential (i.e., those that have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors make WP their playground for their own particular agendas. They subvert WP policies and they have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say. People who follow strict and standardized interpretations of policies threaten that and must be stalked and rebuffed." ... "The bad guys (the ideologues and undercover political "dirty tricks" operatives, among others) are winning this struggle for control of Wikipedia." ... "What is happening is precisely what I feared ... the work is being bowdlerised and corrupted" ... "There exists a class of editor so driven by ideological agendas that they will pretend to recognize Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy but in reality seem to believe that it means that the NPOV policy guarantees uncritical place for their interpretations regardless of how flimsy the supporting facts or underlying logic might be. Worse, after an exhausting effort to bring these under control in a few months a fresh batch of POV pushers, related or unrelated to the first, show up to the same topics and the process must begin again from scratch." ... "There are just too many people with perverse agendas, who care little for objective truth .... private agendas hidden beneath arguments; people who fill up talk pages with nonsense; who see the truth of contrary arguments yet refuse from selfishness to acknowledge them; who endlessly Wikilawyer the most obvious points, and enforce not the policies but the policies as they privately interpret them through the grid of their own private agendas." "...pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively and are not able to recognize when there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most disruptive group of all on WP). Users who persist in making poorly-sourced edits, who continually attempt to use Wikipedia to promote theories that are widely discredited or continuously attempt to insert unfounded personal beliefs" ... "Some contributors seek to exploit our openness in order to promote controversial or extreme positions, often attempting to present them as fact or as theories which have recognized merit among experts. Other editors stubbornly modify articles to represent their mistaken or distorted interpretation of their sources" ... "editors attempting to correct an egregious error or blatantly POV article are labeled as "tendentious" and banned. Groups of determined editors typically "hijack" controversial or popular articles and stake out a POV based on an incorrect position that supports their point of view, defending through sheer numbers and/or sockpuppets against any opposing edits (see Wikipedia:Tag team). Such behavior is increasingly happening in Wikipedia in cases of "kingdom building" or WP:OWN. Examples of such ownership or "hijacking" behavior can be found in the Wikipedia articles of controversial politicians. Good-faith attempts to edit or provide some balance to such articles are usually met with hostile mass reverts of edits." ... "POV-pushing editors also dupe unsuspecting editors who are new to the particular WP article, and continue to swamp up discussion to push their POV. If they make some truly good points, these new editors will do the work of the POV-pushers for them." ... "The guidelines do allow "experts" to cite their own scholarly publications at arms length, NPOV being adhered to, naturally. One problem is that not all the admins know this and/or sometimes choose to ignore it. I got into a spat with an admin over correcting some details of a bio of a controversial research scientist I know who did early work on MRI. This was all done according to the Wikipedia rules, naturally. I also made the horrendous mistake of revealing my true ID (I'm an MD, PhD researcher). Next I know, the admin is wandering through Wikipedia deleting as many of my postings as he can, under the excuse that I have cited some of my own scientific work. I point out that under the rules this is perfectly OK, as long as the citation is at arms length. So he goes over and attempts to change the rules. Meanwhile, members of his "clique" are sending public messages to each other proposing to look very closely at my other postings. Apparently, to send a message. True, there is no "wikipedia cabal". But there are groups of people who cooperate in faking a "consensus"-- against the rules, naturally. The lesson is that you post on controversial subjects at your peril." ... "Such behavior constitutes one of the reasons Wikipedia has such difficulty in retaining the various thankless "experts" that really make the thing work." user: Pproctor, 16 May 2007 (UTC) "This matter had an interesting consequence. An Emmy-award-winning documentary film maker is doing a documentary on the history of MRI, of which I was an early wittness as a grad student. As a first step, he looked at the Wikipedia bio of the scientist. He read my input and the argument on the talk pages and interviewed me for the documentary. This shows two things --- people consult wikipedia for a lot of things and the "Real world" tends to trust expert editors over the contentious riff-raff." user: Pproctor, 16 May 2007 (UTC) " ... Why would an expert spend time editing a Wikipedia article for minimal obvious benefit when they can dedicate time to preparing peer-reviewed, publishable articles?"

Sub-Section

Community discussion on POV pushing of pseudoscience

From Wikipedia:Village pump: Critics of relativity... "viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community" Regarding the lead in the "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" article: "Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"), however, their viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community." Is this Wikipedia policy, i.e., in effect, "No criticism of relativity allowed?" If so it must be changed to allow a fair representation of published criticism of relativity. (See subsection on my talk page.) LCcritic (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC) See WP:FRINGE. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC) @LCcritic: I am afraid you have failed to detect the sarcasm in the recommendation made on your talk page to attempt to change Wikipedia's policy on fringe theories. Note that it is possible to provide due coverage of fringe ideas, but sourcing needs to be presented that shows the theories you promote are themselves notable. Thus far, none of the sources you have provided are reliable. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Don't let them discourage you. It was to be expected that those steeped in the old ways would merely point at their misguided traditions. This is the place where policy is made, and "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments". The stage is set, the lights are on: present your argument. Paradoctor (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Please someone block this poor guy now, for his own good - WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHERE issues, thanks.--cyclopiaspeak! 20:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC) LCcritic, there is simply no possibility that you will be permitted to use Wikipedia to promote your anti-relativist arguments. This has been made entirely clear to you on multiple occasions, and you have only two choices - accept it and work within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, or find somewhere else to advance your theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC) The sources and your interpretations, as listed on your talk page, were dismissed on various previously shopped fora. For a partial overview of places where the dismissals have taken place, see here. - DVdm (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Will someone here please address the issue of policy which endorses the above quoted statement that no criticism of relativity is "accepted by the scientific community?" If those who agree are allowed to "dismiss" all such published criticism (as cited), then no criticism is accepted as legitimate. In that case, the "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" article should simply be reduced to one short statement: "There is no legitimate criticism of relativity theory." Btw, I am not promoting "my personal point of view," as constantly accused. Einstein said clearly that he was not a realist: “It appears to me that 'real' is an empty meaningless category (drawer) whose immense importance lies only in that I place certain things inside it and not certain others." Also, "'The physical world is real.'... The above statement seems intrinsically senseless..." Also, "I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist." (Letter from Albert Einstein to Eduard Study (Sept. 25, 1918.) Wikipedia; Realism: “Philosophical realism, belief that reality exists independently of observers." "Real" criticism of relativity comes from realists (as I have cited), but they are not allowed a voice even in the (sham) "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" article. I appeal to a consensus to change that policy (or that agreement to dismiss all criticism) to allow "real" fair coverage of "CriticismsLCcritic (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC) -- and in case I did not make the relevance of realism clear: Length contraction theorists claim that physical objects and the distances between them (stars, for instance) contract as a result of being observed/measured from from different frames in motion relative whatever is observed. This frame-dependence of physical lengths and distances denies realism, as defined most simply above. User:LCcritic 19:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC) There are well-documented, published, criticisms of relativity; what makes such criticisms worth mentioning is not their acceptance or denial by anyone, or even that they are or are not criticisms, but that they are well documented in reliable sources as such. After all, Wikipedia has many articles and sections on notable pieces of bullshit, such as the flat earth, homeopathy, astrology, etc. The difference is two-fold 1) Wikipedia only presents information on such pieces of known bullshit in proportion to how the reliable sources do. Any wingnut with a website can say anything they want, that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to mention it, even to refute it. Some stuff is just not worth mentioning here. This has nothing to do with whether something is bullshit or not, but rather, how much attention the bullshit has gotten. 2) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy doesn't demand we give equal credence to the possibility that every position is equally valid. Rather, we're allowed to call bullshit "bullshit", and not pretend like it's filet mignon. If there aren't any widely accepted criticisms of relativity within the science community, then we say that there aren't. We don't pretend as though, merely because such criticisms exist, and even if such criticisms are notable enough in their own right, that they are accepted. That doesn't mean we don't mention the notable criticisms, we do mention them. To show how they are widely refuted. --User:Jayron32 19:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC) If you are proposing that Wikipedia makes a specific change to policy, please indicate what specific change you are proposing, and the grounds on which you are advocating such a change. - the village pump noticeboards are not an appropriate place to discuss specific problems with specific articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Allow criticism of relativity from published realists. Presently no "real" such criticism is allowed. (See quote from "Criticisms..." article lead.)LCcritic (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC) So what specific changes to the wording of which specific policy are you proposing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC) I don't know what specific policy resulted in the quoted lead statement that no criticism of relativity is "accepted by the scientific community?" Yet the list of critical publications on my talk page has all been swept aside as not legitimate, and that opinion seems to have a consensus here, as the distinction between "mainstream" and "fringe" science. The result is that the philosophy of shrinking physical objects and the distances between them, between stars for instance (length contraction) stands as "mainstream," allowing no criticism from realism, i.e., as succinctly quoted from Wikipedia on realism above. Ps: "Real criticism" is based on realism, as so defined. My list of authors are examples of realists, in this context. LCcritic (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Define "real criticism." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC) TIMECUBE IS TRUTH. --108.38.196.65 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC) LCcritic, the relevant policy is "Reliable Sources", which has been summarized as saying that Wikipedia articles on science need to be based on "reputable publications in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, or divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications". As you surely know, there's an abundance of reliable sources (according to this definition) stating that special relativity is logically self-consistent, thoroughly tested, and empirically successful (and, by the way, completely compatible with objective realism). There are no modern reputable sources (according to the stated definition) claiming otherwise. This is the basis for the statement you quoted from the article on "criticisms of relativity". In contrast, all the sources you've advocated for inclusion in the article fail to meet the stated criteria of "reliable sources". So, in order to get those sources into Wikipedia you would have to change the Wikipedia definition of "reliable sources" - or else persuade Wikipedia to allow unreliable sources. I don't think either of those is likely.EllisMcgraw (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC) EllisMcgraw, I understand the policy labeled as "Reliable Resources." Of course the task remains to define "reliable" in a way which is fair to both critics of relativity and "mainstream" defenders. If a consensus of 'mainstream defenders' here, with 'policy' supporting them against so called "fringe" arguments (just name calling by 'main camp relativity') consent to delete all criticism from realism (as defined above before being re-defined by relativity), then the result is that Wikipedia has an article on "Criticisms of the theory of relativity" excluding all criticisms from realism as cited in my "Published criticisms of relativity" section on my talk page. "...that special relativity is logically self-consistent, thoroughly tested, and empirically successful (and, by the way, completely compatible with objective realism). There are no modern reputable sources (according to the stated definition) claiming otherwise." But "reputable sources" are defined by the criteria of hard core mainstream relativity "experts," denying any expertise among critics, like those I have frequently cited. "Objective realism" indeed. No real world independent of observation. Relativity re-defined realism to suit Einstein... who denied a 'real world' in favor of the opinion/philosophy that 'reality' depends on the frame of reference from which it is observed. All Is Relative to frame of reference. This was his philosophy as the 'father of relativity.' No criticism can therefore be reasonable, according to his followers. Reality is determined by frame of reference. Period. End of argument. LCcritic (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC) LCcritic, you say the task remains to define "reliable", but that's not true, because the Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources already includes the applicable definition of "reliable". Again, reliable sources are defined (for Wikipedia) as "reputable publications in peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, or divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications". As you can see, the criteria don't say anything about relativity or any other specific subject. Wikipedia simply defers to the major academic journals, universities, publishing houses, etc., to judge what is reliable and notable. So your quarrel is really with those institutions, not with Wikipedia. (An editor once claimed the moon is made of green cheese, but all his edits were reverted on the grounds that his sources were not "reliable". He responded that this was an insidious Catch-22: "The reason you people say there are no "reliable sources" for the moon being made of green cheese is because anyone who says the moon is made of green cheese is automatically considered unreliable!")EllisMcgraw (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC) EllisMcgraw, I honestly challenge your reading comprehension. I said, "Of course the task remains to define "reliable" in a way which is fair to both critics of relativity and "mainstream" defenders. My appeal is to change Wikipedia policy on what "reliable" means as applied to criticisms of relativity, not to re-affirm your by-the-book reiteration that "Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources already includes the applicable definition of 'reliable'." Of course it does, and that definition excludes all the sources I cited which criticize relativity on the grounds that it denies realism. Relativity has re-invented the definition of realism, which you call "objective realism," usually called "scientific realism" which translates to a frame-of-reference centered definition based on Einstein's philosophy (which I have often repeated) that "reality" varies with all possible frames of reference. So you totally miss the point of this appeal and simply parrot present standard procedure here. No different than our last conversation which I terminated in my talk page section, "Going nowhere... fast." LCcritic (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC) LCcritic, thanks, that clarifies things quite a bit. Previously you had been asked what specific change to what specific policy you were proposing, and you answered "I don't know what specific policy resulted in the quoted lead statement that no criticism of relativity is accepted by the scientific community" So I explained what the policy was that resulted in that statement. Now you say that you are fully aware of the policy that resulted in that statement, and you simply disagree with the policy and want it to be changed. Okay, so we come back to the question you were asked initially: What specific change to this policy are you proposing? You can't simply say "Change the policy so it allows me to insert material that the present policy doesn't allow". You have to propose a specific policy change. For example, you might propose that Wikipedia articles should treat personal web pages and self-published works on an equal footing with peer-reviewed journals and academic publications, and not reflect the predominant views of the mainstream scientific community. But I don't think any such proposal will find acceptance, since the existing policy of reflecting the mainstream scientific view is one of the cornerstones of the whole Wikipedia project. Please see AndyTheGrump's comments below.EllisMcgraw (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is under no obligation to be 'fair' to anyone. We reflect the scientific consensus, and will continue to do so. This is not open to negotiation, regardless of how many times you waffle on about 'realism', 'frames of reference' and whatever other bees you have in your bonnet. To put it bluntly, we don't care whether you consider the scientific consensus to be wrong, our policy to be unfair, or Einstein's philosophy to be inconsistent with whatever version of reality it is you consider to be real. The only 'frame of reference' that matters as far as Wikipedia content is concerned is that provided by our rules, guidelines, and practices - and we aren't going to start writing exceptions into policy just because you don't like it. I suggest that rather than wasting your time and everyone else's by engaging in this self-evidently futile attempt to adapt Wikipedia to your own personal whim, you accept that it isn't going to change, and take your campaign against whatever it is you are campaigning against elsewhere. If you carry on as you are, you can be assured that our patience will run out - possibly quite soon - and at that point, you will be obliged to do so, whether you like it or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Editors, I have heard from the usual defenders of the realm against criticism of relativity by realists such as those I have cited in the "Published criticisms of relativity" section on my talk page. These realists all agree (unlike Einstein) that 'the real world' exists with all its intrinsic properties, dimensions, etc. independent of whatever frame of reference from which it might be measured. Are there any editors here who have read the above cited references and do not dismiss them all as "fringe," making all criticism from realism* unacceptable to the "scientific community" as the lead dismissal does ? *Note: Not my "personal whim," or point of view as accused. Realism (see definitions) is presently not allowed to criticize relativity in Wikipedia. LCcritic (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC) (Repeating from above) The sources and your interpretations, as listed on your talk page, were dismissed on various previously shopped fora. For a partial overview of places where the dismissals have taken place, see here. DVdm (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC) As I said, "I have (already) heard from the usual defenders of the realm. This includes you, DVdm. Re-read my question, "Are there any editors here...?" LCcritic (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Only 9 editors have rejected your offering here, that is not even one third of a percent of the Village Pump's watchers! Obviously just an insignificant cabal of hidebound reactionaries bent on bollixing your noble cause. They won't prevail, because "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments", and your quest is just. 'Tis but a scratch, you've had worse. Persevere, Percival! From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Statement by A1candidate Opening statement Over the past few months, I have bore witness to a recurring pattern of highly inappropriate and uncivil behavior of two longstanding administrators: JzG and Kww. On several unfortunate occasions, I have been at the receiving end of a diverse range of personal attacks, offensive insults, and false accusations thrown against me: JzG called me an "advocate of quackery and fringe ideas". He also characterized me as a "SCAM apologist", "acupuncture advocate", and "quackery apologist". In addition, he bites the newcomers [83][84], uses foul languge repeatedly [85][86][87][88][89], tells an editor "you might be better off sticking to ducks". When asked by other editors to explain his offensive comments, he makes further inflammatory statements [90] and labelled an editor as a "troll". Kww has been engaging in a malicious campaign to eliminate me from Wikipedia. Beginning in early January 2015, he labelled me as an "accomplice" and plotted a case for arbitration against me. On 6 January 2015, he brought me in front of the Committee to face trial, stating that "dealing with these people as legitimate editors leads to unsatisfactory results" [91]. Even after being warned by John not to accuse other editors of engaging in "the promotion of quackery" on various talk pages, Kww refused to back down from his campaign to discredit other editors and continued to accuse other editors of having a COI [92]. He escalated the situation and accused me of dishonesty and "active deceit". After I denied these very serious and offensive insults to my personal integrity, he continued to imply that my edit summaries serve to "disguise the content and intent" of my edits. He also accused DrChrissy of "willful misinterpretation" of facts, and admonished them for lacking "a key discussion skill" and therefore looking like an "intentionally disruptive editor" [93]. He suggested that I had an "ESL difficulty", refused to accept my explanation for my edit summary and hounded me repeatedly on my talk page [94][95][96]. Despite the serious accusations thrown at me by these administrators, I retain a clear conscience, and I am not an advocate of any particular treatment (certainly not in a financial sense). Nevertheless, my best efforts to put an end to these personal attacks against me have so far proved futile. I tried to voice out these issues at WP:AE initially (since the talk pages were under discretionary sanctions), but my good faith attempts to highlight the problem was put down and I was accused of being "disruptive and likely tendentious". It is therefore my hope that this Committee will accept this case and hear me out. It is not my intention to disrupt or game the system, and I do not wish that these longstanding and experienced administrators be unfairly tried. All I hope is that their accusations against me and DrChrissy may finally come to an end. -A1candidate 08:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Question for Roger Davies Would you be willing to reconsider your vote if we modified the scope of this case? Instead of treating this as a strict review of administrative behavior, we could formulate a general consensus statement about how WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA guidelines apply to the topic area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Some suggestions include: A zero-tolerance policy for words such as quackery shills, fringe believers, pseudoscience advocates, SCAM apologists, and lunatic charlatans. Guidelines for dealing with suspected misbehavior and alleged COI issues on talk pages. Indefinite page protection for acupuncture until the content dispute is resolved I hope you might give this a second thought. Please do let me know if you have any other suggestions. -A1candidate 11:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by JzG Two things stand out from the request. There have been no substantive prior attempts to resolve the dispute. As "evidence" of attempts to resolve the dispute, A1Candidate links to two user talk pages (without identifying any evidence of actual discussions) and one AE request that was promptly closed with no action because it was unactionable. Procedurally, the Committee should probably reject the case on that basis alone. The case is, as was the a previous rejected AE request before it, a transparent attempt to silence opposition in a content dispute. The Committee typically does not accept such cases. The title at filing was "Administrators behaving inappropriately". No evidence is presented that this was administrative action. In passing I would note that even describing it as a content dispute is stretching the definition. Stats for the article Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): User Edits to article (source) Edits to talk page (source) A1candidate 248 (ranking #7 by count #4 by bytes added) 356 (ranking #4 by count #7 by bytes added) Kww 18 (ranking #57 by edits #107 by bytes added) 152 (ranking #12 by edits #12 by bytes added) JzG 4 (ranking #210 by edits #266 by bytes added) 33 (ranking #44 by edits #33 by bytes added) In A1candidate's mainspace contributions, there are a large number of articles on topics aligned to the supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM) industry. Acupuncture, reiki, TM etc. A1Candidate is clearly positive about these things and edits tend to introduce supportive material ([97] [98], [99], [100]) or remove critical material ([101], [102]). In several cases speculative claims have been asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice, e.g. [103] which makes a clear implication of a proven mechanism for acupuncture which is inconsistent with the observed fact that sham needling has statistically indistinguishable outcomes. See also Purinergic signalling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a WP:COATRACK created by A1candidate to promote a speculative mechanism proposed by advocates of acupuncture. Example: "The anti-nociceptive effect of acupuncture is mediated by the adenosine A1 receptor", stated in Wikipedia's voice, based on sources that are clearly written fomr the perspective of believers (one opens "Acupuncture has been widely used in China for three millennia as an art of healing. Yet, its physiology is not yet understood." Really? Edzard Ernst would (and does) argue that this is simply false, and that the mechanism is understood: placebo effects including the well-documented effect of distraction. Several sources also identify that acupuncture as practiced in ancient times involved instruments that resemble fleams, not modern needles, and characterise modern-day acupuncture as largely a creation of Mao Zedong - and this source actually tacitly acknowledges this by referencing the year 1971, the year of the Nixon visit with its now-debunked demonstration of surgery under anaesthesia by acupuncture, as the start of Western interest in the archaic practice. The main problem is, as it was at the AE which was closed without action and which this request essentially simply reiterates, that I characterise this editing behaviour as advocacy: I do not think that is unfair but A1candidate appears to believe that it is not just unfair, but uncivil - more than that, a personal attack. So the relevant questions of fact are: Does A1Candidate advocate for acupuncture? Does describing A1candidate as an advocate of acupuncture, amount to a personal attack? From the complaint, if you leave aside the terrible insults I hurled at a bot for repeatedly tagging an uploaded image with a rationale that did not use the correct template, you're left with a request to classify use of the word "advocacy" to describe systematic positive editing and commentary, as a personal attack and inherently uncivil. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC) @Salvio: Have you seen Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans? We already have arbitration precedents that work here, covering fringe claims and clearly identifying pseudomedical practices as falling within their remit. I don't think a case on the general issue of advocacy for SCAM will yield much benefit. Fringe claims are already covered, the issue here is that A1Candidate differs from Kww, me, and many others from the reality-based community, on the demarcation between fringe and non-fringe claims. Homeopathy is unambiguous nonsense, acupuncture is at least minimally plausible, albeit not as TCM proponents describe it. The more I look at the discussions here the more it seems to me that this is really a demarcation issue, as between science and pseudoscience. I think the best route forward is to use the discretionary sanctions already available and not change mature articles without prior consensus on Talk. I think that would fix the problem, such as it is. It would probably work to A1Candidate's benefit as he clearly has a lot more time to devote to this than I do. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) @Salvio giuliano: I think the only reason existing discretionary sanctions aren't solving the problem is that people are reluctant to impose them for civil POV-pushing. The issue of civil POV-pushing is systemic and is a side-effect of our policies on civility, or more specifically the collision between civility and NPOV when people get wound up by WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the like. I recently started using RfCs to break circular argument logjams, with some success. I don't know if that will work for acupuncture, it may be worth a try. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC) @Olive: There is no such thing as "allopathic medicine". That is a meaningless pejorative coined by Samuel Hanhemann, the man who plucked homeopathy out of mid air, to characterise the then-prevalent practice of what is now called heroic medicine, which he hated. Both homeopathy and "allopathy" are part of the humoural tradition and have nothing at all to do with evidence-based medicine. What you dismiss as "allopathic medicine" is merely medicine. If you want the arbitration committee to redefine policy in order to give equal weight to the views of scientists and pseudoscientists, as would seem to be the case from your comment, then I think you will be disappointed. The line in the sand has already been drawn through the cases that led to the WP:FRINGE guidance as currently stated, cases covering a number of topics, not just pseudomedicine. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC) @Littleolive oil: I am afraid you are succumbing to the fallacy of false equivalency. While the issue of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is a legitimate matter of debate for some subjects, for others the debate was over long ago. Homeopathy is bunk. Qi and meridians do not exist. These are not matters of opinion, and we do not pretend they are. The word allopathic is a flag word identifying that the speaker is operating within a world view different from that of Wikipedia. The reality-based community simply do not use the term. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC) @DrChrissy: The word dogma is an excellent one. Acupuncture, like most SCAM practices, is driven by dogma. The dogma says that acupuncture effects are yielded by some special effect gained only by inserting needles. Acupuncture researchers then set about explaining this in terms consistent with dogma. Science asks: doe the observed effects actually demand that needles are inserted? The answer appears to be: No. It doesn't seem to matter where you put the needles, or even if you insert them at all. Acupuncture responds by saying that even placebo acupuncture releases this marvellous magic. That's dogma. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC) As pointed out below, A1Candidate made this edit with the summary "format": a POV edit with a wholly misleading edit summary. I think that's quite likely to be enough to invoke existing discretionary sanctions. We may be done here. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kww I stand by my characterisation of A1candidate: he advocates pseudoscience and damages articles related to alternative medicine. The accusation of active deceit came about today: there's no way that "format" described his repeated insertion of material over the objections of other editors or that "restore after extensive discussion" characterises an edit that had failed to gain consensus during that discussion. I think it's getting time to take an Arbcom case over alternative medicine articles in general, and acupuncture, Traditional Chinese medicine and ayurveda in particular. All have become entrenched battlegrounds with advocates of these particular forms of quackery. Ayurveda is under indefinite full protection for the simple reason that our discretionary sanctions aren't working: they attempt to focus only on editor behaviour, but don't take into account that we have a serious problem with fraud here. Acupuncture is even more difficult because there is a legitimate scientific controversy over whether it has any effects, and that glimmer of hope is constantly seized upon as evidence that TCM isn't nonsense. We need to authorize a set of sanctions that allow us to be uneven in our application of remedies, and to be able to immediately and promptly show pseudoscience advocates the door without going through this level of pain. My efforts in this area have only rewarded me with the classification of being involved, something that is bound to occur to any administrator that tries to keep these articles in some kind of factual form.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Thryduulf, your position flies against previous holdings by the Arbitration on pseudoscience, which included Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Unless the dispute is a serious scientific dispute (not the case with TCM or ayurveda, and only on some points with acupuncture) we are supposed to "dismiss them out of hand in Wikipedia's voice". The misapplication of NPOV that you discuss is the core dispute here. Mysticism is not on par with science, and, as an encyclopedia, we might report what mystics think, but we don't use it in our editorial position.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Wow, Les, I "deceitfully twisted" material like "many within the field of science view acupuncture as 'quackery' and 'pseudoscience,' and its effect as 'theatrical placebo'" into "Many within the scientific community consider it to be quackery"? It's obvious that I'm not to be trusted.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Cla68 That simply isn't true: LesVegas repeatedly tries to treat yin and yang as science, and we have numerous editors on ayurveda that try to treat it as a legitimate medical system.—Kww(talk) 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Salvio Just take a look at John's efforts to enforce discretionary sanctions on ayurveda as an example. By taking a scrupulously content-neutral approach, all his effort has resulted in is a frozen article with edits paralyzed by constant controversy from supporters, and the sanctions are having the side-effect of encouraging and enabling those very supporters that we are trying to keep under control. What we need from Arbcom is a clarification to all admins involved in arbitration enforcement that the intention of discretionary sanctions is to prevent pseudoscience and alt-med advocates from damaging articles, and that they are expected to administer those sanctions with a clear view towards reducing and eliminating pseudoscience and alt-med advocacy. As it stands, too many admins are trying to achieve the false balance that we are attempting to avoid.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC) A1candidate: You persistent in identifying the symptom as the problem. If we didn't have a problem with pseudoscience advocacy, we wouldn't have the problem of pseudoscience advocates complaining about the terms people use to refer to them.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken: I agree with Kww that it would be beneficial for ArbCom to open a case dealing with acupuncture, Traditional Chinese medicine, ayurveda and other naturopathic practices, but suggest that the case be as broad as possible. A narrowly-focused case will do nothing to reduce the overall friction between believers and those who wish to follow the scientific method as the controlling factor. BMK (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC) @Olive: We are an encyclopedia. When it comes to reporting fact versus fiction, we are not "neutral", we report the facts as facts, and we report the fiction as the beliefs of some people, but not as facts. The "stab-in-the-back" theory in Germany after World War I was believed by millions of people, and we report that belief as fact, but do not present the theory itself as fact. BMK (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sub-Section

Community discussion on antisemitic & fascist POV pushing

From the community discussion of Jews and Communism: What makes the Jews and Communism article peculiarly difficult is that Jews and Communism is an obviously notable topic, (or group of topics, for there are quite a number of different aspects and subtopics) with an immense literature, but a good part of the primary literature and some of the secondary is biased against Jews and against Communism. It is an anti-semetic canard that the Jews are evil because many of them are Communists, or that Communism is evil because many of the prominent figures were Jews. In either case it relies upon the reader's assumptions that either the Jews or Communists are so obviously vile that anything can be damned by sowing an association with them. From the POV of a communist it could equally be seen as an anti-communist canard. And from the POV of a Jewish Communist it could be seen as a tribute to both Jews and Communism. This is an aspect that must be discussed, but should not overwhelm the article. Historically, it has been the case that anything that deals with the Jewish participation in anything is capable of being used as anti-semitism: if the thing is good, the Jews are debasing it; if questionable, it proves the nature of the Jews. Anything connected with Judaism can be used in this manner, and almost aeverything has been so used. I can understand that in anti-semetic régimes, Jews would protect themselves by trying to avoid any discussion about Jewish topics by non-Jews. I am also aware of a historical fear among Jews that regardless how good things may be now, a period of persecution will return--and it has often been a rational fear. DGG, 4 May 2014 From the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism The Jews and Communism page has its origin with Jewish Bolshevism, which discusses the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Communism is a Jewish plot aimed at world domination. Jewish Bolshevism is expressly limited to discussion of the conspiracy theory; Jews and Communism seeks to offer evidence that the conspiracy theory is in fact true. Jews and Communism offers a pastiche of statistics, anecdotes, and cherry-picked sources to show that people with Jewish ancestry were involved in various aspects of Communism, with special attention to the secret police and (in previous versions) the execution of the Russian Tsar. It frequently goes out of its way to emphasize connections between people of Jewish ancestry and finance. Parts of the article and its sources appear to derive from an article [104] by a notorious holocaust denier [105]. The page is a mixture of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in support of a WP:ATTACK on an ethnic group through a fringe theory. To present the color of neutrality, occasional disclaimers are sprinkled to remind the reader that not all Jews supported Communism, and that Jews were sometimes persecuted by Communists; thus a WP:FRINGE theory finds its way into Wikipedia by acknowledging that not everyone believes the theory to be completely true. The information offered here can more effectively be presented (where warranted) in more natural contexts; if the religion of Karl Marx’s grandparents is notable, for example, it might be discussed in his biography rather than here. The tone of the page, and of its supporters on the talk page and elsewhere, is deeply disturbing and the page threatens to deeply embarrass the project. Created on 27 February 2014 [106], Jews and Communism has been a magnet for controversy and edit wars. It has already been at AN/I twice [107][108], and was the subject of an 8000-word discussion on Jimbo’s talk page [109]. A previous AfD [110] was closed without consensus. Directly relevant precedents include the deletions of Jews and Hollywood [111] and Jews and Money [112]. Some (apparently) reliable sources can always be found for any conspiracy theory, but Wikipedia should not host pages of evidence for Antisemitic canards. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC) MarkBernstein (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Delete per "Blow it up", "notability" and "fork". "Reasons for deletion" allows reasons not enumerated such as "Blow it up." In this case the article was written in a manner that appeared to be anti-Semitic and large portions have in fact been copied to the anti-Semitic Metapedia article on Jewish Communism. If the article could be justified, it would be best to delete it and start again. The article fails notability because no books or articles have been written about the topic. In the few cases where the subject is mentioned in reliable sources, it usually contains the statement that no studies have been conducted on this topic. Of course there are various articles about Jews and Communism in different countries at different times, for example Jews under Communism in Stalin's Soviet Union or Communist Jews in the United States between the two world wars. But nothing links them, making the article implicit "synthesis". The article is a "Point of view (POV) fork" of Jewish Bolshevism, also called "Jewish Communism", which is the conspiracy theory that the Jewish people are behind the Communist movement. "Jews and Communism" takes the evidence that is used in anti-Semitic literature without explicitly stating the conclusion found in conspiracy writing. It is similar to having a 9/11 article that lists all the problems in the official version, without explicitly stating that the official version is wrong. But as every polemicist knows, a selective presentation of evidence can lead readers to a conclusion. For example the website "Republican sex offenders" which accurately listed known Republicans who were sex offenders, had the implicit message that Republicans were more likely to be sex offenders than Democrats. TFD (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC) This article is not a POVFORK, explicitly according to the standing consensus on the Jewish Bolshevism article. The above claim is deliberate, dishonest misinformation. The Four Deuces should be sanctioned for disruptive conduct. On the one hand he established that this content is a separate topic from Jewish Bolshevism [113] (to delete it there), on the other he has repeatedly pushed, over and over again, to have it deleted on grounds of being a "FORK" of that same article. That's really clear WP:TE with a goal to have the text deleted. And his repeated pushing of this point is WP:ICANTHEARYOU, as the user ignores, without fail, any posts that point out his own RfC at Jewish Bolshevism. The argument regarding notability can be summarized as "even though there are hundreds of sources covering Jews and Communism, they focus on specific countries and therefore do not cover Jews and Communism". To say "no books or articles have been written about the topic" or that "no studies have been conducted on this topic" is dishonest, deliberate misinformation, and again an example of disruptive behavior. The "nothing links them" argument can, in turn, be summarized as "because the sources do not say all Jews everywhere are Communists, we should delete this article". This article does not WP:SYNTH any conclusions, but merely goes into the topic of Jewish participation in Communist movements - precisely "in different countries at different times", as TFD puts it. That is not SYNTH under any definition. Personally I can't imagine more contrived arguments. -- Director (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete Essentially this is a WP:COATRACK for every Communist Jew of note, a POV nightmare because of its underplaying of the longstanding hostility between Jews/Judaism/Israel and Communists/Communist movements/Communist nations. Putting aside the rationalizations of its defenders concerning the scope of this article, what you have here is this: high school students will be googling "Jews and Communists," coming to this article, and getting this one-sided, incomplete, foul brew of WP:SYNTHESIS that in one of its earlier stages was proudly copied over to Metapedia. I don't believe the article has changed in any material way since then, nor do I believe that it is salvageable. Sure, we can retitle and reframe it, we can do the best we can with this trash. But when you come right down to it, this is just a variation on an odoriferous theme, very much akin to Jews and Hollywood [114] and Jews and Money [115], which disgraced Wikipedia until they too were deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Keep, this is a valid article subject. Some points; 1) it is not an WP:ATTACK page (is it a crime to be communist? is it a crime to be Jewish?) 2) Not SYNTH, nor FRINGE, the subject is well covered in scholarly literature. I advice to see http://www.cjh.org/videoarchivelist/1966 for some context. 3) No-one is saying that all/most Jews were communists, nor is there an argument that links communism to Jewish religion. 4) I was the first editor to express concerns about the initial versions of the page, but I think as rewriting have come along the quality has improved. Nevertheless, the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes have at times blocked qualititative progress. In my opinion we had a positive process until the recent canvassing. --Soman (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) The theory that Communism is part of a Jewish plot for world domination is both anti-Communist and anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC) The point here would precisely be to separate between what is the anti-Semitic discourse (currently in the Jewish Bolshevism article) on one side, and the historical documented role of Jewish participation in the communist movement on the other. If we go ahead with deletion, we'll be back to square one with all material clogging up the Jewish Bolshevism article instead. --Soman (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Soman, I'm not going to try and hound you about this, but did you actually watch those videos? I did, and they are not about "Jews and Communism". In fact, many of the speakers mention the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory. Some do state that there was a section of people who had Jewish ancestry that were important in some revolutionary movements. There is absolutely no consensus that "Jews and Communism" is "well covered in scholarly literature". If anything, the opposite is stated. Also, we have an article called the Jewish left. You add that article with the Jewish Bolshevism and Eastern European Jews articles and you have 90% of the video content. Dave Dial (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, I watched the three video segments. Your representation/interpretation is clearly not correct. --Soman (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Delete. I argued to keep the previous article because I was sure that it could be repaired. Subsequent vociferous activism at the article, ownership preventing proper repair, shows my earlier position to be an impossible dream. I am sad to see this state of affairs, where blowing up the article is the best available option. Please blow it up to prevent the article owners from having this victory of POV over balance. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Delete, I agree with everything the nominator has said. I compared the article from the Institute for Historical Review referred to with the original version of the WP article "Jews and Communism" and there is no question that the WP article simply copied large portions of the article by holocaust denier Mark Weber of the Institute of Historical Review. You can see the comparison at the article's talk page [116]. The article has been substantially altered since its original state but at its core it is straightforward anti-Semitic propaganda that should be removed immediately.Smeat75 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Delete - The arguments made above by the users for deletion are all strong and I support their assertions. The article has its roots in the Neo-Nazi forum Metapedia, with large segments copied and pasted from it, and the article still using many of the same sources. It also leans heavily on an article published by the Holocaust denial organisation and hate group the Institute for Historical Review. There is some consensus to ”fix” the article. However, relying on many of the same sources as a piece of anti-Semitic propaganda, I struggle to see how this is possible. There has also been an argument put forward that, seeing as antisemitic groups had attempted to depict Communism as part of the Jewish World Conspiracy in the past, there is due weight to have an article showing that. However, that article already exists at Jewish Bolshevism. I also want to state that I have no bias against Communism itself and own many books on the topic of Marxism. However, that does not change the fact that this potential link between the Jewish people and Communist history has been used as an excuse for violence against the Jewish people in antisemitic propaganda, something that this article, as well as the sister article on Metapedia, reinforces --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Delete, anti-semitic WP:COATRACK. There is no causality between Jews and Communism, therefore the whole basis of the article being founded on blatant WP:SYNTH. The article is no more than a list of communists who were racially jews, but underlines a WP:FRINGE "connection" between jews and communism. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Delete - Parts of the current article can and should definitely stay on WP under at least two new articles that can be created utilizing this reliable material. But the name "Jews and Communism" and the history of the current article make it too close to the anti-Semitic canard article it is related to, and hinder further positive development of issues that do have a place on Wikipedia. The one I am personally interested in is the one that should retake some content of the current article from the perspective of Communist ideology and theory towards the Jewish religion and towards Jewish citizens of countries where Communist parties developed from the theory and became stronger. The second main article to be created from the blowing up of the current one could take the issue from the perspective of Jewish history and different views that developed within Jewish communities towards the new ideology and the developing political parties. warshy (¥¥) 22:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Delete -This article was made because the creator was told the material he wanted to insert into the Jewish Bolshevism (of which this article is an obvious WP:POVFORK) article didn't belong in that article. So, the creator made this article. Which was copied almost word-for-word and source-by-source into the White Nationalist encyclopedia, Metapedia. Comparison of Metapedia article sources to Wikipedia Their article is named "Jewish Bolshevism". We already have an article called Jewish Bolshevism. It's about the Antisemitic canard blaming Jews for Bolshevism and the rise of Stalinism. We have those two articles too. We have dozens of articles concerning Communism. History of communism History of Communist Romania, History of Communist Poland, History of Communist Bulgaria, History of Communist Albania, History of Communist Czechoslovakia, as well as articles about the history of Marxism, the Communist state, Revolutionary socialism, Trotskyism, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks and History of American Trotskyism As well as dozens concerning Jewish people. Eastern European Jews article is pretty vast. We also have articles about Jews in almost any nation. Jews of Poland, Jews of Germany, Jews of Spain, History of the Jews in Russia, Jews of Babylonia, Jews of Hungary, Jews of France, Jews of Italy, Jews of Greece, Cuban Jews, Jews of USA and more. To connect all of these is synthesis and original research. As well as an attack page. No, not because Communism is 'evil' (although some do believe it is), but because attempting to correlate "Jews" with bringing about Bolshevism, and in turn placing the blame on them for both the rise of Nazism and Stalinism is. In other words, according to both before WWII and after WWII, attempts have been made to link "Jews" with Communism in order to convince people that it was not only their own fault that the Holocaust happened, but that they deserved it Ipso facto because of Stalinsm. So delete because it's synthesis, almost all of which is covered in other articles. To combine them into the "Jews and Communism" article is an attempt to legitimize the conspiracy theory. We have another article discussing the Jewish left, for those serious about wanting to contribute to an article at least partially about this topic. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC) As I wrote elsewhere, I am not commenting on the merits of our article. However, I tried to check the veracity of your claim that it was mostly copied from Metapedia and I don't see it at all. You have to look at the Metapedia article at the time our article was created (the version of Jan 14 which I can't link to), not at its present state. The original version of our article was entirely different. Only two of the sources of our article were mentioned in the Metapedia article, and one of those was cited for a different quotation. So your claim is not correct. Actually I think the present Metapedia article has been largely expanded by copying from our article, not the other way around. Zerotalk 14:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC) If you are doing all this 'checking', why not make sure you read the post you are responding to first? I stated "So, the creator made this article. Which was copied almost word-for-word and source-by-source into the White Nationalist encyclopedia, Metapedia." Copied from our article into the Metapedia article. See? And you think that is a viable argument to keep it? I mean, come on. An article so antisemitic that it's words and sources are copied into a Neo-Nazi wiki? Oh boy! Dave Dial (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete - basically I agree that (sorry to be lazy and copypaste TFD's words but it's put plainly and clearly) 'The article fails notability because no books or articles have been written about the topic. Of course there are various articles about Jews and Communism in different countries at different times, for example Jews under Communism in Stalin's Soviet Union or Communist Jews in the United States between the two world wars. But nothing links them, making the article implicit "synthesis".' Sayerslle (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC) EmphaticDelete as pure WP:SYNTH. It is a very clever antisemitic attack article.--Galassi (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Delete per TFD. The article seems to consist largely of synthesis, where it isn't directly derived from antisemitic sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete, primarily for reasons of WP:AND. That is a perfectly sensible policy that clearly should apply here. I voted the first time to delete and none of the changes made to the page warrant changing my vote. I disagreed with the closing editor's decision to declare it no consensus and voted to overturn his decision on review, but the result again was no consensus. The discussion, in my opinion, has shown that at least two thirds or more of the editors commenting on this article believe it should be deleted. Obviously a unanimous vote will never happen. I agree with much of the comments above, particularly in regards to issues with POV Fork, OR, and copyvio. I have yet to see any kind of adequate response to WP:AND. As the policy very specifically notes, there is no article about "Islam and Terrorism." Quite frankly this episode suggests to me that there are issues with the core policies of the project that I hope are addressed. mikeman67 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete per TFD who's summed it up nicely!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete If there is scholarly evidence that the religion/ethnicity of certain people was a major influence on communism, add it to Communism. If there is scholarly evidence that communism was a major influence on Jewish people, add it to Jews. Commentary on whether communism is part of a Jewish plot to control the world belong at some other website, or perhaps Jewish Bolshevism. The first section of the article starts 'The German philosopher Karl Marx, often regarded as the "father of Communism", was of Jewish ancestry on both sides'—so where is Germans and Communism, and what about Philosophers and Communism? Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete Pure SYNTH. There may be sources that link Jews and Communism in the Soviet Union, but there are no sources that link Jews and Communism in general (in China for example). USchick (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Keep As I said earlier. The article, just like the Jews in Hollywood article, is basically a factual description of the relationship, and its causes. There may be no specific causality between Judaism and Communism, but there is very much a causality between social and economic oppression, and participation in radical movements. The most oppressed will seek the most radical solution. At the beginning of the 20th century Communism was a viable option among revolutionary movements, though it was explicit from the start on that it was not compatible with any form of religious expression, or of national individuality. To consider Jews and Communism only as an anti-Semitic canard is to condemn as a anti-semitic canard every possible expression or behavior of any Jews, for everything possible has been used against them. People who hate will seize on anything, and will associate the hated group with anything at all that is also the subject of hatred and prejudice. They will even use an association with something positive as an instrument of prejudice; "Jews and Music" will be used to imply that styles of entertainment some people may dislike are specifically Jewish, or alternatively, that the Jews are trying to subvert the profession. To refuse to discuss a topic because bigots have perverted it is dishonest, the triumph of inoffensiveness over honesty. The encyclopedic approach is to consider the association between the many ethnic groups and the many aspects of society in an objective and historically sound perspective. There is no reason why anyone--in particular any Jew --should find anything shameful about the association of Jews and Communism in Russia, except the inability to foresee the future. Elsewhere, it becomes a question of the degree to which an individual felt economic oppression is the primary burden. There is no SYNTHESIS in writing a general article. We need specific articles also, but there are commonalities across time and place. The determination of a people to redress its wrongs is a valid subject. Most of my ancestors on one side of my family were Jews and Bolsheviks--at least up until a certain point in time, which varied. The ones in Europe were persecuted primarily as Jews; those in America primarily as Communists. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "Das Judenthum in der Musik"' (German: "Jewishness in Music", but normally translated Judaism in Music; spelled after its first publications, according to modern German spelling practice, as ‘Judentum’), is an essay by Richard Wagner which attacks Jews in general and the composers Giacomo Meyerbeer and Felix Mendelssohn in particular. It was published under a pseudonym in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik (NZM) of Leipzig in September 1850 and was reissued in a greatly expanded version under Wagner’s name in 1869. It is regarded by some as an important landmark in the history of German anti-semitism." --Wikipedia [ Das Judenthum in der Musik ] MarkBernstein (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC) What are you talking about? All you have here are absurd accusations of antisemitism that have no connection in reality. -- Director (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) There is, of course, the lede paragraph from Wikipedia’s page on Richard Wagner’s famous essay. As DGG had alluded here to the "innocent" topic of "Jews and Music", it seemed stunningly relevant. With regard to what you so politely called "absurd accusations of antisemitism that have no connection in reality" , I observe that, just a few hours after writing this, Director saw the newly-revealed source of the page and wrote on the article's talk page: "My sincerest apologies. Withdrawing support for the article. WP:TNT may in fact be the best option. If you'll excuse me, I feel like I need a shower." MarkBernstein (talk) Delete Mostly per TFD but also mikeman67.. it says something about this article's abhorrent quality that it met the qualifications of Metapedia. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 02:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC) WP:TNT could be an option here as well. The article was given a chance after the last nom, but seems to have only worked backwards in quality, followed by surges of constant edit warring. The subject matter would serve best as a section of an already existing page.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 17:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete per WP:TNT and also due to excessive WP:SYNTH. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Keep for now. Not commenting on the merits of the article, but I think it is an abuse of the system to renominate an article for deletion so soon after a well-attended deletion discussion and well-attended deletion review. Zerotalk 03:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC) You mean the same AfD that over two-thirds of editors stated to delete the article as a WP:POVFORK and the closer instituted his own WP:SUPERVOTE and stated - "Oy vey" there was no consensus the article was a WP:POVFORK? Dave Dial (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC) That's what Deletion Review is for. That happened already. It is improper to nominate an article over and over to try to get the result you want. The correct response to a failed deletion attempt is to work on improving the article. Zerotalk 04:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) In terms of fresh contributions to the article and the talk page, this isn't soon at all. When I checked on 6 May, I found that by the end of the AfD, just 8 editors had contributed to the article and just 5 to the talk page. Since then, 38 more had edited the article and 62 more the talk page. 48 people joined in the AfD (not counting the closing admin) and 59 people that didn't join in the AfD had (as of 6 May) made their first edits to the article or the talk page after the AfD closed. It's reasonable to expect many fresh voices here and fresh arguments informed by considerable discussion of policy, attempts to improve or rescue the article, research into the article's antecedents and more. NebY (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete. Same reason as everyone else, really: TNT, NPOV, and SYNTH. This article connects Jews to Communism in a way that reliable sources simply don't. Like someone else said, Jewish left would be the non-POVFORK version of this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Strong keep. Delete per WP:BLOWITUP. I still think this is a potentially viable topic, and there certainly are many good, reliable sources about it, but given the very latest revelations that its actually copied in good part from a racist essay(!), there's nothing for it but TNT. My congratulations go out to Smeat75, and my heartfelt apologies to everyone who's been offended in any way by my defense of the article. I honestly feel nauseous after reading that comparison. In my defense - I did not know, and not knowing I did what I think any Wikipedian should: ignore his gut and defend the sources. As I said, I only wish this was brought forward sooner. Sorry Coretheapple, but I just have to erase that entire post off the face of the AfD. Feel free to restore it if you feel its necessary as a matter of style. Note: below responses refer to my original post. -- Director (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Well actually yes, striking out would be better, but the important thing is that you deleted all the rubbish you had previously written and have taken what is in my opinion a correct and principled position. Well done! Coretheapple (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I only compared the two articles yesterday so I could not have brought it forward any sooner. I must join Coretheapple in congratulating you, Director, for your integrity in changing your position.Smeat75 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC) For someone who is eager to paint this situation as one in which an appeal to emotion is outbalancing rational application of policy, you sure did make a fair number of personalized accusations there that have very little to with analyzing the content directly for consistency with said policies and a whole lot more to do with villifying your opposition as either blind to the obvious or actively involved in subverting process in the massively inappropriate ways. I wonder if you have any evidence you would like to provide for your assertions that A) involved editors have been canvassing off-wiki (as every editor who has commented so far was previously involved with the article, related discussions or could easily have come as a response to the AfD posting), or B) that editors have shopped this content around antisemitic sites for no other reason than to discredit your work -- a theory that, let's be clear, suggests they were so concerned about the possibility of antisemitism that they decided to promote some antisemitism. These are not trivial accusations, and should not be made without some compelling proof. Nor is this the first time which you have made such massive leaps in assumption of bad faith. You have also quite clearly misquoted another editor, seemingly intentionally, when you implied that DD2K was attempting to "shame" voters in order to influence the outcome of this process, when a look at that diff clearly indicates he was talking about how the previous voters should be "ashamed" (copular version of the verb referencing past events) of that decision. I would seriously consider redacting these elements of your post, as they greatly diminish how likely the rest of your assertions are to be credited as the products of a mind with reasonable perspective on the subject of this article and because your long chain of uncivil responses to those who disagree with you on this matter (and on this project in general) is in itself a problem as large as this article and one that is not going to go unaddressed much longer. Indeed, as an outside editor who has not gotten involved with the article and its content itself looking in, it's obvious to me that, despite the fact that you are this article's main architect and biggest advocate, you are also its greatest liability and the main reason it is back in AfD so quickly. I very nearly called out those editors who asked for the full protection to be lifted long enough for this AfD to be filled; I figured the least they could do was wait the three days until the protection expired to make the assessment that the situation was hopeless. Then I reviewed the talk page again. I've avoided posting a delete vote for a variety of reasons; on the one hand, many of the policies, guidelines, and essays quoted above (WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:POVFORK, WP:FRINGE, and WP:COATRACK in particular) are clearly relevant to the page as it stands now, to varying degrees. On the other hand, I think this is a subject that ought to be viable for Wikipedia, from a sourcing standpoint, if it were approached in the right way. Unfortunately, your approach to editing (and in particular, to discussion) is so coarse, adversarial, and bombastic, it is no wonder at all that WP:TNT is being invoked over and over again. Now, having escalated the situation to AfD, you still can't foresee how ill-advised it is to apply conspiracy theories to those on the opposing side of the issue, in the context where they are accusing you of supporting a conspiracy theory. And consequently, it makes no difference if you believe others set out with the goal of bringing this article back to the point of deletion through whatever disruptive means they could muster because, even if this uncivil supposition were to bear out as correct (and you have no reason to believe it is really, and less evidence still to ever begin to prove it), then you are still short-sighted as you've given them exactly what they needed to accomplish this end -- a hot temper and complete disdain for your fellow contributors when their opinion deviates from yours in the slightest. Even, apparently, in cases of an 18:3 consensus. Note: On the other hand, editors commenting here should really stop focusing upon where the article has been replicated at. It's a completely empty argument, policy-wise and has little or no relevance as to assessing whether the content is consistent with our guidelines. Let's also remember that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia which we actively encourage others to use at their discretion, up to and including complete replication; that hate-mongering nitwits are amongst that massive collection of people who utilize our works is to be expected, statistically and it doesn't say much as to our circumstances here. Snow talk 09:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I don't see why you're focusing on one offhand comment so much, rather than the whole issue here. I'd like to request that you redact you comment regarding me being this articles "main architect". To all intents and purposes, I didn't write a word of it. I will remove my comment re off-Wiki canvassing, since (as in virtually all instances) there's no evidence of it. There isn't much to say beyond "no, its just not so". The article isn't SYNTH, by definition - because it follows sources (who do all the alleged "synth", which makes it not-synth). Its not POV, again by definition - because it follows reliable sources who wrote all the alleged bias. Its not a POVFORK, by definition, since the other article explicitly excludes non-conspiracy content. Its not a COATRACK because it doesn't say a word about anything other than its topic. Again and again one must point out that its the sources that cover this subject, and in this manner. And I stand by my statement that in deleting this article we're hurting our project's main function: presenting secondary references, faithfully and exactly. But it's not one off-hand comment, is it? It's a sustained (and for you as a contributor, defining) pattern of behaviour and it's not merely incidental to these proceedings; a good number of editors voting for deletion above have expressed here or elsewhere that they were initially infavour of trying to salvage the article, but find the process completely unviable because of your involvement. You needn't waste too much time responding to me in terms of the policies I feel apply, because I've already stipulated that I didn't vote for deletion because I have a very mixed view about whether the article could be salvageable in theory. The focus of my comments here is to try to elucidate the procedural obstacle at work. That obstacle is in the form of an editor who thinks, despite being reminded constantly to the contrary, that is is acceptable practice to speculate as to the general ill-will or rational shortcomings of those who disagree with him without any kind of evidence whatsoever. I won't belabour the point any further as its relevance to the AfD itself does not warrant any more attention, at least not from me, but this this behaviour has got to stop and, regardless of the outcome of the AfD, if it does not, further community action with regard to you is necessary and inevitable. Snow talk 10:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC) The essays cited are, in essence, arbitrary. Someone wishing to delete this article based on perceived antisemitism, or haviing been told "its antisemitism!" will be inclined to interpret the policy as liberally as necessary to get rid of it, even if it means stretching them beyond all reason (as in POVFORK, for example). Such terms are powerful, and they should be. Which makes it all the more worthy of our anger when they're used like this. -- Director (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Director, you say "To all intents and purposes, I didn't write a word of it." It's not obvious what you mean by "To all intents and purposes." Please could you clarify by stating whether you were involved in writing or reviewing any of this material before it appeared as an article in mainspace on the English-language Wikipedia? NebY (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I think I maybe wrote one sentence, and added three or four images. That's what I meant. I dislike your implication. As for further discussion: I've expressed my position, and I'm done. If anyone here is wondering as to why I'm irritated (and I am), then imagine spending months in discussion on absolutely nothing. -- Director (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Director, this is exactly the behaviour that so many editors keep trying to get you to recognize; I don't see an implication in his post at all. That struck me as a very genuine inquiry for clarification that gave you every opportunity to formulate a response however you saw fit. And you chose to go with hostility and suspicion of an attempt to denigrate you with absolutely zero context to assume as much. Snow talk 10:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) The implication seems to be that I wrote it on Metapedia, or that the content was taken from such a site. As that is the only known instance of this content appearing off the English language Wikipedia. I would like to see how you would respond to being implicitly accused of contributing to Nazi websites. And all I posted was "to all intents and purposes, I didn't write a word of it" - because I didn't. -- Director (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC) For the record, the article on Metapedia has existed since the 7th of May 2010. It is definitely possible that the page creator used it as a template for this one --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Director says "The article follows sources to the letter." Substantial portions of the original article were copied word for word from an article on an anti-Semitic website by holocaust denier Mark Weber, see [117]. This has been reported to the Copyright problems noticeboard where an admin has offered an opinion that it is mis-cited text, that is, the WP article uses many of the same quotes and sources as the Weber article but never says where they were found.[118] Smeat75 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC) @The Metapedia article is entitled "Jewish Bolshevism", and it was created apparently as a slanted copy of our own Jewish Bolshevism article. As was pointed out on Jimbo's talkpage, the metapedia article appears similar in some aspects to Jews and Communism, because content from our article was copied over there approximately one month after its creation. Or I should say parts of it were copied, just enough to introduce their slant. Copying Wikipedia articles and adding their spin - is what they do over there. The Metapedia article is a slanted, butchered version of our articles, and not vice versa. You gentlemen really ought to do others the courtesy of checking the dates before you start with the despicable accusations. Or does it matter, really, as long as you get to shout "antisemitism!!" a bit more? -- Director (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC) By the way, Director, a style point. If you decide that anything you yourself write in this discussion is, in retrospect, "despicable," I suggest that you use strikeouts rather than just deleting, as you did when you removed this reference to a fellow editor's religious background after I had already responded to it with a suitable (I think) expression of astonishment. Coretheapple (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I did not object to the religion, but I did object to pushing a religious POV, which is something this project has much trouble with. But kudos on managing to imply that so cleverly. And in a completely unrelated discussion. -- Director (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Yeah yeah, whatever. My point is. Strike it out. Something tells me that, given your Crockett-at-Alamo tone, you're going to need to be doing a lot of striking out in this discussion. You may want to begin with Snow's suggestions above. Coretheapple (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC) @"you're going to need to be doing a lot of striking out in this discussion". You may be quite right about that. I just read Smeat's thread, and I'm feeling a bit nauseous. -- Director (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I am not talking about the metapedia article, please read what I wrote. "Substantial portions of the original article were copied word for word from an article on an anti-Semitic website by holocaust denier Mark Weber, see [119]. This has been reported to the Copyright problems noticeboard where an admin has offered an opinion that it is mis-cited text, that is, the WP article uses many of the same quotes and sources as the Weber article but never says where they were found.[120]" The original WP article "Jews and Communism" used an article by holocaust denier Mark Weber as the source for most of its quotes and material to do with Russia, look at the first link.Smeat75 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Wait, what are you saying exactly? Please clarify, because I offered to post an AfD myself if this article did in fact copy antisemitic sources. Was the quoted text written by someone else, or did it in fact come from the cited source? -- Director (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Have you looked at the first link? The original version of the WP article used many of the same quotes as the Weber article and slightly re-phrased numerous passages,the Weber article was obviously where they were found but it is never cited, take a moment to look at [121] and you will see what I am saying exactly.Smeat75 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC) That's good enough for me. I only wish you discovered that a few months prior. -- Director (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC) And just to be clear, the version of the article Smeat75 used for comparison had been written by one editor, Potočnik. (Two other editors had made minor edits.) TFD (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - That is obviously a controversial but fully encyclopaedic topic if studied properly. 1. Jonathan Frankel & al., Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism, Oxford University Press, 2005 About the authors: Jonathan Frankel, Eli Lederhendler, Peter Y. Medding, and Ezra Mendelsohn, who teach Jewish history, society, and politics at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. (source) About the book: The newest volume of the annual Studies in Contemporary Jewry series features essays on the varied and often controversial ways Communism and Jewish history interacted during the 20th century. The volume's contents examine the relationship between Jews and the Communist movement in Poland, Russia, America, Britain, France, the Islamic world, and Germany. (source) 2. André Gerrits, The myth of Jewish Communism: A Historical interpretation, Peter Lang (publisher), 2005. About the author: he is Professor of Russian History and Politics at the University of Leiden (source) Content: in a long and carefull introduction, he writes pp.8-10: Few historians would deny that "Jewish Communism", a variant of "Jewish World Conspiracy", has been one of the most powerfull and destructive political myth in early-20th century Europe. (...) Jewish communism was a powerful and persistent myth [b]ased on (...) anti-communism and anti-semitism. (...) [So], given the historical impact of Jewish Communism, remarkably little research has been conducted on the [real] subject [because of] too many political, emotional, ethical and empirical questions for historians to blithely raise the subject. (...) Many historians have preferred not to deal with the uncomfortable, uneasy and unexploited "element of truth". Anyway, he writes : "there may have been few communists among the Jews in East Central Europe, but Jews were overrepresented among the communists and initally at least, conspicuoulsy so.". In the 10 next pages, the author reports all the cases of the myth of the "Jewish Communism". P.23, he asks "Was there ever anything like Jewish Communism" ?. He argues and then concludes that "there may have been quite a few communists of Jewish descents, but there were considerably fewer Jewish Communists, ie Jews whose communism was conscuously Jewish. On the whole, whoever, the relationship between Jews and Communism seem to have been far more complex than either proponents or opponents to the myth tended to believe". On next 10 pages, he reviews publications, taking care to remind that it is a "conspiracy theory" but giving several notions that should be studied (and have been studied by scholars) in the context the "equations" of Jews and Communism. My suggestions: - The article should be written in fitting the structure of Gerrits' book, ie with a warning at first lines of the lead reminding this refer to a former "conspiracy theory" and then in reporting the different notions that deserve to be studied in scholarly context - We check in 3 months if the article evolved in the right way without these. If so, we keep the article and if not, we delete it in concluding wikipedia is not mature enough to deal the topic. (edit) Reading recent additional comments and thinking about the different accusations, I would increase delay from 3 months to 6 months with a topic-ban on this article to all contributors who came on this talk page (I included, why not.) in order to give a chance to this article. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC) The editor says on p. 8, "The truth is that, as of today, there is still no study examining the overall history of Communism and the Jews." The book does not seek to redress that but instead contains a number of case studies by different writers about Jews and Communism in different countries at different times. And we have an article about "Jewish Bolshevism" (also called "Jewish Communism)." In any case this source was brought up at the last AfD, and is used in the article. TFD (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete Per above, Jews and Communism study arises in reaction to and/or study of the conspiracy theory. It seems unfortunate, at present, why we exclude the above material mentioned by Pluto2012 from the conspiracy article in a Historiography section. We should recognize both the interest in scholarship to study the sociological/historical phenomenon and its relation to the "taboo" of such study, given the background of the conspiracy theory, and we should also recognize that such scholarship is developing. That seems the most "mature" way for Wikipedia to handle the scholarship at present, and in the future perhaps some sort of spin-out article(s) may be contemplated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Keep This nomination seems too soon after the previous AFD and DRV and so seems contrary to our deletion policy, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The topic just needs to be approached in a dispassionate, neutral and scholarly way. For example, see the article on Communism by Marci Shore in The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture. This demonstrates that the topic is notable and that it can be written about in an encyclopaedic way. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Note, for comparison, the recent AFD about History of Jews in Kurdistan. That article writes about Jews in a particular context and was snow kept. Here we have a different context which seems more controversial but, per WP:CENSOR, the extra heat is insufficient reason to suppress t he topic. Andrew (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC) It is not problematic to renominate an article once after the previous AfD ended in no consensus, especially when subsequent discussion failed to resolve the issues. Rlendog (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Indeed, the discussion on the talk page has very recently brought to light that this article originated in an anti-Semitic website, a shocking revelation that only just a few minutes ago cause the article's greatest defender to change his !vote in this AfD and advocate deletion of the article. It's always good to get more eyes on an article, and that is what happened to this one. There was more discussion, and over time it became apparent that this article simply was not defensible or salvageable. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) A development on the article's talk page does not justify starting another, separate discussion here. The problem from the start seems to been that partisan editors have been trying to use AFD as a means of forcing their views on how the topic(s) should be edited. But AFD is not cleanup and so should not be used as a means of extending and complicating editorial discussions. From the outset, the nay-sayers have contended that this is a content fork. Per Wikipedia:REDUNDANTFORK, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". There has therefore always been a clear alternative to deletion. Per our editing and deletion policies, deletion debates should be last resort, not a tactical weapon in an edit war. Note the recent moratorium on move requests in another protracted case where consensus has proved elusive. My !vote stands. Andrew (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) To call the discovery of this article's origins - a notorious anti-Semitic rag - a "development" must count as the understatement of the wiki-year. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete The article started as WP:COPYVIO violation of anti-Semitc source. This article is clearly WP:POVFORK of Jewish Bolshevism it was created to justify anti-Semitic conspiracy theory by means of WP:SYNTH for example it use sources that have nothing to do with scope of the article: Pride, William; Hughes, Robert; Kapoor, Jack (2011). Business. Cengage Learning. p. 17.ISBN 053847808X. Raines, John (2002). Marx on Religion. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. pp. 15–16.ISBN 1566399394. Maybe this article could be rewritten by using strictly scholarly sources that discuss the topic in depth like Pluto suggested but this version that started as rewrite of anti-Semitic article cannot be salvaged so it should be deleted. user:Shrike Delete with no prejudice towards recreation from scratch under new title. While subject of Jewish participation in 20th century European communist movements is probably an encyclopedic topic, it seems that neither title nor content of current article can serve as basis for a legitimate article on that topic.--Staberinde (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete - I am not convinced that the topic of the complex relationship between Jews and Communism is inherently non-notable or inappropriate, largely per DGG (but without the unfortunate analogy to Jews and Music which I believe was misinterpreted as a reference to Wagner's article). But this article isn't it, and given its history can probably never get there. So even if the topic is appropriate, WP:TNT applies. Rlendog (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete Not an encyclopaedic topic and beyond rescue. The topic is not described by the title, which is too broad and breaches the advice in WP:AND: Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. The existence of books that use the title has been used to argue that this is an encyclopedic topic. A book's title and its topic and scope are frequently different: take Foucault's Madness and Civilization, Bosworth's Conquest and Empire or even Cartledge's Sparta and Lakonia, let alone Crime and Punishment, War and Peace, Sons and Lovers or Pride and Prejudice. A book's title is not automatically an encyclopaedic topic. Google searches have been used to show that the phrase "jews and communism" can often be found; so can "useful contacts" or "women and children". Various other titles have been suggested, some of which would more clearly identify a topic and some of which would also be problematic: Communism and the Jewish question, Communism in Jewish history, Historical communism and Jews, History of Jewish participation in Communist movements, Jews in the history of Communism, Jews in Communist history, Role of Jews in the rise and fall of Communism, Jewish experience of Communism, History of Jewish participation in European Communist movements. But the unspoken topic of this article, especially as originally created with the opening words A near majority of Jews dominated the top ten to twenty leaders of the Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years and the Soviet Union's secret police was "one of the most Jewish" of all Soviet institutions. was Jewish responsibility for Communism and its evils. Deviations from that have been strongly resisted as outside scope, usually without defining the scope any more precisely but on one occasion as an article that lays out the association between "Jews and Communism". In this, the original article used flexible definitions of Jew and techniques of implying general guilt that were all too familiar from the history of anti-semitism. It might be technically feasible to keep this article by agreeing a more focused topic, retitling this article accordingly, stripping out all tainted material and sourcing and writing the article afresh. That's just deletion by another name, except that it would retain the toxic early versions in the article history. No-one has yet presented a good reason to do that. NebY (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Comment. The claim that our article was largely created by copying from Metapedia is not correct. The copying was done in the other direction. To see that, look at the Metapedia article in its version at the time our article was created. It's on the blacklist so I can't link to it, but go to the history and find the version of Jan 31. Hardly a word or a source in common. (I'm not commenting on the merits of our article, just disproving an error being repeated here.) Zerotalk 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC) It was copied to Metapedia and from another racist rag, as was just acknowledged by one of the principal defenders of this article, who has changed his !vote from "strong keep" to "blow it up."[122] Coretheapple (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I've just checked and this is correct. That said, I would still be wary of any article involving the Jewish people that passes the Neo-Nazi censors at Metapedia, and it was unquestionably copied from the Institute for Historical Review source --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC) No. If it had actually ORIGINATED from Metapedia, the article's vocabulary would have the likes of 'negroid' and 'fag' included. It's the fact that the article was able to pass the metapedia standards, which only allow content that is strictly racist or nazism-oriented. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Note - I will do my best to neutrally re-notify any and all editors who contributed to the original, first AFD nomination of the article in light of the new developments, and to garner more opinions on the matter. :) Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) - Response to Zero. Are you kidding me? You had to make a separate comment in addition to replying to my "Delete" rational, both of which make the same false accusations? For the record, no one on this AfD has claimed the article was copied FROM Metapedia. The claim made by me states "So, the creator made this article. Which was copied almost word-for-word and source-by-source into the White Nationalist encyclopedia, Metapedia. So I would appreciate a retraction from these accusations. As if an article being copied to an antisemitic Neo-Nazi website is somehow 'better' than visa-versa. In any case, as Smeat and Drowninginlimbo point out "it was unquestionably copied from the Institute for Historical Review" Dave Dial (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete (or split into something useful) This article is about three things; (1) Jews who happened to be communists, (2) anti-Semitism in socialist countries and (3) why so many Jews were attracted to communism.. Point one is meaningless, we don't have articles on Norwegians who happened to be communists (but we have categories for that...), second point, if this article is about antisemitism in the socialist states of Eastern Europe, lets move it to Antisemitism in the Eastern Bloc (we already have one on the Soviet Union; Antisemitism in the Soviet Union). Lastly, if this article is about why Jews were attracted to communism, we should create an article on Communism on nationality/ethnicity ... Classical Marxism was nondiscriminatory (which attracted discriminated groups throughout Europe to communism), this is an important topic (and which lacks an article). However, what is clear is this article should either be deleted or given a clear topic, as it stands now its a mess. --TIAYN (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete Coming from someone who argued last time to keep the article, it's been over a month since the original AfD and it's very clear that no progress can ever take place in order to correct the arguments that were made in the original AfD. Worse, the article grew into a monster with countless edit wars, countless noticeboard incidents, and endless arguments that did not mature into any realistic agreement. Is it a povfork? No, is it notable? Yes. Can we fix this article? unfortunately that's highly unlikely, maybe WP:TNT or if smaller more focused topics could survive but in its current state, this article has to go. --CyberXRef☎ 17:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete (or ask someone to copy it into a sandbox for a totally overhaul for the following reasons) I originally read this as antisemitic -'Jew' and 'Bolshevik' were interchangeable synonyms for some decades at least in Eastern Europe (William Brustein, Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust,, Cambridge University Press, 2003 p.271)- and feel I should confirm my vote for deletion. DGG’s comments however have made me halt in what is an instinctive judgement, but one also based on several factors. There is a huge sunken history of whisper and prejudice behind this nexus and though the topic is well worth exploring, when every big shot from Hitler to Henry Ford created a cultural meme (Jew+Communism) that fed into the popular imagination over two or three continents with disastrous results, one can only broach the topic with particular caution. A caution lacking in this article. Some background for why I react this way. Howell Arthur Gwynne's The Cause of World Unrest, G. Richards,1920 came out just about the same time as Victor E. Marsden 's version of the Protocols and its thesis pushed the idea that ‘the Jewish Bolsheviks are today carrying out almost to the letter the programme outlined in the Protocols.’ (p.ix). On p.131 that vicious screed has a list of fifty communists and their pseudonyms and the ‘real’ names (i.e Jewish) of most of them. Even Lenin’s mother is said to be of Jewish origins. This legitimized as a pseudo-documentary proof the kind of rumour-mongering lethally diffused throughout East Europe, well typified by the the following tripe: Have you gone blind and can’t see who’s now ruling Russia? . .Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev and others: they are full-blooded Jews who have given themselves Russian surnames to trick the Russian people. Trotsky is called Bronstein, Zinoviev is really Liberman and so on. And it’s you who prefer to Yid Bronstein –Trotsky- to the Orthodox Tzar.’ Anonymous letter to the Soviet authorities quoted in Robert Service, Trotsky: A Biography, Palgrave/Macmillan 2010 p.276 and it has a very long history, well studied, and dismantled by scholarship, and hopelessly garbled by the numbers-game theorists of an enduring world conspiracy (now on Wall Street, when its capitalism, and once re Communism, Capitalism's antithesis. The Jews are everywhere, and always to blame. That background compels anyone interested in the topic to write it with a detachment, clarity and comprehensiveness that are wholly absent here. This article seems to be a WP:SYNTH list of Jews associated with Bolshevism that has utterly failed to provide either a narrative framework or a meaningful summary of the story. It is inept. Though the sourcing tries to ground the topic in book research, it is throughout a patchwork of snippeted elements, many chosen apparently at random, without care taken to confirm or check what the wider literature says on each issue. Often, a check of sources reveal that the information conveyed is highly selective, and ignores much else in the sources bearing on the theme. For example. One source is quoted for the remark the mid-1920s, of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the People's Commissars, 6% were ethnic Jews. That kind of thing must be contextualized to make it meaningful. I.e. In the 1927 census, Jews constituted 4.34% of the 1,131,250 members of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. The slightly higher numbers in the upper echelons is wholly predictable from the fact that Jews constituted a notable part of the educated technocratic elites of most East European countries, and had an overpowering reason to put an end to 2,000 years of antisemitism through some utopian vision that promised to put an end to conflict itself for everyone (Trotsky's point:'The Jewish question, I repeat, is indissolubly bound up with the complete emancipation of humanity'.) Its use of sources suggests blatant trimming to edge carefully modulated statements into outright facts. For example, Theodore Draper is cited for the view that Jews made up about 15 percent of Communist Party USA (CPUSA) in the 1920s. This is a palmary example of source manipulation: Draper is reported in the source as estimating that “perhaps as much as 15 percent of the party membership was Jewish,”(p.233). This also illustrates how topical googling without studying each point in extenso leads to the POV push in this article. Thus Harvey Klehr, Communist Cadre: The Social Background of the American Communist Party Elite, Hoover Press, ‎1978 pp.37-52 has a very nuanced statistically-based chronological analysis of Jewish representation n the party and its directive elite, showing considerable fluxes in representation. Whatever, it should have been pointed out that in contrast to the thesis made for the Russian section, Jews were not overwhelmingly represented among the founders of the American Communist Party. It’s superficial: ‘There were few Jews in the peasantry, and in most countries they were virtually excluded from the landowning class’ Yet both Trotsky and Zinoviev came from land-holding farming families, and Jews were permitted by ukase since 1804 to purchase and work agricultural land. The ‘normalization’ attributed to Communism overlooks the fact that Jewish farming cooperatives had been actives throughout part of the empire for more than a century. The essay keeps using the words ‘ethnic Jews’ regardless of the fact that outmarriage often constituted anything up to a quarter of marriages between Jews and their spouses (Czechoslavakia), and this nuancing is completely absent. Many of the figures here would have seen themselves as Russians for example. It was the system or the political culture which used ethnic categories. Trotsky himself declared he was a Russian, even when talking of Jewish problems (' have lived my whole life outside of Jewish circles. I have always worked in the Russian workers movement. My native tongue is Russian.' cited Schneier Levenberg, The Enigma of Soviet Jewry: Historical Background, Glenvil Group, 1991 p.366) Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, and Grigory Sokolnikov were three of the seven members of the Politburo, an ad hoc organ for political supervision of the armed uprising.' Well, all three of them were shot by the orthodox(Stalinist) Communist regime, and no note is taken of that. To the contrary we have an emphasis on the idea that ‘the majority of Jews were not affected by the Great Terror’ and ‘By early 1939, the Jewish proportion of people in the Gulag was "about 15.7 percent lower than their share of the total population.’ I hear in this the idea that the Jews created Communism and were saved from its savageries, an innuendo the authors fail to blunt by pointing out that not only Sokolnikov, Zinoviev and Trotsky were bumped off, but also numerous other senior Jewish/Old Bolsheviks like Lev Kamenev and Karl Radek (not to speak of the huge loss created by the murders of the greatest Russian poet of the 20th century Osip Mandelshtam or a writer of genius like Isaak Babel. There is nothing here either of the key fact that the internal critique of the Stalinist turn came from a notable number of Jewish dissidents, and they paid for it with their lives. It is overwhelming focused on the Soviet Union, feeding cold-war prejudices melding hostility to that Empire with theses, widespread throughout Eastern Europe that the Jews were to blame for the disasters that hit so many nations. Throughout Jews are singled out by their attributed ethnic background, as opposed to other groups who are identified by their geopolitical nationality. This is problematical. I.e. 'contained 101 members of which 62 were Bolsheviks and included 23 Jews, 20 Russians, 5 Ukrainians, 5 Poles, 4 Balts, 3 Georgian JewsGeorgians, and 2 Armenians.' Note here that there were Jewish Russians, Jewish Poles, Jewish Balts, Jewish Georgians. The Jews and Communism is a misnomer because this is about Ashkenazi Jews predominantly. Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews were not, with the small exceptions of the urban elites in Baghdad and Cairo, inclined to politics or Communism. It’s written clumsily: Take a sentence like (a) Slezkine claims that in June 1917, the number of Jewish Bolsheviks present at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets was a minimum of 31 percent. No one can know whether this means (Jewish Bolsheviks were 31% of the RCS, or whether 31% of registered Jewish Bolsheviks were present there. It’s not hard to guess what the drafter of that inept prose wanted to say, of course (b)'Whether Jewish communism is to be considered as a 'Jewish' phenomenon as such remains a controversial subject.' Again, that is a stupid sentence. I won’t explain why, because I expect anyone can see that at a glance. Such clumsy statements are not infrequent. It can’t make up its mind whether to furnish the Bolshevism+Jews thesis with details or divagate into a Jews’ suffering under Communism (cf the section Persecution and emigration). This switches the narrative completely. The article lines up blobs of material under thematic headings but lacks any compelling narrative sense. It should have been written by a draft that took André Gerrits’s The Myth of Jewish Communism: A Historical Interpretation, Peter Lang 2009 (used here once at the very end of the page) for the framework, and then, on the basis of such a structuring, worked through the subsidiary material to add flesh to the bones. It seems to have been written the other way round. DGG has made however a very important point. There is nothing intrinsically anti-semitic in writing on Jews and Communism, and it deserves perhaps an article. My impression remains, however, that this version of the story fails the basic requirements for such an article, and therefore should be deleted (and, perhaps copied, and thoroughly reworked by independent hands in a sandbox until it looks absolutely disinterested in the politics of making a Jews+Communism nexus) Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Keep per arguments in the first nomination. This second nomination is way too early, during this short period it even went through a deletion review that didn't change the decision. No new arguments to remove it were presented, the "attack page argument" was one of the points listed in the closing statement of the first nomination. An article being in AN/I is not a deletion rationale. In fact, because of the controversy, the article has been improved through consensus. It seems this second nomination has more "votes" than the first one, despite being listed for a much shorter period, so it seems to be more of a "rally the troops" nomination. --Pudeo' 20:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Have you read any of the debate or just the votes? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Yes. --Pudeo' 21:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Including this part? [123] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Also, in reply to your other point, the more controversial the article gets, the more people who see it. That is probably the rallying the troops sensation you are talking about --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC) That was new to me. Certainly a source by Mark Weber or the institute would not constitute a reliable source, but I don't see any such listed in article's references. I don't find the comparision between the two texts very convincing. The only parts that are word-to-word are direct quotes by historical figures, which is explained by the limited scope of this article (certain important quotes on the topic will be mentioned in any case). Have I missed something? --Pudeo' 21:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC) a source by Mark Weber or the institute would not constitute a reliable source, but I don't see any such listed in article's references well, no. That's sort of the point. The creator of the original article obviously used the Weber piece as the basis for the parts of the WP article to do with Russia but did not list the Weber piece as a source, merely relisted the sources given in the Weber piece.The only parts that are word-to-word are direct quotes by historical figures, which is explained by the limited scope of this article (certain important quotes on the topic will be mentioned in any case). The Russian revolutions are very well studied events and there must be many quotes to do with Jewish peoples' involvement, surely you don't really think it is mere coincidence that so many from the Weber piece reappear in the original version of the WP article. Lists of numbers of people by ethnic groups and other statistics have merely been very slightly re-worded or rearranged to a very small degree, the Weber piece is the obvious model.Smeat75 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Rally the troops." I'd like to point out the the article’s few defenders keep alluding to this idea, and I want to be very cautious in my phrasing here. If one were, for example, an advocate of the views of the original version of the article [124], then you might be quite concerned that The Jews would all band together to vote on deleting this article. One hears such dreadful echoes. No doubt this is not what Pudeo meant, nor what Director meant above in a similar passage -- they're desperately hoping to appeal to an administrator to close in their favor despite an overwhelming contrary sentiment here. But as written the insinuation is hard to distinguish from its counterpart. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC) No, it's simply based on my own Wikipedia experience - usually if a deletion discussion is lost - you will have people asking for their friends' or different Wiki-communities support for the next one. But it is irrelevant, if they they bring actual arguments, there's no harm in it and if they only bring simple 'votes', the closing admin won't take them into consideration. All's good. By the way, I don't feel very desperate, thank you. --Pudeo' 21:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete, per nom, and per my elaborated explanations at the article's first deletion discussion, which ended with a clear majority in favor of deleting it. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete Subject matter is already discussed at Jewish Bolshevism (it's really the same thing, an article about "jews in communist movements", except one of the articles focuses on Nazi conspiracy). This article also advances the false view that Marxism-Leninism is or represents communism as a whole, and there is nothing which justifies for such an article to be created. There are no articles like "Black people and capitalism" or "White people and socialism". That's just nonsense. Zozs (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Delete. Nishidani has articulated my feeling about the article better than I ever could (at least without taking another history class). The article is hopelessly flawed, and indeed the premise of the title is flawed. It is certainly possible to write scholarly articles on the reciprocal interactions between some Jewish communities and progressive political movements in the 19th and early 20th century. Maybe it's even possible to do so on Wikipedia. But it's not possible if starting from a misleading premise and with an article largely influenced by anti-semitic screeds. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Quite correct on the former point in particular - see Jewish left, Jewish political movements, Labor Zionism, and Bundism, for some examples of instances of articles covering Jewish involvement in political movements on the far left when the subject is unambiguously a phenomena recognized by its own current of study reflected in historical resources and academia broadly (as opposed to sporadic, fairly synthesized associations). That's saying nothing of how Jewish involvement in communism, or any other political movement, can to some degree be treated in a large number of different articles concerning both the people and the movement. I suggest that those portions of this article which are worth preserving (I'd rather not speculate as to how much of the current content that includes, for concern of spawning another endless sub-debate), can be discussed in other articles without maintaining one which features an artificial discipline not reflected amongst academia or other valid sourcing. I'm surprised no one has brought up the especially relevant policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically the criteria of variation 6.: "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Needless to say, the crux of this argument is that the article's small group of devoted proponents will say it is a culturally significant phenomenon, but from my view, I just don't see that it can be appropriately validated by sourcing. Certainly many sources will speak to the role of particular Jewish individuals and groups within the history of communism, but as I see it, in order for that policy to allow for such an article as the one in question, Jewish involvement would have to be seen to constitute a major historical subdivision of the ideology that is treated as a discrete phenomena well-acknowledged by hsitorical record and scholars int he field as such; I just don't see that as the case here. I still believe this subject is encyclopedic and has relevance to any number of articles, or at least certain claims within it do, but the associations being suggested by throwing all of this random information together in the current namespace is just not appropriate, at least, not as it's been done thus far. Snow talk 00:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC) User:Snow Rise is absolutely correct in citing WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which I had overlooked and which is directly pertinent. A problem with the standard of "culturally significant phenomenon" in this instance is the voluminous antisemitic literature, as well as the voluminous anti-communist literature: if you look far enough, you're bound to find a source asserting "cultural significance". Notice how this article depends on sources 30, or 50, or even 70 years old? I should have cited WP:NOTDIRECTORY in the AfD, and would appreciate considering the AfD amended. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Delete with thanks to User:Smeat75 for the detective work. How horrible. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Delete with no opposition to a thoughtful, scholarly, careful recreation, probably under a different name. The discovery by Smeat75 that the article originated with the work of a white supremacist Holocaust denier verifies the concerns about the article expressed by many editors including me for months. Thank you for that research. I find the arguments of Binksternet, Coretheapple, Dave Dial, Nishidani, and the nominator, MarkBernstein especially persuasive. I am not fond of citing WP:TNT but this applies well here, "While you can edit any page to fix the page content, you can't edit the associations and social history of a page". In this case, to quote Coretheapple, this article will always be tainted by the "foul brew" it has been. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Blow it up — There is a chance for a scholarly recreation, per WP:NUKEANDPAVE, but it is quite clear that the present article has origins in less than savoury places. RGloucester — ☎ 06:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Keep. We have numerous policies and guidelines to support this article. We have peanut and butter articles as well as a peanut butter article. Jews and Communism have either crossed or hugged over millennia, I assume. Peanuts and butter have a combined article, thus Jews and Communism should as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Oh my gosh. We have no article called Peanuts and butter. Don't you know that actual "butter" has absolutely nothing to do with Peanut butter? Also, Communism as discussed here has not existed for millenia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Delete because even User Director (talk · contribs) says so [125], after all the WP:OWN behavior with such formidable implementation of reckless, self-defeating and self-destructive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that has not helped WP or anyone else for that matter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Your own disruptive behavior and edit-warring, not to mention your utter disregard for consensus - didn't help. -- Director (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Director the one/s who was/is/were doing the disruption was/is/were Potocnik and you, no one else. Potocnik (for those who don't know who that is, it's "PRODUCER" who has very recently changed his name) posted the article that is now revealed to have been directly imported from an outright hate site and then you who fought tooth and nail to defend it suddenly back off. Own up to your mistakes and apologize, that will make a bigger impression than blaming others (in this case blaming the victims) for your own failings because as you know in law claiming that "the devil made me do it" is not an excuse. You and Potocnic must share the blame for the fiasco. You also know full well that I worked to improve the article and added many sections that are still in right now to create a historical context and not a slant (what you euphemistically refer to as "scope") to smear the Jews. You know, the funny thing is that I was debating between keeping out of this new AfD as I mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Oppose new AfD or DRV or perhaps at least voting for another "Merge and Redirect" to History of Communism (as I did at the 1st AfD) or to even "Keep and Rename" it to my preferred title of the "Role of Jews in the rise and fall of Communism", but once I saw that based on the new damning evidence that even you had changed your mind to a Delete I said to myself that if Director can do an about-face and now (for reasons best known to himself) says the article has to go, far be it from me to come along with my two pennies worth and suggest new and better ways to save what I thought was an important topic and I always took you seriously for that. So quit beating up on me yet again, and stop the tactic of attacking others when you don't get your way, or even more, when your hand is forced, and stick to figuring out how ludicrous it is for you to run away from all the damage you caused by fighting for the untenable and all its ensuing havoc, bitterness and divisiveness it has caused on WP. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Izak, please. He apologized. He favors deletion now. What do want this guy to do, grovel? Come on. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Much of this is really not germane to the AfD, which should stay confined to the narrow issues which regard the content and policy surrounding it. Behavioural allegations are not particularly relevant here except insofar as they can be said to be the cause for believing that the article cannot be improved because of them. And that can be said in a sentence or two. And in this case, that point is moot here as it he is clearly not going to be further opposing the deletion of the page, which given the overwhelming consensus and recent revelations, seems imminent. I'll be honest, I was not a fan of Director's approach on that talk page in particular -- I thought he was unduly combative, unreceptive to views in conflict with his own, and often less than civil. In similar circumstances in the future, I'd certainly hope he did things a little differently. But the thing is, I'm inclined to believe he probably would do things differently, and not just because he has said as much, but also because the pill for him at the end of all of this was obviously pretty bitter to him. Anything you say is going to be secondary to that anyway, and trying to get him to eat crow will probably just result in matters staying combative. Better to be conciliatory (or failing that, non-committal) and hope for the best. If Director ever shows battleground behaviour on that scale again, there's always administrative review. As a matter of fact, if that situation manifests itself again that anyone sees, let me know and I'll build the ArbCom case myself. But for the present time, let's remember that Director made a principled decision to change his position once new vital facts became available to us all. That proves that, strident and inappropriate as his actions could be, we can at least take it on faith (as we should anyway), that he was doing what he thought was right. Which means only his approach needs to change, not his motives. And it's easier to get a person to change their approach than their motive, broadly speaking. He's intelligent, so give him some space to digest the situation and maybe he'll come to the conclusions you'd want him to. But if you crowd him at this moment demanding he own up to things in exactly your terms, and I daresay the result is going to be less constructive for all of us. Snow talk 05:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Since I'm the only one with the spine or integrity to say what is patently obvious, Director did not make a "principled decision" to "change his position." Director is covering his tracks to draw attention away from the fact that as soon as someone attempted to make changes to the original article, which we now know was plagiarized from a white supremacist website, Director used his rollback privileges to undo those changes. Rolled back edits to an article he had not as of yet contributed to. Or so he says. Knowing full well that I would be reported by Director and possibly banned, I have always been completely straightforward and frank about what is going on here. I will continue to be so and have no interest in being polite or editing Wikipedia until the community figures out how to deal with editors like Director who abuse Wikietiquette in order to advance a racist agenda. I come here to edit articles on guitar effects, not conduct crusades against anti-semites. But this is just gross I and there's something seriously wrong with wikiculture to have let things go this far.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Speaking as one who was nauseated by this article from the first time I laid eyes on it, and brought it to Jimbo's page, I view the most important priority as the content, not the behavior of the editors. That was only significant to the extent that it made the article worse and intimidated editors from improving it. The content, I'm glad to say, seems to be heading for deletion by overwhelming consensus. If there are future problems with editor behavior, they can be dealt with. Meanwhile, we are required to assume good faith.This isn't some kind of grand battle between warring factions that needs to be waged at every opportunity on a take-no-prisoners basis. By the way, I don't believe you've opined in this AfD yourself on the issue at hand. Coretheapple (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @Atlanictire, bearing grudges is unseemely. If I recall you were blocked for consistently referring to me as a sockpuppet, and then again, rather ironically - for being a (checkuser-confirmed) sockpuppeteer yourself. Not a Heroic Defender of the Truth Against the Oppressive Machine, or whatever you've convinced yourself. I consistently maintained this article isn't antisemitic, and stated that if it was show to be using any inappropriate sources, I'd nominate it for deletion myself. When Smeat75 did provide evidence, the AfD was already up and I could only change my vote to delete, but I would have nominated myself. My point is, I'm acting consistently with my long-held position. I am in no way "covering" anything. -- Director (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC Director, you flatter yourself. It's not so much a grudge as it is a willingness to state plainly that if rules can be so readily employed to serve the objectives of a very determined bigot, then maybe we need to examine how these rules are enforced. Never having interacted with either you or Producer before, I stated that the article appeared to have been created by an "Anti-Semitic crank" and was tattled on by Producer and blocked for it. You proceeded to repeatedly taunt me about this and threatened to once again have me punished in a similar fashion. Just as you're doing in this discussion. Personally, it's more important to me to have admins who are willing to take a little bit more time to investigate complaints such as yours before acting on them. Maybe get a better sense of the context, take into account the behavior of the person making the complaint--whether they're honestly attempting to collaborate or tattling to eliminate someone whose edits they dislike. Seek input from others editing the controversial article. Be a little less touchy if their actions are not automatically complied with when they don't. I'm far more disappointed in how the admins have handled this than I am with you. You're just a symptom.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC) --Break 4-- Comment (tending to Delete). I guess I can can more or less repeat what I said last time round and/or what others have said above: the page leaves an unpleasant impression. That's not enough to kill it, but the fact is that it seems focused on proving a link and constructing an argument by stringing together examples that are claimed to be part of the topic. Prima facie, that is WP:OR or, more precisely, WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure that such "relationship" and "comparison" pages, whose titles usually consists of two genuine topics connected with the word "and", are ever of much value or can ever escape from being caught up in WP rules against original research. Yes, this topic is arguably one of legitimate and fleetingly recorded academic enquiry, but you can pretty much find sources for any such juxtaposition if you look hard enough. In this specific case, we have the bonus flaw that even if the intention is not anti-Semitic, the result invariably comes across that way. N-HH talk/edits 12:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTCASE. Having a separate article could mislead readers to believe that Communism is connected to Jewish people which would be incorrect and wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Delete per nom. The article's thesis that Communism was created and controlled by 'Jews', 'the Jews', or a witchhunted list of individuals with Jewish ancestors, is entirely inconsistent with WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:ATTACK and WP:FRINGE (WP:AND is also relevant). We have Jewish Bolshevism which describes the anti-semitic canard; we don't need an article which proclaims the canard as fact. The complex relationship between Communism, race and religion is an interesting and legitimate field of study, certainly notable and encyclopaedic - singling out Jews, as this article does, is certainly not the right way to address it. Nuke it from orbit. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Delete. The changes since the last AfD did little to improve this obviously tendentious synthesis, so I reiterate my original position. Anonimu (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Comment. To avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK problems, this article should be split into several articles on clear-cut topics ("Jews and RSDWP", "Bundism", "Jews and Comintern", "Jews and Soviet secret police", "Jews and American communist movement" etc). --DonaldDuck (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC) As I see it, the synthesis happens at the "and", which basically invites people to google and assemble (or rather amass) facts without context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Why specifically and only Jews? Why not "Catholics and Soviet secret police"? IMO the proposed series of articles merely reinforces the canard that there is some special and definitive link between 'Jews' and Communism, as opposed to the relationship between people of other races or religions, and Communism. I'd be fine with an article about "Religion and Communism" or "Race and Communism", if we don't have them already. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Keep, we are here to build an encyclopedia, to claim that is topic does not belong here is ridiculous. The relationship between the Jewish people and communism is long documented, historical, and academic. WP:COATRACK is an argument for clean up not deletion. Since the beginnings of communism, Lenin has made direct references to the Jewish people and later they were persecuted by Stalin, all historical. The influence and relationship between this two groups is undeniable. Valoem talk contrib 14:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Is there a group of people anywhere to whom Lenin did not make direct reference? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC) We have Doctors' plot already. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Are we saying that Jewish relationship with Communism is trivial and not of historical significance? That is simply not true we can always expand this article and remove any bias. Valoem talk contrib 16:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC) That's why a plurality of people who have proposed a deletion of the article have also suggested WP:TNT. Yes, the subject at hand could be viable for inclusion as a section of another article, or in some other way though the current article and it's subject matter are far from being up to WP standards.. the title in it self creates a synthesis. An honest, neutral, proper article detailing the relationship between Jewish People and communism would be appropriate - NOT an article stemming from the works of an adamant Holocaust Denier; an article which passes the standards of other wikis that only accept strictly anti-jewish content (Metapedia). Since the last afD nomination, it has been clearly demonstrated by the constant edit-warring and lack of constructive repair that the article in it's current form has no chance of thriving to meet standards.. yes, the topic could fit in on wikipedia, but the article in it's current state is irreparable. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 18:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC) In fact the connection between the Jewish people and the Communist movement is trivial, except in conspiracy theories and that is well covered in "Jewish Bolshevism", also called "Jewish Communism." There is for example no source that puts together the relationships between Ethiopian Jews and the Communist Workers' Party of Ethiopia and between the Jews of New Zealand and the Communist Party of New Zealand. Similarly there were people of Welsh ancestry involved in Communist parties in the UK, U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., but no authors have written a narrative of Welshmen and Communism. If I am wrong then please present a source. TFD (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC) TFD's standard, though the article cannot meet it, is still too low. Isolated historians or sociologists or conspiracy theorists may write about anything. What we'd need to see for the encyclopedia is a consensus connection, at least within a subset of people who study and write about the subject. For example, nearly every historian of the American Civil War will deal in some way with its connection to slavery; that connection is clearly notable. Somewhere, there may well be a study of Midwives in the American Civil War, but most treatments of the American Civil War do not particularly discuss midwives and most treatments of midwives do not particularly discuss the American Civil War. It's not enough to show that someone, somewhere, once thought there might be a connection, but in point of fact it's quite difficult to show that anyone, anywhere, shows much of a connection untainted by Jewish Bolshevism. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Nonsense. You're hoping to introduce an arbitrary bar this article must meet: there must be a "consensus" in the scientific community for a "connection" or else you can always claim this is inappropriate because the sources are "isolated"? Right? Well those are just words, and that's not how this works. If you claim they are WP:FRINGE (which is the wikilawyering translation) you must demonstrate that with sources, not your own judgement. Your example is completely off: if there actually were a large, comparable body of work done on "Midwives in the American Civil War" (as there of course isn't), then we'd be perfectly justified in creating an article on that subject. Now, I'm not supporting this article in its current form, but its very hard to AGF with the way you're arguing. You give the impression of profound personal bias in your approach. This is a tertiary source. If secondary sources cover a subject - we can have an article about it. That's pretty much the bottom line. To argue that we shouldn't requires very, very good reasons, well grounded in policy. -- Director (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) I think this is the first time I've been accused of bad faith for paraphrasing WP:FRINGE. Director , please see the admonition to IZAK above, written in your defense; it applies here as well. You and I have agreed on little enough that you really shouldn't see bad faith, much less complain about it, in an observation with which we both essentially agree. As you know, I'm not the only person to express the opinion that this behavior is headed for ArbCom; when that seemingly inevitable event occurs, interested parties might look at the preceding 6 (!) edits for another taste of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior this user had indulged so frequently in this article, and which are amply documented in the nomination above. But let's leave all this to another day: our job here is to WP:TNT an article which we all now agree is derived from anti-semitic cant. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC) We do not agree that this article is WP:FRINGE, that was my point. I don't think you're being deliberately disruptive or anything of the sort, but I do believe your conduct does not reflect the reality in the sources. I was trying to be honest, you seem to "have it in" for the topic, I don't know. If this article is FRINGE, you ought to demonstrate that with references. Simply saying its FRINGE or claiming that the sources are "isolated" isn't worth much. My position is WP:BLOWITUP: I do not believe the premise of the article is contrived given what we have. The article is going away, and as I said, I don't have any plans to recreate it myself - ArbCom is unlikely to take a dead case. Its best to stop talking about it altogether, it can only raise tensions. -- Director (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I agree with this notion. It seems pretty certain that deletion is going to happen now, so the best plan of action is to let events take their course, and keep an eye out for any attempts to recreate the article with recycled content in the future. Further arguments between editors who have now both voted delete probably aren't serving to help matters much --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Cut. The. Crap. Director wants to WP:BLOWITUP the article because it would destroy evidence of his connection to the thoroughly discredited Producer/Potočnik, should anyone care to conduct a competent sockpuppet investigation. Don’t you dare blow it up until that happens. And before he starts in with the tu quoques, after being blocked for noticing the anti-semitism and sockpuppetry did I create a sockpuppet to notice it just a little bit more? Yes I did. Director is better at this than I am, so I’ll leave it to him to find the examples.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) But there was already a sockpuppeting case a while back and it showed no connection. Wasn't the evidence you speak of available then? Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Atlanticire, unless you can verify your claims, you need to learn to stop throwing out such harsh accusations. If such accusations were true, both Director and Potočnik could face a ban. Do not make serious accusations pertaining to a fellow editor's social stature so lightly. Just because Director has contradicting views to yours about this article doesn't mean he's an ultimate wikivillain guilty of committing every crime known to man. A serious issue with this article is that no one seems to remember adhere to WP:NPA on both sides of the argument, drastically reducing the effectiveness of any attempts to improve the situation. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 14:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Atlantictire, surely the most important thing about WP is that the readers should not be given false or slanted information by the articles. While that article is onsite, people might still be reading it and giving it some credence, it needs to be removed as soon as possible. I don't think Director and Producer are the same person and I never did, it would not be very clever to create two accounts with such similar names. I do think you were very badly treated by the whole system but if you keep making sockpuppet accusations you are likely to be blocked again which would be a shame. I totally agree with the comment on this page" Quite frankly this episode suggests to me that there are issues with the core policies of the project that I hope are addressed. mikeman67 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2014", I don't know where the best place to discuss this systemic failure will be, but that is an issue for after this foul article has been nuked.Smeat75 (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I agree, and given the wretched nature of this article and the toxic talk page, I can see how people can be provoked to say the wrong thing. This is not the place to discuss that, however. Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Uh Oh Here I Go With Another Blatant Sockpuppet Accusation: I dunno. Their writing styles and content contributions are indistinguishable. They're from the same city in Croatia and share a strong interest in Balkan nationalism and Jews. Most damningly, a whole lot more progress would have been made on the article under discussion had they not been so precise in coordinating undoing other editors' work. Either they're sockpuppets or they're psychic. It seems pretty logical that someone who would A.) create and spend weeks defending an article lifted from a racist conspiracy site, and B.)put a ridiculous amount of effort into mastering Wikipedia points of order would C.) make the effort to figure out how to conceal his/her sockpupptry, at least so far as IP addresses are concerned. If you think I give a flying toot about being blocked on account of this rule-fetishist/content oblivious lunacy, then maybe I'm failing to make myself clear.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Oh... I just thought of something else. The hair trigger tendency to complain to various admin boards without first attempting to discuss the behavior with the editor they report. It's this "Ah-ha! You did something I can get you in trouble for!" that reflects a preference for monopolizing articles rather than collaborating. They both do it, both using the same rationals and tactics, and it's something I've only ever encountered with Director and Producer/Potočnik.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Oh hello, Atlantictire. I take it your block for sockpuppeteering has expired? Oh, yes, I remember - you were blocked for calling others sockpuppets while being a sockpuppeteer yourself. Right. Kindly cut it out or you will be reported again. If you don't care, imagine how little I do. -- Director (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) How about no. The "others" I've been blocked for calling sockpuppets are yourself and Producer/Potočnik. You go ahead and report me, since it only proves further how you share this tendency with Producer/Potočnik, and how good you are at making threats and abusing the admin process to get your way.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I can't believe you've still got the nerve to go around calling others socks, when checkuser says they're not - and you are. I've got to admit, tgat's something I've never seen on this project. -- Director (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Believe it. I guess you missed the part where I fully acknowledged creating a sockpuppet so that I could notice your bigotry and sockpuppetry just a little bit more. I have nothing to hide. I was blocked for calling Producer a bigot. Guess how that turned out? If you think your threats will scare me from saying things that are true, you've failed to notice that I'm punk as fuck. If these nice people want to confuse your revolting attempts to cover your ass with contrition, that's their problem. There's "assuming good faith" and then there's being a chump and a sucker. Nice try, tho.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC) @Valoem:"Are we saying that Jewish relationship with Communism is trivial and not of historical significance?" No. It's an interesting and notable subject but that does not exempt it from WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE or WP:BUTITSTRUE. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Delete, but without prejudice to future articles per WP:TNT and the solution suggested by TFD (the original nominator for deletion) for a future article whose scope is defined by the actual reliable sources (such as the entry in the Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture). I for one plan to start an article on Communism in Eastern European Jewish history, without any of the material that was in the first version of the Jews and Communism article.--Pharos (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Delete. Agree with TFD that "the connection between the Jewish people and the Communist movement is trivial". Bus stop (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Delete. per IZAK. --Yoavd (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Delete, per nom. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Delete without salting, in order to blow it up and start over, as per existing arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Delete I don't think I've got anything new to add. I agree with Pharos and TFD in particular. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Snow Delete All the policy reasons have been stated very well above. The only thing I have to add is that this article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I am One of Many (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Delete - This article is weird, weird, weird. Looking over the early history of the article makes it look weirder. This article looks like a Wikipedia:Coatrack and quacks like a Coatrack. Without looking at it too deeply I'm going to assume it is a Coatrack. And, for an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'm pretty sure we'd have trouble finding pages that linked other ethnicities/religions to particular forms of government (e.g. Christianity and Facism). Given that this delete discussion seems to be trending towards 10 to 1 in favor of deletion, might I humbly suggest we snow this one? NickCT (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Leaning towards delete -- An article on this topic would not necessarily be out of bounds, but I'm disturbed by the fact that after all the controversy and editing on the article, there's only rather oblique allusion to some of the most relevant and important historical factors, such as that in late Tsarist Russia, Jews were in the unique position of being both highly-oppressed and highly-educated, and so were naturally disproportionally over-represented in just about every dissident intellectual or political current that wasn't anti-Jewish and/or focused almost exclusively on peasants or Christianity. Unless this article is bulked up with better or clearer explanations of some of the reasons why it's not too surprising in many cases that Jews would be over-represented in not-yet-in-power Communist parties, but that there's no real evidenced in most cases that Jews within Communist parties in power saw their main goal as furthering Jewish interests or ideologies, I'm kind of leaning towards delete.... AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ---Action following deletion and/or as well as deletion--- [copied to talk page, as discussed] Follow this link [126] USchick (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC) ---Proposed topic ban for 2 editors--- The article Jews and Communism is currently going through a second nomination for deletion. After several ANI incidents and lots of discussion, two editors stand out as being extremely disruptive to the Wikipedia community. Instead of rehashing the arguments here, I would like to nominate two editors for a topic ban. WP:TBAN I'm asking for community consensus from involved editors to determine whether a topic ban for one or both editors is appropriate action. Comments from the community are welcome. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Background Recent threads at AN/I: [127] and [128]. Discussion at Jimbo: [129]. More examples: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism" Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#General disruption, personal attacks, and sock puppet accusations Ownership issues [130] Proposed bans for topics on Jews and Communism ---First nominee--- User:Potočnik - Previously named Producer. Original creator of the article Jews and Communism Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Strong support for the decision to reproduce a vitriolic article on Wikipedia, and for the disruptive protection of it. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Strong support (Judaism solely) for creating an antisemitic article that relies heavily on Neo-Nazi sources [131], such an editor should be prevented in any way possible from editing further articles relating to Judaism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support based on the fact that this editor copied over to Wikipedia[132], in substantial part, an article that ran on a notorious anti-Semitic website. See analysis at [133]. There may well be other reasons to topic-ban this editor, but this is enough. No, more than enough, to topic-ban this editor from any subject even remotely related to Judaism or Communism. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support a block for Potočnik if it can be established that he copied non-free content into the project. This is sufficient reason for an indefinite general block, in my opinion, actually, given the context. However, if it cannot be established that non-free content was copied, then the case is a bit muddier. Certainly Producer showed tendentious behaviour at many points during the discussion, but whether it raises to the level of a topic ban, especially given that he has been quiet for some time now, is uncertain. I'd certainly like to see him blocked for bringing this garbage into the project, but having an objectionable stance on an issue is not sufficient policy reason, so I think this all hinges on the nature of the content copied (in terms of ownership, not odiousness) and how close the material added conformed to it. Snow talk 19:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support Creating an article that presented an anti-Semitic view is disruptive. Even if the article itself was justified, beginning it in such a POV tone makes it much harder to improve it, thereby wasting the time of dozens of editors at various noticeboards, including an RfC and two AfDs. TFD (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Strong Support: Not only was the article creation immensely disruptive, but the persistent, unrelenting and determined defense of that article against any change or improvement, or any lessening of its anti-Semitism or attempt to balance its neutrality, was terrible damaging to the project. Indefinite site ban. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) He was warned on his talk page with examples of diffs [134][135][136][137][138][139] USchick (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support ban and block if this is shown to be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support. The evidence that Potočnik plagiarised an antisemitic source without attribution is indisputable. This is about as gross a violation of WP:NPOV policy as one could imagine, and I find it difficult to believe that Potočnik could do so without being aware that it would be seen as such. Frankly, I am having difficulty understanding why this was done in the first place, given that the article was plainly going to be controversial, and accordingly subject to close scrutiny. One has to conclude that Potočnik either lacks the competence and understanding of elementary policy required to edit in such sensitive areas, or understands policy full well, but chooses to ignore it. Either way, we can manage well enough without such 'contributions' on these topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support. I would also support an indefinite block for from editing altogether, copying content from extremist websites without attribution should not be tolerated.Smeat75 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Strong Support -(of a topic ban, for Producer only). This user CREATED the article, an embarrassment to wikipedia, and has demonstrated a heavy ownership of it since. For him to claim that he had no knowledge of the content of the article's origins is outrageous. He refused to listen to any and all outside criticism of an obviously troubled article. He obviously is incapable of providing NPOV on any subjects related to Judaism.. he (supposedly) copied content from a strictly anti-Semitic website, and then continued to edit war and initiate massive conflicts when editors tried to neutralize or, god forbid, actually remove the inaccurate content, as proven per what USchick provided above. Even if he didn't copy the content (I'm at odds as to who would have, if not), his ignorance of the concepts of consensus and the 3RR demonstrate the need for a topic ban. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Strong Support per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. [140].--Atlantictire (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) There's already been an SPI filed concerning the pair, deriving from problematic editing on an older article; the conclusion was that they are not the same person. Meatpuppetry remains a strong possibility, of course, but having reviewed the evidence, I'm doubtful of the strength of the case to be made, beyond suspicion. Snow talk 23:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Snow, I'd really appreciate your participation in the discussion of this.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support for POV-pushing, pure and simple. Miniapolis 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support – Given his almost certain knowing creation of an article based on anti-Jewish sources, and consistent intellectual dishonesty, I cannot see any future edits by him edits in these areas that would be productive. RGloucester — ☎ 04:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support. POV pushing, tendentious editing, dishonesty about sources, and other disruptive behavior. He would be lucky to get off with a mere topic ban. A block or site ban would also be appropriate for someone with this history. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - the formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "spat" ?? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support per warnings by User Jehochman (talk · contribs) [141] [142] [143] to PRODUCER (as he was known at that time)/Potocnik: 1 "Do you have a connection with User:DIREKTOR? I find it odd that both of you show up with the same Jews and Communism dispute. Jehochman Talk 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" [144]; 2 "In any case, your account is blocked indefinitely, not for the sock or meat puppetry which is a strong possibility and also good grounds to block, but for tendentious POV pushing. The account will remain blocked until there is a discussion about how to prevent further recurrences...Jehochman Talk 16:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" [145]; 3 "...The following diffs show inappropriate editing. [146][147][148][149][150][151] Should you accumulate more examples of a similar nature, you may be subject to a sanction...Jehochman Talk 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" [152]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support a ban on anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or anti-semitism for reasons given by many editors above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. The admin Jehochman acted prematurely and excessively, and their conduct should be examined closely to determine whether they should continue to wield the mop. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). DeCausa (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support As per obvious anti-semitic POV, evident on the creation of a WP:FRINGE article copied from an anti-semitic source. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose procedurally as one-sided. There has been ugly, nasty behavior around this article and related AfDs over the months and it would take the Arbitration Committee to look into everyones behavior to determine who is at fault and who needs to be pried out of the topic area. Atlantictire "I will continue to be so and have no interest in being polite or editing Wikipedia until the community figures out how to deal with editors like Director who abuse Wikietiquette in order to advance a racist agenda", is one from the "other side" that come to mind. This is not the type of thing where one's wiki-enemies should be able to propose and vote on topic bans. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support as POV pushing & in general disruptive editing. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support topic ban for both Judaism and Communism. This has been an exercise in blatant POV-pushing, and a topic ban is the bare minimum action needed. I would also support a site ban, because I don't think that an editor who been POV-pushing so hard in one topic is going to be editing constructively elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) --15:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Strong Support - There is no way you can convince me the the original version of the "Jews and Communism" article was not an attempt to legitimize the Antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism. I mean, does the editor want us to believe that they just had all of those sources lined up, many of which are lined up elsewhere, by the Holocaust denial Institute for Historical Review, with no intent? I support a site ban, or at the very least a ban on all topics related to Judaism, Jewish People and Communism. Dave Dial (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - the article has been blanked by an admin as "substantial plagiarism (and therefore copyright violation) going back to its creation".[153] Producer, the creator of the article, says he has retired but I think he should be given an indefinite site ban in case he changes his mind.Smeat75 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Strong Support Been staliking and reading up on this. Would advocate site ban. We are here to create articles, not shit-pits of racist POV. Irondome (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support a ban on Jews and Judaism, but oppose a ban on Communism. The editor has been contributing in the highest quality there for years. Regarding myself, I already said I have no intention of entangling myself in this ugly business again, and do self-ban myself from any topics relating to Judaism. But honestly I don't know why a ban on Communism is being proposed at all, it seems a very simplistic copy-pasting of the article's title. -- Director (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Support per the admission found at the post by Potočnik (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC), in the discussion below. No user should think stringing articles together from an (uncited, mis-cited, masked) antisemitic source on these topics is not prohibited. How is one to trust anything this User has written, if that is his method. Site ban would be reasonable for this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Support. In all honesty I feel these users should be pleased if they only get handed a topic ban. Calidum Go Bruins! 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) ---Second nominee--- User:Director - Blindly supported Producer and now changed his mind. Has a history of disruptive editing. Support as nominator. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support for disruptive editing in this area. However, this TBAN should not be closed until the AFD is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support a topic ban on subjects related to Judaism or Communism. While it may be true that he was not aware of the origins of this article, the fact is that he blindly and unreasonably supported the article after it was created by Producer. That is evident by simply reviewing his actions after the article was created. See[154] and in particular his rollback of 14:01, 3 March 2014‎[155] with the edit summary "standard USChick nonsense.." Eh, no. It was not USChick's nonsense or anyone's nonsense. It was an effort to reverse some of the damage that Producer was causing to the project by copying over text from an anti-Semitic website and creating an article that quickly passed muster with Metapedia and was reproduced there. Producer put in motion this effort to make Wikipedia a part of this daisy chain of drivel-producers, and Director became his right-hand man, fighting alongside him in the article and, on the talk page. But you don't have to wade through all the verbiage on the talk page, all the nastiness, all the threats, all the boorish behavior, all the saber-rattling. This is enough. I appreciate that he now favors deletion of the article, but his behavior in this article is such that it cannot be ignored, and a topic ban is necessary to protect the project from further such behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Comment The case is presently unclear for Director as well. More so than anyone, Producer included, his behaviour reflected battleground mentality and a lack of appreciation for our non-negotiable civility policies and had I been asked to respond to this proposal a few days ago, I would have given unequivocal support for not just a topic ban, but probably a general block. However, I question the wisdom of blocking a user just as they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter (albeit only by a lightning bolt revelation), and have backed off from their combative behaviour some, even expressing mortification over the whole affair. I know it's a risk, given past patterns of behaviour, but I wonder that maybe the best approach, and the one suggested to us by policy, is to give this user a chance to assimilate the obvious lesson here, rather than assuming he can't, given his change in position. I said it in the AfD already, but it bears repeating here: it's easier to change a person's approach to a situation than it is their motive and while Director exhibited considerable problems in his approach, it is clear his motive was not antisemitism. I think I (narrowly) support leaving Director's editing privileges intact, as per WP:Rope; if he exhibits the same problematic approach to contentious issues in the future as he did in the present article (and apparently in the past on others) then I would whole-heartedly support a general and indefinite block and will participate with vigor in the process to see it done. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Strong Support at least a broad topic ban. Director's dropping of his determined opposition in the face of conclusive evidence of the article's toxic sourcing is commendable, but comes after months of vitriolic posts and even more vitriolic disputation and incessant edit-warring. If Director and Producer were not in fact sock puppets, observers may be forgiven the assumption for they frequently acted in close concert, dominating the page and effectively shutting out alternative voices while threatening to "report" almost everyone who ventured the slightest disagreement. Even after his recantation, for example, Director asserts on the AfD page that my own précis of WP:FRINGE makes it impossible for him to WP:AGF [156]. Director has burnt countless hours of time and irreplaceable reservoirs of good will; had this received broader publicity, the damage could well have been much worse.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. Also, accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC) It really doesn't matter how many diffs are posted if no one is interested in looking at them. At one point, he was blocked indefinitely. USchick (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Uhh, no, the position expressed in that latter statement is not at all reflected in policy, that I know of anyway; failure to provide a diff is at most an inadvisable oversight. Knowingly constructing a specious claim for which absolutely no evidence exists at all could arguably be considered a personal attack, but even then, it would be be better described as just general bad-faith behaviour. Let's be careful about misrepresentation of policy to suggest inappropriate behaviour here, in a situation which already has enough fuel. Regardless of how each of us feels about the advisability of the posting, and regardless of how many diffs USChick put into her initial comments, there is a significant issue of ongoing disruption being discussed here that has been agreed to be an issue by dozens of involved editors. Suggesting that there is bad-faith at work in attempting review of the issues is not going to help. Snow talk 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) What is considered to be a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I have yet to see any evidence. Diffs or otherwise. It is a personal attack without evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, accusations that lack evidence altogether, not accusations for which the evidence was not immediately proffered at the arbitrary point at which you happened to enter the discussion. In order for it to be a personal attack, the claim has to have no basis in fact and be made as part of bad-faith activity. Failing to provide that evidence is an oversight, one that can be (and should, and has been) corrected, but it is not a personal attack if it was based on an informed perspective of the matter, least of all when there is massive support for the position amongst involved editors also familiar with the circumstances. You specifically implied that failing to provide diffs made any comment they would have supported a personal attack, and that is simply not true. Besides, it's not just diffs alone which make that case, but, as the very section you quoted shows, and linking to relevant discussion. There are a variety of links and diffs in this thread which direct to voluminous discussion across a variety of venues. These are not spurious claims being made by parties on a whim and without any substantial reason for concern, which is the only situation in which the policy you quote would apply. There is no bad-faith activity at work amongst those who brought this topic for discussion - your argument in that direction has no merit. Snow talk 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Your interpretation is not what the policy says. You could make an argument not providing evidence at the point of asking for the ban was an oversight, but that is not an excuse given it was three hours before I asked for it and multiple people had voted support already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) In what way does my interpretation depart from policy? Please be specific. You made the very precise claim that "accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack." and I called you on that. No one is saying either A) that diffs and other solid evidence aren't recommended if you want your claims of bad-faith behaviour on the part of another contributor to be taken seriously, nor B) that it wouldn't be a personal attack if one manufactured non-existent complaints for which they never will be capable of giving evidence. But you've synthesized these two principles into one notion that if an editor makes an accusation of impropriety and they don't immediately make their case with evidence, that is a personal attack, regardless of whether they are in fact correct about the purported behaviour and acting in good faith. That idea is just not supported in policy. Anywhere. But to an extent it's a moot point, since this diff demonstrates there were in fact a dozen-plus diffs and links in this thread supplied as evidence of the behaviour and circumstances being discussed supplied by parties to the discussion, previous to your first post. Mind you, I don't want to get into an endlessly recursive discussion here with you, as it would serve little use to the broader issues here. And I have misgivings about how things have been handled too. But the statement you made was categorically false, and not in a trivial way, since through it you implied that another contributor was engaged in personal attacks. I didn't see that as particularly helpful to the current circumstances, whatever your feelings about whether or not the instigation of this process was well-advised. Snow talk 10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - Yes, Director's behaviour was very bad, however he has apologised. I would suggest keeping tabs on his activities in related articles and putting him "on probation", as it were, rather than a ban right now.Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose I partially agree with Smeat75's proposal. Director has apologized and admitted his fault in the article. Support (for Director only) the figurative "probation", if not that, then a temporary Topic Ban.. oppose anything else as Director's involvement is unclear at the moment, it seems as if all he did was behave in a slightly unorthodox way whilst defending the article from the likes of Atlanticire, and that doesn't warrant a topic ban. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 21:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Comment Snow Rise wrote "they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter". I can't agree. Director collaborated on this polemic before Producer uploaded it.[157][158] The lede was not the beginning of a neutral encylopedic article; it was recognisably hate literature. It began "A near majority of Jews dominated the top ten to twenty leaders of the Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years and the Soviet Union's secret police was "one of the most Jewish" of all Soviet institutions", the entire lede continued that litany, and the rest of the article followed in that vein.[159] In discussion, he insisted it was neutral, that it was American bias against communism that rendered his opponents unable to see the true neutrality of the piece. He insisted that oppression of Jews under communism was outside the scope of an article called "Jews and Communism", but would not describe the scope except as "an article that lays out the association between "Jews and Communism""[160]. He only recoiled when he was busted, and not from the language, not from the framing, not from the purpose, not from the sourcing even now, just from it becoming publicly known that the creators of the Wikipedia article - Producer and Director together, that we know of - had taken this polemic from an article written by a known Holocaust denier and defended it to the hilt. Is it "clear his motive was not antisemitism" because he expressed mortification for being deceived, mortification that's already been succeeded by resentment at being taken to task for fighting so bitterly for such malicious trash? No, it's not clear. NebY (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Director doesn't strike me as the type of contributor who changes his perspective based upon the general community consensus of his character and behaviour, no matter how overwhelming. Of course, if your assertion that he and Producer collaborated on the page before it was introduced into article space, or more specifically, that he knew the material was being plagiarized from the source from which it came, can be supported with evidence, that would be a different situation entirely and would generate an instant change in position on my part. However, the diffs you provide are only for a previous implication of this fact on your part and his denial of said claim, which is not really evidence of any sort either way. On a side note, though, I never saw a version the article that far back until now; I had thought the current version was problematic, but that version is truly hideous. As if the obviously fringe and distasteful wording of the prose aside, the use of images to create the implication of a rogue's gallery is itself unsettling, as if meant to say "Look how Jewish all of these communists are." Still, nothing I see screams out as proof that Director wasn't just blind to rampant synthesis at work. While it may seem inconceivable to you or I to not be able to appreciate the hate-mongering that must have been at work in the ultimate source of those claims, it's entirely feasible Director did not. My view of him is that he is simply a problematic editor in general who does not like be disagreed with, and once the situation on the page reached a certain level of heatedness, he was lost to discussion on the matter and inclined to view opposing views as nonsense by default, until incontrovetable evidence as the source of the content snapped him out of it. That's a serious issue in itself, but one not well addressed by a topic ban. Which is why I've advocated giving him a chance to learn a lesson here, but with very little tolerance for anything approaching that kind of behaviour again, which should be met by a general indefinite ban from the project. Snow talk 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) What would your opinion be if it was proven that Director knowingly added a source from an anti-semitic "hate group" onto the article (not that I suggest he has, I only mirror what previous editors have said). Would you support a topic ban then? My position of current, based upon the evidence provided, is that Director is just adamant and stubborn, and perhaps a bit offensive in general. I haven't seen any specific links to a personal attack he made, or to unacceptable contents/sources he uploaded.. although I highly suspect he has done one of the two, that's just speculation.. as much as I would like him to be blocked, and as much as I disagree with his ethics, we're not in a position to do much yet.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Personally, my perspective on that matter would depend highly upon the nature of the source and the manner in which it was added. After-all, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that a source used in some context by a hate group could be used for quite a different purpose as a reliable source on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if Director quoted a source from the same hate group from which Producer plagiarized his content, then it would suggest he was fully aware of Producer's activities, but I've yet to see any evidence of such. If the source came from a different locale entirely, but was not an appropriate source, then that would also raise the spectre of his inability to edit in the topic area in a way consistent with NPOV; but once again, I must stress this is a response to the hypothetical -- all evidence suggests to me that, as you said, he is simply stubborn and determined to get his own way, once he's determined that it's the way. Though I would add "arrogant, dismissive, and combative" to the list of applicable descriptors. Snow talk 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Just briefly, because it's late: I found Director's "to all intents and purposes" phrasing curious and so I tried to make my question precise, asking "whether you were involved in writing or reviewing any of this material before it appeared as an article in mainspace on the English-language Wikipedia?". He didn't say if he reviewed it but he did say that "I think I maybe wrote one sentence, and added three or four images." so yes, Director worked on it before Producer uploaded it. We now know that much was adapted from the original Weber piece or some intermediate version. I can't tell you if Director was slyly alluding to that when he said he maybe wrote one sentence, whether Producer prepared the adaptation and hid its origins from Director (which I don't think Director has offered as an explanation), or whether they collaborated in the adaptation just as they collaborated in the defence (which seems the simplest explanation). As for the images, that collection was not the synthesis of another hand. There are just five in the article, of which Director admits to "three or four" - most of the work. He also says the sources "checked out"; someone did put in the effort of adding ISBNs as the references in Weber's piece don't have them.[161] NebY (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Hmmm, it does seem to raise the question of how much they collaborate which is germane to other areas of this discussion, but still is not a smoking gun as regards Director knowing the work was plagiarized from an antisemitic source. And lack of foreknowledge of this aspect would explain why he would later say he felt like he needed to take a shower when he learned the true source of the material; that is, he lent his support and collaboration to Producer from the start without knowing of this fact and was disturbed to learn he had been used to further an antisemitic agenda. Snow talk 00:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I wanted to say I didn't "write a word of it", but then I remembered I added some images and introduced a brief sentence to the lede, and I didn't want to turn out dishonest. So I said "to all intents and purposes". The edits I referred to were done well after the article was created. I can't believe all the nonsense that's being drawn from that.. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Well, I for one am inclined to believe you on this point and I think this line of discussion should be shut down unless more than speculation can be offered. At the same time, it's not exactly "nonsense" for the question to have been raised to begin with, given the circumstances. Honestly, I don't know what to think about your relationship with Producer, but if you two do have an off-wiki friendship, I imagine you have some choice words to share with him over this whole affair. Snow talk 00:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Strong Support per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. [162].--Atlantictire (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support (Judaism solely) After reading through both the Jews and Communism talk page [163] and its archives [164], [165], [166], [167] and [168] I have changed my mind on the matter. The users attitude was incessant and unwavering. It definitely constitutes disruptive editing. That said, I don't think a topic ban on Communism would be helpful here, as the issue largely relates to the antisemitic content that was defended for so long, and the users lack of comprehension as to what the articles greater message was --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Support While I commend Director for his change in view on the article, bans are meant to be preventive. There is nothing that he has to offer to this subject area and his track record shows that disruption could continue. This is certainly a more favorable decision for him than a block, which is probably warranted by his comments on other editors which he continues in this discussion. TFD (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose How did he "blindly" follow the other editor when he even reversed his position completely? Please, provide diffs for comments that you feel were inappropriate and worthy of a topic ban. There just isn't any evidence here. Just because you disagreed with him in the AfD is not a reason for a topic ban. The discussion at the talk page and the first AfD did become lousier at points, but especially with this dicussion the blame could be equally put upon this ANI topic ban nominator USchick who kept insisting communism doesn't have anything to do with socialism or the Soviet Union with some no-true-scotsman argument that became very tedious. Director kept replying and atleast that following conversation was rather low-quality. Actually, in every "bad" discussion I can find from the archives Drowninglimbo linked above USchick is the other party, both engage with similar style. And USchick is the one suggesting a topic ban for Director? Objectionable. --Pudeo' 01:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) He blindly followed the other editor by not having his own opinion about the content as POV, FRINGE and SYNTH. To the point that no one was allowed to fix a math error except Producer. No one else can count? [169] Then he cried crocodile tears when he was exposed. Read through other people's comments please and feel free to nominate me for a topic ban as well if you feel it's warranted. USchick (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) FYI, I don't think you should get a topic ban. I just think that the most disruptive process in this, if any, was discussion between you and Director. --Pudeo' 02:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I understand your concern. I was stooping to his level in order to even have a discussion with him at all. I was reprimanded by an admin for doing that. Neither one of us took it personally and we continue to joke around about that. Like we do here for example Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)#Proposed sanctions USchick (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose - Keep an eye on him, as Smeat said above: "probation". I'm sure he knows what's happened, and he has even evidenced disgust on the matter. Let him start fresh, and if problems arise, then action should be taken. At yet, I think he deserves the chance to make a fresh start. I think I can tell, personally, that he knows what happened, and how he got caught up in it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support. Note that an old version of his user page had the text: This user is not a racist, but does support James D. Watson's statement on racial scientific facts. This user does not believe scientific facts can be "improper", or "morally unacceptable" Agreeing with scientific racism or being a racist is not a reason to topic ban someone. But when they have a history of tendentious editing in articles based on racist sources, this is a good reason for a topic ban. I don't think we can trust this user to edit articles that are sensitive to race issues without POV pushing and other disruptive behaviors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - I repeat the comment I made about the proposed ban on PRODUCER. The formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support per User Jehochman (talk · contribs)'s prior warning to Director [170]: "I am alarmed by this edit [171]. You should never reference another editor's religion, race or nationality to challenge their edits or worse to suggest excluding them. This diff is ground to ban you from Wikipedia. Please remove it swiftly. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support a topic ban for any content relating to Jews, Judaism and anti-semitism, user contributed to and supported the initial wildly anti-semitic article as documented by NebY above, then defended it at all costs. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TAGTEAM also seem relevant. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support because of the user having defended anti-semitic content for so long and so fiercely, that it's impossible to believe that there is no personal POV involved, even after the user claimed to have changed his mind. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose. Director's primary mistake was really a matter of WP:AGF, by trusting that the primary source was legitimate. Everything else was based on an attempt to enforce policy and find appropriate resources for the subject. And once the WP:BATTLEFIELD broke out, it's not unnatural to feel backed into a corner and have a few choice words. When the actual source of the work came out, Director apologized and agreed to deletion. That's not the action of an unreasonable editor, and I don't see anything to be gained by sanctioning him. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose per comment in section 1. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose - He has apologized which is better than nothing, but anyway we should just keep on eye out for now. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Oppose - There is no question the editor was disruptive on the article, but that in itself does not rise to the level of a topic or site ban. Most especially the latter. I choose to assume good faith that this editor is just passionate about the topic of Communism and has no interest in trying to legitimize antisemitic canards. I think many well intentioned supporters of this should rethink their support and try to put themselves in the position of having to defend something you believe is being wrongs associated with. I think we would all feel attacked. And even though the editor was wrong, they apologized when the origins of the article were revealed and reversed themselves. That should be good enough. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I've been thinking a bit about how to assume good faith in this situation and what the consequences of that assumption are. IMO the bias in the article (primarily cherry-picking and weight) was so self-evident to a reasonable person that, assuming the editor was engaged in a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, the issues raised in COMPETENCE#Bias-based come into play. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - Because Wikipedia errs on the side of assuming good faith, the chorus of people opposing a topic ban for Director will probably prevail. In any case, I encourage you to read User:MarkBernstein's essay on his user page. That someone would spend weeks, day in day out, aggressively defending Producer's anti-Semitic POV without recognizing it for what it is seems highly improbable. If you operate on the principle of "do unto others as you would not have them do unto you," then you're counting on people to mistake deviousness for contrition.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Support six month site ban and subsequent topic banning for a period to be decided to community consensus. I find the editor's epithiny unconvincing. Irondome (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) oppose User has now realised the questionable sources involved and has apologised. Nothing to be gained by any ban/blocks. The agenda now appears to be driven by a group of editors using Foxmanesque smear tactics. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 04:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Maybe when someone makes a full time job of defending blatantly racist content we ought to stop "assuming good faith" with this person. Maybe consider the possibility that they're a, I dunno, manipulative bigot with an agenda and their apology is probably not sincere. Maybe take a look at the Stormfront links posted to Jim Wales' talk page asking like-minded individuals to edit Wikipedia, consider the possibility that they're here, and think about the extent to which you want to allow them to subvert a process such as this one. --Atlantictire (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Wow, long on fantasy..short on facts. Who knows, maybe they are even participating in a secret email campaign against Wikipedia to contaminate it with lies, hate, and deception? As I said, Foxmanesque. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Except that it's not... I just found out that you really are not free to edit Wikipedia pages Group of jews taking over Wikipedia Edit Wikipedia articles (or anything else on the Internet) anonymously! Wikipedia Founder Mocks "Neo-Nazis" HELP: Wikipedia EDIT Billy Bragg! ... you get the idea. Sorry, what are you implying here? Care to explain what you think this CAMERA project you linked to has to do with the current discussion?--Atlantictire (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) As this is a section concerning User:Director I naturally assume that all your frothings are accusations against him personally. Have you evidence that those posts are by him? As for the link to CAMERA's attempts to subvert wikipedia, that was alluding to user:MarkBernsteins handwaving a few paras down. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Let's be very clear, 94.195.46.205 . Are you suggesting that user:MarkBernstein is in any way associated to CAMERA, or is WP:NOTHERE to benefit the project? What are you suggesting? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Support Along with agreeing with TFD about disruption and knowledge issues, I find remarks like [172] - really malevolent, nasty- and the POV complaint is 'projecting', in Jungian terms imo Sayerslle (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Support. In all honesty I feel these users should be pleased if they only get handed a topic ban. Calidum Go Bruins! 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) ---Additional discussion--- First, I think you should be looking for feedback from uninvolved editors. Secondly, if you want to hear from the Wikipedia community, WP:AN/I is a better forum for this than WP:AN. You will also need to present diffs outlining specific acts of disruption. Liz Read! Talk! 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) This noticeboard is for ban proposals. ANI is for specific incidents. This proposal spans lots of incidents over a long period of time. USchick (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Liz, it's patently obvious that Director and Producer need to be banned, and maybe not just from this article. But they're really symptoms of a bigger issue: how admins enforce the rules. Both Director and Producer are counting on admins who don't really investigate an issue before acting, and who become indignant at suggestions that they've made an ill-informed decision or acted defensively/impulsively. I'd be in favor of a checklist of inquiries that ought to be made before punishing someone in response to a complaint. Maybe blocking shouldn't be at the discretion of just one admin.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Either is allowable (to be fair to both of you, the guidelines in the headers have a bit of an identity crisis, between the version on the viewable page and the one on edit page), but I daresay you'd get more involvement if this were on ANI. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Note for admins: An in depth discussion of the behaviour of these two has already been discussed at a controversial afD page in which these two were VERY involved (and, in my opinion, overly controlling of). The discussion led to a near-consensus there calling for a topic ban to be made on Director and Producer/Potocnik. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Summary: Jews and Communism was adapted in late February 2014 by User:Potočnik, then known as Producer, from an article found on the site of a Holocaust denier. Producer and Director worked tirelessly and in concert to avoid changes to the article, almost invariably adopting a combative and threatening tone in Talk and edit comments. Despite its very evident problems, its rancid anti-Semitism, and the discussion at Jimbo, the article survived a March 2014 AfD as No Consensus. The article is again at AfD, where many thousands of words have been expended and where the article has attracted negligible support after the revelation of its roots. Director changed his position from Strong Keep to Delete; Potocnik has been silent. The Problem: Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of volunteer hours have been spent, and tens -- perhaps hundreds -- of thousands of words have been written, in order to keep a vitriolically anti-Semitic attack page off Wikipedia, or at least to reduce the worst aspects of that page. This is a terrible waste. It is clear that two or three dedicated and sophisticated editors, working together and cooperating closely, can tie the project in knots. This page would have been terribly embarrassing to the project if it had received wider media attention but it was also a comparatively easy call; we may not be as lucky in the future. The community needs a forum to consider and address the problems this episode so clearly presents. There will always be anti-Semites and zealots and conspiracy theorists and fanatics eager to spread The Word and capable of "following the sources" to cram racism, anti-semitism, fringe science, and fanaticism into Wikipedia, and where just two or three are gathered together they are extremely difficult or impossible to oppose. We have strong policies against socks, but two or three coordinated ideologues can assume ownership of a page and do nearly anything provided they take care to cherry-pick sources and avoid concerted opposition. If Wikipedia does not address this problem, it will have no future. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Alright, let's not panic here. Wikipedia does have processes for handling these situations, processes that have not even been exhausted in this case; ArbCom, for example, was never brought in on matters though I think a number of us anticipated it heading in that direction. For that matter, no manner of formal mediation was requested, though postings were made to ANI. It strikes me as a bit histrionic to prophesy the doom of the project over this scenario. You're of course more than welcome (encouraged even) to take any proposals or discussion about new guidelines to WP:Village Pump (policy), but I suspect you'll get mostly comments along the lines of what I have to say here -- that is to say, this situation is well-covered in existing policy and this situation became the chore that it did because those policies were not applied as elegantly as they could have been (venues that could have been explored weren't and administrator involvement was not what it could have been, both of which happen from time to time). Let's also remember that, meatpuppetry (for which we also have policies) aside, two or three editors working ardently against prevailing consensus is not in and of itself problem behaviour -- it's just the reality of Wikipedia and something we depend upon really. That said, clearly there was problematic behaviour involved here, but again, that can all be addressed through existing process (as is being done in this very thread for example), and it makes little sense to me to try to reinvent the wheel when only a portion of the possible solutions we have at our disposal have been tapped. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Comment I personally think that article is appalling, as was the behavior of these two editors. During the brief time I was involved in that article, I was attacked by the two of them, and threatened by one. I didn't like some of the talk page comments I saw; I felt that some of them were ugly, raising, in one instance, the religious background of an editor in a gratuitous fashion. Even so, I'd like to see some diffs. Who did what. There is new evidence that much of the article was copied from a racist website. Whoever did the copying should be topic-banned. Whoever abetted that action, ditto. Other specific evidence of bad behavior should also be introduced. Similarly, I'm not sure the timing is correct, though I admit that it is easier to engage in this discussion now, while the article and its talk page still exist. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC) The demonstration of the original version's reliance on an article from the Institute for Historical Research is [173]. The talk page's numerous archives -- all since February 2014 -- speak for themselves, as does the outcry at AfD. I'm very concerned by the amount of volunteer time and energy this is requiring, with seemingly unbounded demands for further demonstrations of diffs, evidence, argumentation, surely to come. What is to be done? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) There are lots of diffs listed in the ANI examples. For anyone interested, they can see them there. My concern is with the attitude of the two editors and their tag team effort to shut down any discussion on the talk page and block other editors from participating. This is also documented in the archived talk pages of Jews and Communism and Jewish Bolshevism. USchick (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC) It didn't require that much of a deep-dive into the evidence to see the justification for topic bans for both editors. See my comments above. Coretheapple (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Coretheapple, can you elaborate? Was it producer or director that threatened you? Also, can you provide diffs to the talk page comments you speak of? My current opinion is that of a topic ban for Producer, and a 'temporary topic ban' for the likes of Director, but I could easily have their roles the wrong way around.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Director. See the repeated "warnings" and threats to "report" me at [174], especially the "Please consider yourself formally warned" at 07:27, 27 April 2014. These are the kind of bullying tactics that I found especially dismaying from Director. I don't recall if they came from the other chap too, but to be frank I found their tactics interchangeable. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I could write an entire essay here about the highly inappropriate behavior of a large number of editors on that article, the flaming, the accusations of antisemitism, the incessant use of edit-warring as a substitute for discussion, the accusations of sockpuppetry, etc, etc.. But I won't. #1 because the article is being deleted and this is a dead issue, #2 because I just now went away on business and hace nothing but my phone, and #3 because I don't care, tbh. To single out Producer and me for sanctions, imo, defies all logic. The article did turn out to be based in part on some IHR essay - but nobody knew that at that time. I didn't; and the sources checked out. When the IHR thing was revealed, I immediately supported deletion and repeatedly apologized to everyone. If someone wishes to "take revenge" for my defending the article, fine, I won't offer any kind of detailed defense. -- Director (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I respect that you may not have known but it is highly unlikely that the Producer, who created the article, did not --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Director, I deeply appreciate your change of heart on the article. But the fact remains that the article that Producer created was, on its face, an act of anti-Semitic propaganda. One did not have to know chapter and verse or its precise origins to see that. But you dove right in and acted as his trusty right hand, Robin to his Batman, or perhaps the second Batman. I don't think that you should be punished. But I do think that you need to be separated from articles on this subject for the good of the project. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Also, and this is why we're here, it is not a dead issue. If indeed this article is deleted, as is entirely possible as it seems to be a WP:SNOW situation, I am sure Son of Jews and Communism will rear its ugly head in the blink of an eye. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Director, has it not occurred to you that the recurrent suggestion of antisemitism at work in the motives of those defending the content might be related to the fact that the content itself was perceived to be indicative of the type of synthesis of facts consistent with an antisemitic view, a fact that was borne out once we discovered the origins of the content? Other contributors saw that at once. You interpreted the content differently and did not detect that underlying motive at work. That's fine, and nobody expects every editor to catch something along those lines, and I for one take it on faith you were operating as to what you thought was the approrpiate approach to the content. But is unreasonable in this context to not understand the suspicion of others, when there was promotion of obviously antisemitic material at work and when you would like, presumably, for others to be understanding of your good faith support of that material. You may notice that, despite having considerable reservations about your behaviour on that article and it's talk page, I've gone out of my way to advise restraint in regards to sanctions against you, on the hope that your change of position reflects that you're capable of reforming your approach a little. But you're not helping the case for that approach when you don't own up to how you contributed to the mess that became of that situation. And here I'm not longer talking about the antisemitic issue at all, but rather your tendency to see everyone else as the problem and you as the besieged party. You went into full-on battle-mode on that page. You were unreceptive to opposing arguments and frequently uncivil, both in terms of denigrating your opposition's perspectives and, most especially, ignoring WP:AGF, the very principle to which you would now like to appeal, constantly. Having seen this situation play out many, many times on the noticeboards, I'm telling you that you have a very limited window here to get out ahead of things, but it requires owning up to your mistakes in full (that is, not just as regards being duped by material), and commiting to another approach. If editing on Wikipedia and in these areas is important to you, I'd do it fast, before the votes stack, even if your circumstances allow only a small message. Snow talk 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) To justify a topic ban from 'Jews' and 'Communism' evidence needs to be presented of significant disruption in the topic area. One spat over a single contentious article is not enough to justify a topic ban from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Disruption spans across Jews and Communism, Jewish Bolshevism, and Leon Trotsky with many discussions about What is Communism, [175] Who killed the tzar [176], Who is a Jew [177]. I would say a broad range of topics has already been covered. USchick (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) It's also worth noting that, while Only in Death's perspective (that disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban) is valid personal position on what is appropriate here, it is not a bar which is required by policy or the block process itself; many topic bans have been instituted for editors whose contentious behaviour was linked to a particular inflexible perspective deemed likely to spill over into other articles. I will say though that OiD's point as to the breadth of topics that would be banned is worth taking under advisement; between those two topics, a significant number of articles would be barred to the editors. That's part of the reason I have reservations in Director's case. With regard to Producer, I dare say it's obvious his issues with NPOV on the Jewish people are problematic beyond repair. Director, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have come into conflict with other editors because of a devotion to the subject matter; rather that conflict stemmed from what he perceived as a matter of editing principle. His issues are more with general civility and the ability to collaborate harmoniously with other editor's and are not tied up with any one particular topic. Which makes a topic ban a dubious solution for dealing with him. I think what is called for in his case is outreach as regards general behaviour and, if that fails in the long-run, a more general sanction/block. Snow talk 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Precisely for this reason I nominated them separately, for individual consideration. Thank your for putting it so eloquently. USchick (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Snow, my opinion is practically a mirror of yours. I concur with Snow's stance on Director precisely. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Is there anything in Director's editing history that makes you believe that his future contributions to Wikipedia outweigh the risk episodes like this one pose to the project? Yes, Director was staunch in defending policy and standing by his sources -- but only his sources were permitted throughout the article's regrettable life. Only two days ago, he prepared a spirited defense of the page, stating that the entire nomination was deceitful: "Folks, you're being lied to regarding what the article is and what its about. The deletion rationale is an appeal to emotion, and is aimed to gather WP:VOTES on such a basis. Nothing in it is accurate nor factual…. Furthermore: such ridiculous accusations push forward a right-wing, practically Reaganite political agenda.[178]. I particularly draw attention to the dog-whistle allegation about vote-gathering, but more generally to the tone and incivility. This is not the language of an editor who is working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Like I said before, the problem I have with the whole situation is that it IS largely unclear who did what. I'm not saying I agree with Director's ethic, but he has a right to say what he said on the afD discussion (no matter how mislead it may be) - we can't punish him in that regard. It's his opinion, and it may be blunt, but it isn't so far as being a personal attack. If you were to provide diffs and references proving that only his sources were permitted through the article's agreeably regrettable life, my opinion could easily sway.. but from an NPOV, I don't think we can judge his behaviour unless more raw proof is provided. Then again, if Director had been making these edits behind an IP rather than a fancy account, he may well already have been banned entirely by now.. all in all, I just don't want to judge pre-emptively.Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) And, much as I like to avoid using an essay in circumstances where a very fine policy determination needs to be made, it's rather hard to imagine a situation to which WP:Rope would better apply. I'll be clear on this -- I stuck to the ANI discussion and avoided the talk page and even a firm position in the AfD outside of behavioural arguments until the eleventh hour for the very specific reason that I was more concerned with the constant breaks with general civility than anything else and I anticipated that an uninvolved editor would be required to take the matter before another administrator or even ArbCom. I fully expected to have to take that action within a few days. Director's reversal in the AfD backed me away from that perspective, ever so slightly -- just enough that I felt it warranted to give him another opportunity to digest the situation and learn better of boring full steam ahead, deflecting the concerns of large numbers of editors and viewing such contributors as obstinate obstacles rather than collaborators with whom he must work. I am not in any way yet convinced he has taken that lesson to heart, but I think policy and the circumstances compel us to give him one very limited opportunity to prove that he can before we condemn him outright. If he can't do that, then the topic ban proposed here in insufficient and not well-targeted at his style of disruption, and a general block of at least six months to a year, if not indefinite, is what I would view as the recommendable course of action, though course, if it comes to that, the exact sanction will be at the discretion of the reviewing admin or committee. Snow talk 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) All I saw was "sources - reliable - attacked - defend!", and by an editor I've known for years to be highly careful about sourcing and very neutral in his approach (not just me either, see Peacemaker's input) - and the topic was one that could only be expected to draw emotional reaponses no matter how reliable and thorough the sourcing. There really was no evidence for SYNTH, or any kind of serious wrongdoing - until months have past and some really impressive detective work uncovered the collection of sources to have been those cherry-picked by a racist essay. At that point I actually felt physically ill, not only at discovering the source, but also at having wasted so much effort at being so utterly wrong. I had previously said I'd move for deletion myself if something like that turned out to be the case (I checked the sources, found them to be reliable, and was confident), so when it did turn out that way, I did a 180. I still think I acted correctly given the information I had, but I nevertheless apologize for the sheer gravity of the error. I am always annoyed, perhaps to an undue degree, by arguments that I perceive to be borne out of prejudice or bias, hence my strong defense of the sources. It felt weird to me to, but ignoring my gut and going with cold principles, following protocol, its a big part of what I do in real life. And for that I don't apologize, that's how science works, that's how medicine works, that's how Wiki works. At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as "disruption". I shall not grovel, nor will I now attack my fellow Wikipedian of many years, regardless of what he put me (and others) through. I find kicking one when he's down distasteful, regardless of whether he deserves to be down. -- Director (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Yeah, I know you like to present yourself as a scientific kind of guy. But then you let slip something like this: IZAK is a religious Jewish person with an agenda to disassociate Jews and Communism to the best of his POV-pushing ability. That's a fact. He should leave. Yeah, I know, you deleted it, you hoped people would forget you ever said it. But you did, and I have to tell you frankly that your entire approach seemed to reflect the kind of viewpoint that is reflected there. I.e., that your "opponents" were "religious Jews" and "emotional" and ought to get the hell out of the article. That's not what you said, except in this instance, but it was your attitude. It's not a very nice viewpoint, and in fact, I think it's downright ugly. Scientific? A product of "cold principles"? Eh, not exactly. I would feel a lot better if you were a little bit more upfront about your actual attitudes. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Yah. If you're a member of a group, any group, and if you're religious, you're likely to be offended by your group being connected to Communism - completely regardless of whether that's actually warranted or not. That's an objective fact, "scientific", if you will. And the comment was posted in light of yet another of IZAK's edit wars to introduce changes without consensus, or even proper talkpage discussion. Introducing lists of his favorite religious leaders and whatnot. I said he should leave because he just stopped discussing and simply reverted to edit war. Religious bias is not new as a problem this project has to face. Note also that I have not infrequently called out my own countrymen for nationalist bias when I see it blatantly raise its ugly head. The lesson there is: "science" (or rather objective observations) by no means need be pretty. -- Director (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) The thing is, editing on Wikipedia requires more than just a nominal dislike of bias; it requires genuine patience with views you don't ascribe much value to. This need for tolerance of opposing perspectives is not just a matter of maintaining civility and keeping discussions from blowing up as they did in this case, though that role is crucial to our work here; it's also useful because sometimes you're really, really sure that you right about something...when in fact you aren't. You've just described the sources that informed upon the article as "cherry-picked" - that is in fact the precise argument that a number of involved editors used to call the article into question, suggesting that selective sourcing of trivial facts were being used to formulate a notion not supported by legitimate sourcing on the topic. High as your regard is for your approach as scientific, your empirical nose failed to detect the odor rising from these claims, whereas some of your fellow editors did sense it, many of whom you actively derided for the position. So it doesn't really serve to excuse your excesses in terms of defense against bias, especially given the level of virulence involved, when it seems that you were applying the most bias yourself, albeit partially as a result of an exercise in trust. I come from a background in science myself, and I know of no academic or research institution, not any organization devoted to a genuinely "scientific" approach to tackling problems, that would have allowed you to try to make your arguments the way that you did in this case -- that is, in such an obstinate and uncivil manner; those kinds of attitudes are viewed very dimly in scientific literature, in lecture halls, at conferences, in debates, and anywhere else where scientific consensus is typically formulated. I wish I could say such attitudes and personal arrogance were absent entirely from the process of contemporary scientific process -- they certainly aren't -- but they aren't typically tolerated as appropriate to public discourse at least. And, thankfully, neither are they welcome on Wikipedia. Anybody can state that they have depersonalized "scientific" way of approaching problems, but the mere proclamation doesn't necessarily make them a particularly good standard-bearers for those ideals in reality, and I've often observed that those who make such announcements outside of context of actual science often have the most tenuous grasp of such notions. And on the topic of empirical validation, I don't really have enough prior experience with you to know if this is an isolated incident or typical of your approach to discussion, but I do think that your perspective as voiced here... "At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as 'disruption'." ...is really at the crux of the matter. You should be writing every single posting in a Wikipedia discussion, every last one, so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude. Because if it's rude when you're in the wrong about the matter being discussed, it's almost certainly still rude if you're in the right; rudeness is not really directly correlated to the strength of your factual or policy argument -- it's about respect and how you make your argument. And if your comments aren't composed to avoid incivility, regardless of the strength of your positions, the behaviour is disruptive, by default. It's not really my place to lecture you sanctimoniously as to what lesson you should learn here, but if there is one I would hope you should learn from this fiasco, it's that. I certainly can't think of a better general piece of advice to give any contributor. Snow talk 01:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I'd put it this way. I find that Director's continued ignorance of the ugliness and unacceptable character of his words, his utter absence of respect for other editors, his judging of them on the basis of their religion, his stratospheric arrogance, to be nothing less than chilling. I must say that I am starting to have a lot of trouble accepting the sincerity of his mea culpa. It strikes me as being purely expedient and not in any way reassuring that he won't "objectively" decide someday to go on the offensive in an article like this again. Coretheapple (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Well, only time will tell. Snow talk 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC) @"You should be writing every single posting in a Wikipedia discussion, every last one, so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude." - That would be the ideal, and I did apologize for the conduct you refer to. However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light. @Coretheapple, I think I have explained exactly and honestly what I'm sorry for, and what I'm not. I don't see what there is for you to speculate about. I'm not sorry for calling on an edit warrior to spare us his disruption, or to stop pushing a POV. You can perceive that as whatever you like, I can't alter your preconceptions. What I am sorry for is wherever I was unduly zealous in defending the cherry-picked sources, as well as for the error itself. -- Director (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC) It's not a question of "sorry" as much as it is one of whether there will be problems in the future. As I keep saying, the aim of a topic ban is preventive, not punitive. I think your declaration on your talk page [179] and above [180] that you're "self-banning" from topics relating to Jews is a positive step. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I pretty much said so from the start.. Didn't I say I had no intention of restarting all this? -- Director (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) "Spat" - seriously? You're characterising antisemitism as "a quarrel about an unimportant matter"? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - Two editors who edited wikipedia for many years are faced with very serious accusations for travelling circus and all kind of disruptive behavior. Editors who made such accusations (and maybe administrator (Jehochman) who indeffed them) should present evidence (in form of diffs) for their accusations within reasonable period of time. I agree with opinion that "disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban". That is why it would be good, if accusations would be proven, to check if there are more members of their travelling circus (this should not be difficult because there are efficient tools for interaction analysis) and to define what topic areas they covered. Based on this it would be possible to determine who should be banned and from what topic areas. If accusations remain unjustified within reasonable period of time, something should be done to prevent unjustified accusations against those two editors in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Additional examples: In this lively debate [181] Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion. In a discussion about Secret Police there was a math error. [182] Director claimed that no one was allowed to make any edits until Producer showed up. Like no one else can count? Atlantictire was blocked over a dispute that was content related. And then he lost it. I tried to console him and Producer took me to ANI over this statement on his talk page [183]. I don't know how to find the ANI discussion. Really, there are plenty of diffs linked in this discussion already if anyone is interested in following them. USchick (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Trotsky poster discussion [184] went to ANI [185] and showed up again in an unrelated article. [186]. Director had a right to disagree with the AfD nomination, but he did not have a right to call it a lie. It was not. He did not have a right to claim that nothing in the nomination was accurate or factual; that claim was untrue. He did not have a right to call them ridiculous, or to characterize them as a right-wing; that's both untrue and a personal attack. Read the whole sorry talk page -- it's only two or three months, and you can read it all in a few hours. Director and Producer are counting on you not to bother. They can and will issue, just as they have repeatedly issued, personal attacks without sanction against any and all editors trying to improve their articles, and it seems people will continue to ask for more evidence and more WP:ROPE. Please turn out the lights when you leave, OK? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC) WP:ROPE can be better applied in case of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If your accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I don't personally believe such a cabal of editors exists. Frankly, I think that the collaboration between Director and Producer alone has been overemphasized, a determination I make from my own observations of the present article as well as procedural discussion of their past behaviours. An SPI failed to find an geolocative link between them, and though this does not rule out meatpuppetry, neither have we firm evidence along these lines that I have been able to turn up. There's also this discussion, in which the link is explored and users DeCausa and TParis imply that the two have frequently been at eachother's throats in other discussions pertaining to Eastern European articles. There were past issues referenced by FkpCascais concerning Director and Producer in this discussion on Jimbo's page, surrounding a past discussion surrounding Chetniks and collaborative behaviour between the two, but he references no other parties and I never dug up the discussion to observe the nature of their interaction there.. I don't know what to make of the ultimate likelihood that meatpuppetry is at work here. I rather get the feeling that what we are talking about is two very tenacious and combative editors who work in similar areas and that sometimes butt heads, but when their interests converge, they have no qualms with combining their considerably dogged (and frequently vitriolic) efforts to try to tear down any dissent to their preferred approach. They could be collaborating off-wiki, or these combined efforts could be the result of entirely incidental cross over in interests, but I think their motives at the very least could be said to be very different in most cases. In any event, I don't think a link needs to be established to prove that their behaviour has been collectively disruptive and generally inappropriate, but their violations of policy are not identical in form or context, so I'm doubtful of the "traveling circus" hypothesis or that it can inform significantly on how to deal with them. Snow talk 00:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - Many, maybe most, of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans I have never seen at AN befroe, which worries me. How did they get here? Were they canvassed? Was the canvassing of all' participants in the various discussions, or only those on one side? If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court? BMK (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) The only place this discussion was announced is here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)#Proposed sanctions. Everyone commenting was personally involved in some way. USchick (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) So, what you're saying is that almost everyone -- or let's says a large percentage of everyone -- who has commented here is on the opposite side of the issue from Producer and Direktor. yes? Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic? BMK (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) To make matters worse, they are proposed for topic ban from Jews and Communism although the most important point at related AfD was that it is wrong to connect Jews and Communism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors. USchick (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I had no association with Director or Producer before the AfD. Most people who have voted thus far first met the likes of Director and Producer at the AfD page, with a few exceptions. After making judgement there, as seen on the AfD page, we decided the best thing to do next was to pursue a topic ban. No "personal biases" against Producer nor Director existed for the vast majority of us, as most of us (I'd think) stumbled upon this whole fiasco via the Articles for Deletion page.. our initial judgement was made there and then was carried here. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) (ec) Sorry, but I see a lot of personal animosity and groupthink in your statement above ("the likes of...", "we decided", "our initial judgment"). I agree with Liz that we need the opinions of uninvolved editors in this matter. BMK (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC) By "we", and "our", I meant those who came here from the AfD page by the means of consensus, not the entire group, although I do recognize your point.. from your perspective it's understandable. As you can see by the intense debate above, there isn't really any 'groupthink' amongst those who came here from AfD. I'm relatively uninvolved in the whole fiasco, and in fact I came in to contribute to the AfD as someone who was precisely that; uninvolved. Obviously, it would be better for more uninvolved users to come and contribute.. but just because a user has contributed to a discussion on an AfD page doesn't render them illegitimate in the regard of offering their opinion about related topic bans.. my choice of the word "we" held the meaning of "those who came from the AfD page", not "We, the group of collaborators". Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Animosities are not valid arguments for a ban. Not all editors here agree about the ban. At least not such widely defined, unless evidence is presented about members of the circus and all topic areas they covered. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) BMK, "the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are" certainly not "those who strongly disagree with them on that topic". That's not how Wikipedia works and I suspect everyone here knows that - yourself included. NebY (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you be clearer? BMK (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I'll try. You asked "If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court?" and "Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic?" I'm answering that your premise is wrong: the editors who are making a case for bans or other measures know full well that they will not get to decide, that they will not have the opportunity to be the judges in a kangaroo court. They are making a case - or rather several cases, as usual - and discussing the matter. This is normal, this is how the process works. You've been around a long time and I think I've seen you participating in ban discussions before, so you know this already. Or am I wrong? NebY (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Ah - I see I was. One editor didn't quite grasp the need for uninvolved editors to participate. Sorry. NebY (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) What bothers me is that Director emphatically stated that the article was neutral and impugned the motives of editors who said it was anti-Semitic. Even now he suggests that there was no way of knowing this without seeing the comparison with the IHR article, and that editors who recognized this weakness in the article before the comparison was presented were acting in bad faith. He stubbornly defended the article instead of doing basic research to see whether this presentation was consistent with academic literature. I commend him for finally backing down in the second AfD. But I think a break from this topic is in order. If any editors plan to revisit the topic and create new articles, I think his participation would continue to be disruptive. Furthermore, he has no particular expertise in the area and has not done any in-depth research. His participation was mostly fighting to maintain the status quo in the article. TFD (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I'm confused - what is being asked for here, a topic ban from the intersection of the subjects "Jews" and "Communism", i.e. everything to do with the relationship between Jews and Communism; or a ban from the combination of those two subjects, i.e. everything to do with Jews and everything to do with Communism? BMK (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Both subjects. Everything to do with Jews and everything to do with Communism. As stated in the original proposal. USchick (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC) I didn't submit the report, but I think a topic ban for Judaism is more appropriate than Judaism and Communism, due to the main issue being the promotion of antisemitic views on the website --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Not everyone agrees that antisemitism is a problem in this case. Just like not everyone here agrees on the topic of Jews and Communism. However, everyone agrees that Director and Producer should be banned form these topics (Director to a lesser extent). USchick (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Everyone agrees" - So, you're ignoring the one oppose !vote? BMK (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) The one "oppose" vote is a non involved party. As the nominator, i specifically asked for involved parties on both sides of the Jewish/Communist argument (yes there are both sides) to comment. Maybe that's the wrong approach? Maybe only non involved parties should comment? The problem with that, is Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation. Some people have been banned and are not here. My intention is to see if there is any community consensus for a topic ban and to do it while the evidence is still here. (Pending AfD) What's funny, is that early on, people were worried that no one would find this discussion to participate in it. USchick (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Ah, you've just proved me wrong - I told BMK everyone here seemed to understand the process. Everyone can comment but no decision to ban will be made without the participation of uninvolved members of the community. NebY (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Non involved members voted here as well. But the one "oppose" vote is from a non involved party. To see who is involved or not is very easy. Anyone not voting on the AfD is not involved in any way. Here's a link of people voting in the AfD [187] USchick (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I'd be massively oversimplifying if I said that the closing administrator will look for consensus among the uninvolved editors and ignore the involved ones. But you might do well to continue as if that was true. NebY (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I made the nomination, but I honestly didn't expect this much support. I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do. USchick (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) It's worth noting that a number of editors who responded to the AfD had no previous involvement in the article or the caustic situation on its talk page. Still others came to be involved through the ANI postings and did not contribute opinions to the content of the article itself so much as the behaviour of certain parties already operating there. A look at the talk page suggests that involvement in the discussion here does not seem to rely exclusively upon those who were already in conflict over the article, though of course those parties are welcome to have their say and their knowledge of specific incidents of disruption is necessary to make heads or tails of this situation. Snow talk 00:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) The problem is that with a topic ban discussion which appears, from the nominator's comments here, to have been set up in a deliberately partisan fashion, it's likely that the closing admin will note the lack of !votes from uninvolved editors and close it without action -- especially when there's a distinct lack of evidence presented. BMK (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) That would be unfortunate. Instructions at WP:TBAN don't explain that only non involved editors are allowed to comment. No where does it say how to nominate someone for a topic ban or what will be considered, only that it takes community consensus. So basically, you have to be an experienced admin to understand the process. Producer and Director are allowed to get away with terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies. I don't know how many more diffs I could possibly provide as examples because no one seems to care about the examples already provided. I hope admins will consider the volumes already written in previous ANI complaints and the time required to babysit these 2 editors on complaint boards, not to mention wasted electricity by the combined effort of all involved. This is a recurring complaint, and if I knew how to link to all the other similar complaints, I would, but seriously, unlike the 2 editors nominated, who have lots and lots of Wikipedia edits, I have a life. Unless questions are directed at me personally, I don't plan to contribute anything else to this discussion. I trust that the Wikipedia community will do the right thing, whatever you decide that to be. I hope by bringing this to light, enough people are aware now of the Producer/Director duo. Save this link, because someone will want to link to it again in the near future. USchick (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC) p.s. Some of the complaints can't be found because they happened at The Jewish Bolshevism article which has since been deleted along with the edit history. This is why this nomination is taking place now, before the AfD for Jews and Communism is finished. USchick (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I have to say that in my decade on Wikipedia, I've rarely or never seen any discussion which was primarily lead by "uninvolved" editors, at least not if one uses such a narrow definition of "involved" as "voted a particular way on deletion of an article". I've been at the article in question since April 28th, in response to an ANI discussion asking for more eyes back then. I've seen Director (mostly) and Producer (a little) in action, and that enables me to have an informed opinion about their behaviour in this topic. Does that make me "involved" or merely "informed"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Well, the nom's original posting may not have made the case it might have, lacking diffs, but there are now dozens of diffs and links to discussions above which supply a pretty cohesive picture of the behaviours being weighed here; I'd say there's as much evidence as you're ever likely to find for such a proposal, whatever one's disposition to that evidence. Mind you, I'm one of the few editors who has commented so far who doesn't feel that the case is an open-and-shut one for both editors, but even I don't contest that the behaviours of both have been disruptive in the extreme -- one need only look at the one talk page to establish that much. I'm simply uncertain as to whether the solution being proposed here is the ideal one under the circumstances. With regard to Producer, my hesitation hinges on the fact that I have not seen the side-by-side of the source which the article was apparently lifted from and the article itself, but if blatant plagiarism is involved (from an antisemitic fringe source, no less) then it's unlikely the responding administrator will find reason to stop and count !votes as they aren't particularly necessary or relevant in that context. Director is a more nuanced case, and though I would have preferred to have waited to see whether he would continue to operate in the same manner as he has before launching such a discussion as this with regard to him, it's hard to fault those who wanted to curtail his combative behaviour. In any event, I must, with respect, also disagree with your characterization that there is a dearth of uninvolved editors voting, as a number of those who have commented here were not involved in any form of content dispute with either editor, and commented here seemingly as a result of coming to a dim view, through the prism of one of the ANIs or AfDs, of the pair's tactics. Editors who were not involved in said content disputes, or who gave only an opinion within the narrow context of the most recent AfD without having had any opportunity to come into conflict with either party, can generally be said to be about as uninvolved as anyone who came across this matter just by checking the noticeboards. Administrators operating in this venue are familiar enough with this song and dance to know how to review the pertinent discussions in enough detail to see which editors have a truly neutral disposition to the matter, and which might have been biased by the ongoing arguments surrounding the article, and weight their perspectives accordingly in determining the broader consensus. Unless unduly influenced by our very conversation here on the matter, this is not an example of a situation where I anticipate the responding editor would be likely to dismiss the concerns raised as not backed by sufficient neutral voices or as generally lacking in evidence. I still don't favour a topic ban for Director at this time, not under the circumstances, but at the same time, I hope your concerns as to the prospect of a non-committal close prove unfounded, as process has already failed to arrest this situation at several points where it might have and I am concerned the situation will only renew itself without some form of finding, whatever the sanctions or lack there-of. Snow talk 06:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I find the call for involved editors to reach a determination on this strange and unusual. A TBAN needs to be determined by the community at large whether involved or univolved. Sure, AN discussions are typically led by the involved, but that's something different. I tend to agree with BMK that it sounds like a partisan call to their enemies at the AfD. I doubt it's so bad that it invalidates the apparent consensus - most likely, in this case, uninvolved would have appeared here as much if the involved call had not been made - but, IMO, any closing admin should make it clear it was incorrect to launch the discussion in that way. DeCausa (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I am highly suspicious given I have looked over the diffs that have been presented as evidence. At the worst they consist of multiple people edit-warring to add/remove reliably-sourced information. The repeated bandying about of that ridiculous indef block is certainly interesting given the strong consensus it was ill-thought out in the first place (see why it was removed), but also in the sheer amount of editing that went on while it was in place. Unsurprisingly more than a few of the support voters above are represented there. A good sign of tendentious editing is seeing what happens when one party to a dispute is unable to edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, I'm inclined to think the same. I've just been looking through many of the diffs, having not been involved before, and a big "so what?" is growing in my mind. I've had tangles with Direktor before (not on this) and yes he can be dogmatic and a pain in the rear sometimes, but frankly in the diffs presented I'm seeing similar from his opponents. DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) A few points. I am uninvolved in this case, but have edited alongside both editors for over two years in the Yugoslavia in WWII space. They are neither socks nor meat, they regularly disagree, sometimes vehemently (as do I with them on occasion). I recently watchlisted PRODUCER's talk page because I had left a comment there about an unrelated issue, and that is how I come to be here. I have made a comment above on my view about the scope of the proposed bans. IMO there is insufficient basis for a ban on the topic of communism, regardless of the success or otherwise of a push for a ban on the subject of Jews. This is a similar concern to that expressed by Drowninginlimbo above. I note that Antidiskriminator pops in now and again to try to get some interest in other areas that these editors edit in the apparent hope of expanding any bans to other topics and other editors. So far, unsuccessfully, although I note that he has now opposed a ban unless his "travelling circus" allegation is properly explored. All I will say is that this is a blatant attempt to "pile on" and stick the boot in to two editors he has sparred with over a number of years, and the attempt does not paint him in a good light. His allusions to a "travelling circus" is an allegation he has made in the past when disputes have arisen. He has significant history with both editors, and his comments about them should be assessed with that in mind. I have edited alongside both of these editors in the Yugoslavia in WWII space, and while I occasionally find Director's approach to certain matters frustrating, I have found PRODUCER and Director to be meticulous about using reliable sources, and was very surprised to read the allegation that PRODUCER had used an unreliable source and that Director had defended it (at least until he became aware of its origin). PRODUCER and I have collaborated on several FAs and MILHIST A-Class articles, and he has always been a stickler for reliable sources in what is also a controversial area. I agree with many of the comments made by Liz, Snow Rise, Flipandflopped, DeCausa and BMK, and urge caution here. I will observe that USchick comes across (rightly or wrongly) as harbouring quite a bit of personal animosity, despite saying that "I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do". Descriptions like "terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies", "Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation" and "Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors". There is a level of personal attack that I consider unwarranted, and it was continued with dubious accusations about Director's apparent admiration for Watson and "scientific racism". I am also very concerned that the only place this ban proposal was advertised (by the nominator, I understand) was on the talk page of the article about which the dispute arose. This was problematic, because it drew editors that were already involved, with the fairly predictable result above. There do not seem to be many really uninvolved editors here, to me at least. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I hadn't realised that last bullet point - and have struck my comment that the call for "involved editors" wouldn't affect the outcome. The avalanche of "supports" is, I think, the grinding of axe's from that article talk page. (Btw, I too have seen Producer and Direktor squabble - I assumed that sock/meat allegation had been burried. If not, it is ridiculous to anyone who's been around Eastern european articles for the last few years.) DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) That comes close to dismissing everyone who's contributed to the article or discussions on it as axe-grinders, bearers of long-standing grudges and the like. I only came to the article a week ago and the last time I looked at contribution histories I was struck by how many had also arrived quite recently - long after the first AfD and the ANI discussions and so on. Again without running checks with wikitools, I think I've never interacted with Director or Producer before and I suspect that's true of others here. (I had seen the names on the drama-boards before, true, and had a vague impression that they often squabbled.) NebY (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I wasn't referring to long-standing grudges (although that may be present in some cases) but to the preponderance of opponents of Direktor and Producer on the article talk page appearing here and the lack of signifificant univolved comment, until recently. In other words, the axe to be ground originated at that article. That's not to say that every post in support is grinding an axe, but, taken overall, this AN thread supposedly about behaviour is largely (but not entirely) a mirror of the content dispute with the content majority on one side and the content minority (a very small minority) on the other. There are editors within the content majority whose behaviour at the article talk page is at least as problematic as the content minority's behaviour, but there appears no interest in holding that up to scrutiny. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I just noticed that Director expressed below far more succinctly what I meant by axe grinding: "The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute". DeCausa (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I also agree that USchick's involvement is problematic. One of the relatively few diffs prsented by them is this: "In this lively debate [188] Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion." But I would characterise that diff as Direktor rightly ddismissing an off-point and tendentious response to him by USchick. In fact, much of the disruption around this article seems to be generated by USchicj - see this. DeCausa (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) @Peacemaker67, Thank you for pointing to the collaboration between you, Director and Potočnik in ARBMAC topic area which paint all of you in a good light. You somehow overlooked to say that you were blocked at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (link to your block log). Three of you are top three active contributors of this article (link) whose title remained unchanged because three of you opposed on the talkpage, where you and Director alone made 1649 comments.link. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) That is barely worth responding to. All I will point out is that Antidiskriminator was ARBMAC-banned from an article for tendentious and disruptive editing. He comes here with unclean hands, and should be pointedly ignored in this case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment. The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute. If the community wishes to impose sanctions I would appreciate it if the decision was made by uninvolved editors, objectively evaluating the exchanges in question - not a collection of biased, angry editors quite possibly out for revenge after my having dared to oppose their positions on an article talkpage. If the community considers user conduct on that article worthy of review, then I suggest the whole mess be brought before ArbCom for an objective overall assessment of everyone's conduct, rather than singling anyone out like this. -- Director (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I have some support for this notion. There's no guarantee they will take the case, but if they did, there'd be some genuine resolution. You should bear in mind though, Director, there is an outside chance this approach could end with more significant actions than just a topic ban. As an observer to that page, I'll be blunt with you -- you didn't come off well, especially in the civility department -- to my assessment anyway. Utilizing this solution may serve to spread the blame around a little, but if it's pure vindication you are looking for, I think you're likely to be disappointed. Right now, in the present discussion, a lot of energy is being wasted on the debate concerning whether the fight to introduce and maintain antisemitic material disqualifies you and Producer from contributing in certain related areas. ArbCom is unlikely to be distracted for long by such red herrings; they'll focus very quickly on the substantive policy matters, and I should be not at all surprised if WP:Civility becomes the chief issue in that discussion, whereas it has been severely underrepresented so far in discussions about what went wrong on that talk page. That being said, you will at least be afforded every opportunity to defend your position on equal footing with your detractors. In that respect, I think it may be the best way forward for all parties. Snow talk 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I said "if". I don't care about "spreading the blame", I just care that we do this fairly, objectivity is kind of "my thing". I don't care if I'm the only one who gets sanctioned, but I don't want it to happen because biased users with a specific interest gathered and posted a lot of "Support" votes. Input by new, uninvolved editors should be what matters here. The term "kangaroo court" does come to mind. -- Director (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I feel I need to state a few things: This pdf that is being persistently pushed is by some individual named "Valdas Anelauskas" and titled "Zionism and Russia" and readily available on Archive.org alongside thousands of other works by various authors. In any event I did not know that reliable sources are absolutely off limits if they've happened to have been quoted elsewhere by less reputable sources. For what it's worth my interest on the subject was piqued by Stanford University's "Jews and Communism" publication (hence the article name), later Slezkine, and more later by other sources. All that being said this article and this area of Wikipedia has put out such a toxic environment with its nonstop drama that, regardless of the outcome above, I'm willfully barring myself from editing in it ever again. I had been contemplating retiring from Wikipedia for a while now even prior to this whole ordeal and have chosen to follow through with it and do so. Therefore I am retiring indefinitely and am ceasing all further editing on any portion of Wikipedia. This my final and only comment on the matter and on Wikipedia. --Potočnik (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I think that is sad, because en WP has lost a productive editor who contributed to featured content of which en WP should be proud. Editors bringing such matters to this or similar fora should remember that throwing a WP:BOOMERANG can result in your being hit in the back of the head when you least expect it. Some of the above has not been done in good faith, but in pursuit of personal agendas. This discussion has only included a very narrow and largely involved slice of the en WP community, and this should be taken into account by closing administrators. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC) You mean Valdas Anelauskas, member of the white nationalist Pacifica Forum? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC) If we can hold Producer/Potočnik to his self imposed exile, I think that in itself will make many people very happy. No further action will be necessary. USchick (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I personally don't care about the exile either way, I still think the user should receive a topic ban for Judaism to prevent them spreading further ideas about the Jewish people at their discretion. It would otherwise be a good thing if they were able to edit other parts of the website. I think the very least administrators should do is show initiative and prevent the potential circulation of further anti-Semitic propaganda on the website? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) That's true. A person who retires can unretire. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I still fail to see the supposed "animosity" that Peacemaker67 and Antidiskriminator speak of. Where has any any one on here expressed any strong hostility towards director? Just because I have an editing history on the afD page for Jews and Communism, one of the several articles in question, my opinion becomes invalid? My first direct interaction with Director happened after the creation of this topic ban proposal, so how could I have had a "vendetta" against Director? In fact, at this point, I don't even agree with the nominator in regard to giving Director a topic ban, only Potocnik. The notion that an editor has to be entirely clueless of a situation when he joins the discussion associated with it in order to have a valued opinion makes no sense. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Well, there clearly isn't all that much animosity toward Director because, at the moment, a plurality of people oppose his topic ban. He has definitely won over a lot of people by his apology, and that is how it should be. The question is whether a topic ban is needed to prevent further damage to the project, not whether he needs to be dragged to the town square and horsewhipped. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) There is some animosity, especially between Atlanticire and Director, but not enough to render the entire topic ban irrelevant, or to render the opinions of everyone who contributed to the afD page irrelevant (as some people above have suggested). My opinion on Director has been that I'm incapable of judging him because no one is on the same page as to what it is he actually did, but to me it's clear that Potocnik/Producer is incapable of editing Judaism related articles from a NPOV. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) To User Potocnik @ 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) above. Sorry to see you go. Somehow I suspect it is just a case of a "broken-wing defense". Time will tell. You know, whenever I see you or Director edit or opine during this entire laborious labyrinthine byzantine Jews & Communism discussion, the words of an English poet I studied many decades ago come to mind: "...A truth that’s told with bad intent Beats all the Lies you can invent. It is right it should be so; Man was made for Joy and Woe; And when this we rightly know Thro’ the World we safely go..." (From William Blake's "To See a World..."[189]). Based on the unyielding ongoing self-righteous defenses you and Director offer up all the time, evidently you fail to grasp the profound import and implications of what the words "...A truth that’s told with bad intent Beats all the Lies you can invent!" mean. If you would, or could, then none of this horrendous and divisive debate would be necessary as the discussion would stop being one of "chalk and cheese" as the two of you try making it all about "sources" when the real problem is one of the core underlying negative and malicious intent of the way it's set up that comes across based on its presentation and your torrid defenses of what is ultimately indefensible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I agree. Good point on a "broken-wing defense".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) ---Systemic failure to provide oversight in this case--- The article "Jews and Communism" was created, as we know now, using material from an extremist anti-Semitic website as a source without attribution. Two days after its creation, it was nominated for deletion but the result was "no consensus"[190]. I find it disturbing that closing admin RoySmith says in his closure that one of the charges against the article is that it is "Attack page (anti-semetic)" but does not address that in his remarks, saying "what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism?" and the answer is that there is no consensus, so he allowed this very clearly anti-Semitic attack page to continue to be promulgated on this site. Then there was a deletion review, closed by Sandstein as "no consensus" [191], again, the very clear anti-Semitic content did not seem to be disturbing any admins or oversighters on this site. A long AN/I started by Director [[192] with the stated aim of removing "those folks who hang around being disruptive obstructions" from the article and which developed into a discussion of his behaviour, was eventually closed by v/r as "no consensus". "No consensus, no consensus, no consensus, not to become an anti-Semitic website, go away and leave us alone, and don't edit war or call each other names or you will be expelled from school for a day or two." I must say I was very disappointed that Jimbo Wales, in the discussion on his talk page, said he would look at the article and give his opinion, but he never did, and the discussion was archived with no further comment from him [193]. All this did attract the attention of two admins who honourably did try to intervene and improved things a little,Jehochman and Stephan Schulz, but what were all the rest of you doing? Another AN/I I started about edit-warring [[194] was also just ignored by admins for days and days until it was closed by Spike Wilbury as, guess what, "no consensus" [195], but at least he did then step into the article talk page and try to do something. Maybe because I know a little about early 20th century Russia, that stuff in the article about Jews killing the Tsar immediately indicated to me that this was as clearly pushing extreme anti-Semitism as if there were an article on WP about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" saying that it shows a Jewish plot to take over the world. I said so over and over but no one in authority seemed to take any notice, you would have hoped that someone might have looked into it. I am the person who found the connection between the article on the white supremacist website and the original WP article, and it really wasn't that hard,all I had to do was google the quote about "Jewish violins" killing the Tsar and there it was. All these bureaucratic procedures, lists of rules, blah blah blah, should not have prevented somebody doing something to remove poisonous racist crap from this website but the people who could have done that seem to be timid and afraid of doing anything and wait for someone else to deal with it or for it to "go to ArbCom", oh yes, spend five months collecting "evidence" and going through infinite quasi-legal hoops. The article is still onsite, though at least without the horrible "Jews killed the Tsar" stuff. Please excuse the rant, I needed to get that off my chest, it can be hatted if someone wants to do that.Smeat75 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Smeat75 identifies the central issue in this matter: Can Wikipedia resist concerted efforts to contaminate it with lies, hate, and deception? In the time from February through May 2014, it signally failed to do so. The virulent anti-Semitism of the original article should have been evident to all, and much of it persists to this day despite the efforts of literally dozens of editors and the investment of hundreds of hours. The attention of administrators, and indeed of Wikimedia board members, should have been focused by the original AfD, the Jimbo discussion, the two long, long threads at AN/I, and plenty of direct correspondence. This was not an obscure or difficult issue requiring expertise, some dispute about mathematical series or the best name for some forgotten Balkan outpost. The article was filled with evident canards -- and it linked to a fairly extensive Wikipedia article filling in the historical background on the smear! We have the whole cast: the ugly Jews, the Jews in banking and finance, the secretive Jews, the Jewish traitors. We argue that all sorts of people were really Jews because their ancestors were Jewish. And on the talk page, as here, we have the repeated dismissal of opposition because, after all, it's just those Jews again coming to WP:VOTE, and everyone knows how they stick together. Wikipedia is in serious trouble. It is hemorrhaging editors. Its reputation is already low, and scandals like this page diminish it. Worse, it seems clear that Wikipedia cannot and will not resist serious efforts by a small team of concerted editors who, as was the case here, can easily override policy and consensus by pretending to adhere to the forms. I've used Wikis since Ward’s Wiki was new; I've been keynote at WikiSym and I've been program chair; I’ve written wikis. Never -- not even during the great wiki mind wipe of 1999 -- have I so completely doubted the efficacy of the WikiWay. The conclusion seems inescapable that Wikipedians have lost the ability to distinguish routine contention from opposition to racist and anti-semitic distortion; if we cannot do that (and I see scant evidence that we can), the wind will blow through the empty corridors of Wikipedia? Could it happen? If you think not, think again. Events like Jews and Communism bring Wikipedia into disrepute. If Wikipedia becomes sufficiently disreputable, an engineer at Google can press a button and, overnight, Wikipedia could go back to Page Rank 3, taking our traffic. If Wikipedia becomes sufficiently disreputable, donations will dry up. If Wikipedia becomes sufficiently disreputable, the remaining editors will be even more dominated by the hacks and the charlatans, the zealots for obscure movements, the gamified WikiLawyers looking for one more scalp and one more barnstar. This can still be fixed, but it can not be fixed by kicking the can down the road and nodding sagely that, if the anti-semites were regrettable, some of their opponents were sometimes intemperate. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) No, with our current policies and guidelines, Wikipedia can not manage this, even if it had the manpower. Part of what I believe is required is no more and no less than a very careful reconsideration and revision of WP:BLPGROUP. Legal systems around the world have often recognized that marginalized classes of people are the subject of a systemic bias (in fact, this is almost tautological), and respond to this fact with positive (that is, proactive) structures, such as heightened scrutiny, which attempt to address said bias. The belief that one can address this bias with better intentions but without that sort of teeth has been disproven time and time again, there's quite a bit of research that a blind approach leads to likely unintentional (if not intentional "turning a blind eye") discrimination (e.g., [196]. See the research on stereotype threat, not just our article, but the actual research, to understand one of the dynamics that may underly this intractability.) There are very, very difficult questions ahead if people were to agree with me, about how to construct such a system. Legal systems in the United States and around the world continue to struggle with those same questions, in part under the guise of standards of scrutiny. I don't know what the best solution looks like, one that actually provides some reasonable protections but that is resistant to gaming. But I think it has finally come time to admit that we need something more in the way of policy than what we have. Propagating this material has and continues to do harm to living people, even if that harm is diffuse. BLP requires we do something, but BLPGROUP denies us the tools required to do anything. If months of propagating Nazi hate literature isn't a good enough reason for change, I don't know what the (redacted) is. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the above two comments. I am not Jewish, by the way, so not recognising that article as horrendous anti-Semitism because how are you supposed to know if you're not Jewish, is no excuse. All anyone had to do was google "Jews killed the Tsar" and see what sheer evil they were confronted with, but it seemed no one wanted to make that small effort and almost all just looked the other way.Smeat75 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - This is the portion of this issue that concerns me the most. We had over two-thirds of editors stating in the 1st deletion attempt that the article was an attack page based on the antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism, but User:RoySmith overruled the community and ruled "no consensus". I am well aware of the fact that admins have to take all relevant arguments into consideration, and that AfDs are not a vote. But when you have two-thirds of the community pointing to what looks exactly like what it was, Roy should have been damn sure he was right with his overruling. He was not. And that should have been obvious to people who are informed about these types of issues. If he wasn't(or isn't) then he should not have taken the AfD. If he was, then I have to firstly question the competence of someone who couldn't see the obvious. Then to see it discussed in multiple venues, with no action, was disheartening. To say the least. If editors think it's just melodramatic for the editors who stated they don't want to edit someplace that would allow such malfeasance, they haven't been involved enough with the disgusting minds of the Institute for Historical Review(shudder). The worse kind of antisemites. Smart, educated, informed and with a hatred of Jews that can't be matched. Like Uncle Bilbo one minute, and then when they see the ring/Jew, they attack. Should never have gotten to this point. Dave Dial (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - Been following this with increasing horror in the past few days. Made my first edits tonight, though recall having a brief run in on this a week or so ago on the articles for deletion discussion. I left before a closure was made. (I think I was in denial since) :/) Has the closing admins given a full explaination of their rationale in closing? If the admin have clue - I have always respected Sandstein's judgement before - then they showed a huge lack of horse sense and gut based clue. Shit stinks. We can all smell. Sounds like the majority of the community smelt the stench. The admins didnt get it. This shows a worrying insensitivity to elements of the comminity IMO Irondome (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC) It does show significant oversight in this instance, I don't think having an attitude that the article is only antisemitic because an antisemitic source was found to scapegoat is a good thing, although it certainly proves it without question. I think I speak for many editors, at least reading through the comments here, in saying that the article read as antisemitic propaganda before the source was found that designated it as such, and the admins in question should have listened to the communities outcry concerning it. After all, one of the principles of the website is ignore all rules if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and the policies of the website were definitely used intelligently here to defend the article. I'm not sure whose discretion it is whether or not a particular group is worth defending from hate speech, or if this website, with its global influence, should have a clear stance on this, but if I were asked, I would certainly say that antisemitism has no place here, and that it should indeed make rules against hate speech --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC) That will just lead to the circular argument, already represented on that talk page ad nauseum -- that it wasn't really hate speech, just sourced facts that happened to make some uncomfortable for "personal" or otherwise small-minded reasons. Look a number of people here have commented that this situation was more complicated than it needed to be and that we ought to have new rules to deal with this type of situation, but there are two problems with that as I see it: 1) It's all well and good to make such a statement, but no one has proposed specific mechanisms or procedures that could be employed for such scenarios that wouldn't cause more problems than they solved and that wouldn't be subject to the same kind of mental/semantic gymnastics that kept this article alive for as long as it was despite being in conflict with existing policies. And 2) Complicated is just the way Wikipedia is sometimes. We had a heated content discussion compounded by battleground behaviour; welcome to the project and bear in mind that such debates have gone on for a lot longer, including on topics of significant social sensitivity. As of today, the page is blanked, likely to be briefly deleted. It won't be coming back in it's recent form, though I daresay claims found within it will rear their ugly head elsewhere. And there will be dedicated contributors with common sense and the will to protect the project in those scenarios too. Yes, administrators acted with perhaps an excess of caution, but don't we like (and demand) caution in our admins, typically? They balance a lot of different considerations, and possible vandalism for the purposes of fringe ideologies are just one of them, if one of the more serious ones. If anything I'd say this situation is just reflective of the need for more admins, as they do seem stretched thin at times of late, and getting administrator attention, let alone attention admin possessing both the time and will to weather the storm of a situation where they can only choose amongst courses of action that are all going to be contentious with one group or another can be difficult at times. But I don't think we need new policy for this contingency, and if we do, it needs to be more refined than "Do something!". If anyone feels the need for new more specific rules is pressing, though, take the matter to WP:Village Pump (policy) after the conclusion of this discussion and the AfD, and don't forget to ping me. Snow talk 02:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Well, there was an argument earlier in the debate that suggested a revision of WP:BLPGROUP. That may help in this instance. I think you're probably right about the request for more admins. It's possible that they simply didn't have the time to look it over properly. It's a difficult situation and I guess that returns to the matter of Producers disruptive editing. This sort of behaviour generally leads to admin response, and events such as this will serve well as an example for future possible article creations --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) That's right, I forgot about the BLPGROUP suggestion. Well...maybe. It's quite difficult to say anything definitive about how useful it would be without knowing the exact change proposed. And altering BLP to include protections to broad groups would redefine the concept of uphill battles. Now, as I said above, I'm not sure what change is warranted by these circumstances, but if someone were convinced that a new level of oversight was required here, I'd suggest they look in the direction of the recently updated discretionary sanctions system. It could be put before ArbCom that Judaism (or more specifically, the Jewish people) should be added to the "current areas of conflict" list for the DS system. This would allow admins to apply discretionary sanctions relating to activity on the topic without as much concern about fall-out, since sanctions are allowed for even moderate violations of policy in such cases. Using it to combat the creation of an undesirable article would be a little bit of a twist on the system's usual purpose, which is to maintain and protect existing articles from disruptive activity, but I daresay the general function -- protecting the project in a specific content area prone to heated debate, vandalism, and general disruption, are the same in both cases. I think if you take this and the related discussions to ArbCom, you've a decent shot at getting some significant oversight. Snow talk 06:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC) You do raise some good points. These things aren't always the fault of admins. Once enough of the community had been made aware of the article, the consensus seemed to sweep towards delete. Maybe we could also push to using Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias more frequently as a resource? It has some utility on the Talk page but not a significant amount. If it were more popular and had an amount of active watchers, it could help deal with the creation of articles such as this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I see it differently. The decision to close the AfD as "no consensus" was perverse. 9/10 administrators would have closed it as "delete." Let's hope the current AfD is not also closed as "keep." At DRN, many of the "Endorse" keep votes said they thought it should be deleted but respected the discretion of the closing administrator. To me that makes no sense, because what then is the purpose of DRN. Add to that many of the regulars there are "inclusionist" tipped the balance. But it's precisely because many editors are sensitive to anti-Semitism that most editors favor deletion. The main policy reason for deletion is notability. If the topic were notable, we would be able to identify a body of literature to use as a source and could determine what was significant to the subject and what the different views were. It would not be possible to base the article on an IHR article, because it would not reflect the weight shown in a hythothetical article about the subject in a reliable source. The problem I see is that there are lots of articles that are just synthesis, where someone picks two words and puts them together and creates their own topic. Generally these pass AfD where the odds of getting an article deleted that should be deleted are about 50%. For example left-wing nationalism and right-wing socialism have survived AfDs, although no one has agreed the definition or scope. So a libertarian writer said the Republican Party is right-wing socialist because both parties are socialist, and a New York Times reporter in the 1950s said Peron was a right-wing socialist because he was right-wing and his policies seemed socialist. And of course Tony Blair was on the right of the nominally socialist Labour Party so that's multiple uses of the term. TFD (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC) agreed,'Wikipedia's existence is contingent on preserving a modicum of respect from the mainstream public. One more episode of wikipedia's admins deciding to tolerate a bit of "well-sourced" racism could well land the uproar on the front page of he Times or Le Monde. the next day, Google demotes wikipedia's page rank, and it's all over. Easy calls need to be easy; this was not a tricky question, and the corps of admins failed abjectly. If we can't find policy to bar anti semiotic and racist cant, what the *** are admins, or policy, for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I hardly think that "anti semiotic" writing would cause Google's algorithms to react that way. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Just for the record, a deletion review is only to determine if the closing admin acted within policy. Not for deciding if the AfD was decided "right". Most closing admins know how to close an AfD or RM within policy so that it cannot be overturned by review. So I wouldn't spend too much time focusing on the review, because even if the closing admin used IAR, it would be within policy to endorse the close. Dave Dial (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Question - can anyone suggest an appropriate venue to continue to discuss this issue once this thread is closed? By "this issue" I mean the failure of the system to remove gross racist/anti-Semitic material, the reluctance of admins to deal with the matter and what I would describe as a widespread tendency among them to avoid contentious disputes and leave those to someone else.Smeat75 (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Smeat, the appropriate locations for such a discussion are WP:Village Pump (policy), or this very noticeboard (in a new thread, of course, though I do tend to think the Village Pump is a better location in general and especially under the current circumstances). Wherever you host the discussion itself, a posting concerning it at WP talk:Centralized discussion is advisable to increase participation. I've also suggested above that those looking for additional oversight in this area might consider viewing the recently overhauled discretionary sanctions system, with an eye towards petitioning ArbCom to add topics concerning the Jewish people to the list of topics covered by the system. Snow talk 06:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I agree that there is something disturbing in how long time it took to root this out, including the first failed AfD. I think that Jimbo Wales and others who feels some overall responsibility for the project should look into this and in general we as a community should do an evaluation of what went wrong like it’s done here by Smeat75 and Bernstein It’s a case that deservs broad attention so people keep it in mind if something similar happens. Some kind of formal recognition that this was something else than an ordinary content dispute may be in order One point of learning may be that when there is sincere concern that an article is fundamentally flawed and unsound (extremism, hoax or similar) the concern can not be put aside by «no consensus»; one solution would be to direct such cases directly to ArbCom (and blank the article until the case is settled). In this particular case there most probably was a consensus to delete, but the point is that "no consensus" with no formal follow-up shouldn't be an option when there is very deep concern for the state of an article. Iselilja (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the comment Iselilja, I think that is an idea worth pursuing. I noticed that on RoySmith's talk page, he is the admin that closed the first AfD, there are two warnings from bots telling him that he shouldn't have removed the template for Articles from Deletion from Jews and Communism the day it was nominated for deletion and he shouldn't have removed other peoples' comments from the discussion. I looked at the edit history of the deletion discussion and the article and talk page but I could not see any edits from him removing comments. I don't know if there is some way that admins can erase things from edit histories as well as removing comments. I have asked him to explain on his talk page [197].Smeat75 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Forget that comment above, he has replied and it seems to be confusion caused by a malfunctioning bot.Smeat75 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) ---Involved / uninvolved editors--- Comment on the issue of involved versus uninvolved editors: I first became aware of this article when it was mentioned at ANI following the first AfD. The title alone drew my attention rather strongly. I suspect a large number of editors may be in the same position, because the increase in the number of respondents between the first AfD and the second AfD is really very substantial. I would suggest (but leave it to others to judge) that the line between 'involved' and 'uninvolved' be drawn at those editors who were involved before the first AfD, because surely part of the point of the AfD and ANI process is to get input from the wider community; it could seem perverse to then ignore the views of those members of the wider community who choose at that point to comment. L&K, Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Well, in that case, I was made aware of it just under a week before the second AfD was opened due to the two RfCs on the article talk page. I imagine many of the "involved" editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy Jews and Communism has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "many of the "involved" editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy Jews and Communism has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on". Exactly. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I think that's going/gone away as an issue now as "non-involved" have since posted and made the response more balanced. But the issue was not so much involved/noninvolved but one side of a content dispute (call it "involved") loading a discussion on behaviour here with little input from those who had not taken a position in that content dispute. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Luckily, there are very few editors who support blatant anti-semitism (or other forms of racism and bigotry), and hence in this case most editors will be on one side of the content issue. In this case, these editors also were the ones on the receiving side of Directors comments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) That is what I understood the concern to be as well. But then, clarification on this matter was ignored for a good bit as several editors pointed out that a majority of the editors who had responded to this thread (even at the time this issue was first raised) had never been involved in any form of content dispute with either party, having become "involved" at the juncture of the still-ongoing AfD. Despite these efforts at clarity, the characterization of this discussion as mostly the effort of a mob with an axe to grind against the pair being discussed persisted, and I fear it will now muddy the waters some for the duration of the discussion. I do tend to agree with DeCausa that the concern has been addressed some by the arrival of more editors through the normal noticeboard traffic, as was largely inevitable, but this aspect has now gained so much traction, I think the spectre of "revenge" votes stands a good chance of being factored into any response taken here at a much higher level than it ever should be, as the parties out to make an example of these two, while present, are only a slim, slim minority in the discussion. Two, maybe three contributors, depending on how you parse their motives. Allow me to clarify the extent of my own involvement in the pages and discussions of relevance here -- not because I want to make the case for why my perspectives on the whole affair should be given non-mitigated weight (this whole discussion is going to get absurdly congested if each party feels compelled to delineate where they came into the matter and in what context the operated, which is what I was afraid was about to happen), but because I think my case is fairly indicative of those editors who might be described as quasi-involved -- that is to say, they participated in the most recent AfD, the ANIs, or the article talk page, but were never on opposing sides of a content issue with either of the editors who are the subject of this discussion. I came to be aware of the toxic situation on that article through the more recent of the two ANIs and I commented twice in that discussion (here and here); the gist of my comments was that, while no one should be proud of what was going at that page, the two most problematic personalities, from what I had observed, were Director and Producer, who were vastly more likely to denigrate the perspectives of their opposition, to make personal attacks, to make implications of bad-faith and ulterior motives without evidence, and generally fail to observe WP:Civility broadly. The two just seemed completely incapable, at least by that point in the discussion, of coping with the notion that others disagreed so strongly with them and every one of their responses to opposition contained some degree of vitriol. I had hoped that a little community attention, including from admins, might put the pair, and others tending towards a combative mindset, on better behaviour, but I saw no really productive benefit in getting involved in the ongoing, and devolving, debate on the article talk page over the crux of whether the content in the article itself was antisemitic and/or synthesis and stayed well-clear of it, but I continued to be concerned about the abandon with which civility standards were trampled there and the general battleground attitudes at work, so I put the talk page on my watchlist. I made one brief comment on the talk page, directed at Director after he speculated on the motives of another editor in a matter that didn't even directly concern him and then told said editor to "go away"; I informed him that neither action was in his purview, that it was uncivil and that it seemed consistent with the WP:OWN behaviour many involved editors had accused him of. I never had a direct exchange with him or any other party over the content itself, nor was I personally the subject of derogatory comments from anybody (which may make me unique in the history of that article). My last involvement with the article was inthe second AfD wherein I never made a formal vote and tried to make it clear that my main concern was not the content itself, but how broke the process of discussion itself was on the page and that, regardless of whether or not the content was antisemitic or not, or appropriately sourced, some editors there were in their right to believe the situation could never be fixed through usually collaborative effort because of the battleground mentality that presided there. I think this type of story is much more common to the editors who have commented above than is the scenario of an editor who duked it out over the content of the article (and more lucky me, for the fact that I didn't have to step into that quagmire). Was I involved? Well, only to the extent that I observed a great deal acrimony and editors with less than acceptable stance on civility and commented as such. In the cases of others who did the same, or even commented narrowly within the last AfD and never interacted with Director or Producer, I think it's a serious mischaracterization to dismiss their perspectives as biased, given the entire point of a discussion such as this is to consider behavioural issues. Again, I think the call for a topic ban is premature, for Director at least. But that doesn't mean I want the valid opinions of other editors quashed or treated as tainted simply because they happened upon this mess a little earlier than others. Snow talk 21:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC) @Balaenoptera, that's pretty much everyone. I don't agree with that. I'd rather go for the second AfD since the point of having "uninvolved" editor input is that those editors haven't been advocating content changes and hence are more objective in viewing behavior as such. -- Director (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC) That said, I imagine most of those involved in the second AfD had not been directly involved with you on the article, that is to say, the "history of disruptive editing" in question --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Sure, I said before the second AfD, and I was just going along with the notion of an "AfD-based" criterion. Editors viewed as "involved" should I think obviously be simply those involved in content disputes on the article talkpage. -- Director (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I apologise, I misread "I'd rather go for the second AfD" as meaning those involved in it. That makes more sense --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I think we all need to stop talking about this in terms of a timeline and specific landmarks, prior to which no editor who observed the mess is capable of being given full weight here. That approach, aside from being artificial and reflected nowhere in policy, removes any consideration of context. Administrators are not simpletons and we do not need to provide guidelines as to which editor's perspectives are to be "trusted" more than others -- nor do I think we would be welcome in making the effort. Any responding admins have every link at their disposal here to review the comments and involvement of all parties and to decided whether they are presenting a factual account of events or being led by prior bias. I don't think you have much to be concerned over, Director - as things are moving, it seems you will likely avoid any kind of topic ban, if not by the hugest margin. But regardless of whether or not that prediction bears out, it's not our place to be deconstructing the motives and general capacity for neutrality of one-another with regard to this already convoluted situation, at least not with the broad strokes that are now being suggested. Snow talk 22:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Comment: I'm an AfD regular. I noticed this at AfD the first but didn't comment because I didn't understand the content (so i was unlikely to provide a unique insight) and saw that there appeared to be a significant number of different voices. I'd probably do the same if a similar situation arose again with similar content and similar arguements at AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I agree, the content as presented was not understandable. That's why people were trying to edit it to something that made more sense. It says a lot about an article, when you come across an encyclopedia article and walk away with no better understanding of the subject matter. lol USchick (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Note - I noticed the nomination (2nd one) on the "Articles for Deletion" page as I was defending another article that had been nominated the same day, so I suppose that would qualify me as "uninvolved"? Even so, if we are to say that only 'uninvolved' editors can exert opinions about an issue, we would have to consider that without involved parties to exert their testimony on what happened, we would be largely clueless as to what actually happened. Of course we shouldn't interpret the opinions of involved editors as a "neutral and unbiased perspective" that should directly affect the outcome of the case, but the opinions of involved editors are still valuable in the regard that they help us understand what actually happened. You're never going to have a "witness to a crime" sitting on the jury, but that doesn't mean their opinion and what they have to say shouldn't be said. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 10:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Good point. DIREKTOR and PRODUCER/Potočnik are subjected to very serious accusations it is necessary to present evidence for such serious accusations. Such evidence can, of course be presented and discussed by all editors, both involved and uninvolved. Closing (uninvolved) administrator will consider the strength of the argument when deciding if accusations are justified if such accusations are proven not to be justified all editors who made unjustified accusations should be boomeranged if accusations about some kind of travelling circus (active not only in topics relating to Jews, but also in other topic areas like communism, ARBMAC, ... ) would be proven, then all members of that travelling circus should be banned from all topic areas they were active.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC) ---Tactical Remorse--- Above, Director writes: ...However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light. -- Director (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) This false equivalence (and this personal attack) should make clear to any reader that Director's remorse is merely a tactic. Once again, Producer and Director are working in apparent concert here: Producer retiring in silence while Director is shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that he has been defending anti-semitic cant. Note, too, how even now Director stands by his "reliable non-cherry-picked" sources; the only thing wrong with the ghastly article, and with his staunch defense of every insinuation, distortion, and lie it contained, is that it was also plagiarized. Those, like myself, who wish to preserve NPOV are "biased POV pushers" and attempts to remove specious arguments to balance the article are "disrupting". Director sees only the technical violation -- the indefensible plagiarism -- and is expressly prepared to do it all over again. He doesn't, even now, regret the faults of the article; he regrets getting caught in a WP:Copyvio that makes it harder for him to defend it right now. Note, too, that once more Director chooses to single out an editor he thinks to be Jewish, claims to be deeply wronged ("personal attack and slander of the highest order"!) and emphasizes the collective danger of plural "POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article", which he intends to be heard as a reference to "other editors" by admins but which will be understood as an allusion to "the International Conspiracy Of The Jews" by certain other parties [198]. And once again he threatens editors with reports, trials, sanctions. If he were I, I bet he'd point to the word "slander" above and escalate WP:NLT immediately. After all, how could Director be expected to know the anti-semitic leanings of an article he didn't write? How could the admins be expected to know? Perhaps by reading it? Director is correct to observe that one difference between him and me (and almost everyone else!) in this matter is that he has been wrong, and in the wrong. Director hopes that this very limited display of remorse will save his Wikipedia account, and with it some time, inconvenience, and some small residual influence. The effort is clumsy: thorough contrition would have cost him nothing, but clearly he cannot stomach that. Whether Producer will be rejoining him here under the same name, under a new name, or whether the two were ever distinguishable, is an interesting question to which it seems unlikely we shall ever learn an answer. Once more, two editors acting in close cooperation are poised to emerge from this shameful and costly disaster with scant effective sanction. What damage could editors this dedicated wreak if they thought things though? Director and Producer act in such tight concert that they seem to be socks; more clever operatives would adopt more distinct personae who sometimes agreed, sometimes differed, and who had distinct interests. More resourceful operatives would recruit a parcel of agents to work with them from distant locations -- a few people in Bangalore, a few in Russia, perhaps a small office in Ireland -- each editing quietly and each prepared to chime in when needed at AN/I or Arbcom or AfD to back them up. Smarter operatives would choose a cause (or perhaps a client?) less hideous. Two zealots pursuing a lost and discredited crusade have tied Wikipedia in knots; what couldn't a sensible and unscrupulous PR team with achieve with a few dozen internet accounts and a few thousand dollars? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Interesting point. Editor who worked with them and chimed in at this AN to back them up... That resembles what one editor did here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Antidiskriminator, if you have an accusation, you should be brave enough to make it. Please don't hide behind a vague allusion of impropriety. MarkBernstein is actually doing something after years of neglect from the entire community. What are you doing? You seem to be supporting people who knowingly discriminate. As Antidiskriminator, the only question is why? Does your personal relationship to their part of the world have anything to do with it? Is this some sort of nationalism? I'm not accusing, I'm asking in an effort to understand. Please enlighten us. USchick (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) My comment was related to editor who is, like me, opposed to ban here. I already presented an explanation about him coming here to create a false narrative which paint all three of them in a good light, forgetting to mention their block logs. One (diff) at Ante_Pavelić article (to which three of them are one of main contributors) made me additionally worried and convinced that it is necessary to: gather as much evidence as possible about the activities of this group and if evidence prove accusations to reveal all members of this group to reveal all topic areas in which they operated to impose appropriate bans to all of them in order to prevent them to continue their activities in future Limiting discussion only to one article (Jews and Communism) and one nation (Jews) would probably be discriminatory.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Your comment "That resembles what one editor did here" sounds like a veiled accusation against MarkBernstein. Based on your explanation, that's not the case, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood. I would caution about expanding this nomination to include other areas outside Jews and Communism, because that would be a witch hunt. They have previously been sanctioned in other areas. It appears, after that, they took their show on the road to other areas of interest, using the same tactics. My goal is to separate these two, and if they wish to separate by choice, that's fine with me. It would be nice to back it up with some sort of enforcement, just in case they change their mind. If people wish to do an in-depth investigation of a potential terrorist plot that may involve lots of other people, I think that's outside the scope of this nomination. USchick (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) ---From the talk page of Jimbo Wales--- You will likely recall a discussion here, not long ago, about the notorious page Jews and Communism. At that time, you said you would look into the issue, but it appears the press of other matters prevented that. The page is now at AfD for the second time [199], and it appears likely that this embarrassment will at last be removed. There remains the very serious question: how did a handful of zealous editors insert and support a patently anti-Semitic canard in Wikipedia, maintaining it for three months through the extensive discussion on your talk page, a previous AfD, two trips to AN/I, and thousands upon thousands of words of acerbic talk page discussion? In my opinion, this strikes to the core of Wikipedia: if a small group of skilled editors can maintain a conspicuous anti-Semitic propaganda page, what cannot be inserted? And if so, who will support or trust Wikipedia? I have written further comments at AN: [200]. If you have an opinion on this matter, I think this is an ideal time to express it. I sincerely believe this crisis to be a serious threat to the future of the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) I was actually going to raise the issue myself, as I was the one who brought it here originally. When I read the article for the first time, I s--t a brick and said to myself "This just can't be. How did this garbage get into Wikipedia?" It read like a propaganda screed. It turns out that indeed much of it was originally copied from an anti-Semitic website, and the article itself was copied over to Metapedia. But I was going to raise the issue differently than Mark is, as an example of the Wikipedia processes working. It did take a bit of prodding, but they do seem to be working, and the article seems to be heading for a SNOW deletion. Frankly, being the superstitious sort, I was going to wait until it was actually deleted before coming here to talk about it. Overall, this article gives me a good feeling about Wikipedia. But yes, Mark is right, some reflection is warranted about how it got here and how the system failed to immediately pick up on it. I guess the reason is that the system is us. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Largely agree with most of the sentiments above from MarkBernstein and Coretheapple. What gives me pause for thought is how the first deletion discussion in March was no consensus, then the current deletion discussion in May is emphatically delete. Are we that fickle as a community? Did the article change? Did the original deletion not get proposed correctly? NickCT (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I wasn't involved in the first one, but the second one had a much larger cross-section of the community participating, because of exposure on ANI and here, and more importantly it was determined that much of the original article was lifted from an anti-Semitic website. In the midst of this revelation, the primary supporter of the article abruptly changed his mind from "strong support" to "delete." You really have to go to an old Perry Mason tv show to find such an abrupt turnaround. After that, it was just WP:SNOWfall thereafter, and the article is currently blanked by an admin as plagiarism. Also, the first closing was controversial, as a majority of editors favored deletion. But a much closer plurality, and certainly not a landslide of disgust and revulsion as we are currently seeing. Coretheapple (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I have given this a good deal of thought, and I believe the original AfD was wrongly decided. The original nomination was cast strictly in terms of Wikipedia policy (NPOV fork), which is often a prudent course; this allowed the article's anti-Semitic slant to be viewed as a muddled content dispute and the 2:1 sentiment in favor of deletion to be viewed as a he-said she-said content dispute. I took considerable care in writing the second AfD to present both the clear and narrow policy issues (WP:ATTACK, NPOV fork, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) and to emphasize the toxic nature of the article and its (very zealous) defenders. The article's similarity to and affinity with frankly anti-semitic sites and pamphlets had been remarked frequently, but soon after the second AfD was published User:Smeat75 discovered that it had in fact been plagiarized from an anti-Semitic "institute." This fortunate turn of affairs made it difficult to defend the article, though a few fans continue to try. If Wikipedia has a policy against racist and anti-Semitic diatribes, it is exceedingly hard to identify and not well known; in consequence, the AfD discussion has often turned on citation practice and shouts of WP:NOTCENSORED rather than on the toxic nature of the article. In the time between the first and second AfD the article had been slightly improved, at least temporarily -- not least because the article was more or less continually before AN/I and its zealous defenders were thus forced to slightly moderate their ongoing battleground. That did not prevent a good deal of ugliness, including an infamous edit claiming that another editor, as a religious Jew, ought not to edit Jews and Communism. That edit earned a slap on the wrist from an admin; otherwise, little or no help or support was received while numerous editors spent hundreds of hours trying to address this pernicious and unnecessary problem. The original AfD was too narrow, and the closer failed to examine the article with sufficient care to recognize how embarrassing the article was. I very much doubt Wikipedia can handle situations like this one under the current arrangements and with the current personnel, and I am very doubtful that it can survive the scandal that another episode like this might cause. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) At this moment it is premature to say if the system has failed, because the process is ongoing. What I can say is that the community is united and overwhelming in advocating deletion of this article on solid policy grounds. The article is brimming with red flags, beginning with the title. I'm actually quite happy, so far. But it's like the old joke about the guy who drops out the window and is happy during the first eight of the nine stories of the building. Coretheapple (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) @MarkBernstein: - re "The original nomination was cast strictly in terms of Wikipedia policy (NPOV fork), which is often a prudent course" - I had the same thought Mark. Perhaps the first AfD just wasn't proposed in the right light. NickCT (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) The bottom line is that the initial closer felt that there was no consensus. While I think that he was deeply wrong, it was not a totally illogical conclusion (ditto for the DRV results[201]). It was a messy and hard to follow discussion that went all over the lot. It featured vitriolic support from two editors, one of whom was found, since then, to have copied it from an anti-Semitic website, and has since retired thanks to an AN discussion that is overwhelmingly in favor of a topic ban. The other editor switched from support to strong delete, and has voluntarily consented to ban himself from such topics in the future. In place of the messy free-swinging debate, this one has been subdued, with only ordinary back-and-forth, with an avalanche of participation, massively from previously uninvolved editors, almost unanimously in favor of deletion. Yes, true, it is not over until it's over, but so far the system seems to be working. But in terms of the atmosphere and the character of the discussion, it couldn't be more different and the reason it is different is very simple and clear. Coretheapple (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, Mark, Wikipedia policy does specifically prohibit propaganda, which this certainly was. One of the more recent persons commenting in the AfD cited WP:PLUG, which is policy. It is right there in WP:NOT. I agree that it is hard to locate, but then again, very little on Wikipedia is easy to find. Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Postscript: The article was just deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC) To err is human. This is no reason to get upset by a simple error. The problem has been solved. Jehochman Talk 18:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Solved, though at some considerable cost to a great many volunteers, to the project, and to my nerves. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC) What this controversy taught me, again, is how much I would not want to be an administrator. Writing articles about obscure subjects that are neglected here, or fixing ones that aren't good, is actually a rather pleasant activity. I like the idea that one of my favorite and more neglected choreographers now has an article that's worthy of his talents. I'd like to fix this and that to make them better. But wallowing in the mud, dealing with monstrosities like this and the low-lifes, just gives me a low-grade headache. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sub-Section

Additional community discussion of pseudoscientific POV pushing and WP: Citation shotgunning

The following is a classic example of WP: Citation shotgunning, Proof by intimidation and Ad nauseam. From the community discussion on the Talk page of Homeopathy: To satisfy WP:MEDRS, I think we can find some good studies from the German and French wikipedias, let me start with these:- Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. (This review of FOUR studies on the homeopathic treatment of people with respiratory allergies) Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008). A 4th trial testing a “homeopathic formula” had a negative result. Linde L, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. (Although a later review by some of these authors found a reduced significance, the authors never asserted that the significance was no longer present.) Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. Published in the leading journal on respiratory medicine, this study shows remarkable results in treating the #4 reason that people in the USA die. Conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital. Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. Published in the leading journal on its subject, this study showed clinically relevant improvements from homeopathy as well as influences on objective EEG readings. Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF, Collenberg M, Fuhrer K, Hassink R, Steinlin M, Thurneysen A. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005 Dec;164(12):758-67. Epub 2005 Jul 27. This highly sophisticated trial showed significant results from homeopathic treatment.—Khabboos (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC) What specific change to the article are you proposing here? Just listing random sources like this is a waste of time. Make sure your next edit here is a concrete change proposal phrased in the form "I'd like to change X to Y" followed by direct quotes from the sources you want to use to back up the change. Also, some of the sources you have listed look pretty old so before you use them, please check the article as well as all the archive pages to make sure that they haven't been discussed before and that newer sources do not supersede them. --McSly (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Most of these been discussed here before, some of them quite recently. The first one reports the results of a single trial and combines its results with three other trials by the same team. Regarding its significance, scroll down to the "Commentary" at the end of the paper. And see also this comment on the statistics. The second one is an analysis of three papers by the same team, so the results haven't been independently reproduced. The statistical methods used in the first of the three has, according to a former page on the AMA website that has helpfully been cited by proponents of homoeopathy here, "been criticized for inconsistent/incorrect data analysis; use of different diagnostic and treatment categories but combining them in the conclusions of efficacy; and lack of chemical analysis of different treatments. The clinical significance of the results, given the self-limiting condition being studied, has been called into question." See Sampson W, London W. Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics. 1995;96:961-964. The paper you cite reports that "all three studies followed the same basic study design, including similar entry criteria, treatment assignment, follow-up schedule, outcome measures and data analysis". The third one is already cited by the article, along with the same team's 1999 reanalysis. The last three are all fairly small single trials. The Frass paper is discussed here. This 2006 review paper describes the use of homoeopathy for fibromyalgia as having "positive results from studies with methodological flaws". And this systematic review of homoeopathy for childhood ailments says that "The evidence for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ... is mixed, showing both positive and negative results for their respective main outcome measures". Again: what is required by MEDRS is peer-reviewed and published systematic reviews, not cherry-picked individual trials. Brunton (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I am surprised that someone can randomly handpick all these really notorious studies, who have been systematically dismantled again and again. If you understand German and accept content with "sceptical" background, i can give you some very insightful reviews for the Frass and Frei studies. But again, you are proposing primary research papers, which we should not use. Primary research must become "canonical" by at least being cited in textbooks or reviews. The one review, you have proposed to use (for waht, btw?), Linde et al, 1997, has been overruled by half a dozen more recent reviews, and its worthwhile to know that the main author has stated in a German magazine, that his paper overestimated the positive effects being reported. Rka001 (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Actually, the comment reported by Der Spiegel in 2010 was "Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein", translated by User:Hans Adler as "We can no longer maintain our old conclusions as stated, since the positive results could be due to errors in the studies." The "overestimated" comment comes from the 1999 reanalysis and is quoted in the article. Brunton (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I'm really getting kinda sick of people dusting off these crappy, ill-conducted, methodologically unsound, one-shot studies from biassed groups, done decades ago. Doing this in a frantic effort to get something positive said about Homeopathy in our encyclopedia. It is abundantly (and unsurprisingly) clear that homeopathy is pure, unadulterated bullshit with no basis whatever in science - and since Wikipedia is grounded in mainstream science - I don't see any way to change that...ever. We're not about looking through old studies, trying to find one with a grain of promise for Homeopathy. The entire point of the WP:MEDRS rules is precisely to prevent this kind of cherry-picking of dubious studies. The only thing that could conceivably save this pathetic endeavor is brand new research, recently done - very, very carefully, double-blind, large-population, properly peer-reviewed, properly duplicated by truly independent labs - put through the statistical and meta-review wringer. Written about in a positive vein in a number of well-respected journals. Hailed as a breakthrough - causing chemists and physicists to go back to the drawing board and overturning two centuries of successful science. The trouble is that it's clear just from the outset that water can't possibly have this "memory" effect. If it did, then the inevitable sub-molecular concentrations of pollutants in the water that the homeopathists used would create such powerful effects as to make the use as a medicine impossible. So to expect respected scientists to continue trying to make it work in the face of so many failed efforts at proving it is like expecting them to continue to prove the phlogiston theory or to continue to try to make perpetual motion machines or to try to make mice spontaneously appear from moldy bread. Each one of those things are about as likely to be true as Homeopathy. There comes a point when you know the answer - conclusively and indisputably. That's where we're at with Homeopathy. The old studies are discredited - and don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing WP:MEDRS. The only new "studies" are by the homeopathists themselves - and we know that they do not follow the scientific method (that's why we call it a "pseudoscience") - so they don't meet WP:MEDRS either. New studies that do follow the scientific method are unlikely to happen given the obvious impossibility of it to be true - and the utter failure of previous tests to show positive results. So it's a done deal. Mainstream science knows the answer: "Homeopathy doesn't work". That's what Wikipedia is required to say - and that's what it's going to say - probably from now until the Internet crumbles and dies. Give it up. We're not saying that this nonsense works - we're just not. If you feel the need to write more nonsense about this ridiculous proposition, go find another encyclopedia to do it on. We're done here. Our encyclopedia article exists to tell the general public who care to inquire for the truth about homeopathy - which is that it doesn't work - period. SteveBaker (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC) SteveBaker, I don't think it is against the rules to search for studies and discuss them here. McSly and others, I'm trying to show that Homeopathic medicines are not placebos and that there are studies/clinical trials which show it works, so that we can remove the word, "placebos" from this article. References 2, 5 and 6 in the article are older than the studies I mentioned above. Are you people cherry picking studies to show Homeopathy in a poor light? Here are some more studies:- AUTHORS:WOLSCHNER U., STRÖSSER W., WEISER M., KLEIN P. TITLE:Vertigo therapy: Cocculus -Heel versus Dimenhydrinate. PUBLISHED IN: Biologische Medizin,2001, 4. AUTHORS:KÜSTERMANN R.W., WEISER M., KLEIN P. TITLE:Antihomotoxic treatment of conjunctivitis. Results of a prospective, controlled, cohort study. PUBLISHED IN:Biologische Medizin,2001, 3. AUTHOR:BONONI M. TITLE:Echinacea comp. Forte S in the prophylaxis of post-operative infections. A comparative study versus ceftazidime and ceftriaxone. PUBLISHED IN:La Medicina Biologica,2001/1; 17:22. AUTHORS:MARONNA U., WEISER M., KLEIN P. TITLE:Oral treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with Zeel S tablets. PUBLISHED IN:Orthopädische Praxis,2000, 5. La Medicina Biologica,1999 /4; 74. AUTHOR:ARRIGHI A. TITLE:Evaluation of clinical efficacy in a homotoxicologic protocol for prevention of recurrent respiratory infections in pediatrics. PUBLISHED IN: La Medicina Biologica,2000/3; 13:21. AUTHOR:WEISER M. TITLE:Homeopathic vs. conventional treatment of vertigo: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical study. PUBLISHED IN: Archives of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (American Medical Association), 1998, August. AUTHORS:WEISER M., GEGENHEIMER L.H., KLEIN P. TITLE:A randomized equivalence trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Luffa comp.-Heel nasal spray with sodium cromoglycate spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. PUBLISHED IN: Research in Complementary Medicine,1999/6. AUTHORS:NAHLER G., METELMANN H., SPERBER H. TITLE:Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with a homeopathic medicine – Results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial in comparison to hyaluronic acid. PUBLISHED IN:Orthopädische Praxis,1996, 5. PUBLISHED:Biomedical Therapy 1998;16(2):186-191 Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (1991). Clinical trials of homoeopathy British Medical Journal, 302:316–323. Mathie RT et al. Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in humans: characterising the research journal literature for systematic review. Homeopathy (2013) 102, 3-24 Adverse effects of cancer management (Kassab et al 2009) Fibromyalgia (Perry et al 2010) Childhood diarrhoea (Jacobs et al., 2003) HIV/AIDS (Ullman, 2003) Osteoarthritis (Long & Ernst, 2001) Post-operative ileus (Barnes, Resch & Ernst, 1997). Rheumatic diseases (Jonas, Linde & Ramirez, 2000). Camerlink I et al. Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics in the case of Escherichia coli diarrhoea in neonatal piglets. Homp 2010 99: 57–62 Fisher P et al Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia) BMJ 1989 299 365-6 Fisher P et al Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia). Br Med J 1989; 299: 365-366. Bell IR et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic... Rheumatology 2004; 43:577–582. Relton C et al.Healthcare provided by a homeopath as an adjunct to usual care for Fibromyalgia (FMS): results of a pilot Randomised Controlled Trial. Homp 2009;98:77-82 Frei H, Thurneysen A. Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children: treatment effect or spontaneous resolution? Br Hom J 2001;90:180-182 Jacobs J et al. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary randomised placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001;20:177-183 Bergemann SM et al. Clinical studies on the effectiveness of homeopathy for URTI/A . In Bornhöft G, Matthiessen PF. Homeopathy in healthcare – effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs. Berlin: Springer 2011 Adler U et al. Homeopathic Individualized Q-potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-blind, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial eCAM 2009 doi:10.1093/ecam/nep114 Frei H et al. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Peds 2005; 164:758-67. Rossignol M et al. Impact of physician preferences for homeopathic or conventional medicines on patients with musculoskeletal disorders: results from the EPI3-MSD cohort. Pharmacopepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2012, 21(10):1093-101. Keil T et al Homoeopathic versus conventional treatment of children with eczema: A comparative cohort study, Comp Ther Med (2006), doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2006.10.001 —Khabboos (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Khabboos, I don't see any change proposal to the article, just more random, useless sources. When are you going to stop wasting everyone's time? --McSly (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I did mention that I want the mention of the word, "placebos" to be removed and mention some of these studies as positive for Homeopathic efficacy.—Khabboos (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Well said SteveBaker. Would you like a banana? Also, I intend to hat the nonsense Khaboos is posting unless there are any serious and well argued objections. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) It's certainly not against the rules to suggest references for statements we make in the article. However, it is against the rules to be a disruptive editor. And because we're under discretionary sanctions here - it's important not to repeatedly push the same set of junk studies over and over again. Most of these (if not all of them) have already been discussed and overwhelmingly rejected as being invalid/unsuitable under WP:MEDRS. My opinion is that none of these are worthy of any further discussion. But that's just my opinion. If you'd care to prune your list to JUST the ones that are: recent, widely accepted by mainstream science, peer-reviewed, published in mainstream journals, successfully reproduced by reputable laboratories, favorably mentioned in review articles and meta-studies, not already rejected here by consensus on other grounds. ...then we should certainly discuss them. But trotting out the same list of junk reports (as, sadly, most of these appear to be) time after time is "DISRUPTIVE EDITING" - and (given the hair-trigger admin attention to this article mandated by ArbCom) that could get you into trouble. So I'm most certainly *not* saying "Don't provide useful references" - but I *am* saying "Don't bring out those that we've already discussed and rejected" *and* "Don't bring out those that fail WP:MEDRS". The other problem is that the change you're saying you want to make isn't likely to happen. We have a plenty of references that do pass WP:MEDRS that say that Homeopathy is no better than placebo. That being the case, we simply can't remove the word "placebo" because that would violate WP:UNDUE. The very best (from your perspective) would be for us to change the article to say that research shows mixed results - but many show that it's no better than placebo. But even going that far is impossible without a pile of acceptable (ie passing WP:MEDRS guidelines) references that say that...and there simple aren't any such things because Homeopathy Doesn't Work. SteveBaker (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I have shortened the list, keeping only the most recent. Now can you comment on adding it to our wikipedia article?—Khabboos (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC) A simple question. Are the articles on your list all: recent, widely accepted by mainstream science, peer-reviewed, published in mainstream journals, successfully reproduced by reputable laboratories, favorably mentioned in review articles and meta-studies, not already rejected here by consensus on other grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (ec) I count approximately 22 27 studies in your 'shortened' list, not all of which even include full citation information. (Incidentally, it is bad form – actually, it's plagiarism – to copy and paste other people's work (even lists of citations that they've collected) without giving them any credit.) How about you tell us about one or two studies that you have in front of you and which you have actually read, explain how they meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS – which SteveBaker and now AndyTheGrump have helpfully provided in bullet-list form above – and what specific change you would like to make to the article based on what you've read. Just demanding that the word 'placebo' be removed from the article isn't going to work, and it is likely to lead you to being banned from further editing on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Yes to all you asked AndyTheGrump. I want a sentence saying that homeopathy is effective or that it works by removing the word placebos.—Khabboos (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Khabboos, you were asked whether the articles were all recent. You answered 'yes'. Why does the list include material from 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999...? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Khabboos, you ask, "Are you people cherry picking studies to show Homeopathy in a poor light?" No, we are not: as per MEDRS the article uses the conclusions of peer-reviewed and pubished systematic reviews, which by definition do not cherry-pick, but consider the whole evidence base. Brunton (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Brunton, can you tell me if we can use what I've mentioned above to claim efficacy for Homeopathy and remove the word placebos from this article?—Khabboos (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC) AndyTheGrump, I've removed a lot and can remove more of them if you insist, but can you tell me if we can use what I've mentioned above to claim efficacy for Homeopathy and remove the word placebos from this article (that point is more important)?—Khabboos (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) No. You have entirely failed to demonstrate that that is the scientific consensus regarding homeopathy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC) @Khabboos: It's not complicated. If you can find *ANY* of those articles that meet WP:MEDRS (see handy-bullet-point-list above) then we'll certainly discuss them with you. But working our way through 20-odd articles is tedious and pointless - we've done it before and there is no value in doing it again. If you have any...even one...that meets all of the WP:MEDRS criteria above - then let's discuss it. Take your best shot - but using a scattergun loaded with junk is not the way to impress people here. You need one really solid, WP:MEDRS-acceptable reference. Every crappy reference you hand us detracts further from your case. But do you seriously think we're going to say that Homeopathy is effective and remove the word "placebo" when we have WP:MEDRS-acceptable references that say that it's ineffective and no better than placebo? That can't happen. At best...with the best pro-Homeopathy references you could possibly imagine - we'd have to apply WP:UNDUE and say that it's a mixed message. Right now, it's not even that. What mainstream science tells us is that Homeopathy is junk - and that's what Wikipedia requires us to report. Only when mainstream science says that it works can we possibly report otherwise - and there can be no doubt that mainstream science doesn't think it works. SteveBaker (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Mainstream scientists will never accept Homeopathy. All the studies/clinical trials I mentioned above were positive for Homeopathy. I think I'm wasting my time here.—Khabboos (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC) It appears so. In regards to scientific matters Wikipedia, like any other reputable encyclopaedia, will reflect the consensus of mainstream scientific thought. It would be entirely dishonest to our readers to do otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Actually, it's the other way around. Homeopathists do not accept the need to use the astoundingly effective suite of techniques comprising "The Scientific Method" that has produced so many incredible advances in the 200 or so years we've been using it. If homeopathists did that then there would be one of two possible results: They'd discover that homeopathy doesn't work - and with the open mind required of researchers, they'd drop the subject and move on to something else. They'd discover that it does work - and if they'd followed "The Scientific Method" then mainstream scientist would be able to reproduce their result, agree that it works and Nobel prizes would be distributed accordingly. All of chemistry and most of physics would need to be rebuilt from the ground up - and everyone would have a lot of explaining to do. ...and we'd write about it accordingly. That won't happen because too many homeopathy businesses are making a fortune by selling little bottles of water for $14 a pop in Walmart. The very last thing they want is to prove what they must already know to be true. SteveBaker (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Can't we just topic-ban User:Khabboos? WP:MEDRS has been half a dozen time pointed out and explained to him in detail. Yet he fails to either a) work accordingly or b) understand it. In both cases, he seems to be not suited to edit this article. Instead, he does spam this page with reference proposals he must be aware of not meeting our standards. Therefore, i propose to ask him to immediately stop wasting our time. Rka001 (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Australian homeopaths say that it was not a systematic review -- they raise questions -- high risk of bias against homeopathy? http://www.homeopathyoz.org/images/news/Open_response_letter_by_AHA_to_NHMRC.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Because Australian homeopaths couldn't possibly be biased themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC) While the Australian government is not bound by the rules of Wikipedia when assessing research quality, they have complied with the simple objective standards of the scientific method and the assessment of the value of the supplied evidence. Page after page of discussion about homeopathy here on Wikipedia only exists because of the bend-over-backwards approach to fairness that is embraced by Wikipedia and codified in its policies. This accommodating approach is a good thing - perhaps the greatest value to be found in Wikipedia. But when homeopathy is assessed outside the bounds of Wikipedia's rules, the reviewing bodies are able to (and necessarily must as a part of due diligence) look at the real quality of individual studies. Unfortunately for the proponents, the bulk of the studies that suggest any effect from homeopathy suffer from a wide variety of clear flaws, including: lack of blinding, lack of randomization, lack of proper controls, lack of statistical power, lack of any plausible mechanism of action, publication bias, inaccurate reporting of ostensible science (Benveniste), and so on ad nauseum. As for Wikipedia's rules as applied to the referenced article, an opinion piece published by a group of homeopaths in response to an utter disembowelment of their art (which is based on the objective assessment of available evidence) is of no more value than an equivalent response by a group of unicorn veterinarians who take offense to a finding which states that tax dollars should not be spent on unicorn breeding. With that preamble out of the way, if you have specific sources that call into question the findings of the Australian position, and which satisfy WP:MEDRS, then please bring them forward - this article does not qualify. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (I don't think that the situation is so dramatic. Studies and reviews showing that there is some evidence that homeopathy is effective for some conditions published in high quality journals do exist - and its exclusion from this article is a clear violation of the policies.) Regarding the letter of course it is not a review but a reaction - one could add it as an objection by homeopaths not as the " true". . --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Please cite a systematic review that concludes that homoeopathy is effective for some conditions. Brunton (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Systematic review --Freital (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC) What does that review say Freital? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC) From the conclusions in the abstract: "The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings". AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC) I knew that Mr. Grump, but I wanted Freital to read it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Better than nothing.--Freital (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Really, not. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Of course yes. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC) But the paper's finding that the available evidence is of such low quality as to not allow for any reliable analysis is already stated in the Wikipedia article and sourced to others who have come to the same conclusion. So whether individual editors here feel it is "better than nothing" - apparently the gold standard of establishing homeopathic efficacy after 220 years of looking - doesn't come to bear on its inclusion in the article. It certainly shouldn't be included as evidence of efficacy. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC) It is evidence of efficacy - which should be interpreted with caution. Why don't you write what they say? The problem with this unscientific attitude prevailing in this talk page is that you think you are doing original research.And you have to be convinced that homeopathy works for everything otherwise you will write it is all placebo. Weak evidence does not mean ---it is placebo - this is misleading, Report what THEY say NOT your thoughts about their review. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Nobody thinks they are doing original research. However, you are demonstrating a classic case of WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC) I think you are. Why don;t you try to respond to the precious concerns instead of talking with generic codes WP:IDHT etc. I suggested the study to be reported such as according to ...X homeopathy ....whatever. IF not explain specifically - give reasons not read this and that. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC) As stated before, there's no reason to add it since the efficacy section of the article already states the same conclusions: "In particular, reports of three large meta-analyses warned readers that firm conclusions could not be reached, largely due to methodological flaws in the primary studies and the difficulty in controlling for publication bias.[16][20][174]". This is simply a paraphrasing of the findings of the paper you are suggesting be added. While the paper being discussed states that there is a small effect seen in some subsets of the data, that conclusion is rendered moot by their more overarching conclusion that the data is of low quality and therefore unreliable. Perhaps it's worth discussing adding this new paper as a forth reference, though I don't know that it would add anything to the article. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC) I would add to the info that several reviews reporting positive but inconclusive - which is different than all is placebo. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC) To state that "homeopathy is effective for some conditions" would require a systematic review that said, without reservation, that "homeopathy is effective for some conditions". If the only sources which say it is effective are ones that also, in their own words, say there are significant problems with the research, then we haven't met the burden required to overturn our existing and extensive sourcing which unequivocally says otherwise.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC) That would be true if you were conducting your own research project ; then you ( this is the royal you) should decide if the evidence is convincing enough to make such a statement. In a encyclopedia all the points of view should be just reported ( NOT asserted as true statements) according to their appearance and prominence in reputable journals. These are the policies for reliable sources. Unless we agree that we will not follow them in this article. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC) No. Using the totality of a source would not be original research. Selectively quoting from a source is not something we do here. The source you are suggesting says that the data is poor and more research is necessary. We can't just leave that part out.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC) I did not even reply that. The "totality" of the source means paraphrasing in a degree that it is changing its meaning? Use their entire conclusion. Not editing out anything. "According to .....this study Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Your notion of how things work here has been rejected by a number of very experienced editors. In short, you are wrong. Seriously, move on, this is wasting everyone's time, yours included. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC) That was quite an argument. It does not go by seniority/majority - Can you explain why citing the entire conclusion in the authors words is biased and your paraphrase is more accurate than the authors summary? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC) MarioMarco2009, you have been told over and over again why you are wrong. Read WP:UNDUE, everything you need to understand is in the first paragraph. Okay, now that you still haven't read it --- GO READ IT. --Daffydavid (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Dont tell me read this and that. Try to explain why why what I suggested is wrong specifically. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I am assuming you can read. Copying and pasting a section that reads like it was written specifically for you is pointless. GO READ IT!!!!!!!! --Daffydavid (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Specifically for me ? The authors conclusions are written specifically for me? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC) He's saying that policy page applies here. Inserting your proposed wording would be undue weight.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC) It would be undue weight to report what exactly the source says without editing out anything ? Can you point out exactly where wikipedia policies ask for that? It not required to write about the study in detail just to no distort its meaning . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Quoting the abstract of what is basically just another study that has failed to demonstrate efficacy in the way you are suggesting would be giving it undue weight. If you want the article to say that there is evidence that homoeopathy works for some conditions then, per MEDRS, we will need to cite a systematic review that has concluded this. That is what you need to produce here. Brunton (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I want the article to report the findings unedited-- not that it works or not. An encyclopedia and wikipedia should report the findings unedited not to conduct its own research. I think this introduces the less bias. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC) This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. We are under no obligation whatsoever to report every bit of inconclusive research that merely repeats what we already know. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC) You claimed further up this thread that "[s]tudies and reviews showing that there is some evidence that homeopathy is effective for some conditions published in high quality journals do exist - and its exclusion from this article is a clear violation of the policies". If you are not proposing adding this to the article, then you shouldn't have posted it here. This talk page is for discussing changes to the content of the article, not for general discussion of homoeopathy or generalised complaints. See WP:TALK. Brunton (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I made a specific suggestion - based on the review above. Report the findings of the meta analyses study -- unedited. OF course you have to report all research and its criticism as long as it appears in reputable journals. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Devoting several sentences to every study ever performed would overwhelm the article. We are under no obligation to do that. This study agrees with what the article already says, so "adding it" would either 1) leave the article unchanged, or 2) incorrectly summarize the study.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) And I assume you still haven't read WP:DUE. Quoting from the second sentence: "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC) We are not talking about detailed presentation - How 3 sentences of the conclusion is a detailed presentation? --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMarco2009 (talk • contribs) I'm not sure how to respond to that without repeating myself... Have you read what other editors are saying? Can you summarize their position for me, please?   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Most of them they are just saying read this and that. Nothing specific. I read the above about undue weight and I m asking the following "How 3 sentences of the conclusion is a detailed presentation" 3 sentences which is the entire conclusion can be regarded as detailed presentation - It is a really easy question . --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC) If you haven't understood anything up to this point beyond "read this and that", then I see no benefit to continuing the conversation. Consensus is very clear on this issue, and I have other things to do with my time. Good luck.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Indeed, this very paper has already been discussed here, only a couple of months ago. Brunton (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Since you are point out a specific policy you should be able to explain why my specific suggestion ( including 3 sentences of the entire conclusion ) is not allowed. "should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects" You don;t give any rational explanation to this - you just say we are the majority and therefore it is out. OF course I have to accept it - but this is once again one more violation of wikipedia ;s policies -- no wonder why people protest in this very talk page for bias and inaccuracy. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Again, the conclusions of this study already appear in the article, albeit referenced to other sources, so there is nothing to be gained by adding the conclusions verbatim. I suspect you would not support any suggestion to write out verbatim the conclusions from every review that found no evidence for efficacy beyond that of a placebo - why should we afford this article that honor? Quoting the conclusions of this review, simply because it contains the words "small effect", would also be misleading since the broader conclusion of the paper is that the finding of a "small effect" is unreliable due to poor quality - it would give undue weight to a conclusion which the authors themselves have stated should be interpreted with caution. As for there being a difference between "inconclusive findings" and "no different from placebo", inconclusive findings demand that we default to the null hypothesis until conclusive results can be obtained. The null hypothesis for all of these studies is "no better than placebo". - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Since you are asking me - No I do not object "to write out verbatim the conclusions from every review that found no evidence for efficacy beyond that of a placebo" at all. the opposite, The entire conclusion of the review would give undue weight? Policies here say do not describe it in detail - and 3 sentences is not in detail for sure, Forget about the null hypothesis - you are not doing your own research but you report all the findings - you are not the judge- if an x treatment works or not but you have to report the findings precisely- as they stated not edit our whatever you think it is not in line with the majority view. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Great, Mario, then you will easily be able to link to the WP:PAG that says that, wont you, eh? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I don't think that anybody here disputes what I m saying, - That editors should not be involved in original research trying to validate the null hypothesis. They merely report the available evidence according to its prominence. . --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC) No one is trying to validate the null hypothesis, as it requires no validation - a study either finds evidence to reject it or does not find evidence to reject it. You have stated that inconclusive evidence is not the same as placebo equivalence, but in terms of the scientific method, it is the same thing because inconclusive evidence does not allow you to reject the null hypothesis (which, in any properly designed trial states that the intervention being examined is no better than placebo). It's not original research, I'm just stating how the process works. In fact, it would be original research - or more appropriately "spin" - to suggest that inconclusive evidence amounts to anything other than a failure to reject the null hypothesis (placebo equivalence). In regards to your current proposal, and as pointed out by Roxy, there is no WP policy which suggests that the results of every study ever done should be copied and pasted into the article verbatim. The conclusions of the paper in question have been posited before by other authors and they are already stated in the current WP article. There's nothing new here worth adding, other than possibly the additional reference. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC) The report has no 'prominence' to speak of - it appears not to have been cited in any recognised scientific journal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC) In which case I withdraw my suggestion to consider adding it as a reference. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Puddin'head you are contradicting yourself - the null hypothesis process should not concern you or me. You suppose to report accurretally the conclusions - And positive and inconclusive does not mean - it is placebo in any language. If it did they would write it down ------- I m not suggesting anything but a simple inclusion of the extremely short conclusion of the study in the authors words.There is no spin not even one word I would add ---Wikipedia policies dictate that you should refer to the minority view just not in detail - it does not say edit it completely out. It seems that the majority here does not want the readers to even know that such reviews exist--- giving the false impression that all reviews say H = placebo. Which is almost a lie. I understand that I cannot change that myself but this is biased and misleading. Sorry I have say that. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy - request for clarification The following statement found in this section may need to be clarified or rewritten: Subsequent work by John Ioannidis and others has shown that for treatments with no prior plausibility, the chances of a positive result being a false positive are much higher, and that any result consistent with the null hypothesis should be assumed to be a false positive. I would think that should read "any result NOT consistent with the null hypothesis should be assumed to be a false positive", since results which are consistent with the null hypothesis are not positive results and therefore can't be false positive results. There may be a better way still to word that statement, or I may be reading it wrong. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC) This is magical thinking I m afraid. And also you are getting involved in original research. You should be concerned if the findings of the reviews you are talking about are reported accurately not trying to evaluate them and decide which of the reviews will be reported. There is a reason for the authors to use specific words; if you want to correct the problem email the editorial boards and suggest that they change their wording so it can fit with the wikipedia article. Just an idea!--MarioMarco2009 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Say what? "You should be concerned if the findings of the reviews you are talking about are reported accurately" - this is exactly what I am doing. My stated concern is not with the findings of any sourced article, but with the wording used by the original Wikipedia editor who added the material to this article. Sometimes, people make typos when adding content to Wikipedia. The passage in question simply doesn't make sense to me as it is written and, since this could be on account of me reading it wrong or on account of there being better wording for the entry, I am hoping others will take a look and assess it. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC) And I have to say, based on your response, it would appear you aren't reading anything anyone is writing here, not reading the material that comments are referencing for discussion, or you are intent on being disruptive. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC) A result consistent with the null cannot, by definition, be a false positive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I just read those two references, I don't think our article has it correct. I think it should read 'inconsistent'. Indeed it pretty much says as much in the second paper, if you read the section on CAM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Yeah, that was my concern, looks like a simple typo - thanks for checking. I don't know that I have the ability to go in and make the change, so if anyone else would like to, or if we want to wait for some more input, I'm happy with whatever path you want to pursue. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I'd like to get one other editor to confirm what our suspicions are then I can change it. While I am not trying to make an argument from authority I can say I have some expertise in stats and research design. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Sounds like a solid plan, thanks D! - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Today's "sense of humour" award goes to Mario, for using the phrase "magical thinking" on the Talk:Homeopathy page. Well done. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC) To be clear, this idea did not originate with John Ioannidis. It is a restatement of Bayes' theorem, and underlies the field of Bayesian probability (which Ionannidis has done much to popularize in relation to medical research). As others have noted, our article should state "not consistent with the null hypothesis" for the sake of correctness. Even better, the sentence should be rewritten to make clear that the idea of updating prior probabilities originated with the Rev. Bayes, rather than Ioannidis, and probably we should move away from the null hypothesis and its ensuing double-negatives in the interest of accessibility and readability. The basic principle is that if something is extremely unlikely to be true based on existing knowledge (e.g. homeopathy), then any statistically significant positive findings are much more likely to be "noise" rather than evidence of effectiveness. As usual, xkcd has put it best. MastCell Talk 17:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Of course this sentence is almost unscientific --almost la logical fallacy- since there is no precise definition of what is extremely unlikely. Imagine this mode of though in criticizing relativity 80 years ago . Was relativity plausible based on the knowledge of the time? However since the source is reliable has a place in the article yes state it accurately .Thanks. The problem is that the editors here they use it to claim that any statistically significant positive findings are much more likely to be "noise" and to edit out such studies or to falsely summarize the positive/ inconclusive to a statement - it is all placebo. Which is not in line with the editing policies. Just my view. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Hmmm. Some people might say that it's unscientific to discard all existing knowledge and instead rely solely on an arbitrary p-value threshold to determine whether an effect is real. (A point made in the xkcd comic that I linked). Of course, you're not the first person to grapple with the subjective nature of prior probability. The beauty of the Bayesian approach is that an assumption can be tested under a range of prior probabilities (more formally, a prior probability distribution), modeling different levels of plausibility for homeopathy. As for relativity, you're comparing apples to submarines. Relativity was an elegant mathematical solution to some vexing problems in physics, and it made testable predictions which have since been validated. We're talking about something very different here: we're talking about using inferential statistics to determine whether homeopathy has a measurable effect on various clinical outcomes. Those two processes are so different that I can only assume you picked the relativity example at random. MastCell Talk 19:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I dont know where to start with you. First of all are you a mathematician ? because if you are I would talk differently. I will assume from your writings you are not so : the "arbitrary" p-value is a standard convention in these applications. This does not apply only in statistics used exclusively in homeopathy. Therefore the "arbitrary" p value is misleading.Wrong. It is a convention unless you imply that all studies based on statistics are not reliable. Now much to your surprise a mathematician would tell you that statistics cannot really prove anything ; they can show something which is less preferable than proof --- a mechanism of action which in case of homeopathy has not been detected. Plausibility is therefore a non accurately defined concept and really useless in mathematical logic and in logic in general. The relativity example was not ...random: it was not "an elegant mathematical solution" this is a wrong. Mathematical equations require just proof not validation through experiments. There were no plausibility for relativity that why famous scientists of the period rejected it on..... pseudoscientific basis until they had evidence from observations. In short and to be on topic whatever plausibility means does not mean that we can not falsely summarize papers changing the authors wording. --MarioMarco2009 (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Really? All decisions are based on p<=0.05? That's what you're going with? VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Mario, you are way off base here as MastCell is spot on with his response, and much of your reply is simply a straw man which implies MastCell is arguing things which were never argued. The p-value is convention, but it is nevertheless arbitrary - there is no ab initio reason for using a p-value of 0.05 - it has simply been agreed upon by most statisticians as an appropriate boundary to avoid the influence of simple chance on an outcome. In addition, your argument against plausibility playing a role in statistics goes against at least 250 years of statistical theory. Furthermore, there is a (at least one) key difference between the theory of Relativity and homeopathy where plausibility is concerned. You seem to be focusing on the notion that Einstein's hypothesis was not universally accepted before experiments could be conducted to demonstrate its predictive power. These experiments were the grounds of the hypothesis being promoted to a theory, but they did not speak to the plausibility of the hypothesis. The original hypothesis agreed with all available experimental data at the time - it did not contradict anything that was directly observable, but tried to establish a universal solution to the problem of relativity and, in doing so, happened to introduce several counter-intuitive predictions which turned out to be true. It was always plausible, just hard to swallow. In contrast, the basic premise of homeopathy contradicts everything that is known about pharmacology, as well as many well established laws of chemistry and physics. That, coupled with 220 years of failure to demonstrate an effect, is why it's branded as implausible. Finally, your arguments have no place here. People have tried to explain to you that your opinion is not fact, yet you keep coming back with the same irrelevant, nonsensical arguments that have nothing to do with the content of the article. Here's a time-line: Our article mentions the pertinence of Bayesian theory in the interpretation of homeopathic research. I pointed out that the statement did not reflect what Bayesian theory actually posits. You accuse me of "magical thinking" for some reason, and then try to dismiss 250 years of statistical theory because you don't like it. Where are you going with this? As for your final statement that "we can not falsely summarize papers changing the authors wording", that is precisely the flaw I was trying to address when I started this section of the talk page! Appologies to everyone else for wasting the space, I'll drop this at this point. - Puddin'head 24.9.79.14 (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Just for clarification, p=0.05 is not arbitrary. Actually, Ronald Fisher, a very influental scientist in his days, argued in the 30ies that 0.05 is a special case as it is represent the amount of values which are greater than twice the standard deviation in a normal distribution. I just googled for a reliable source for it, and i found this interesting read. I am not an expert in the Bayesian theory (i should be), but in my field (microbial ecology), we still use 0.05 a lot in hypothesis testing, with the datasets getting so big, that p-values are adjusted for multiplicity. I am impressed by MastCell's knowlegde in bayesian theory, and i will teach myself on that. Rka001 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC) There's a pretty decent overview of frequentist vs. Bayesian issues in a recent issue of Nature, complete with a nice visual demonstrating the impact of prior probability on the interpretation of p values. Anyhow, I'll leave it there, out of deference to the talkpage guidelines. Cheers. MastCell Talk 18:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Perhaps any rewording of the statement in question should refer to this more recent article provided by MastCell (thanks for the link, by the way), particularly since it specifically mentions the implausibility of homeopathic efficacy as follows: "The more implausible the hypothesis — telepathy, aliens, homeopathy — the greater the chance that an exciting finding is a false alarm, no matter what the P value is." Any thoughts? - Puddin'head 64.58.20.99 (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I'll make the small change now, we can work on getting Bayes in there later on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Just a reminder of WP:NOTFORUM. This page is not for discussing how science works or the theory of relativity. It's not even for discussing homeopathy. Only specific changes to the article, please. Mario, you should read WP:CRYSTAL. If homeopathy works, wikipedia is not the place to record it until we have ample demonstration in reliable sources. The same would go for the theory of relativity in Einstein's day. Wikipedia lags behind the sources, quite intentionally. If you can't provide reliable sources which demonstrate a non-fringe view that homeopathy is effective, then we cannot say it is. Please don't respond to me to argue... I assure you this is how Wikipedia policy applies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Spoilsport :P What can I say; I like talking about Bayesian inference and the (mis)use of clinical statistics, and I've actually used homeopathy as an example in IRL teaching that I've done on the subject. To me, the question of why people keep doing randomized trials using frequentist statistics and a p-value threshold of 0.05 for a treatment which lacks any evidence of plausibility is a much more interesting topic than anything to do with homeopathy per se. But I'll let it go; you're right about the talk-page guidelines. MastCell Talk 16:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Ijon Tichy note: Please see WP: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claim that homeopathy is efficacious is highly exceptional.

Sub-Section

Further community discussion on pseudohistorical and Pseudoscientific POV-pushing

From the talk page of Jimbo Wales: I notice some article talk pages and user talk pages contain some derogatory comments directed at "right wing spin" on the topic. I think it is relevant to point out that socialist, secular, formally atheist countries killed more people in the 20th century than all other types of government combined. So laughing off cultural marxism as a baseless myth seems a bit premature. See also Mass killings under Communist_regimes. Asian Gendercide: 160-200 million women are missing in the world[202][203][204] due largely to sex-selective abortion which has occurred in Asian countries such as China with its One Child policy and forced abortions.[205] Great Leap Forward: 18-45 million died under the famine and genocide by Communist China, an openly atheistic government which sought to stamp out organized religion. China continues using a Socialist market economy today, meaning the state controls major aspects of production. Soviet Union: An estimated 18-25 million died from the gulags and famine under Joseph Stalin. Like China, the USSR was openly secular and sought to destroy organized religion while practicing a socialist market economy and state ownership of industry. World War I and World War II: The German word for Nazis literally translates as "National Socialist Party" and the party is based on the concept of Social Darwinism. Ultimately 15-65 million died from World War I and 40-71 million from World War II. Hitler persecuted the Confessing Church and had its leader Dietrich Bonhoeffer put to death, and over 800 German protestant pastors were arrested including Martin Niemöller. Like other socialist countries of its time, Nazi Germany persecuted Christians including Geertruida Wijsmuller-Meijer, André and Magda Trocmé, Cornelia ten Boom, Sister Anna Borkowska, Clement Sheptytsky, Ona Šimaitė, the Skobtsova family, Irena Sendler, Józef and Wiktoria Ulma, and Maria Kotarba. North Korea: The North Korean famine coupled with executions and the Korean War killed 5 million, and North Korea continues executing Christians today. [206] North Korea has declared its official state religion to be atheism and is openly socialist. Khmer Rouge: 2 million died during the Cambodian genocide. Like the other governments mentioned, this was a Marxist/socialism-based government that was openly anti-religious. 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia: 1-2 million died from famine and abuse under another openly secular, socialist government. My point is just that, given all the damage done by Marxist governments in the 20th century, I'm not convinced concerns about the state-ownership ideology known as Socialism/Marxism are overblown. Hundreds of millions died in under a century from this secular ideology, and for all the criticism religion gets, it's never racked up those kinds of death tolls so rapidly. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 'The German word for Nazis literally translates as "National Socialist Party"'. And with that demonstration of monumentally clueless drivel, you demolish your entire argument. Not that your argument has any relevance whatsoever regarding Wikipedia coverage of 'cultural Marxism'. I suggest you go away, seek an education, and come back when you know what the hell you are talking about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Which it does, per the Wikipedia page on Nazism. It was originally founded as the German Workers Party and the scientific basis for Aryan racism was in large part due to Darwinist Ernst Haeckel, who originated biology's tree of life. But of course I'm sure you'd assert there are plenty of right-wing, pro-labor, eugenicist, socialist parties out there. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Your inability to distinguish content from label doesn't alter the undeniable historical fact that amongst Hitler's victims were many thousands of socialists, communists and trade unionists. Or the fact that he was put into power by right-wing anti-democratic industrialists and businessmen. Or the fact that no credible academic historian attaches the slightest bit of weight to the facile claim that having 'socialist' in the party name made the Nazis anything but the right-wing nationalist thugs they clearly were. Not that I expect you to understand such subtleties, since you appear to be blaming the Nazis for WWI. And as far as I'm aware, Darwin was never either a Marxist, a socialist, or anything remotely relevant to a discussion on 'cultural Marxism'. If you are going to use Jimbo's page for propaganda, at least make an attempt not to make such a complete fool of yourself next time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Germany has long been one of the most secular, far-left countries on the planet, and remains so today. See Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Herbert Marcuse, Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Julius Wellhausen, Ernst Haeckel, G.W.F. Hegel, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Lowith, Baron d'Holbach, Hermann Gunkel, Rudolf von Bennigsen, Bruno Bauer, and Luise Kahler among others. Also, which right-wing businessmen would you name? Alfred Hugenberg for example, was one of the wealthy businessmen who backed the Nazi Party early on, but he was hardly right-wing, and was a member of the National Liberal Party (Germany) and the leader of the German National People's Party.--7157.118.25a (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC) From our article: "The German National People's Party (German: Deutschnationale Volkspartei, DNVP) was a national conservative party in Germany during the time of the Weimar Republic. Before the rise of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) it was the major conservative and nationalist party in Weimar Germany". Of course, if our article has got it all wrong, feel free to provide the sources to correct it. And I'm still waiting for your explanation for how the Nazis were responsible for WWI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) And from the article National_Liberal_Party_(Germany), "The National Liberal Party (German: Nationalliberale Partei) was a liberal political party of the German Empire, which flourished between 1867 and 1918." Hugenberg was a member of both parties. As for the DNVP, it was also described as "antirepublican"[207][208] and perhaps is being overly characterized as right-wing due to its emphasis on patriotism? The Soviet Union also practiced patriotism though as well, but was hardly right-wing. Either way though, Hugenberg would not fit easily into a definition of right-wing given his membership in a far-left party, the National Liberal Party. As for World War I, that did of course start before the Nazi Party itself, but the same secular German culture existed that was responsible for World War II, a culture heavily influenced by Marx, Nietzsche, and others as previously mentioned. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Ah, I see, having 'liberal' in the title makes them 'far left'! What a wonderful world you live in, where everything is simple, and mere facts can't get in your way. Please stay away from Wikipedia content on history and politics though, we have a responsibility to our readers not to feed them complete bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia already describes the National_Liberal_Party_(Germany) as liberal, as previously mentioned, and it appears to have strongly supported socialism at the time. National liberalism which the party was based on is hardly right-wing. There are many left-wing businessmen today, for example Warren Buffett, George Soros, Paul Allen, Jeff Bezos, Anne Cox Chambers, Jeffrey Immelt, etc. That doesn't change the fact of their political allegiances. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Do you actually understand what the word 'liberal' means? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Liberals and socialists despise each-other, and have nothing in common. Marxism was born to destroy liberalism. Marxism was a reaction to the rising dominance of liberalism in the 19th century. It is a sad day when such basic principles are being obscured. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Shhh - don't give the game away. This is getting to be fun... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Liberalism includes Social liberalism of which socialism is a facet, although liberalism also includes Classical liberalism which is similar to Anarcho capitalism. Both share some similarity in that they oppose moral absolutes that would restrict harming the rights of others, per Moral relativism. One focuses more on avoiding absolutes on social issues though, and the other on economic issues. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC) And off we go again. 'Social liberalism' includes the word 'social' so it is socialist! What a wonderful world you live in. So secure, and so detached from the slightest acquaintance with fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Social liberalism" has nothing to do with Marx or "socialism". Anything that accepts the principle of individualism is antithetical to socialism and Marx. RGloucester — ☎ 05:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC) In the United States, liberalism includes social liberalism. See Modern liberalism in the United_States. --7157.118.25a (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Possibly true. Definitely irrelevant. You were trying to explain how the Nazis were socialists (when you weren't blaming them for WWI). Are you now trying to suggest that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei were actually operating in the United States rather then Germany? Even as historical revisionism, that seems a little overstretched... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Social liberalism" posits "liberty (latinate) or freedom (germanic) of the individual" as important for creating an equal society (see State of nature#John Locke), whereas "socialism" does no such thing. RGloucester — ☎ 06:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Alright, let's say the World War I statistics can be thrown out. That still leaves around 244-353 million casualties from the Socialism/Marxism approach. And the Nazis were socialists, they called themselves socialists.[209] --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC) This is idiocy incarnate, so I'll retreat. Even I know that this is a fruitless and pointless exercise, and that's saying something. Please, Mr IP, take your delusional WP:OR elsewhere. RGloucester — ☎ 06:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Fruitless? On the contrary, bananas from start to finish. And while I doubt that even a semblance of clue has rubbed off on comrade 7157.118.25a, it has kept me entertained for an hour or two, and maybe encouraged future Jimbo-talk-spammers to do a little more research before filling the page with rants about Wikipedia being biased because it is full of factual content. AndyTheGrump (talk) As pointed out by Jonah Goldberg in the aforementioned National Review article, Gregor Strasser, a ranking Nazi, stated: "We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly enemies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!"[210] Trying to write off the clear identification of the Nazi Party as socialist, despite their anti-capitalist rhetoric, comes across as moving the goalposts. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Adolf Hitler by the way is on record as speaking similarly according to Wikiquote. "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Adolf Hitler, In a speech (1 May 1927), as quoted in Adolf Hitler : The Definitive Biography (1976) by John Toland[211] --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC) And we know what Hitler did to Gregor Strasser and his allies, don't we? Sure, there was a faction in the early Nazi party that used leftist rhetoric, and Hitler did the same occasionally in the early days, but the fact is that the party that Hugenberg and company put in place was pro-business, nationalist, and ideologically committed to the elimination by force of anyone and everyone on the German left. The only elements of the 'capitalist system' that this bunch of right-wing populist thugs ever 'destroyed' were those owned by their other ideological enemies. Though of course they didn't destroy them either, just ensure that they fell into the hands of their benefactors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Only because of a failed coup on Strasser's part, it doesn't appear that was necessarily due to political differences so much as Strasser's quest for power. You do have a point that Hugenberg was pro business though, given his media empire which included several film corporations and many newspapers/publishing companies (there is a good summary of them here on pg. 174). However, you don't seem entirely correct that Hugenburg's group did not oppose any elements of the capitalist system, since they actually opposed the Dawes Plan to bail out Germany's banks and argued against the "populist rule of big capital." --7157.118.25a (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) The DNVP opposed more or less everything at that point in time. That was what their politics were about. They wanted the Republic to collapse, and sought its replacement by a right-wing authoritarian regime. And of course, being the nationalist ideologues they were, the idea that foreign bankers might bail out the German economy didn't exactly appeal to them. And again, this is the mid 1920's you are referring to - when after the hyperinflation of 1923, everyone was engaging in populist rhetoric against 'big capital'. Which for those on the German right, meant finance capital - and we all know who the German right thought were running that. Cherry-picking odd incidents from the 1920s to 'prove' that Hitler's rise to power in the 19030s wasn't deliberately engineered by influential figures within the business community reeks of desperation, and runs contrary to demonstrable historical fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC) In all fairness though, opposition to a bank bailout wouldn't make them necessarily less conservative, since the Republican Party here in the U.S. likewise opposed the 2008 bank bailouts, with over half of all Republicans in the House voting against the bailouts. So I am having to acknowledge Hugenberg himself was more to the right than I'd realized. Nonetheless, Hitler and ranking Nazis still appear to have been decidedly socialist and anti-capitalist given their statements. --7157.118.25a (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC) No. It is possible - particularly in the early days - to pick out 'anti-capitalist' rhetoric amongst the Nazi leadership. But the facts are that came to power through the intervention of big business, and (other than starting a war they couldn't win which ultimately destroyed it) did little to reduce the power or influence of those that put them there. And understanding the 'anti-capitalist' rhetoric requires an understanding of what, and who, they were referring to. Their ideology was built around a central theme - that the world was run by Jews, against the interests of the German volk. To them international capital and international Bolshevism were two sides of the same coin, and their opposition to 'capitalism' was based on their warped antisemitic worldview, rather than on any critique of capitalism itself. They need to be judged on what they did, rather than on decontextuallised soundbites selected for partisan purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) The controversial Hugenberg notwithstanding, the Nazis themselves identified as a socialist party[212] and practiced socialist, big-government regulations. The Nazis were not just content with a minimum wage but set industry-specific maximum wages as well to tightly control employee wages.[213] Minimum wages in general were raised.[214] The Nazis created a public welfare system which included care for the disabled and a retirement system.[215] Its Labour Front, a massive conglomeration of trade unions,[216] and Labour Court emphasized representation of German workers.[217] Large amounts of regulation were passed governing all aspects of labor relations.[218] The Nazis furthermore practiced nationalization of industry, state control of business, under a policy called Gleichschaltung. Universum Film AG is an example of a company affected at the time, which by the way was purchased by Hugenberg. The ultimate end was complete control of all aspects of society through government, and elimination of all competition. Private property was allowed only under strict state supervision.[219] Massive public works programs were instituted, as was subsidized housing for poor workers.[220] Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi head of propaganda, published the following: "We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state. Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. "[221] Whether you look at the Nazis' words or their deeds, the party was most definitely socialist. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I prefer to take the words of credible historians rather than that of someone who systematically misrepresents sources in order to promote an agenda. As with everyone else pushing this pseudohistorical nonsense, you base your definitions of 'left' and 'right' not on any criteria seen as relevant at the time, nor on any objective definition. Instead, you compare (via cherry-picking with the express objective of 'proving' your prior prejudices) the Nazis with the narrow obsessions on the contemporary U.S. right wing, and unsurprisingly discover that the Nazis weren't following the same agenda. That, quite frankly is bunk. The Nazis were nationalistic, authoritarian, and ideologically committed to the same agenda that other parties of the right were at the time. They weren't socialists. They murdered socialists. Nobody called them left wing at the time, and only right-wingers who prefer not to accept the realities of history do so now. Anyway, none of this has the slightest relevance to Wikipedia content, and accordingly I see no reason why I should continue with this discussion. If you want to promote this hogwash, start a blog somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Pardon me for being a bit postmodern, but the problem here is this American obsession with boxing everything into a narrow left-right continuum that simply doesn't exist in reality or adequately represent historical contexts. Obsessing over whether Nazis were "right wing" or "left wing" is pointless. The essential point is that they murdered millions of people, and their only real ideology was one of power. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC) To Andy, considering I just cited multiple historians, your claim of preferring the words of historians seems an odd claim to make. Concerning your argument that the Nazis couldn't be socialists because "they murdered socialists" that argument was addressed in the National Review article I referenced earlier. As pointed out by Jonah Goldberg, "when people say Hitler can’t be a socialist because he crushed independent labor unions and killed socialists, they need to explain why Stalin gets to be a socialist even though he did likewise."[222] The Nazis called themselves socialists, their very name includes the word socialist, and their policies were socialist. Attempts to write them off as un-socialist therefore strike me as historical revisionism. --7157.118.25a (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC) I am not this slightest bit interested in how many historians you have cherry-picked to support conclusions they themselves have never drawn. You arguments are bogus, and they have been from start to finish. Find some other forum to troll... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC) In wrapping up this discussion I'll admit most historians do tend to label the Nazis to the right, but there are those who differ as well, Götz Aly is an example of a historian who strongly believes the Nazis were left-wing and socialist.[223] --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC) How about actually citing something where Aly actually says that, then? The fact that some on the German left went on to join the Nazis is well documented. It doesn't however make the Nazis left-wing any more than former Trotskyists becoming neocons makes the U.S. Republican Party a section of the Fourth International. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC) At the risk of prolonging this food fight, I'll note that the Buchananites (to coin a useful and relatively non-offensive term for the right wing advocates of the theory of "Cultural Marxism") consider CM as a broad ideology underlying modern secular American society, in contrast and opposition to the ideology of "Traditionalism" — based on the ideas of God-given Rights, Family Values, and National Glory. It is cast as a conscious mechanism to implement that old 1960s John Birch Society bogey of creeping socialism. That they have traced the idea back to the rather obscure and largely unread writings of Antonio Gramsci (locked in a fascist prison) might strike the objective observer as a little bit nutty, but it is what they believe and we should be able to describe that system of beliefs in an encyclopedia article dispassionately, without rushing to claim in the lead that it is a "conspiracy theory." I'm not sure how we got to Adolf Hitler here, neither the Buchananites nor the socialist movement wants him as theirs. Anybody that has read more than a couple words of Mein Kampf knows that Hitler both hated the socialists and ripped off their ideas and repackaged them with an ultra-nationalist coating. Playing the neener neeener game with the Nazis isn't going to go anywhere — he was an object lesson in the dangers both of militarized state control of the economy and daily life and of ultra-nationalism. End of transmission. Carrite (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "I think the Buchananites are rightwing crackpot crazyfucks with zero grasp of actual history or current popular culture, but I'm certainly capable of describing their belief system honestly and neutrally without trying to poke them in the eye or to make political hay." You make it sound like the left has no conspiracy theories of their own. Leaving aside the 9/11 truthers, there have been the following: The Da Vinci Code conspiracies: Arguably the most historically inaccurate book to present itself otherwise, the author made a considerable number of major mistakes that have tricked large number of liberal adherents. There were not large numbers of gnostic gospels as claimed unless you count the forgeries by convicted felon Pierre Plantard. The Council of Nicea did not determine the canon. The number of windows in the Louvre is not 666 (as the museum has wryly pointed out).[224] Opus Dei does not have any monks. No record of a secret Knights Templar mission exists. The Old Testament has been in largely the same form as that seen today for over 2,000 years as seen from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Da Vinci Code presents many conspiracy theories that are accepted by those on the left as fact yet can't hold up to any degree of scrutiny. Mitch McConnell day one conspiracy: Another conspiracy theory on the left is the claim that McConnell and the GOP conspired from day one to make Obama a one-term president, which is a complete myth. It's been debunked by the Washington Post Fact Checker[225] and PolitiFact. McConnell did not make that statement at the start of 2009 as falsely claimed, but at the end of 2010, and even those words were taken out of context per articles by FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.[226][227] Obama caused Iraq troop withdrawal: Actually it was Bush in 2008 who signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement causing troops to withdraw. Obama on the other hand tried to keep 10,000 troops in Iraq past the Bush deadline but was refused by Iraq's government.[228] Newsweek accused Obama of a "war crime" for taking credit from the Bush administration for ending the Iraq War.[229] Defraud voters conspiracy: Another common conspiracy among the left is this idea there is no voter fraud, and the GOP just wants to suppress minority votes. In actuality plenty of voter fraud occurs. For example, the son and campaign manager of U.S. Rep. Jim Moran resigned in 2012 for supporting a voter fraud scheme.[230][231] Four Indiana Democrats have been charged with voter fraud for helping get Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot in Indiana in 2008.[232][233] Wendy Rosen was convicted in 2012 for voter fraud while running for the U.S. House.[234] State Rep. Stephen Smith plead guilty in 2012 to absentee ballot fraud.[235] State Rep. Hudson Hallum plead guilty in 2012 to voter fraud for using bribery to obtain votes.[236][237] The Chief of Staff for Florida State Rep. Joe Garcia resigned in 2013 for manipulating the 2012 election with hundreds of false absentee ballots.[238] In 2013 a poll worker was indicted for illegally voting over a half dozen times in an attempt to help Obama win.[239] Al Sharpton honored her when she finished her sentence.[240] James Webb Baker of Seattle plead guilty in 2014 to voter fraud for sending hundreds of fake letters to Florida GOP voters telling them not to vote or they would be arrested.[241][242] As of 2012 four of the eight officials accused of voter fraud had plead guilty to absentee ballot fraud.[243][244] On top of this, over 14% of the 11 million illegal immigrants are registered to vote and 6.4% likely voted in 2008.[245][246] Bill Clinton squandered surplus conspiracy: The left tends to view Bill Clinton as a brilliant economist who created a surplus that those nasty conservatives under George W. Bush squandered. Trouble is, that surplus occurred due to Clinton's Republican Congress refusing to let him spend recklessly. In actuality conflict between the Republican Congress of 1995-2000 and Bill Clinton led to the United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 96. Bill Clinton wanted to spend more and it was the GOP Congress that wouldn't let him.[247] Westboro as right-wing: Westboro gets regularly used to attack the Religious right even though Westboro's founder Fred Phelps has run for office as a Democrat six times (1990, 94, 98 Governor of Kansas, 1992 for U.S. Senate, 1993 and 97 for Topeka Mayor). Al Gore's 1988 campaign was even quartered on Westboro's church grounds resulting in Fred Phelps Jr. being invited to the 1988 Democratic National Convention as a delegate.[248][249][250] I could keep going, but my point is that the left has plenty of conspiracy theories of their own that are easily debunked from historical analysis. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC) You seriously think that The Da Vinci Code is a left-wing conspiracy theory? As opposed to a 'I could write complete bollocks in a book and the punters would buy it' conspiracy? I'd have to suggest that the latter seems more likely - free market economics at work. Maybe you should try the same. A book on how the Nazis started WWI might sell quite well... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC) The Da Vinci Code is more like a collage of left-wing conspiracy theories, and the claims made in it are rehashed by the left about as often as the birther claims are by the right. Point taken about the value of writing a book though, already have one ready for publication actually. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC) On what planet? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC) The idea that the Old Testament evolved like a game of telephone gets brought up very regularly, as does the claim that there were hundreds of gnostic gospels. Neither is at all defensible, the myths were complete fabrications by Dan Brown. They do seem to be somewhat less commonplace than in previous years however, given the documentaries debunking Dan Brown since then. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Another interesting conspiracy to mention is the UFOs seeded life on earth conspiracy, which has even been proposed by Richard Dawkins. It's actually a form of intelligent design ironically, and doesn't solve the problem of where the aliens came from. --7157.118.25a (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, we know that Dan Brown made up all the nonsense he didn't 'borrow' from other authors. What I'd like to know is how this is supposed to have any connection with left-wing politics. Or right-wing politics. Or politics. Likewise UFOs. It seems to me that you see anything you personally don't agree with as some sort of plot. There is a word for that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) And come to think of it, there is a very good article on the subject. Essential reading: [251]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC) The Dan Brown conspiracies are used specifically as an attack on the Religious right by the Secular left (and the left is secular[252][253]). The UFO conspiracies are specific to the left also, not the right. --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC) No they aren't. Except in your imagination. Have you read Hofstadter's essay? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I just browsed through the first few pages. What about it? There is fearmongering on both sides unfortunately. The left would have everyone believe the conservatives are a group of big money bankers even though Obama got more money from the wealthy than his opponents in 2012 and 2008[254][255][256], most House Republicans voted against the bank bailouts, and many of the top tax-dodging CEOs are part of the Obama administration (e.g. Immelt, Mulalley, McNerney, Akerson, Corbat, Liveris, Cote).[257][258][259] The left also tries to pin the spending binge the last two years of Bush on Republicans, even though Democrats ran Congress the last 2 years of Bush[260] and passed hundreds of billions of dollars in spending over his vetoes.[261][262][263] Not to mention the fact that Bush only passed the remaining bank bailout funds[264][265], auto bailouts[266], and stimulus at Obama's request.[267] --7157.118.25a (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Sadly, the belief that Democrats are 'left-wing' seems to be quite common in the United States, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I don't think the Democrats' credentials as left-wing can really be called into question. They are so pro-choice that they even oppose the 20-week abortion ban which 71% of American women support.[268] Democrats support the gay rights movement and hate crimes laws used to sue Christian photographers that don't want to photograph gay weddings or cake manufacturers that don't want to create cakes with same sex imagery.[269] Democrats are on the opposite side of Republicans when it comes to global warming, school choice/vouchers, and teaching evolution as fact in public schools. Democrats support increased big government spending/regulation. All of those seemingly distinguish Democrats as clearly left-wing, not right-wing. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC) No. It merely demonstrates that they are marginally less right-wing than the Republicans. And marginally less inclined to ignore the U.S. constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC) The Constitution does not mention "Separation of church and state", the phrase originates from Jefferson's letters to the Danbury Baptists, who were being jailed under Virginia law. Separation of church and state was originated by Madison and Jefferson as a way to stop the jailing of the Baptists and others[270] at a time when U.S. states were run by state churches, the Anglican Church for example ran Virginia and only Anglicans could run for public office.[271][272] I recently covered this extensively when writing the page Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is another good early piece of legislation on religious freedom. I suppose you could argue the 1st Amendment mentions separation of church and state in a way, by forbidding any "establishment of religion" but since it also protects the "free exercise thereof" the case is debatable. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC) So are you in favour of restricting public office to Anglicans, or against it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I'm against it. While founding fathers like William Penn and Roger Williams did make great strides when it came to religious freedom by allowing religious freedom to all theists, many states continued to restrict running for public office and voting to Christians exclusively into the 1780s until the No Religious Test Clause of the Constitution was created. While the changes by Penn and Williams were a major stride in allowing religious freedom, I think it's good that freedom was expanded to other groups as well. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC) So you can support at least one left-wing cause then. That's a relief... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I view that position as right-wing actually. I disagree with establishing any denomination or religion as the law of the land per Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, but also support freedom of religious expression apart from that, which I view the left as opposing. I do hold some left-wing views when it comes to the death penalty (too many innocent people on death row), foreign policy (I lean towards non-interventionism), public works, and business regulation (since I oppose invisible hand and trickle down). I like the concept of direct democracy also. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC) So, which right-wing website did you copy the list of "voter fraud" links from? And did you deliberately ignore the fact that every one of those instances misses the point, or did you just trust the website when they did it? The objection from the (mythically monolithic) "Left" isn't that there are no irregularities during elections. Rather, the argument is that in-person voter fraud – that is, individuals who go to polling places, and cast ballots pretending to be someone else – is essentially a non-problem. This (nigh-on hypothetical) "threat" of in-person voter fraud has been dramatically overstated in order to enact voter ID laws which principally inconvenience and disenfranchise groups (especially minorities and the working poor) who predominantly vote Democrat. Fundamentally, trying to steal an election through in-person voter fraud isn't likely to ever be a serious problem, just because it's inherently a stupid and grossly inefficient way to do it. One person, with a stack of fake IDs (or a stack of affidavits, or what have you) and willing to stand in line at one polling place after another might be able to cast a dozen or two ballots over the course of a full day of fraud—and risks being noticed by election or campaign workers at multiple sites. It's labor-intensive and prone to failure. Since 2000, there have been something like 31 cases of in-person voter fraud in the United States, out of more than a billion ballots cast: [273]. (And some of those cases probably represent clerical errors rather than actual impersonations.) There has never been a credible assertion that the outcome of a U.S. election has ever been altered by in-person voter fraud. Your examples actually make the "Left's" point. The 'successful' attempts you linked to all highlight much more effective ways to manipulate an election's outcome: bribe a bunch of people; fill out a bunch of absentee ballots, (where there's no time or in-person constraints or ID-checking); get election workers to stuff ballots or manipulate vote counts; send threatening letters to discourage legitimate voters from showing up; etc. When election outcomes are illegally manipulated, those are the methods of choice—not in-person voter fraud. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I'll call TenOfAllTrades Washington Post link with a Wall Street Journal one. Isn't it cool how one can always find numbers to match one's opinion? Not sure what this has to do with Mr. Wales or Wikipedia, by the way. NE Ent 23:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC) To TenofAllTrades, there are nearly 200 different cases of voter fraud as catalogued by the RNLA, the ones I mentioned are just the more prominent and undeniable examples.[274] There are more examples here if you'd prefer an alternate source.[275] In person voter fraud is not likely to sway an election though unless committed on a broad scale like with the 700,000 illegal immigrants registered to vote. The 2008 ACORN Scandal led to 18 convictions of course, that would be another case of broad voter fraud.[276][277] Absentee ballot fraud is typically more dangerous.[278] A notable recent example would be the election of Al Franken in 2009, who gave the Democrats their 7-month Supermajority allowing them to pass any legislation they wanted without any Republican votes from July 2009-February 2010. Franken won by producing large numbers of mysterious absentee ballots after the elections ended to gain a narrow win.[279][280] Recently State Rep. Christine Ayala was arrested on charges of voter fraud.[281] There are plenty of other examples though. Also, if you think I plagiarized that from a website, then specify where. That's all my own writing. Vague accusations prove nothing. --7157.118.25a (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Being arrested for something doesn't prove guilt for that matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC) True. Perhaps as an alternate recent example you'd prefer the case of Roderick Wright, who was sentenced in September 2014 for voter fraud and perjury? Two other California State Senators, Leland Yee and Ronald Calderon, are likewise facing charges, but have pleaded not guilty.[282] --7157.118.25a (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Whatever. Whether the not-quite-as-right-wing-as-the-Republicans-but-that-isn't-saying-much Democratic Party engages in electoral fraud or not is of little relevance to a discussion on actual left-wing politics. Assuming we are still discussing left-wing politics, rather than whether Dan Brown arrived on a UFO to poison our precious bodily fluids with fluoride... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Please can we have some more about The Da Vinci Code as a conspiracy theory. I was enjoying that bit. I think a similar case can be made for Toy Story 3. Formerip (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Toy Story 3 is obviously a political allegory. Two American archetypes (the cowboy and the astronaut), disquieted by their encroaching obsolescence in their ruthlessly utilitarian capitalist homeland, search for alternatives and encounter the horrors of a Soviet-style totalitarian dictatorship (run by an anthropomorphized teddy bear clearly intended to be an amalgam of Trotsky and Stalin). The teddy bear's promises of a Utopian society are quickly revealed to be empty and deceptive propaganda, and in reality the "Utopia" is even more exploitative than the ancien regime. The astronaut is temporarily brainwashed by radical-leftist propaganda, and even commits the unpardonably unpatriotic and elitist sin (for an American) of learning and speaking a foreign language. Ultimately, though, sanity and justice prevail, and the Soviet-style dictatorship in the day-care center is democratized by an infusion of fundamentally American values (represented by Barbie and Ken). Now, the secularized leftist media probably want you to think that Toy Story 3 is just animated entertainment for kids (with enough grown-up humor to keep parents interested). You sheeple are probably fooled, but the really smart and insightful thinkers like me and 7157.118.25a (talk · contribs) know the score. MastCell Talk 00:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I'd always assumed it was a gay love story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC) No, you're thinking of Brokeback Mountain. I get them mixed up too. MastCell Talk 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Brokeback Mountain was clearly derived from Toy Story. I'm surprised they didn't sue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) They changed it quite a lot though. All they really kept was the two cowboy characters, a few letters of the title and the talking potato. Formerip (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC) An allegory? How can a documentary be an allegory? Formerip (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) I can think of a few examples: The Sorrow and the Pity, for instance, or Buñuel's Land Without Bread. I think we're getting off-topic, though. We're supposed to be talking about how radical secular leftists steal elections and write lowbrow pseudo-historical potboilers. MastCell Talk 00:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (UTC) Why did Americans in the 1960s fear the spread of communism in Vietnam? Why did Americans in the 1960s fear the spread of communism in Vietnam? Would communism in Vietnam affect economic life in the United States? 84.13.154.250 (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Victims of communism in Cambodia, ally of North Vietnam Communism, as practiced in the real world, is a totalitarian government, and it was not in the best interests of the relatively-free world to see it spread. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) See Domino theory. .Widneymanor (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC) And it did happen, but only to a very limited extent. Laos, Cambodia, and Burma are largely outside the Western sphere of influence, partially as a result. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Ever heard of Pol Pot? The Khmer Rouge? The Cambodian genocide? The communists killed about 1/4 of the entire population of Cambodia, half by execution. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Communism isn't just preternaturally murderous; it's also astonishingly incompetent, as you can see from the top two items here. Communist Russia and communist China (largely under Stalin and Mao, respectively) were each responsible for deaths an order of magnitude greater than Hitler's Holocaust. Whilst many of these deaths were due to the determined elimination of political opponents, many more were due to the fundamental managerial incompetence created and fostered by the communist form of government. RomanSpa (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC) When I was young, I challenged a history professor to sum up what is bad about Communism in one sentence. He came back the next day and said, "Communism is based on the believe that humans are not selfish." 209.149.114.86 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "...dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good". T S Eliot, Choruses from The Rock. Alansplodge (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Or as Frank Zappa put it, "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC) A lot of the answers here are politically charged or retrospective, i.e. referencing events that happened after the 1960s. It depends what you mean by Americans, as many Americans did not support intervention in Vietnam and the war became immensely unpopular. If you mean America's political leaders, there were a variety of reasons. The domino effect was one. Presidents in the past were criticized for allowing communism to spread, i.e. Truman "losing" China. Additionally, by the 1960s, the US had already invested countless dollars into Vietnam to support the Diem regime and maintain a divided Vietnam. If communism spread throughout the country, the entire American government would look incompetent. So there were plenty of political reasons to fear the spread of communism. I doubt the average American (whoever that is) was particularly fearful of the spread of communism into Vietnam. Perhaps they feared a spread of communism in Europe or in the US, but in Vietnam it was likely only a modest concern. Would communism in Vietnam affect American economic life? No, not at all. Scarlettail (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Retrospective? So having seen what happened in Germany, people being shot fleeing the Berlin Wall, and having seen tanks roll into Hungary, and having been to war with the hermit kingdom of North Korea, and seen 60 Million die during the Cultural Revolution, the West should have expected sweetness and light and regional stability from a communist Vietnam, not massacres and purges and 200-400,000 Vietnamese boat people drowned, starved, or eaten by sharks fleeing the country? The issue is political only in so far as Marxist-Leninism masquerades as a political system. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) I'll suggest this thread should be closed or deleted as obvious trolling, given IP 84's original title "Communistphobia". He's got his answer. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC) It is a sensible question and doesn't look like trolling at all. "Communistphobia" is actually a pretty accurate description of the times really. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC) It's either trolling or woeful ignorance of history. Hard to tell which is worse. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC) I feel that Widneymanor & Scarlettail gave pertinent and full answers, so I am following Medeis suggestion to close the thread. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC) μηδείς, I'd recommend reading the question more carefully before you answer. It clearly says "the 1960s," and as I'm sure you know, Pol Pot, the Vietnamese boat people, etc. were not of that decade. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Those were consequences, at least in part, of the fall of Vietnam to Communism, so the domino theorists of the 50s and 60s were in a "told ya so" situation. The Berlin situation, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and especially Cuba were all in the 60s, and were enough to convince us already that Communism was our mortal enemy and should be contained if possible. The post-Vietnam situation was merely further evidence of the pattern. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Actually, it was George Orwell's book 1984 that made our hair stand up on end as far as communism was concerned. He wrote it in 1948. His publisher didn't think much of his proposed title and in the end he just turned the last two figures of the year around. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC) None of these accounts actually provide a specific explanation for the fact that America in particular was apparently obsessed with the 'Red Menace' to a greater extent than other western democracies during that decade. I suspect that a proper understanding of that would require analysis of internal political struggles in the U.S., and of the way that external threats, real or imagined, were used as an ideological justification for the silencing of dissent. The '60s were of course the era of the civil rights movement, and focusing on the outside world was a convenient way to ignore issues at home. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Bread and circuses was throughout almost all of human history, is now, and will continue to be well into the future, a well-proven, highly effective, highly successful method for distracting the masses and silencing dissent and demands for greater socio-economic equality and demands for racial equality and full civil rights etc. War is, among many other things, also a form of bread and circuses-type distraction. Countries such as ancient Greece and Rome (and many other large groups of people preceding them by thousands of years), the U.S., Israel, Arab countries, and many other nation-states in the ancient past, recent past, present and future of humanity were, and are, permanent-war states to distract their populations from the massive poverty, economic inequality and enormous levels of wealth concentration in the hands of a relatively small kleptocractic-oligarchic-plutocratic elite, while also creating many thousands of well-paying jobs in war-related industries (and related industries such as surveillance etc). Other uses of war always included, and continue to include, e.g. looting and opening new markets for your nation's corporations, i.e., almost all major wars are essentially groups of poor or near-poor people killing other poor or near-poor people, with the wealthy kleptocratic elites [including e.g. senior military officers] on all sides smiling all the way to the bank. See also these relatively recent articles: Honor the Vietnamese, Not Those Who Killed Them, and A Dictionary of American Free Enterprise (the first entry in the dictionary is 'arms sales'), and What's the Difference Between Fascism, Communism and Crony-Capitalism? Nothing. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC) How many Germans were shot trying to get from West Berlin to East Berlin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC) The use of lethal force to control borders isn't unique to 'communist' countries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Illegal entry is one thing. In totalitarian states, you can't leave. If an American wanted to run off to Mexico, we wouldn't care. Mexico might, though. So just to clarify: How many instances were there of West Berliners being killed by West Berlin guards for attempting to "escape" into East Berlin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Do you really think that there is any moral distinction between using lethal force to prevent people coming in as opposed to going out? I can't think of any legitimate reason why one should necessarily be any worse than the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC) A country has the right to decide who can enter and who can't. That's called "protecting he borders". Shooting folks who are trying to enter illegally is a bit extreme, but they know the risks. But if you can't leave, then you're a prisoner of that country - the entire country becomes a de facto prison - as were and are the Communist countries. That is a huge, fundamental difference between the typical western nation and totalitarian nations. You're free to leave the USA anytime you want to. Nobody's going to hold you back. Try to leave East Berlin for the west, and the East Berlin guards would gun you down. If someone from West Berlin tried to cross over into East Berlin, he might also get shot, but it wouldn't like have been the West Berlin guards doing the shooting. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC) If you're shot dead entering or leaving a country that's the end as far as you're concerned. If you live in a place like North Korea you're life is just restricted. There's a big difference. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "A country has the right to decide who can enter and who can't." True - a right recognised under international law. As is the right of countries to decide who can exit and who can't. A right that the United States for example chooses to exercise - see e.g the Passport Denial Program [283] for one form this takes. That isn't the issue however - the question I asked is whether there is any moral distinction between using lethal force to enforce border controls on people entering or leaving. Incidentally, as far as East Germany is concerned, there is at least room for debate for the suggestion that it was the western powers refusal to take up Stalin's offer of the reunification and neutralization of Germany in 1952 up which led to the later (from 1961) restrictions on movement - after perhaps as many as 3.5 million people had left the eastern zone without such restrictions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC) One reason they can't leave is because if they were allowed to leave, there would be no nation left. If international law really thinks it's just fine to imprison their entire citizenry, then such law is not worth the paper it's written on. In contrast, everyone wants to come to America, and we can't absorb them all. But how many Mexicans have actually been shot by border guards while trying to enter America? As opposed to having died in a truck in the Arizona desert after being scammed by their Mexican countrymen and then abandoned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "how many Mexicans have actually been shot by border guards while trying to enter America?" According to Rodolfo F. Acuña (Professor Emeritus of Chicano Studies at California State University [284]) "Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported 117 cases of human rights abuses by US officials against migrants from 1988 to 1990, including fourteen deaths. During the 1980s, Border Patrol agents shot dozens of people, killing eleven and permanently disabling ten". [285]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Not just Mexicans. Consider the case of Esequiel Hernandez, US Citizen shot by Marines near the Mexican border http://www.well.com/~jax/ http://www.dpft.org/hernandez/ GangofOne (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC) So, by that logic, it's a human rights abuse to try and prevent an illegal entry, but it's totally OK to shoot someone who's trying to leave? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC) 'Logic'? Nope. Not even close. Nobody has other than you has even come close to suggesting that shooting people crossing borders illegally is 'OK'. The only point I have made is that the DDR wasn't alone in doing so. You seem intent on seeing this whole discussion as 'good U.S.' vs 'bad DDR', without even considering the fact that you are criticising the DDR for actions not entirely dissimilar from those the U.S. has also engaged in on occasion. I could of course extend the list considerably - but that isn't really the point. My original response in this thread was to point out that the U.S. had some pretty severe internal problems at the time (including a systematically disenfranchised minority population), and that external threats (real or imagined) are both a distraction from internal problems and a convenient excuse to crack down on dissent. This self-evidently worked the other way too (as far as the DDR elite were concerned, 'western imperialism' was the threat), and the bombastic rhetoric on both sides clearly made the situation worse. Rhetoric which you seem intent on regurgitating even now, long after the event. An honest appraisal of the events in post-war central Europe needs more than rhetoric, and a better understanding of the way the domestic politics of the participants (including the two 'superpowers') often interacted with foreign policy in complex ways. Simply labelling the Warsaw Pact countries (or North Vietnam for that matter) as 'totalitarian' as if that was an explanation for everything may make for a good soundbite, but it tells us almost nothing concrete about unfolding events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC) If you try to escape prison, you're liable to get gunned down. That was standard procedure in the Communist countries, whose entire nations were (and some still are) prisons to their citizenry. No amount of pro-Communist rationalizing can change that cold, hard fact. The mere idea of living under such conditions was enough to scare us plenty, back then. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "pro-Communist rationalizing"? Bugs, you are clearly incapable of even discussing the subject of this thread rationally, and take anything that questions your over-simplified viewpoint as support for its ideological 'opposite' - which is an entirely irrational attitude. Not that your regurgitated cold-war tub-thumping belongs here anyway. Find a forum somewhere, and leave replying to reference desk questions to people who can provide referenced encyclopaedic responses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC) "Restricted" is quite an understatement. Characterizing the citizens as "imprisoned" seems more accurate, except for the ruling class, of course (although even they can be summarily executed). StuRat (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Speaking of miss-characterisations, including North Korea amongst countries which even claim to have a communist ideology is anachronistic to say the least - see Juche. The quasi-religious hereditary personality cult (a de-facto monarchy) has about as much connection to anything envisioned by Karl Marx as the Westboro Baptist Church has to Jesus of Nazareth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC) The practical application, of corrupting Marx's ideas for political purposes, is not Marx's fault. I think he would have been shocked to the core by how his words had been abused to crush people's freedoms and lives. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Agreed. All so-called "communist" nations have completely co-opted and corrupted the ideals of communism. Marx envisioned the workers of the developed world rising up, to demand equality, not backward nations like Tsarist Russia and 1940's China. The socialist Nordic nations may be closer to what Marx had in mind. StuRat (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC) The so-called "communist" Soviet Union, China, North Korea and almost all other "communist" or "socialist" countries were/are to Marx's or Peter Kropotkin' vision of communism like The Discovery Channel is to science, like Fox News is to news/ facts/ knowledge/ journalism/ insights/ information, like Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party – the Nazi Party – was to socialism, like military music is to music, like MTV is to music, like The History Channel is to history. ("At the end of the day, we're not an education resource. We're an entertainment brand." Nancy Dubuc, CEO, A+E Networks, speaking about the A+E Networks’ subsidiary The History Channel. From: Felix Gilette, "The Duck Whisperer," Bloomberg Businessweek, June 24-June 30, 2013. p. 72.   And see Satirist Lee Camp ridiculing the History Channel.) All of these businesses corrupt the truth (art or facts/ information/ evidence/ data) and deform it into a commercial venture devoid of artistic or factual integrity. IjonTichy (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sub-Section

Brilliant analysis from user:gngu

From Talk: Land grabbing: This article seems to have serious neutrality problems. As far as I can tell, any purchase of - or investment in - land is framed as a "land grab". This makes it an absurd polemic. Even the title is wildly non-neutral considering the rather prosaic matter of investment in land as food prices go up... bobrayner (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I've tried to reframe some of the terms more neutrally but the article is still heavily reliant on a small cherrypicked subset of sources. If somebody just googled for "land grab", that's understandable, but there are lots more sources out there which cover agricultural investment in more neutral terms... bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I added the "Definitions" section a while back in response to some of your feedback -- these definitions reflect some of your criticisms, as well as address some of your concerns. I would like to stress that "land grabbing" in the context used by researchers, does not deal with just agricultural investment as a whole, but rather a narrow subset: large-scale investments in land following 2007-08. Thus, the sources are inherently narrow due to the recent timeframe, and the issues with large-scale investment in land from 2007-08 are a lot different than run-of-the-mill investments in land (which is why there is not a lot of talk about agricultural investment in general). Obviously, the people most interested in writing about large-scale investments in land since 2007-08 have particular interests that color their analysis. However, the primary source referenced in this document is produced by the World Bank, which I consider to be a fairly neutral (even a generally pro-investment/privatisation) source, and whose report was actually heavily criticized by some activists for not being critical enough of large-scale investments in land. gngu (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Another comment building off of my previous is also to defend the article's sources and current presentation. The article cites from researchers and civil society organizations in order to attempt to capture the current discourse around large scale land investment since 2007-08, which has been markedly hesitant (or in some cases resistant) towards large-scale investment. While I understand that this resistance to investment may not conform with your own beliefs about the benefits or drawbacks agricultural investment, I believe that it is important to chronicle why the term "land grabbing" has become so popular, why the term "land grabbing" is used the way it is today, and why large scale land investment since 2007-08 has become such a big issue for researchers and organizations -- which is because of the resistance to large scale investment in land. Without the various criticisms and responses to large scale land investment, including the use of the term "land grabbing" (whether justified or not) to characterize this investment, the use of the terminology "land grabbing" to refer to land investment post-2007-08 would not exist today. Thus, this article by nature pays increased attention towards these criticisms against large scale land investment since 2007-08, because these have intrinsically shaped the way that the term "land grabbing" is used today. From my own experience, I have found it hard to find academic literature that specifically supports large-scale land investment specific to the time period from 2007-08 to the present. The primary support for specific post-2007-08 investment comes from quotes from some ministers and government officials. However, if you feel that there are reliable, well-researched sources that have been overlooked (specifically regarding post 2007-08 large scale land investment), please feel free to research and include them. gngu (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Very well said, gngu. And the term 'land grabs' is increasingly used, including in mainstream academic sources such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. IjonTichy (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sub-Section

Brilliant analysis from both User:Nbauman and User:Jytdog in a community discussion on WP: MEDRS

Hi, just wanted to take this off the article Talk page. When you were arguing to expand the back-and-forth of opinion over the paradigm trial, I was guessing that you had an axe to grind, since that is typically the motivation for such discussions. And indeed when you wrote this and then this, you made it clear that: a) you see mainstream scientific publishing as corrupt; and b) your goal here in WP is to teach readers how to see through the corruption; c) mainly by generating content based on editorial/commentary sources that you select on your own authority, that expose the corruption. This whole string of logic is a POV and your certainty about it has no place here - and it being a WP:FRINGE POV at that (fringe, by definition, since it rejects mainstream scientific publishing as corrupt) -- is going to make life hard for you here in WP. As I mentioned on the Talk page, I suggest you check that POV at the login page. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Do you think Richard Horton represents a fringe view? --Nbauman (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC) i am sorry but what are you talking about in particular? i'm unwilling to make blanket proclamations (e.g. I was only commenting on the POV i mentioned above, not you globally). I can tell you that very esteemed people have gone to the fringe on this issue. For example Marcia Angell has gone way over the deep end on the "corrupting influence of pharma" - I heard her talk once and i was blown away by the level of bullshit-slinging she has sunk to, to make her points. there are valid issues but painting it black is a move that leads directly to the fringe. so what line of thinking of Horton's are you asking me to comment on? Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Here's what Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, said about medical publishing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_%28editor%29#Peer_review The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. Do you think that Horton's viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint? (And there are many other journal editors who have said the same thing). I'm not asking whether you agree or disagree. I'm asking whether you think it's a fringe viewpoint.--Nbauman (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC) you want to pin him to the wall of a strong statement he made 14 years ago. hm. i think his continued work and ascent in the field of scientific publishing is all the refutation needed that he does not view scientific publishing as a corrupt enterprise. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC) I'm not pinning him to the wall. He still believes that. He's been repeating it ever since [286] and he never retracted it, even when publications and doctors at lectures continue to quote him. I've read his recent writings. Larry Husten [287] just collected Horton's recent tweets on the subject and Horton says clearly that companies regard journal publications as "marketing". Do you think Horton's viewpoint, as he currently believes it, is a fringe viewpoint? --Nbauman (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC) so you picked testimony from 5 years later - 9 years ago. Yet he soldiers on. One wonders how he lives with himself. How do you suppose he does? Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC) and by the way, let's not forget this paper by drug discovery scientists at Bayer (and see this discussion) and this paper by drug discovery scientists at Amgen and this subsequent action by Nature, which is at least trying to do something about this problem. You have a wonderfully litigator-like style, but let me cut to the chase. The scientific publishing process is what it is. Like every single human endeavor that has ever existed, it definitely has flaws. Is it a stinking pile of horseshit that we should treat as such? That is a fringe view. The PARADIGM study was what it was. On a personal level, I am very curious how regulators will treat it. (they are the ones who matter most of all.) But here at WP, WP:MEDRS governs how we source things. We try to communicate to the public what the mainstream scientific community describes as True, as expressed in review articles and statements by major medical and scientific bodies (none of which will be perfect shining jewels revealing disinterested Truth but which the WP community has judged are the best things our human and flawed institutions can produce), and as best as we can grasp and communicate it. Doing that skips over the hew and cry over and any specific WP:PRIMARY source, which do not and should not matter here. They are not what we are about, writing an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC) sorry i failed to acknowledge the 2012 tweets. yep he is still saying similar things. everything i said above still holds. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC) I don't understand your answer. I'll simplify my question. Richard Horton said that drug companies regard their randomized, controlled trials in major peer reviewed journals as marketing. Is that viewpoint, which is held by many other editors of major medical journals, a fringe viewpoint? All I want is a yes or no. --Nbauman (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC) you want X and I want Y. i will humor you. It is absolutely true that scientific publications are an essential means for companies bringing new products to market, to communicate to their relevant stakeholders (which include doctors and payors) what their products do, good and bad. If early results for CAR-T being developed by Juno, Novartis, and others hold up in phase III trials, we will find out about it from scientific publications. Is that process open to manipulation? Sure. Do academic scientists try to win their next grant by spinning their data when they publish? heck yes. (and btw, bench science in industry is generally more rigorous than it is in academia; which i acknowledge is a different story from publication of clinical trial results) do talking heads make money and draw eyeballs (in other words, make money) by making strong claims this way or that way? heck yes. pretty much everybody except regulators has something at stake. Are any one of those voices (each with many individual voices within it) corrupt? That is a fringe POV. and in the midst of all that messy human pursuit of self-interest, we somehow get by. imagine that. but again, none of that has anything to do with MEDRS and your effort to import all that mess into WP is not what we do here. That is what I want - that we do WP's work, here in WP. maybe you will humor me. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC) i will also say that i am so so happy that the ACA provided money to AHRQ to do comparative effectiveness studies! we so need that. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC) The only "yes" I saw in there was this: "Are any one of those voices (each with many individual voices within it) corrupt? That is a fringe POV." So you're saying that it is a fringe POV to say that any of the voices in medical publishing are corrupt? Do you mean the mainstream view is that none of the voices are corrupt? --Nbauman (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC) see my reply to you in our other conversation. done here! good luck. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC) if something is wrong with the science in a publication (which is ultimately what is insinuated with the "corruption" comment), it is not our place as editors to say so. We need another source such as another publication saying the methodology or conclusions were incorrect. Some people have a lot of trouble stopping themselves as to how far an editor can go for digging into a publication, especially when there is some POV about companies involved in the science. Studies associated with a company in some form can still be correct (or incorrect) so we first rely on peer-review to check that to a degree, and further studies to continue that commentary as much as we do with non-industry associated science. The tools are all there to handle concerns about "corruption" (rather the end result of it) without even having to bring it up. Sticking to the science can help you a lot in these topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC) to be fair to nbauman, kingofaces, where we got "into it", was that nbauman wanted to have a great big section, something like this, providing published commentary on a published clinical trial (PMID 25176015) with the goal of countering what I believe he would call the advertising/spin of the original publication (sponsored by Novartis and three middle-listed authors from Novartis). So Nbauman wasn't putting his own OR in the article. from my perspective the overall WP:WEIGHT given to the publication of the clinical trial (a WP:PRIMARY source) was undue, and the selection of commentary to use, was OR. In the course of working that out, nbauman stated his POV on publication of clinical trial results, which I reacted to here, off the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC) I imagined there was a lot more going on as I didn't read into the background too much either, and didn't want to read into the situation more than the POV statement you pointed out. As you've seen as well Jytdog, there are some POVs out there like nbauman described that often get them into trouble as editors here. That's the comment I was mainly focusing on here as I was hoping my advice (or maybe reminder) could help Nbauman's future science content edits go a little smoother by focusing on what I described rather than the corruption POV. When done right, you're killing two birds with one stone (to the degree editors can at least) and checking the POV at the door too. Either way, that's my two cents on dealing with the POV, so I'll just leave it there intended as a piece of friendly advice for Nbauman. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Kingofaces43, you're a PhD biologist, so you should you be able to understand this. The core question here is whether it is a WP:FRINGE view (or idea) to say that articles about clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals are "marketing." By definition, WP:FRINGE is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field". This idea has been published by the editors of those same journals, such as Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, Marcia Angell, Jerome Kassirer, and John Ingelfinger, former editors of the NEJM, Richard Smith, former editor of BMJ, and others of similar stature, all of whom have described those articles as "marketing". I realize your field is entomology, but you should recognize that those are 3 of the top medical journals, by any measure. That's where I got the idea from, and I've had this explained to me by medical editors who were also medical doctors, so I don't think I'm getting this wrong. (I explained this in detail at User_talk:Jytdog#Valsartan/sacubitril, and at Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril.) Here's what I don't understand, and what I'd like to ask you: How can an idea be WP:FRINGE if it has been published in many articles in the Lancet, NEJM, and BMJ, and in articles by the editors of those same journals? --Nbauman (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I really don't know why you can't hear this - what makes your claim describing "those articles as "marketing"" problematic, is the breadth and singularity of it. it's a gross oversimplification. as i said to you before if you were to nuance that I would have a different reaction. (and btw let me add that you are basically saying that the lead authors of the PARADIGM study ( and any other clinical trial you put under that umbrella) who are not Novartis employees, are under the control of Novartis' marketing department. zoiks.) Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I'm on a bit of a contentious issue burn-out right now, so I'm not going to wade into the long history and discussion going on here, but just comment on what I see at a glance as the main issues from an outside science sourcing background. It seems like you are looking to add criticism of a study. Is there a review article you are pulling this criticism from? If not, even in non MEDRS topics, I'd be extremely careful about using individuals like you listed as sources of criticism for a study. However, in a very MEDRS topic like this, I'd consider using their opinions undue weight almost right off the bat. They may be important people, but they are only a handful (even if they have a prestigious position). We need a review article to formerly summarize what the scientific community thinks in these topics to avoid that complication. If something was flawed in the study, a review article will cover why in a future publication. Until we have that, we don't know what kind of weight to give the criticisms (no idea if they're legit in our position as Wikipedia editors), so we would normally hold off on criticisms until that time. Nothing wrong with waiting for more work to come out before adding the review's info as that's the nature of science anyways. On a more general note, publications can indeed be used for marketing. I don't think anyone is denying that. From the way you are describing things, you are saying the publications in general can be used as marketing. Nothing incorrect there. If my read is correct on the situation though, you want to take that general idea, and apply it to a very specific study. Going from the general to specific would start going into fringe territory (really more original research though) without reliable sources saying the specific study had such issues. I think that concern is largely moot though as, even if a study was used as marketing, that's pretty much completely irrelevant to us as editors. Whether it was used for marketing or not tells us nothing about the validity of the study or acceptance in the scientific community, and that's what really matters. I'd also like to point out my posting here wasn't meant as "piling on" at all. This is a topic I deal with in agricultural related articles as well, so I was hoping to give you some pointers on dealing with concerns of industry involvement, nothing more. If industry involvement is a concern for you, then that still brings you back to the question (as an editor) of, "Documented in reliable sources, were the findings in this study valid, and are they accepted by the scientific community?" That's the question that ultimately determines whether edits stick in these topics, while focusing on industry involvement can be a distraction from that ultimate question. If you think industry involvement somehow made the study invalid, then skip all that concern and go straight to the main question everyone else is supposed to be asking anyways. Either way, I'm just leaving this here as pointers as a passing commenter. Good luck. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Kingofaces43, you've attacked me personally, which violates WP:CIVILITY, by accusing me of POV editing, without even talking to me first. You've distorted my words, by confusing statements that I've cited from WP:RS with my own beliefs. You accused me of saying things that I never said, such as accusing people of "corruption." I'm trying to figure out how you could possibly come to these false conclusions, or if there's any truth to them, and when I ask you, rather than either giving me an explanation or retracting them, you say that you're in a "burn-out" now, and don't have any more time. If you don't have time, then just admit that you don't have all the facts and you shouldn't have said anything. (For the record, you say that we should wait for a peer-reviewed article to uncover flaws. Things don't work that way. This month, a study in JAMA doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9646 looked up all the studies in the medical literature that had a second, independent group reanalyze them. They found five. By your criteria, there would only be five articles in the entire medical literature that Wikipedia could accept to criticize a study.) --Nbauman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Note to self: An article on industry influence on clinical trials. Industry Collaboration and Randomized Clinical Trial Design and Outcomes, Nitin Roper, Nasen Zhang, Deborah Korenstein JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1695-1696. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3590. --Nbauman (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Real life editing question: So, this edit was made a few minutes ago. I know what I would do with it but held back, to come and talk with you about it. What would you do? Let's see just how much we are on the same page or not, on an edit neither of us originated, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC) As I said on your talk page, I've given up trying to argue with you. I have nothing more to say to you at least until you retract those uncivil, insulting, false charges that I'm POV pushing fringe views. Now you're encouraging pile-ons from editors like Kingofaces43. My last advice for you is that you might look through your attacks on me here for certainty and so forth, and consider whether it actually applies to you. Since it does. --Nbauman (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC) this wasn't an attempt to argue at all, but instead to reconcile by trying to work on something neither of us had touched. and i had nothing to do with kingofaces commenting here. Good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sub-Section

Great tutorials from User: Nbauman and User: Nishidani on writing WP articles

Insights by Nishidani on the Difference Between Great WP Editors (more generally, great workers anywhere in real life/ the real world) and Mediocre Ones: User:AnotherNewAccount wrote the following: "I believe Debresser is right in claiming that Nableezy and Nishidani frequently edit in concert, with Nishidani providing the "brains" and Nableezy the "brawn" in bludgeoning their POV into articles." Nishidani here. That's quite offensive, not only because it is utterly false but because I reckon I could whup Nableezy in a fight, but he'd run rings around me on a huge range of complex technical subjects. The editors you do not like (you call them 'the gang of four') are still here because they are rule-abiding, and accept fairly strict standards for encyclopedic composition, as do the several 'pro-Israel' stalwarts one could also name. There are over a dozen such editors from both sides who regularly edit the same pages, respect each other because they all adhere to the rules, disagree often, talk policy, ask for evidence, marshall sources, analyse their merits and achieve rational outcomes. In contrast, the people who end up here at this Administrator’s Noticeboard (WP: Arbitration/ Requests/ Enforcement) do so because they come with one topic in their sights, understand one POV exclusively, use poor sources, don't discuss on article talk pages or do so erratically, and as often as not ignore the constraints (WP policies, rules and guidelines) we all accept. The people who get into trouble on AN (Administrators’ Noticeboards) or AE (Arbitration Enforcement) for Israel-Palestine-Arab (IPA) issues have one characteristic in common. They are unwilling to do the type of unsexy, intensive legwork, the time-consuming research, on which solid article construction is based. They have nothing but a focus on those elements of a long article which can be spun to political advantage. -- Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Nishidani here. Sir Joe wrote, again, the same insinuation (it's repeated in every thread): “... this area is "off limits" either due to the headache or bias ...” Nishidani here. The area is not difficult to edit if your contributions are compliant with Wikipedia policies/ rules, and if you have a genuine interest in history, feel uncomfortable with broadbrush simplistic generalizations, and are willing to work hard. Most editors who stay on, do not find it a headache. It demands a lot of work, that's all. The only headache is the historically attested fact that the Israel/ Palestine/ Arab area tends to attract numerous meatpuppets, sockpuppets, posters who make death threats, anonymous blankers and reverters, ranters flooding one's email with vicious slurs, people who game the system, and battlers. They have no bias of course, though they account for 90% of the A/E and A/I noticeboard complaints. They are certainly not 'pro-Palestinian', a silly designation which is used as if it meant 'anti Israeli'. That you do not find in articles here what you find in partisan tabloids is not necessarily a token of bias. The same rude impression will arise if you read any good academic source or encyclopedia. It might just mean that editors who make contributions that stick, because the RS quality is high, work harder than the meme-replicators out there in examining all the available documentation, and writing it up per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. That said, I have no objection if this suspicion is thought serious enough to warrant a close examination of the editing history and contributions of all to see if they are contributing content or just here to play politics. -- Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Insights by user Nbauman on Developing Good Articles: From the talk page of American Sniper (film): Those who want to delete well-sourced material must establish WP:CONSENSUS. If they haven't achieved consensus, the deletions should be restored. --Nbauman (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Salon and Rolling Stone are WP:RSs. the author's points have been made repeatedly by many WP:RSs, which give them WP:WEIGHT. They should be included, under WP:NPOV. If nobody defends the deletions in Talk, then any of us should feel free to revert the deletions. --Nbauman (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC) I think the summaries above should go in the Criticism section. The sheer number of WP:RSs indicates that they represent at least a significant minority view. The current Criticism section condenses them all into a single paragraph. When you condense a Criticism section significantly, that is equivalent to tilting the article against the criticism, in violation of WP:NPOV. --Nbauman (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC) There are many significant viewpoints from WP:RSs that are critical of the film, and they should be represented in proportion to their prominence. You have cut them down to one paragraph. You have added a rebuttal to the criticism that is twice as long as the criticism itself. I think we should include the criticism in the detailed form as we wrote above -- in at least the same length as the rebuttal. Your objection isn't to whether they are WP:RSs, you just disagree with the criticism of the film. --Nbauman (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Criticism of one-sided preferences usually cut both ways. Salon tries to provide an alternative news outlet without the usual slanted corporate control. Salon has limited resources. The Salon article above is written by Sophia A. McClennen, Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature at the Pennsylvania State University. That should also be relevant. David A (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC) This NYT article should settle the question of whether the views of critics belong in this entry. The answer is "yes." I think that every major newspaper -- NYT, Los Angles Times, Washington Post, etc. -- has had a story now about the critics. That means it should get significant WP:WEIGHT. ‘American Sniper’ Fuels a War on the Home Front, By CARA BUCKLEY, JAN. 28, 2015 Meanwhile, the left started its own pile-on. Bill Maher said the film was about a “psychopathic patriot.” Chris Hedges, a columnist for TruthDig and a former reporter for The New York Times, argued in an essay with an incendiary title that Mr. Kyle “was able to cling to childish myth rather than examine the darkness of his own soul and his contribution to the war crimes we carried out in Iraq.” In a TV interview, Noam Chomsky noted that Mr. Kyle wrote in his memoir that he was fighting “savage despicable evil.” Mr. Chomsky added that “we’re all tarred with the same brush” for largely keeping silent about official policy and the country’s global drone assassination campaign. The Chris Hedges essay, BTW, is [http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/killing_ragheads_for_jesus_20150125 Killing Ragheads for Jesus] which is quoted above. I think Chris Hedges gives a good statement of the critics' view. I think the Criticism section should be a coherent summary of the ideas behind the critics, in full sentences, rather than a collection of snippets. It seems to be getting a little better. If I were writing it from a blank page, I would summarize Zaid Jilani's list of "lies" and Chris Hedges' introductory lead. That would give the readers a good idea of what the controversy is all about. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a book jacket. --Nbauman (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC) As I said above, I would summarize Zaid Jilani's list of "lies" and Chris Hedges' introductory lead. They are professional writers, and those were their summaries of the main issues. I don't think we could summarize it better than they can. We could also write a summary of the other critics for those readers who want to follow up the links. --Nbauman (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC) The political/ historical/ social/ cultural/ ethical/ moral/ racial/ ethnic/ religious criticism of any film has nothing to do with criticism of movie 'crafting.' Film crafting is the domain of film critics, and analysis of political/ social issues in a film is the domain of political/ social critics. There are numerous historical examples of films that are widely considered by film critics to be very well 'crafted' but that were criticized heavily for their political/ historical/ social themes, with the criticism of ideological/ historical/ political themes of the film being entirely a separate issue from the craft of making the film. For example, one may want to read Why Zero Dark Thirty divides the media in half, which says, among other things: "Time [magazine]'s popular culture critic James Poniewozik [said]: Film history is full of movies that are false, amoral, brutal, sadistic, yet are triumphs of vision and storytelling."   "There have been films, from Birth of a Nation to Triumph of the Will, that are aesthetically compelling but politically and ethically odious ... And political writers rarely believe art takes precedence over current events or history."   "But if political writers do their job well, they understand something even more important: that ideological meaning and agendas are not incidental to thrilling films and cinematography. Why surgically remove politics from a discussion of a film’s final quality, rendering the argument so purely aesthetic that it becomes low-brow decadent, as is Richard Roeper’s in a broadcast. Roeper crowns Zero Dark Thirty the best [film] of the year [2012]: “a masterwork of filmmaking ... holy ‘bleep’ ”? Ethical lapses or gaps in movies should be critiqued, along with bad performances or absurd storylines." Finally, please see Zero_Dark_Thirty#Controversy. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC) As I said before, one good way to summarize this with complete thoughts would be to summarize Zaid Jilani's list of "lies" and Chris Hedges' introductory lead. They're professional writers. They know how to summarize things. --Nbauman (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Well, I have been going out of my way to compromise with editors who think that the controversies section takes up too much room, but I technically agree with your point. David A (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC) I don't envy you. It's difficult to write a coherent piece of writing when other editors who don't understand your point are changing it every time you finish. I would like to see some criticisms of the film in complete thoughts. For example, Jilani said that Kyle wasn't "credible." How? Well, what he said in his essay on "7 henious lies" was, first, "The Film Suggests the Iraq War Was In Response To 9/11." Nowhere in that Controversies section does it point that out. As you and I now know, Saddam Hussein did not support Al Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11. There are probably people who still think that 9/11 somehow justified the invasion of Iraq, and the film reinforces that idea. So the Controversies section should clarify that point. Another point that Jilani made was, "The Film Portrays Chris Kyle as Tormented By His Actions." This is a creation of the movie, as Jilani shows by reference to the book. If Kyle really thinks that all Iraqis are savage, despicable, evil people, and he enjoyed killing them, while the movie portrays him as being tormented, that's a valid criticism of the movie, and we should spell it out. If the film is based on Kyle's book, and Kyle repeatedly told lies in his book, as Jilani argues, then we can't believe anything in the movie on face value. We should spell that out and include it in the Controversies section. I'm just picking a few important points. You could use others. But Jilani conveniently summarized several important, well-documented criticisms. You could go through that whole list of critics yourself if you have all day, but Jilani did a lot of the work for you, and I personally wouldn't duplicate it. Similarly, Chris Hedges makes an even more important (if complicated) point that summarizes a lot of the other critics: “American Sniper” lionizes the most despicable aspects of U.S. society—the gun culture, the blind adoration of the military, the belief that we have an innate right as a “Christian” nation to exterminate the “lesser breeds” of the earth, a grotesque hypermasculinity that banishes compassion and pity, a denial of inconvenient facts and historical truth, and a belittling of critical thinking and artistic expression. I think that's an important point and I can't see anything to cut out of it without weakening it. I think it skillfully summarizes what others on the left are saying, in many WP:RSs, which meets WP:WEIGHT. When I taught journalism, I quoted a passage from a book called Headlines and Deadlines, by Theodore Bernstein, an editor at the New York Times, who asked, how do you write a headline for a long, complicated story? His answer was, "How do you shoot an elephant? You hit a vital spot." You pull a vital spot out of the story. Then another. And another. And pretty soon you have a story. In this case, one vital spot is Jilani's charge that the move lies and suggests that the Iraq war was in response to 9/11. Another vital spot is that the film portrays Kyle as tormented by his killings, while in the book he sounds like a pathological murderer who enjoyed killing. Now you won't have room for every vital spot. So just pick the best ones. You may have to toss out the rest (although a compromise is condensing them into a very tight summary paragraph). So pick a few vital spots, and explain them fully. If you just use snippits, the reader won't understand what you're writing. If the reader doesn't understand your writing, what's the point of writing it? --Nbauman (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC) In the run-up to the war on Iraq, many people knew that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that there were no WMDs in Iraq. For example, Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, said that the US had given them "intelligence" that there were WMDs at specific sites, his team inspected those sites, and found no evidence of WMDs. There were demonstrations throughout the US and the world against the upcoming war, which were attended by ~1 million people, who didn't believe the Al Qaeda connection and the WMDs, and those demonstrations were reported in the New York Times and other publications. Many of the Senators who voted for the Iraq Resolution now say that it didn't mean they believed in the war, it just meant that they were giving GWB authority to go to war and they mistakenly trusted him. I don't know if they're telling the truth, but it means that a 77% approval is not the same as a belief in the Al Qaeda connecton and WMDs. Some people believed GWB's lies about Al Qaeda and WMDs; some people didn't. The country was divided. Kyle believed the lies. He was deceived and manipulated. That's a legitimate point for VOX and other commentators to make. And a lot of them made it, so it has WP:WEIGHT.--Nbauman (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC) I saw on TV the presentation by Colin Powell at the UN in which he showed aerial photos of what he said were mobile poison gas generators in Iraq. Those were the claims made by an Iraqi source that the CIA called "curveball." After the invasion, it turned out that there were no mobile poison gas generators, and no poison gas. (They were actually hydrogen generators for balloons.) You don't believe that "curveball" lied? --Nbauman (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC) While not the "missiles in underground silos" and not "chemical warfare trucks" originally propagated by the Bush administration, WMDs were in Iraq and we knew that because we gave those weapons to Saddam .... [288]... --User:xzg Claim that Zaid Jilani anti-Semitic I must correct the claim that Zaid Jilani is anti-Semitic. Those charges came from AIPAC. According to AIPAC, anybody, Jewish or not, who disagrees with the Likud party on Israel is anti-Semitic. AIPAC's "charges" against Jilani were that he used the term "Israel-firster" and "apartheid" in tweets. (I think it would be fair to call Jonathan Pollard an "Israel-firster", and ex-president Jimmy Carter described Israel as "apartheid".) Jilani was working for the Center for American Progress, which is a Democratic think tank with ties to the White House, and AIPAC got him fired. At first the Center defended Jilani, and then they caved in and fired him, because they can't afford controversy, and the Democratic Party is afraid to go against AIPAC. You can find more of the story on Salon and Mondoweiss and The Forward. Once again, those who can't defend their case on the facts and the merits will instead attack the messenger with false McCarthyite accusations. And false accusations of anti-Semitism is the McCarthyism of today. --Nbauman (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC) There is no evidence that Jilani is anti-Semitic, and it is wrong to call him anti-Semitic. --Nbauman (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC) The accusations of anti-Semiticm against Zaid Jilani and Max Blumenthal are Hasbarah propaganda talking points and spin, baseless accusations produced out of whole cloth against those daring to criticize the actions and policies of the Likud Party. IjonTichy (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sub-Section

Interesting insights from User: pastProlog on POV pushing in a subset of WP articles

From 1933 to 1953, the Democratic party held the presidency in the United States. Twenty years out of power is said to have been one of the factors leading to McCarthyism. McCarthy called it "20 years of treason" (then once he started fighting Eisenhower he started talking about 21 years of treason). Republicans began accusing the entire Democratic establishment of being KGB spies. The head of the John Birch Society thought this was a foregone conclusion, he wrote a book about how the Republican establishment including Eisenhower were all KGB spies. This cold war paranoia and political shift is all over Wikipedia. The faintest accusation of someone back then is all over their Wikipedia article. Much of the Democratic and liberal establishment from 1932-1952 is said to be Soviet spies on Wikipedia, and as far as I know, 100% of people who had questions about the Cold war. I don't know one liberal from that period who was more skeptical of the Cold war than Truman (who launched the Truman Doctrine in March 1947, then became involved in the Korean war) who is not accused of being a Soviet spy. I wish I could remember the whole list. The Wikipedia article for journalist I. F. Stone. The article for treasury official Harry Dexter White. Commerce department official and later author Harry Magdoff. Lieutenant Colonel Duncan Lee who had the misfortune of being acquainted with the kooky, flighty Elizabeth Bentley. In the light of all of these, the article for secretary of state Dean Acheson all but accuses him of being pro-communist. The "China hands" like Owen Lattimore (being accused of being an agent of the Chinese wouldn't do, so he was accused of being a Soviet agent). John S. Service who had the misfortune to be assigned to the Dixie Mission while working for the Foreign Service. The article on China hand Theodore H. White manages to have been relatively unscathed by the crazies. I'm sure there were some Russian spies in the US in the 1940s, and some American spies in Russia. Wikipedia still has this McCarthyist idea spread out over the high officials of that time were all KGB spies. Forget about anyone to the left of the 1947 Truman Doctrine to fight the Greek left, they're almost automatically concluded to be communist spies. Then it's proffered that Venona proves all these people as spies. But Venona has code names, not names. Venona says something like "Agent TREE met us in Central Park in May 8, 1948". As so-and-so lived in New York in 1948, the editors use that fact to link a codename to a name. Venona is said to prove every accusation, but it does not. Most of the people who it does seem to confirm were European emigres and people in the communist party orbit. Not the liberal WASPs in the Democratic establishment who are accused of being Soviet spies. The Wikipedia articles on various Democratic officials in the 1930s and 1940s are nuts. Even a neutral article like the Theodore White one has to mention that he was suspected to be a communist spy at one time. -- Posted by pastProlog, on 25 October 2016

Sub-Section

Brilliant insights from User: Viriditas on developing and sharpening your thinking skills when writing WP articles

From a user talk page: An editor asserted: Where there are a range of different views on a topic, all of them are supposed to be reflected in the article in accordance with their respective prominence in the sources . The problem is that conspiracy theories are considered WP:FRINGE. Giving any undue weight to them is contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is not "prominence" which counts - it is whether a theory is considered fringe by the mainstream scholars on the topic. U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks does not include Meacher at all. Nor does United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001. September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories#Intelligence_warnings does explicitly cite Meacher's theories. Note Meacher is a leader in the 9/11 Truth movement "Fringe" without any doubt. In short - no reason under Wikipedia policy to give "equal time" in any way to the vocal conspiracy mongers. In short Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). And Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. When we legitimize conspiracy theories by using SYNTH lists of "they all were Masons", "they all were Jewish ethnicity", "they all were Russians", "they all were (fill in the blank)" or anything of that sort, we violate Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC) One of the problems I have with this is the use of "fringe" becomes more and more a thought-terminating cliché used by totalitarian societies to prevent questioning official government narratives that may not be true. And if you are familiar with the 9/11 literature, then you know that many mainstream sources question the official narrative without resorting to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or any other errors in thinking. Our article on the criticism of the 9/11 Commission touches upon some of these ideas. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I assure you that I am far from a supporter of totalitarianism. The Meacher case, alas, fulfills the essence of "fringe". Are you, moreover, suggesting that the US is specifically such a "totalitarian society?" If so, I demur on such a counterfactual view of the US sphere. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Is the US a totalitarian society using Wolin's theory of "inverted totalitarianism"? Or is that theory WP:FRINGE? Collect, please read inverted totalitarianism.   Be seeing you ... --- Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC) And reading a fringe view rarely convinces me of the correctness of the fringe view. I would, moroever, suggest you read and abide by the suggestions in WP:PIECE which apparently a few editors do not think is reasonable, sad to relate. I especially find any statement that the US is becoming a clone of Nazi Germany to be abhorrent, and indicative of major problems in the world view of those holding such a point of view, and even more a problem when editors promote that world view as though it were a fact on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Collect, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're using the term "fringe" as a thought-terminating cliché, not in the context of its original usage. There is nothing, I repeat again in case you didn't read it the first time -- there is nothing in our article on the concept of inverted totalitarianism that can be described as "fringe" in any way shape or form. This is, in fact, leigitimate, mainstream scholarship, and if you think differently, I challenge you to prove otherwise. You must stop misusing the language this way because it looks like POV pushing. Your misuse of the term "fringe" appears to be a way for you to silence dissent and criticism. The scholarship behind the concept of inverted totalitarianism is sound. The direction the United States (and other countries) have taken over the last fifty years has been questioned by legitimate writers and academics, and you cannot silence them by using the word "fringe" in this way. Sheldon Wolin is not a "fringe" author, nor are the many academics who support his work. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Questia doe not find Wolin widely accepted. 2 reviews in journals only. One site which does push him is the notorious "globalresearch.ca" fringe theory site (see WP:RS/N for a bunch of discussions about that!) And of course AlterNet, which even manages to accuse G. W. Bush of instituting a Nazi totalitarian regime in the US, and says that technology is to blame for this new totalitarianism. Sorry - WP:FRINGE applies. Michel Chossudovsky has very colourful views to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) I have no comment on his theory, however, there are 89 results in JSTOR which discuss Wolin. So he is certainly a mainstream scholar. Jbh (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) How many of them are about this "theory" of "inverted totalitarianism"? How many mention him and not the theory? I found none using the term other than those ascribed to him. The issue is not of "lots of people mention him because of a number of his books" but "how many adopt this theory" and that, I would note, is minimal. As in "essentially none." Collect (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Let's see: The Nation (you're not going to argue they're FRINGE, are you?) printed an article by Wolin about his theory. His book is published by Princeton Uni Press (Peer Reviewed, one of the most prestigious academic presses in the country). The book was reviewed by other academics in journals like European Political Science, Political Science Quarterly, Perspective on Politics, International Affairs, and others. Those are direct links to the review - note none of them characterize him as a nutbar, and several of them are very positive. His book won the Lannan Award in 2008. Sorry Collect but there's no way in hell you can spin this as FRINGE. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) There are 21 articles indexed in JSTOR mentioning "inverted totalitarianism" (not including Front/Back Matter results). Again. no comment on the theory but it is being talked about by main stream academics. If you are interested in any of the articles for an article here I will be happy to provide it. Jbh (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (ec)I went through your list of reviews - not a single one endorsed the book, and one was aghast at the Nazi imagery used at the start of this book. Find scholars using the theory and supporting the theory - not reviewers who seem puzzled by the rather partisan material: Yet, Wolin's interpretation of the transformation seems to depict a rather exaggerated vision of the ‘poor state’ of democracy when contending that the actual direction of contemporary American politics is the very opposite of what the political leadership, the mass media and think tank oracles claim that it is the world's foremost exemplar of democracy., Wolin: "What is at stake, then, is nothing less than the attempted transformation of a tolerably free society into a variant of the extreme regimes of the past century. In that context, the national elections of 2004 represent a crisis in its original meaning, a turning point. The question for citizens is: Which way?" appears to be an election screed at best. Wolin reminds us that the image of Adolf Hitler flying to Nuremberg in 1934 that opens Leni Riefenstahl's classic film "Triumph of the Will" was repeated on May 1, 2003, with President George Bush's apparent landing of a Navy warplane on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. sounds not quite neutral in political tone nor imagery. ." Globalresearch.ca has been mentioned at WP:RS/Nand generally in a quite unfavourable light. Wolin: The Republicans have emerged as a unique phenomenon in American history of a fervently doctrinal party, zealous, ruthless, antidemocratic and boasting a near majority. As Republicans have become more ideologically intolerant, the Democrats have shrugged off the liberal label and their critical reform-minded constituencies to embrace centrism and footnote the end of ideology. In ceasing to be a genuine opposition party the Democrats have smoothed the road to power of a party more than eager to use it to promote empire abroad and corporate power at home. Bear in mind that a ruthless, ideologically driven party with a mass base was a crucial element in all of the twentieth-century regimes seeking total power. In short - a partisan screed, not adopted by mainstream academics. BTW, "prize winning" applies to many books found to be wrong, plagiarized, embarrassing, and hoaxes. (Goodwin, Haley and others even had Pulitzers). In scholarly areas, what counts is acceptance by other mainstream scholars - and that has not been shown here. You need peer-reviewed articles showing acceptance of the "theory" and that is how scholars work. Collect (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC) You're cherry picking quotes: The first review you quote also calls his book "persuasive," and suggests that "Wolin has written the most empirically updated, theoretically informed and generally persuasive analysis on the transformation of the US politics away from self-government, rule of law, egalitarianism and thoughtful public discussion. Democracy Incorporated mounts to a courageous and powerful critique of the path towards which American politics might be leaning." It's pretty normal for academic book reviews to point out both the flaws and the strengths of the work; they're not supposed to "endorse" anything, and being "endorsed" in book reviews (if that was even a thing) is hardly a reasonable standard for being considered "mainstream." You might see the second quote as "election screed," but how is that equivalent to being FRINGE? People get partisan around election time, that doesn't make them nutbars. The review that you picked the quote about Reifenstahl out of concludes that the book is "quite an achievement," if "also misleading about the transformative potentials of our world." It's a mixed review. I didn't mention (or link) anything from Global Research (and never would) so not sure why you're bringing that up. You conveniently left out the review from International Affairs, which notes that "proper reading of the book will make it clear that Wolin is far from implying a moral or even political equivalence these regimes and the US." Completely setting apart the actual merits of the book (I haven't read it), you're setting the an impossibly high standard for considering something "mainstream," and a ridiculously low bar for dismissing something as FRINGE. It doesn't matter whether the book reviews are positive or negative, the point is that it was deemed worthy of serious consideration and review by multiple legitimate academics and journals. That it was deemed worthy of publication by PU Press. Truly FRINGE scholars, books, and ideas do not get that kind of attention and that treatment. If you are only going to accept something as "mainstream" if academics "adopt" them then you're going to be waiting a long time, because it's not academics job to "adopt" a singular view. If anything, their job is to disagree about stuff. So the fact that some reviewers criticized Wolin does not mean that they think he’s unworthy of reading, unworthy of attention, or a crackpot. Honestly, it kind of worries me that you don’t seem to see that the distinction between “right” and “wrong” (in the sense of “I agree” vs “I don’t agree”) is completely different from the distinction between “mainstream” and “fringe.” Reasonable, rational, non-crank people hold a wide range of views. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC) GlobalResearch is indeed a publisher of the Chalmers Johnson review - which you appear to cite. Second, there is no sign that the "theory" has any actual acceptance or endorsement from mainstream academics. Third, "mixed reviews" specifically do not in any way imply acceptance of a theory, as noted below. Fourth, when an article is overtly partisan to an extreme extent, it is reasonable to call it a "screed". Especially when Hitler gets involved. Fifth, read the discussion below. Unless and until one can show some significant adoption or acceptance of such a throey, it is not "mainstream" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Just to clarify, I never linked you or cited the Chalmer's Johnson review - I may be mistaken, but it looks to me like you're the one that brought that up. More to the point; are you aware that an academic can't control who is reading their book or who reviews it, and that reviewing a book does not mean that the author supports your position? As far as "acceptance," I'll repeat what I said before; in academia, no one view is ever "accepted" - getting "accepted" in academia is having your book published by a reputable press, having a professorship at a reputable university, and having your book reviewed in reputable journals. All of these are things that Wolin has done. That's all an academic needs to do to be regarded as a mainstream, reputable thinker whose ideas are worth considering. Period. The "acceptance" that you keep holding up as something that Wolin lacks isn't something that exists in academia - scholars don't keep lists of "cannon" books anymore and they haven't done so for many many decades now. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Being "reviewed" especially when the reviews are mixed to put it charitably, does not make the thesis "mainstream." That you say that "mainstream" as a concept is now non-existent in academia sounds like a position you should raise at WP:FRINGE and assert there. I think the idea that "a person got this published by a major press, therefore his positions are mainstream" is interesting, but not the position taken in Wikipedia policy. Until that content guideline is changed and WP:NPOV is amended, Wikipedia follows what they say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Just to clarify, again: I didn't say that academia doesn't have a concept of mainstream. Of course it does. My point was that the higher standard of "acceptance" which you keep suggesting is something Wolin lacks doesn't exist - at least not as the boundary between fringe and non-fringe. Academia's main gatekeeper against "fringe" people and ideas is the process of peer review. Wolin's book was peer reviewed and published by a reputable press that would never publish truly "fringe" ideas. It is not fringe. If we only regarded works that were widely cited, or "adopted," or "accepted" - neither of which is really a "thing" in academia - then the list of "mainstream" books would be exceedingly small, and you'd be consigning huge numbers of scholars whose work is perfectly fine, but just never got much attention for whatever reason, to the "fringe" dustbin. That's not how it works. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Looked at the three most promising cites from JSTOR (I skip the ones which want money from me): Bell in Human Rights basically uses it as a plea for the election of Obama. Giroux mentions Wolin briefly, and then goes on to rant about "zombie fascism" where the academics have been basically emasculated by the anonymous corporatism of the US and "far right thugs" etc. Do you consider this a strong academic source backing Wolin? Brown equates neoliberalism and neoconservatism as each being de-democratizing positions - rather than aiming at Wolin's "totalitarianism", Davis says the two groups seem to cooperate in reducing the "rule of law" in favour of ad hoc agreements on some issues, that the apolitical neoliberals are inadvertently setting the stage for neoconservative authoritarianism based on "morality" (Davis does not seem to follow Wolin's path to Nazi analogues at all). Strangely, Brown spends a lot of space on "Christianity", and seems to basically follow Harris' view of the value or lack thereof - saying the Christians on the right see government as a pastor to the populace, levelling her sights at that issue - rather than following Wolin's anger at "technology." In fact she only cites Wolin in fn 38 which is a discourse about some referring to US interventionism as "fascism" where she specifies she is concerned about the "faceless social and cultural forces" at work in current society. So she does not adopt Wolin for sure. She does imply that there is no "substantive left vision" which seems totally at odds with Wolin's views. Zero for three - and that is all I get at a time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)Looks like you found the articles I was going to note below. You can discount the why's and wherefores as much as you want but why these people cite the theory makes no difference just that they do. First please allow me to direct you to direct you to two comments made about Wolin. He is obviously not a fringe thinker. Pretty much anything he has to say is going to be of interest to academics. They may disagree with him but it is part of the discourse. "Sheldon S. Wolin is perhaps the preeminent U.S. political theorist, and the publication of Tocqueville Between Two Worlds, a Festschrift, and an expanded edition of Politics and Vision provided the impetus for this article, which assesses Wolin's political theory to date." "When it first appeared in 1960, Politics and Vision had an extraordinarily important impact on the development of political philosophy in the United States." Now here are some articles which discuss or cite his idea of 'inverted totalitarianism'.I am sure a deeper examination will show more and I am sure that 'inverted totalitarianism' is controversial. I can see no way he or this particular theory can be considered FRINGE. PS ref [3] above might be of interest on some of the Neoconservative articles. Jbh (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Nope -- when folks mention a theory and say it makes no sense, that does not count as supporting the theory. The NYT reported the WTC conspiracy theories - that does not make those theories "not fringe." "Fringe" is determined by whether the mainstream scholars in the field support the theory. In the case at hand, after reading quite a few pages, I can safely say that the mainstream scholars do not support it. See WP:FRINGE -- it does not mean "wrong" - it does mean "the mainstream scholars do not support it". Collect (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) I can see the limitation of the use of 'inverted totalitarianism' as a theory requiring equal time, though I do not believe anyone was talking about that.Then I saw GScholar shows 346 cites [289] to A Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism - Nope not FRINGE not FRINGE at all I firmly object to classifying Woldin alongside Meacher. One is a complete nutbar while the other is an highly respected political theorist with a decades long track record. I guess we can agree to disagree however I do enjoy learning about new stuff like this and I do enjoy the debate. Cheers.Jbh (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Any "googlecount" requires inspection - many instances are from laundry list bibliographies, and are not indications of the author agreeing with a theory. " This thesis will argue that Sheldon Wolin’s theory of democracy is conceptually similar to anarchist theory" is from a Master's thesis, etc. Another example simply quotes Wolin - and nothing of meaning otherwise. One at [290] has this really useful precis: "John D. Caputo and Gianni Vattimo are two of the main thinkers in continental philosophy’s return to religion. This return is accommodated by the basic theoretical framework of irony, which is predominantly an unspoken determinant upon textual meaning. In this continental sense, irony affirms and negates the subject matter that it speaks about. Adopting this framework, Caputo and Vattimo suggest that a new Christian-irony is desirable to avert a collapse back into the violence that results from metaphysics, either modern or classical, by remaining in deconstruction’s loosely held wavering between theism and atheism. The question that remains to be proven, however, is whether their ironic method of writing is not inadvertently continuing the negative effect of the Nietzschean-Heideggerian paradigm by persisting with the literary style of writing that is intrinsic to it, even while openly refuting it by their affirmative Judeo-Christian surface content." I do not have the foggiest idea what that means, but it has nothing to do with Wolin <g>. Again -- find actual major mainstream scholars - googlecounts are not all that great here. Collect (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC) You know that the page you linked has a direct link to the thesis itself, right? Check out page 13-14 - not only is Wolin discussed in depth, but there's a mega block-quote from him. Not only is this thesis citing Wolin, it's using Wolin as part of its theoretical premise/foundation. It seems unlikely that someone would get awarded an MA for giving that much attention (in their introduction, no less) to a "Fringe" scholar. If anything, it speaks to his academic legitimacy. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Wow! That looks like it was written by the bot I hope it is a bot! that does Time Cube. Yes, I agree that not all citations are equal but just as well we need to avoid a No true scholar Defining a good cite. issue. All I have access to is Google Scholar and I would be interested in what the commercial services have to say about that book's citations. My opinion remains, once something is solidly in the academic discourse, not being solidly derided, it is no longer FRINGE. It might be minor, contested, or even total crap. I would say it is analogous to notability per WP:PROF. There is no need to explore the quality of cites there and determining cite quality can get sticky Although if a large percentage on the cites are like the one you quote.... damn, I thought I was having a stroke as all meaning dripped from my mind while I read that. <g> Jbh (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC) IOW, we need something which is remotely understandable agreeing with the guy to say his opinion is remotely near the mainstream. The usual technique is to find people using the term on their own. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Agree. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) I believe these might address your concerns. Per "... find people using the term on their own" we have. Mentan, T. (2013). Democracy for Breakfast. Unveiling Mirage Democracy in Contemporary Africa. African Books Collective. p.ix [291] Who devotes a couple of pages of his introduction to discussing 'inverted totalitarianism'. It has its own section. From Questia we have Blessed Are the Organized: Grassroots Democracy in America by Jeffrey Stout p.323 which favorable compares the theory to the authors own work. 125. As Molly Farneth has reminded me, chapter 13 of Wolin’s more recent book, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), appears to adopt a position somewhat closer to the one I am defending. On page 291, he refers to the need “to encourage and nurture a counterelite of democratic public servants” and argues that this counterelite can already be found to a large extent in “numerous nongovernmental organizations.” In effect, I am extending this thought, but at the expense of the “fugitive” democrat’s distaste for hierarchy as such. There is also this review on Questia which seems pretty positive. Archer, Jeff Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism I believe these fulfill the criteria you earlier mentioned. I found several others on Questia who cite the book and/or term in their work as well but I stopped chasing them down after these three. I simply do not see how Wolin or 'Inverted Totalitarianism' can be considered fringe considering the current weight of evidence. Jbh (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Frist - Archer is a review, and I previously noted it. It is not an endorsement at all of the "theory." Stout in a footnote says "On page 291, he refers to the need “to encourage and nurture a counterelite of democratic public servants” and argues that this counterelite can already be found to a large extent in “numerous nongovernmental organizations.” In effect, I am extending this thought, but at the expense of the “fugitive” democrat’s distaste for hierarchy as such." Which is not a claim of any sort of support for the theory at all ... indeed, it has nothing to do with "inverted totalitarianism" per se. Leaving the book from "Langaa Research and Publishing Common Initiative Group" which appears to primarily focus on books about Cameroon. It might have a minor problem in that it asserts that (Capitalism) "in an inherently unequal system" and thus Capitalism and Democracy are fundamentally incompatible. The preface dwells extensively on this particular premise - and that "elections" in such a nation are inherently undemocratic. While this is an interesting thesis, it appears based on an African view of elections not widely held otherwise. It is, however, using Wolin's words without using his stated theory. The preface then decries Western coverage of African elections and economies. It also says neololiberalism is the defacto position of capitalism, and that its agenda is to "create globalized states in Africa." This also has nothing actually to do with Wolin's theory either. And the position that "western democracy" is not what Africa needs is a clear position as well. If you wish to use this book, what it supports is not what Wolin states, and what this book supports is a strange version of "democracy" peculiar to Africa, and not "Western democracy" as a system. Thus one should read more than just the Roman numeral pages ... even reading just the first chapter of the book shows its use of terminology is aimed primarily at opposing free markets, opposing limiting government spending where large populations are poor, railing at France for not supporting the CFAs and their economies rather than keeping a stable Euro, and for keeping a limit on national overdrafts of those currencies (two different CFAs). And also blaming every UN agency in sight for abetting the devaluation of the currencies. Wolin is not within a mile of this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC) D'accord. Last I checked, Stout and Dorrien were in theology schools, Henry Giroux at an ed school at Miami U of Ohio, etc. Somebody was cite writing about postmodernism and cultural theory. These are not presidential addresses published in the American Journal of Political Science or even featured reviews in Foreign Policy. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 23:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Vous parlez francais? (no cedilla on this keyboard) And I only met Nimoy once, and Shatner several times ... LLAP. Collect (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC) It seems that we have reached the No true scholar point I earlier feared. It makes no difference how a theory is used. It is addressed and used within the context of academic discourse, it is not ignored or disparaged. You are setting an a very high bar for what you consider mainstream. You finally pin yourself down to something you will accept with "...we need something which is remotely understandable agreeing with the guy to say his opinion is remotely near the mainstream. The usual technique is to find people using the term on their own." These are produced yet you say not good enough because they do not really address his theory. You wanted someone who was using the term on their own. A concept must be firmly in main stream scholarship before people start adapting a theory for their own use. Good social scientists do not regurgitate a theory and apply it by rote. They modify it to the conditions they are examining. Theories in the social sciences provide a paradigm for analysis not a rote way of figuring something out, except possibly for an undergrad. Just as an example were I to use Inverted totalitarianism Just heard about it this PM to examine the socio-political tradjectory of the US over the next 5 years I would also be drawing on Social practice theory, Power cycle theory, no article???Keynesian Theory, Marxism bleh, yuck but useful for some social dynamics, Realist IR Theory, Geopolitics and dollups of many other people's work. Mainly because I would need to re-frame Wolin's theory in terms of anthropology and international relations In all that Wolin would get a couple footnotes for his stuff but you would hardly recognize how I used him after I ran his concepts through all of the theoretical frameworks I use in my analysis. But his theory would have contributed significantly to the analysis. Whatever I came up with... that would be FRINGE. <g> The point is there is no need, and no expectation, that when people are influenced by a writing or a theory for them to restate or slavishly apply the theory. It has helped them frame their analysis. If the theory were not used for framing or for the analytical it provides the end result would be different. That is what it means for a social science to be in the mainstream and that is what those 350+ cites I mentioned earlier indicate. Possibly you would give a firm definition of what kind of evidence you are looking for? PS please do not mistake my frustration for anger. I have very much enjoyed our conversation although we may be reaching a point of diminishing returns. You do seem to be in the middle of interesting discussions though. Cheers.Jbh (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC) The Africa book you cite, however, neither uses the theory within the book, nor uses the term in the preface in a manner remotely consistent with how Wolin presented the term. It is, alas, an example of people using the term in buzzwordese, which is all too common when people are presenting controversial claims (like "western democracy can not work in Africa because African democracy has to be different entirely" or the like.) As Arthur notes below - reviews do not mean the reviewer is adopting the theory, nor is the claim "well the author was mainstream, therefore his new theory must be mainstream" hold water. Chomsky has some mainstream linguistic theories, but that does not make his later writings "mainstream" at all. Pauling got a Nobel in Chemistry, but that does not make his medical theories "mainstream." As for iterating links to "no true scotsman" - the first time may be fun. Iterations show a lack of new arguments. Collect (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) That a person or his views are discussed in mainstream scholarship does not make those views mainstream. I haven't (recently) looked at those specific views, but no legitimate case has yet been presented here that Wolin is NOT fringe.(Arthur Rubin) @Arthur Rubin: Really?? Just what would you consider a "legitimate case"? Please, I am very curious. Jbh (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC) So far, other than the one rather strange Africa book, you have not presented anyone actually making arguments in support of the new theory. Find substantive uses where the scholars state that their findings agree with Wolin's theory. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Well, as far as I can tell, no examples have been provided for the theory being mentioned favorably, other than by Wolin, himself; there are a few tangential mentions or mentions using it to support something completely different; and one or two unfavorable mentions. If that is correct, it looks fringe. If there weren't any of the last category, then the theory would just be non-notable, at least in detail; it would be possible that the existence of the theory might be notable, if non-academic sources exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Arthur and Collect, you are both acting silly and unreasonable. We don't have to prove that Wolin is not fringe, that would be like asking you to prove you aren't paid by the Koch brothers. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If you believe Wolin is fringe, then use the guideline to prove it. Since neither of you can, the default position is that he's not fringe. Arguing otherwise is shifting the burden. You and Collect know this but you do it anyway. In any case, Wolin's central thesis, that economic influence has weakened democracy in the US, is far from controversial or disputed. This is a mainstream idea accepted by most scholars as legitimate and factual. Pretending otherwise is disturbing. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) We each aver that he is likely WP:FRINGE after doing our "due diligence." I have given full cites for what I found and what I did not find. And I suggest that "John D. Caputo and Gianni Vattimo are two of the main thinkers in continental philosophy’s return to religion. This return is accommodated by the basic theoretical framework of irony, which is predominantly an unspoken determinant upon textual meaning. In this continental sense, irony affirms and negates the subject matter that it speaks about. Adopting this framework, Caputo and Vattimo suggest that a new Christian-irony is desirable to avert a collapse back into the violence that results from metaphysics, either modern or classical, by remaining in deconstruction’s loosely held wavering between theism and atheism. The question that remains to be proven, however, is whether their ironic method of writing is not inadvertently continuing the negative effect of the Nietzschean-Heideggerian paradigm by persisting with the literary style of writing that is intrinsic to it, even while openly refuting it by their affirmative Judeo-Christian surface content" is either meaningless or as close thereto as any logician might desire. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Collect, you appear very confused. What you have cited is a student thesis, in particular, a quote that has nothing to do with Wolin. Now that I've corrected your mistake, I sincerely hope you will for once attempt to demonstrate that Wolin is "fringe" by citing a specific passage from the fringe guideline. You cannot do this because Wolin isn't fringe. What I've demonstrated is that you repeatedly misuse the fringe guideline to attack sources and content you personally disagree with, even when you haven't reviewed the source material! Could you please stop doing this? I brought up Wolin as one example of many. Surely you can find at least one reliable source that casts Wolin as a fringe thinker? That you cannot speaks volumes. Your misuse of the fringe guideline is an attempt to frame any criticism or dissent of official narratives as "subversion". This is a propaganda technique common to totalitarian societies. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Actually you are more likely confused from me iterating one of the JSTOR "sources" found by another editor and used to assure me that the Wolin theory was widely used. And yes - this paper was one of the ones in the JSTOR search results! I unfortunately demur that such a usage proves that Wolin is widely considered to be in the mainstream with this new theory. And I consider your accusations here to verge on the ragged edge of propriety -- and ask you recant some of your seeming allegations. And your assertion that I am using propaganda like a totalitarian would is abhorrent here, as is your snark that I must be being paid to edit. I would ask you to note that accusing editors of being paid to edit is actionable, and that you should immediately strike out any such assertions or implications as being in violation of Wikipedia terms of service, policies and guidelines. Now. Collect (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Collect, please read what I wrote again. I'll copy it here so you don't have to look: We don't have to prove that Wolin is not fringe, that would be like asking you to prove you aren't paid by the Koch brothers. The burden of proof lies on the claimant. If you believe Wolin is fringe, then use the guideline to prove it. Since neither of you can, the default position is that he's not fringe. Arguing otherwise is shifting the burden. This is not an accusation, this is an analogy, showing the fallaciousness of such accusations by way of example, not their veracity by way of assertion. In this case, the default position is that you are not paid by the Koch brothers, nor could one reasonably assume that you are based on an absence of evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Wolin's sideways and upside down inverted totalitarianism nonsense is fringe primarily because those that might be the polar opposite of that notion have not bothered to rebuttal it...because its ridiculous. Much like NIST's reluctance to entertain or waste time rebutting retarded 9/11 truther stuff. Lunatic fringe theories seem to be more and more common in the university system, thanks in no small part to discriminatory hiring procedures which eliminate anyone that doesn't like drinking the same Kool-Aid as the typical university imperial goof-trooper.[292] Why Wolin chose to compare what he hates with Nazism or anything Nazi is obvious...by comparing something to what is almost universally decreed to be a reprehensible entity, it gives the thing they hate equal footing and helps provide distaste. These tenured professors are so amusing what with their cushy tenured jobs that they will never lose until someone uncovers them for plagiarism or willingly accepts their resignation after they are investigated for crackpot theories, or they simply murder and attempt to murder other members of their university after being denied tenure.--MONGO 07:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC) As I already said above, Wolin's central thesis, that economic influence has weakened democracy in the US, is not fringe, it's mainstream discourse. I would encourage you to find something he said or wrote and a reliable source that casts him as fringe to support your argument. I have a question for MONGO and anyone else: using the fringe guideline, is Jim Inhofe a fringe source on climate change, and is Wolin a fringe source on political science? Viriditas (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Its not mainstream discourse that the U.S. political landscape is in anyway similar to Nazi Germany 1933-1945....anyone that postulates that sort of claim is simply nuts.--MONGO 10:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC) A nice straw man, but it's not what Wolin wrote. Here's what he actually wrote: [293][294][295][296] As for observing the historical working relationship between the US and Nazi Germany, well, that's part of the historical record. [297][298][299]. You would have to be nuts to deny there wasn't a cultural exchange of ideas that influenced their culture and ours in more ways than one. Nazi eugenics? Straight outta' the US. Computerized concentration camps? Thanks, IBM. It's quite possible that inverted totalitarianism is a homegrown idea that the Nazis themselves inverted. And atomization of the populace in the US as an end state rather than atomization followed by hyper-politicization as was done in Germany during the rise of Nazism. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC) MONGO is correct - you seem to be of the opinion that the US has a great deal in common with the Nazis and their ideology - and while I would not use his term to describe you, his opinion decidedly is on the order of "that theory is WP:FRINGE". Collect (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Both of you seem simply unable to see beyond your own preconceptions of what he is saying to understand what is actually being said. There are, arguably, analogues to Nazism and other forms of totalitarianism that can be seen in the US, not similarities there is a difference between the two terms. There seems nothing can be presented that you will accept, the bar keeps moving and as we are not discussing a particular case for inclusion here there is no way to resolve such intransigence. I have no idea how MONGO's little screed about university professors has any bearing on the discussion. It sounds to me like the same thinking as people who say the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is wrong because it was 'colder' where they live. The absolute most you all have proven is that II is a minor theory (actually it is more of a thesis than a theory from what I have read). The concept that Sheldon Wolin is himself a FRINGE is simply laughable. Once a discussion reaches the point of "Yes, Yes, Yes"..."No, No, No" it has neared and likely passed the point of usefulness. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC) PS - I just noticed the new header. Very poorly framed question. Wolin is not claiming that the US is totalitarian, he is claiming that there are analogous/inverted processes going on that weaken our democracy. He is also saying that totalitarian effects can be caused by processes other than the 'usual' centralization of government power. For instance quiescence and atomization as an end state for national politics rather than atomization followed by hyper-politicization as was done in Germany during the rise of Nazism. Jbh (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC) What Wolin says [300] The old systems of governance—electoral politics, an independent judiciary, a free press and the Constitution—appear to be venerated. But, similar to what happened during the late Roman Empire, all the institutions that make democracy possible have been hollowed out and rendered impotent and ineffectual. ... The endless election cycles, he said, are an example of politics without politics, driven not by substantive issues but manufactured political personalities and opinion polls. There is no national institution in the United States “that can be described as democratic,” he [Wolin] said. "Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate customs, mores, political values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy,” Wolin said. “That is where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. It wants a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. The [capitalist’s] notion of an economy, while broadly based in the sense of a relatively free entrance and property that is relatively widely dispersed, is as elitist as any aristocratic system.” Resistance, Wolin and Saul agreed, will begin locally, with communities organizing to form autonomous groups that practice direct democracy outside the formal power structures, including the two main political parties. These groups will have to address issues such as food security, education, local governance, economic cooperation and consumption. And they will have to sever themselves, as much as possible, from the corporate economy.(Hedges)  : I asked them if a professional revolutionary class, revolutionists dedicated solely to overthrowing the corporate state, was a prerequisite. Would we have to model any credible opposition after Vladimir Lenin’s disciplined and rigidly controlled Bolsheviks or Machiavelli’s republican conspirators? Wolin and Saul, while deeply critical of Lenin’s ideology of state capitalism and state terror, agreed that creating a class devoted full time to radical change was essential to fomenting change. There must be people, they said, willing to dedicate their lives to confronting the corporate state outside traditional institutions and parties. Revolt, for a few, must become a vocation. The alliance between mass movements and a professional revolutionary class, they said, offers the best chance for an overthrow of corporate power. In short - they all assert that the US needs an actual revolutionary overthrow of our meaningless democratic institutions which they find of no use any more. WP:FRINGE. Collect (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC) In short - nice straw man. No point in engaging on this. Jbh (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I take it you find the actual cite and quotes to be meaningless -- that they can not really be serious about supporting the overthrow of our meaningless vestigial democracy? If so - why did they say those precise things? Collect (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (ec) This whole debate is crazy town. It's pretty unsettling that such active/prolific editors are this determined to label something "fringe" based on their own personal (mis)understanding (or disagreement with) the point being made, instead of actually looking at how Wolin has been treated and responded to by reliable sources & scholars. Not a single piece of evidence of Wolin's fringe-ness has been presented here, and the argument seems to be something along the lines of "well, I find his argument ridiculous, therefore it must be fringe." I'm sorry Collect, Arthur, and others, but you guys as individuals are not the ultimate arbiters of what is or isn't FRINGE, and the way that other academics, reputable journals, and other RS have responded to Wolin makes it crystal clear that he is in no way, shape, or form FRINGE. You can turn a blind eye to that fact all you want, but the actual evidence speaks for itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC) In short - deride the other editors here who have now read hundreds of pages on the topic - including seeking out the opinions of the scholars in the field, and use "proof by assertion" that our assiduous research is faulty, while not providing actual concrete evidence of your proof by assertion? Sorry -- something in there is a tad fallacious. MONGO is a quite literate and prolific content creator (over 60K edits). Arthur Rubin is acquainted a teeny bit with academic rigour (and 100K edits). I am the dwarf of the group with a couple good articles, a few created articles, only about 40K edits on enWiki, and over three decades online during which I have read well over 500 million words (conservative estimate as I was under contract to a major ISP) and responsible for vetting well over 100,000 images and other files. I suggest that 1500 edits is not exactly comparable to any of the three of us. Aeons ago, in fact, I read well over 4,000 pages of texts and sources on "War, Revolution and Totalitarianism." It is not a blank area for me <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC) With all that research under your belt I assume you can restate Wolin's thesis in 250 words or less. Please do so. This would facilitate the identification of any misunderstanding or mis-communication on either side of this debate. A similar short statement refuting his thesis would also be useful. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC) What a totally worthless and inane addition to any discussion. And it is not I' refuting his position - it is multiple scholarly sources including the clear V-A source you yourself asserted means something it quite clearly does not mean. Unfortunately, when people quote stuff without any apparent comprehension but simply claim it asserts what it clearly does not assert, I fear I might be under the wrongful apprehension that the person knows how to Google-search but not to read carefully, paying precise attention to vocabulary and syntax. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure where I derided anyone - my point was that all of you seem to under the impression that your personal assessment of Wolin is all that's required to rule him out as FRINGE, which is obviously not the case. How many pages you've read/created, how many edits you've made, or how "literate" you are is irrelevant here - and you should know better than to try to pull some concept of "wiki seniority:" anyone can edit wikipedia, and no one editor's opinion is more valid than another's. What really matters is whether or not you can show using reliable sources that the scholar we're talking about (Wolin) is outside the mainstream. AS WP:FRINGE clearly states, "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view" - and we've linked you multiple book reviews from scholarly sources which do not reject Wolin as Fringe, multiple academics who cite and use his ideas in their work. Unless you can produce an even larger, even more extensive body of literature which rejects Wolin and labels him a crackpot, then there's nothing much else to debate here. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you feel calling a discussion "crazy town" is how you normally conduct yourself on Wikipedia. I suggest that it is, in fact, derisory. You proceed with "active/prolific editors are this determined to label something "fringe" based on their own personal (mis)understanding (or disagreement with) the point being made" when it is abundantly clear that we cite specific scholarly sources, and make no personal POV comments thereon, other than to point out that Wolin does not have "mainstream acceptance" for this particular new theory. Indeed, I have shown specific misuse and misconstruction of some of the sources alleged to be supportive of Wolin, and cited direct quotes from Wolin and from others who do agree with him which, to most folks on Wikipedia, appear to be either partisan rants, or worse yet, calls for violent revolution to destroy our vestigial bits of democracy. And again -- the very mixed reviews do not show "widespread support" - in fact they show widespread doubt about this new "theory". Now as far as seniority is concerned - yes you might indeed be learned scholars in the field, or you might be skilled Google-counters. I do not care which, in fact, as Wikipedia is, indeed, able to be edited by folks who have had a single course on a topic. That does not mean, however, that when they miscite scholarly journals as supporting a theory, when anyone can read them and find they do not do any such thing, that editors are obliged to give equal credence to such editors. The short list of reviews shows not a single one adopting the theory, in fact. That you view this as widespread scholarly acceptance is an interesting result of "anyone can edit." With regard to totalitarianism, I do not give credence, alas, to anyone who quotes without understanding exactly what they are quoting. Neither Arthur nor MONGO fall into such a class. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Re: Crazy Town, I thought I was clear that I was applying that to this debate in general rather than to any individual editor(s) - rest assured, I wasn't trying to call you or anyone else crazy, I just think the debate we're having here is absurd. And sorry, but I don't see that you've cited "specific scholarly sources" that demonstrate Wolin's fringe-ness, or shown "specific misuse and misconstruction" of the sources we've all cited anywhere on this page. Please, show me exactly where I've "miscited" something, where exactly your "specific scholarly sources" that demonstrate Wolin is Fringe are. Because I'm not seeing where either of those things happened. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC) That's the same tactic the 9/11 truthers employ, demand cited rebuttals to fringe views...the truthers then claim victory because it cannot be referenced....but that's because the fringe view is so fringe mainstream sources do not bother to address it. The fact that no one has bothered to address it proves it is fringe. It's not supported in mainstream sources either. The article Inverted totalitarianism should probably go to Afd.--MONGO 19:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Ok. But truthers don't have their books published by Princeton, or get their books reviewed in major academic journals. Or have numerous academics cite their work. Wolin has done all of those things - none of which is consistent with being "so fringe mainstream sources do not bother to address it." Fyddlestix (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC) See Sokal Hoax. [301] which even hit Springer for quite a few hoax articles. Do reputable publishers get hoaxed? Yep. Do they publish theories which do not get widely accepted? Even more often. Collect (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Collect, there's no hoax here and there's nothing "fringe" about Wolin. As I said before, you're misusing the term to silence criticism and dissent. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I'm starting to understand why other editors have referred to this thread as "crazy town". Collect has added leading questions to these threads, questions that misstate what Wolin and others have actually said. For example, Collect changed this thread title to say "Is the US a totalitarian society using Wolin's theory of "inverted totalitarianism"? Or is that theory WP:FRINGE?" This is very strange, since Wolin himself wrote: Without claiming that the American political system is a "totalitarian regime," I employ totalitarianism as an extreme ideal-type in order to identify certain tendencies towards totalizing power--which I group under the notion of "inverted totalitarianism"--that have culminated in a new but still tentative regime, Superpower... I am not claiming that Superpower has been fully realized in the emergence of an unabashed American empire, any more than Nazi Germany was a perfectly realized totalitarianism. In both cases, the terms "totalitarianism" and "Superpower" refer to aspirations that negate the ideals of the regimes which they supersede--the Weimer parliamentary system in Germany and the American liberal democracy...I have coined the phrase "inverted totalitarianism" in order to underscore the peculiar combination of two contrasting, but not necessarily opposing, tendencies. So, it appears that for every claim made about Wolin by editors in this "crazy town" thread, we find the exact opposite claims made by Wolin himself. Funny, that. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Is the apparent call for revolution in the US a WP:FRINGE position as stated by Wolin on the Truthdig site? Again from the truthdig cite: “You need a professional or elite class devoted to profound change,” Saul said. “If you want to get power you have to be able to hold it. And you have to be able to hold it long enough to change the direction. The neoconservatives understood this. They have always been Bolsheviks. They are the Bolsheviks of the right. Their methodology is the methodology of the Bolsheviks. They took over political parties by internal coups d’état. They worked out, scientifically, what things they needed to do and in what order to change the structures of power. They have done it stage by stage. And we are living the result of that. The liberals sat around writing incomprehensible laws and boring policy papers. They were unwilling to engage in the real fight that was won by a minute group of extremists.” “You have to understand power to reform things,” Saul said. “If you don’t understand power you get blown away by the guy who does. We are missing people who believe in justice and at the same time understand how tough power and politics are, how to make real choices. And these choices are often quite ugly.” Is this a fringe view? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Again nice straw man - I like how you double down with "violent revolution. Frame the question without the hyperbole and it would be interesting to engage on. As to what you quote, think metaphor. Jbh (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC) And the truth is it sure does sound like violent revolution being called for - did you read Saul's position? And Wolin's? And the ideal that 'special wonderful people will be the one's to hold power after all the meaningless democratic bits are gone, and these folks will have the need to make "ugly choices"? and it does not read like a "harmless metaphor" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Sounds like to you, not said by him. As to the "special wonderful people" sounds a lot like Leo Strauss from what I recall. Jbh (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)Instead of your hyberbole from Truthdig let us look at what Wolin actually has to say on the subject and how a scholar makes use of it. "As soon as the Asia-Pacific war ended, the debate ensued as to whether Japan's political formation of the 1930s could rightly be called fascist. For the last half century, we have repeatedly returned to the futile dispute over whether that which contemporary local intellectuals analyzed and condemned under the name fascism in Japan during the 1930s was really a form of fascism, and whether Japanese fascism could qualify as such since some of its features clearly contradicted the definition of fascism in general, whose [End Page 161] authenticity is seen as derived from the history of the West. How frequently has the absence of a grassroots fascist movement in interwar Japan been mentioned as a condition that disqualifies any social or political movement from being fascist? Today, however, this is exactly the feature of the current U.S. reign that such liberal political scientists as Sheldon Wolin describe as "inverted totalitarianism." Wolin provides an illuminating analysis of present-day American society: "The crucial element that sets off inverted totalitarianism from Nazism is that while the latter imposed a regime of mobilization upon its citizenry, inverted totalitarianism works to depoliticize its citizenry, thus paying a left-handed compliment to the prior experience of democratization. Where the Nazis strove to give the masses a sense of collective power and confidence, Kraft durch Freude (or 'strength through joy'), the inverted regime promotes a sense of weakness, collective futility that culminates in the erosion of the democratic faith, in political apathy and the privatization of the self."[3] The use of the term inverted signifies that "while the current system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the 'streets' were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive — while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government."[4] According to this definition, then, was Japanese fascism of the 1930s already inverted?" Bolding and emphisis mine. -Jbh [3Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought, expanded edition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 592. [4]Sheldon S. Wolin, "Inverted Totalitarianism," Nation, May 19, 2003, www.thenation.com/doc/20030519/wolin. Jbh (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Or possibly this from that bastion of revolution The Johns Hopkins University Press. In order to conclude these reflections, it might be helpful to briefly dwell on Wolin’s recent treatment of the transformation of political form in the United States; namely, on Wolin’s Democracy Incorporated, where an impassioned critique of the transformation of US political form under the reign of Bush Jr. is traced and where lines of enmity are drawn. In it, Wolin magisterially traces the role of elites in truncating democracy in the United States, and though he overstates the nature of the changes between Bush and its predecessors – something that Wolin’s own writings of the nineties attest to – he offers a nomenclature of political forms that provides an important clue to understand the present predicament of power.30 With more than dim echoes of Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, in Democracy Incorporated Wolin argues that forms of total power, or totalitarianism as he calls it, can take different forms, even if the animating principle remains the same. Equipped with this caveat, Wolin thus challenges prevalent, self-satisfied accounts that will reduce the experience of total power to the historical instantiations of the past century and dismiss the idea that a deeply anti-democratic form of total power has crystallized in the United States, especially after 11 September 2001. Previous to this juncture, Wolin has argued that the nineties were distinguished by what he called an heir to the Economic Polity, the idea of Superpower which embodied a benign form of total power in its capitalist, neoliberal guise. Once more reverting to Aristotelian taxonomies, in Democracy Incorporated he identifies Superpower as the good political form that characterized the US of the Clinton years, with its booms and other neoliberal avatars, and Inverted Totalitarianism with its perverted form. Namely, if during the nineties democracy in the United States has been housed, and thus continued to be rendered domestic, by what Wolin calls Superpower, in the first decade of the millennium it became further subjugated by Inverted Totalitarianism, Superpower’s perverted form. Bold mine - Jbh Damn, that is some really FRINGEy stuff. Who would have thought that there is a mainstream liberal political philosopher who thought the 1990's US was a better place than post 2001. Of course what is said in Truthdig is much more accurate than the peer reviewed literature of the field. <g> Jbh (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Vazquez-Arroyo's summary/abstract means what here? It is not an official opinion of JHU to be sure. It is V-A's opinion. all of it by the newly minted president, who a few months later became a Nobel laureate for peace, thus lending a new lease of credibility to the benign face of American imperium, even if the war on terror is now Obama’s war (the continuous reliance on the mercenary armies of Blackwater has also become his. And yet, we live in democratic times. At least this is the strange message one not only hears in the corridors of power in the west and across the political spectrum, but also among intellectuals: at one pole of the political spectrum the Freedom House celebrates the twentieth century as “the democratic century”; on the other, we have figures of impeccable leftist credentials, like Tom Nairn who asserts the awesome spread of democracy and the possibility of recasting a democratic form of national identity even if the spread of democracy has implied diluting it of substance. Also on the left, one finds the wide-eyed miraculism of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s now complete trilogy (Empire, Multitude, Commonwealth), who despite having European, mostly French and Italian theoretical signposts, is drenched with chronic American upbeatness and the pieties of the “can do” credo whose popularity is in inverse proportions with its political import Does Wolin's revolution get into the summary? Nope. Not even a word. But you find a mention in the full paper - where the author finds it not worth placing in his summary's first 700 words (which has a readability of 19 -- which I managed to wade through reasonably quickly). The interesting, but totally unreadable snippet you give has a readability of 9. It is, in fact, less readable than the abstract I cited above. A readability index of 9 translates into a grade level of 20 (post-doctoral in the field) to comprehend. Indeed, V-A is not endorsing Wolin in that shard, he is saying "this is what Wolin argues" after avoiding mentioning him! Cheers -- but that sort of "mention" is exactly what one means by "fringe". And as an exercise, I invite you to rewrite the unreadable stuff into any normal language (French, German or English are fine by me, I never got past eight weeks of Greek, an introductory Russian dictionary, and four years of Latin, and I got into trouble using the wrong flavour of spoken Spanish in Mexico <g>). Collect (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC) These are the sections of the papers that deals with Wolin, not abstracts. Earlier, I remember you complaining that Wolin was only discussed in the introduction not the main text - now you say the source is no good because he is in the body but not the abstract??!!?? Bah. Just what do you want some guy writing a paper saying "This paper is about Wolin.... I agree with Wolin...Wolin is god.... " Never going to happen. You now seem to be defending a position just for the sake of defending it. Why do you expect a Wolin in the summary? Who said it was an "official opinion of JHU" such a thing does not exist. It is however one of the pre-eminent university presses in the country and not known for printing crazy stuff. As to 'endorsing' Wolin, the very use of him is an 'endorsement'. One need not agree with another scholar to endorse the validity of their position. None of what you said above addresses the point. And what is this Wolin's revolution stuff? Why would someone address a mis-read metaphor that exists only in your view gleaned from a popular press piece from TruthDig. It might be WP:RS here but it is crap for describing what scholars think about another scholar's thesis. Also, try addressing the text, readability scores are not on point and have nothing to do with acceptance. Red herring - caught and released. <g> Jbh (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC) The "popular press piece" is an extensive series of interviews with Wolin. Are you saying that Hedges did not interview Wolin? That the quotes are wrong? (note - they are a verbatim transcript of the video interviews). Usually a person's own words are sufficient to state that they are the person's own words. Are you saying Chris Hedges is not a notable person to conduct such interviews, that he is merely "popular press" here? And the wording from Wolin did not sound "metaphorical" at all - and a metaphor which does not sound like a metaphor is a damn poor metaphor. By the way, an unreadable passage where my reading is substantially different from your reading, is a splendid exampled of why absurdly low readability scores frequently indicate a real problem with prose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you for inviting me back to your talk page. I think the debate has passed its 'sell by date' since the chance of either of us changing our position is zero without radical and highly improbable information coming to light. I have enjoyed our conversation though. I am sorry you thought I was being snarky about your block my intended emphasis was on help pass the time not your block no snark was intended. Enjoy your day! Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC) The material you quoted and bolded I waded through. The source does not state support for those positions. You averred Or possibly this from that bastion of revolution The Johns Hopkins University Press where the JHU has naught to do with whether Wolin was properly cited above as supporting violent revolution. In fact this source that you give does not negate that cite and quotes. And the material you give from this cite (which I deciphered) does not support a claim that V-A supports Wolin's thesis. ::::Lastly you aver using Wolin in an article at all is an endorsement of Wolin's arguments. Do you really, truly, present that as a claim? Using a person in a short piece where they say "In order to conclude these reflections, it might be helpful to briefly dwell on Wolin’s recent treatment " (where I suggest "conclude" means this is the end of the topic, and that V-A will only treat Wolin's latest arguments "briefly") becomes a resounding agreement with Wolin? "Conclude" and "briefly" are reasonably clear words here. V-A calls this an " an impassioned critique ", "he overstates the nature of the changes ", " challenges prevalent, self-satisfied accounts" etc. sound like not a very ringing endorsement, frankly. Collect (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC) One of the tried and true propaganda tactics is to deliberately associate peaceful people with allegations of violence. And when those claims fail, they often find themselves accused of sex or drug crimes. This has been a successful tactic for more than a century to destroy critics and popular movements. There are entire books written about this subject. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)   [Ijon Tichy note: in fact it has been a successful tactic for thousands of years.] Vazquez-Arroyo is trying to destroy a popular movement? I did not see V-A accuse anyone of sex crimes, for sure, but the quotes he gives appear to stand for themselves. I would be amazed if V-A were doing anything of the sort at all. Or are you asserting the Truthdig quotes are faked? [302] seems to quote people as saying: think the proper emphasis should be on discussing it carefully, that is to say, I mean by carefully not timidly, but carefully in the sense that we would really have to be breaking new ground. And I think it’s because of the nature of the forces we’ve been talking about that constitute a challenge, I think, the like of which hasn’t happened before, and that we’ve got to be very sure, because of the interlocked character of modern society, that we don’t act prematurely and don’t do more damage than are really justifiable, so that I think revolution is one of those words that I’m not so sure we shouldn’t find a synonym that would capture its idea of significant, even radical change, but which somehow manages, I think, to discard the physical notions of overthrow and violence that inevitably it evokes in the modern consciousness. And I don’t have a solution to that, but I think that that’s required. A faked quote? If so, then I agree we should not use Truthdig for anything on Wikipedia. So I think we do have to start striving for a new kind of vocabulary that would help us express what we mean by radical change without simply seeming to tie ourselves to the kind of previous notions of revolution. Seems fairly clear there. Well, I guess I'm not quite certain. I'm not quite certain in the sense that I think your formulation would rely more than I would on trying to persuade the powers that be and the structure to change course or modify their behavior and modify their beliefs, and I don't think that's possible. Or if it's possible, it's not possible on a large scale. There might be deviants and rebels who would. But I really think it's--I mean, to have the form that I think would really justify calling it revolution, I think it has to be generated and shaped outside the power structure, and I think because what you're trying to do is to enlist and educate groups and individuals who have not had a political education or experience of much of any kind, and so that your task is compounded. For those who think the basic problem is just seize power, you're still confronted by that in that formula with a population that's basically unchanged, and that you then face the kind of cruel choices of forcing them to change so that they can support your structure, so that the real, I think, really difficult challenge is to accompany the attempt to gain power with an equally strong emphasis on public education that makes it, so to speak, a potentially responsible repository of that power. Is that faked as well? I would not have thought Hedges would so mislead people. Ah well -- guess the folks at Truthdig are not to be trusted, right? Collect (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC) See WP:HARASS Collect, please stop attributing these ideas to Wolin when you are citing other people. If Wolin has not advocated violence in his published work, then you need to stop making these smears. The only person I follow on Truthdig is Robert Scheer, who is more centrist than you might think. In any case, I don't believe in violence, but I believe in a revolution of conscience, a spiritual revolution that takes place in the mind of the individual when one finally realizes for the first time that the cultural values one is born into are not set in stone. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I am attributing nothing at all -- I cited Truthdig which has a series of interviews with Wolin, and all I did is use exactly what that site says Wolin specifically said, and what Hedges specifically said. If you feel that are fraudulent, complain to Truthdig. Accusing me of fabricating the quotes is abhorrent and a gross personal attack, so I trust you would not try that maneuver. There is no national institution in the United States “that can be described as democratic,” he said. is from [303]. Is that a fake quote of some sort? If you persist in attacking me for what others say, I would consider such an accusation to be in bad faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC) You have misinterpreted analogies and metaphors, and cherry picked discussions to try and make it seem like Wolin is calling for jihad. That's absurd. Please review his published work (linked above) and find this alleged call for violence. It's not there. Please find the call to violence in the concept of inverted totalitarianism. It's not there. Please find the violence in his lectures and interviews. Again, it's not there. You're really reaching to try and smear him. Surely you can find a single reliable source that paints him as fringe? Just one? No? Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I used the exact words found in the Truthdig pages. That is how Wikipedia works - we use what the sources say, not what we know to be the "truth." I trust you will agree that I quoted the source precisely here. And I would note I never used the word "jihad" in this discussion whatsoever, and that makes it look like you are, indeed, reading words into my posts which are simply not present in the first place. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Collect, please stop with the original research and provide a single reliable secondary source that claims Wolin is fringe. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC) See WP:HARASS and stop it now. Collect (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Is Florida a "fringe" state filled with fringe politicians who believe in fringe ideas? Should we update all of our Florida articles and political biographies to reflect that the state no longer subscribes to science but to its own version of reality funded by the Koch brothers? "Florida officials "ban" the term "climate change"[304] "Billionaires Charles and David Koch have helped to fuel conservative activism in Florida, by spending millions over the years to establish elaborate political operations in the state. As a result, Florida has become something of a testing ground for anti-government campaigning from the Kochs’ primary group, Americans for Prosperity."[305] What do you think? Do we need a new Florida fringe guideline? Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I think that some politicians in every state, territory and nation-state either believe in or campaign on fringe ideas. I don't think that there is any need to single out Florida (my personally least favorite state among the 50) when kookiness is universal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Cullen, I'm not entirely serious, but I am raising points for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC) And WP:HARASS is in full force again -- not to mention that "Florida" is neither mentioned as my home on my user page nor user-talk page, this is beyond harassment and verges on attacking using personal information. See WP:OUTING as well Viriditas -- your campaign to drive me off of Wikipedia is not something for you to be proud of, ever. Thryduulf, Sandstein, Newyorkbrad, MONGO, NE Ent, Callanecc, Robert McClenon, AGK kindly take note. Collect (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Nope, I'm not taking note of random disputes on random user talk pages. if you think admin action is required as a result of anything that happens here, you can request it at WP:AE or in a forum described in WP:DR, as the case may be.  Sandstein  15:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Sandstein as I am currently blocked, that suggestion is not all that useful when the acts of harassment are present. Perhaps blocked users should be allowed to post at DR, but so far that is not the case. I am about to frankly call it quits if this Catch-22 is so damned important when a person is actively being subjected to harassment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) The Signpost's interview with user:Newyorkbrad piqued my curiosity, whereupon I found the following quotation on his current talk page [306] (permanent link). Bias and prejudice "An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group." — Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), adopted by the WP:Arbitration committee, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias_and_prejudice This (now traditional) principle and its rational/bureaucratic authority, beyond its luster from Brad's charismatic authority, may be useful in your ongoing saga. ANI discussion: Harassment, hounding and baiting by Viriditas at User talk:Collect Collect (talk · contribs) is serving a week-long block and asked Viriditas (talk · contribs) to cease harassing him (see WP:HARASS) yet Viriditas persists baiting Collect nevertheless [307]. This not a new pattern for Viriditas and its pretty ridiculous he should be misusing a blocked editor's talk page for harassing him.--MONGO 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I appreciate MONGO's concern, but there is no evidence of any harassment of any kind occurring, just lively and energized debate among many editors with different opinions. MONGO may have also misinterpreted Collect's colorful use of section headers which were added after the discussion, which likely contributed to MONGO's confusion about this so-called "harassment". I'm happy to stay away from Collect's talk page for the moment, if that will alleviate MONGO's misplaced, but well-meaning concern about Collect's talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC) How about just leaving him alone? Your input clearly isn't helping. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Will do. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC) There's no need for me to be there, so I won't be participating on his talk page. I am curious as to 1) why he thinks I'm harassing him 2) why he thinks my satirical analogy between his question (Is the US a totalitarian society?) and my question ("Is Florida a "fringe" state?") is a form of outing and attacking using personal information that does not apply to him in any way, and 3) why he thinks I'm trying to drive him off of Wikipedia? I'm not looking for an answer here, but if anyone wants to leave me a message on my talk page addressing just exactly what he's talking about, I would appreciate it. I feel like I've accidentally walked into an alternative reality. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I haven't commented on Collect's talk page since 06:42, 9 March. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC) taunting a blocked editor is unacceptable.--MONGO 14:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC) No, I don't agree with your assessment. I was not harassing nor taunting anyone, and there is no evidence of harassment from me on his talk page. There is evidence that a discussion was not going his way and he sought to end the thread. That's all. Disagreeing with someone is not harassment. Making a joke about Florida is not harassment. Further, he not only falsely claimed I was harassing him, he also claimed I was outing him and trying to drive him away from Wikipedia, which is just ridiculous. None of that matters, of course, because I have said I would not comment on his page out of respect, but I will not agree with your assessment, which appears intended to confuse the issue and give the false impression that the "harassment" is continuing. I will repeat, I have not commented on his page since 06:42, 9 March, no matter how much you try and spin it otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC) I haven't touched his talk page since 06:42, 9 March, nor do I have any intention of returning there anytime soon. Collect didn't like the result of a discussion so he made a series of strange edits pointing me to WP:HARASS, which makes no sense in the context of that discussion. At the same time, a news story about Florida appeared online, and I posted a link to it as a joke, creating a satirical analogy with his previous claim. At no time was there any harassment, only a disagreement and a humorous link to a news item and friendly banter. Please stop trying to spin this otherwise as it simply isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has just been started - alas it appears to be Coatrack from the Rick Scott article with its current content and sourcing. I find no sign that the organization is generally notable, but the author is the one who filed the ArbCom case against me - so I dare not touch this one. If the organization is notable, I would like to know. Right now its "claim to fame" is its allegation that Florida employees are officially barred for saying "climate change." Including a claim that since Scott does not answer questions about the "ban" that this s somehow "notable" in itself. I have now been quite successfully harassed from anything remotely connected to politics or BLPs on Wikipedia by the many complaints and noticeboard posts, and even a "proposal" on my UT page that we declare Florida officially a "fringe state" filled with "fringe politicians" with "fringe ideas" which I find a clear case of harassment, alas. In any event, I will not touch this "organization" but think the views of others on its inherent notability may be worthwhile. Cheers. 12:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC) What? Making an entire state subject to WP:FRINGE? I mean, Florida might be an epicentre of bullshit, but WTF? 23:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC) The context was, to my reading I was part of the Wolin discussion, a hyperbolic comment about the use of analogies in a discussion about whether Sheldon Wolin and his concept of Inverted Totalitarianism were FRINGE. Here is a diff [308] of the exchange between Viriditas and Collect leading up to that comment. Jbh (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Exactly. It was an analogous joke based on Collect's use of similar leading questions in subject headings. As that lengthy, multi-thread discussion shows, Collect does not do well with analogies and metaphors, as he interprets them quite literally. This is one reason (of many), that I find it impossible to communicate with him. And notice, even after it was explained to him that this was a joke on three separate occasions, he is still insisting that it is a real and serious proposal. Clearly, there is more than just a simple reading comprehension problem at work here. He's been repeatedly informed it was a joke yet says above that this is a serious proposal. This is about as WP:IDHT as one can get. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks to the link leading to the complaint about your harassment of Collect, which was ongoing even after he asked you to stop, which you were doing while he was blocked and now you accuse him of reading comprehension issues, a personal attack.--MONGO 01:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC) On the contrary, I've never harassed Collect, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. You sure are fond of making baseless assertions over and over again sans evidence. Clearly, there is a reading comprehension problem at work; Collect has been informed of the joke and had the joke explained to him, and yet, he still insists it isn't a joke. If that's not a reading comprehension problem, then it's IDHT compounded by a difficulty reading. I hope this is the last time I have to correct your errors. BTW, repeatedly accusing me of harassment is harassment. And these repeated appeals to Jimbo compound the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC) This fact that you were not harassing him is why numerous editors asked you to not harass him. 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Nonsense. I stopped posting on Collect's talk page before you ever filed a report and before anyone ever asked me to stop. No harassment ever took place. You seem to be fond of making false allegations over and over again. This is similar to saying "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" over and over again, even when there is no evidence. Where's the evidence of harassment? It doesn't exist. Collect said he felt harassed, and you filed a report. So you created the evidence, much like the rationale for the Iraq War. I hope the analogy works for you. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC) The evidence of harassment was not "created" by MONGO. It is clear who was doing the harassing, and it was damn sure not I. I posted See WP:HARASS and stop it now. Collect (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC) You posted Thanks, Cullen, but I'm not entirely serious (but I am raising points for discussion). Mostly, I'm trying to keep Collect occupied during his "vacation". Idle hands and all that.... :-) Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC) which damn sure looks like deliberate harassment form 93 million miles away. And more than six hours later. I had not raised your blatant harassment here -- but when a person who is deliberately harassing another is successful, they damn sure should not claim a third party "created" the evidence. You have been successful in driving me away from Wikipedia. You have been successful in making me feel threatened and intimidated, in taking actions intended to be "noticed by the target", and in seeking to make editing Wikipedia to be "unpleasant for the target." So when you then attack MONGO as though he were the one at fault, I shall defend MONGO. You can damn sure intimidate me and accuse me of lying and anything you damn well want, but attacking MONGO for "creating" this charge is one of the lowest forms of debate I have ever seen on Wikipedia - and I have been attacked by the best of them -- remember Ikip at his worst? He would never have sunk that far. I find your accusation against MONGO despicable and vile. And you can add that to your laundry list of charges over the years. Accusing other editors of "creating" evidence is, indeed despicable and I have no fear from you whatsoever. Yes, you have successfully driven me off - but attacking others is not something I will stand idly by for. To all - cheers, and sail straight and true. 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. You appear to have misunderstood yet another comment. I have no idea what you could possibly mean when you say you have been "driven off", as it makes no sense. Our discussion occurred when you were blocked, so you could not edit. Frankly, I really have no desire to interact with you at all because it is impossible to understand you, but I keep getting pinged into these discussions. You misrepresented a comment I made in your initial post here. Why would you constantly bring me up if you thought I was harassing you? In such a situation, people avoid such harassers, they don't constantly refer to and invoke them. I really think you and MONGO are engaging in deliberate baiting and trolling so you can attack me when I respond to your misrepresentations. If you and others would just stop making wild claims and accusations about me, I'm sure we would have nothing to talk about. Enjoy your weekend. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC) The article Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has recently been beefed up, and it now looks entirely legitimate. Maybe we should contact FCIR to investigate the personality conflict between editors, described above (surely FCIR would do a better job of it than ArbCom).Anythingyouwant (talk)

Sub-Section

Interesting analysis, and (temporary) retirement essay, from admin TParis

SO LONG, AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH I've decided to quit the project. I'm not doing this out of anger or resentment, though I do have a bit of both. This has been long thought out and planned for over a year. I've lost interest in the project, mostly in being an admin. I don't feel I can turn in the admin hat without the issues I was involved in as an admin not haunting me and paying me special visits. I'd rather just call it a day completely. I love this project, I love it's idea, and I love it's spirit. Thank you all for being great friends and sharing a great ideal. For the most part, my experience on this has been very positive. I don't know that I've achieved much of anything lasting here. Many of my contributions could be described as a MMORPG style participation. I was active in ANI and AN, enforcing discretionary sanctions, closing RFCs, ect. I spent some time closing AFDs, doing CSDs, patrolling UAA, but none of that lasted longer than six months. At my RfA I said I'd fight deletion and UAA backlogs and I don't think I did any of that well. I lost stamina early. I haven't been an admin in anything other than name for a very long time. I average perhaps five tool actions per month for over a year with the exception of a hour here and there of "I'm going to try to make a difference today" in some backlog. So, as an admin, I'm not sure I did my part. Perhaps my biggest achievement as an admin is in finding other potential candidates to encourage to run. I'm happy that those people were successful and I'm sorry for what the hell I've encouraged them to volunteer for. As a content contributor, I fell even further behind. I've created a few articles that I am proud of, I've saved a few from deletion that I am proud of. My biggest contribution though was to military-related subjects in Hawaii. If I do come back at all, it'll be to work on these articles. Thank you to everyone who helped me get Ford Island on the main page on Dec 7th, there is no way at all that I am qualified to write a featured article and it was only by the grace, patience, diligence, and guidance of everyone involved on that article that it even remotely passes as an FA. I am sure that the talents of Malleus/Eric could still find plenty to fix and that there were some shortcomings in my writing. In fact, I'm not entirely sure I'd be offended if someone were to decide that it wasn't FA material and demote the article. I wanted to stray from the norm and speak out to a few very special people who have influenced me not only on this project but their perspectives have changed some of my life opinions. Many of these folks have acted as mentors, as a tiller, as a sounding board, as a critical dissenting opinion, as a double check, or simply as a growing opportunity for me. There is no particular order to this list, I mostly just wanted to say thanks and appreciate people for their time and friendship. Apologies to anyone who felt that we've had a personal connection and I've forgotten to mention you. Thank you's User:Dennis Brown — Dennis, you are a mentor in so many ways and I think your are the epitome of administrators here. Not just because you keep a cool head, but because after so many years on this project I still have no idea what your politics and pet issues are. I really don't know much of anything about you. And if you've managed to avoid labels, then you must be doing something right. Thank you for always being a sounding board, a calm voice, a peace builder, and a partner on a lot of issues. Even in times where we have disagreed, you have shown no less than your highest respect for me and I've always felt comfortable being completely honest with you. User:NE Ent — I don't think we've agreed on just about anything. But I've always recognized you are a sound mind with good insight. Even when we disagree, you've always managed to get me to rethink and question my position. I think you are undervalued on this project and I hope that at some point you'll be recognized for your attempts to seek fairness and justice. User:Bbb23 — It has been a pleasure knowing and working with you. We've disagreed so many times and every time you've shown immense amounts of respect and understanding and I just cannot think of anyone I'd rather disagree with. User:Drmies — Doctor Mies, what can a guy say? Like Bbb23, you are one of the best guys to not agree with. Thanks for covering my back even when we've disagreed. You've described me as reasonable and thoughtful even when you've considered some of my decisions to be wrong. I think you give me too much credit, and I've always enjoyed hearing your point of view and considering the points on where it contrasts with mine. User:Floquenbeam — You are the epitome of everything right with this project. I've always appreciated your mentor-ship and I'm sorry we've had a few quibbles in the past that left you with a poor feeling about me. User:Gamaliel — If I had an equal and opposite, it would be you. Our politics are almost completely opposite and yet you've always treated me kindly. I don't always agree with the actions you've taken, but you've kept an open ear to my concerns and have been willing to consider them. I was just rereading an heated issue I got into about a year ago and you were there to speak up for me and you gave a solid perspective that convinced a lot of people that I wasn't crazy and there was legitimacy to my thinking at the time. Thank you for treating me like a partner on this project instead of an enemy. User:Ponyo — On the subject of people who aren't noticed for their hard work, someone needs to make you administrator of the year. You do so much behind the scenes with a level of stamina that I was never able to sustain. You're one of Wikipedia's unsung heroines. I so much appreciate you making UTRS a success and ensuring that it didn't die a sad death after the developers (including me) went inactive. User:Joefromrandb — I don't think we'll ever agree on what the circumstances were that led me to block you initially. But what we can agree on is that I was arrogant and rude during and after the event and that wasn't how I want people to think of me. I'm sorry that our feud lasted so long, but I appreciate that you were polite enough to avoid me for that entire period and we were not always at each others throats. There were even a few times when we stood up for each other despite our feud and I appreciate your honesty and integrity at those times. I'm happy we were able to put it behind us. User:Cyberpower678 — I don't see myself returning to the project in the future - at least not to the level I am involved with it now. However, I could see myself coming back specifically to nominate you as an administrator. You have a nom from me if you ever want one. You are hard working, you know this project upside down and blindfolded, and I'd trust you explicitly. You had a very rough start and I'll admit I got upset a few times, but you've turned out to be an essential part of this project. Your technical expertise is superb. You are the man, dude. User:Mark Miller — I really hope that one day you can visit Hawaii and enjoy learning about your heritage. It's a rich heritage. I recommend you learn your native tongue before you make the trip because a lot of the oral traditions only exist in Hawaiian and you'll miss out. User:Dainomite — I think you'll make a great administrator one day. Thanks for your service and thanks for being an expert in residence on down-range military topics. User:Viriditas — It's tough meeting someone you disagree so strongly with when you first meet them and ending up building a friendship out of it. Thank you for your support on Hawaii topics, thank you for the kind words you've said about me, and thank you for being a voice for minorities on Wikipedia. User:Kudpung — I don't know why I originally opposed your candidacy. I found something worth opposing at the time but clearly whatever it was hasn't reared it's head in your entire time as a sysop. I've enjoyed counting you as a friend on this project and working through issues with you. It was always a pleasure seeing you at ANI. User:Worm That Turned — Thank you for keeping an open ear to me during your time on Arbcom. I think your adoption program should be a model for adoption all over Wikipedia. You clearly know how to crank out great editors. User:A Quest For Knowledge & User:The Devil's Advocate — There are times I've wanted to slap you two and other times I've wanted to hug you for being the minority voice in an endless echo chamber. Thank you for standing up for what you think is right. I know I've chewed you two out plenty of times, but I did always read your perspectives on everything I encountered you at. Keep being thoughtful and critical - even if I think you're wrong. This project needs dissenting voices to keep everyone grounded. User:Dream Focus — We've disagreed so many times on subject notability but you've, for the most part, always been polite about it. I think you do good work and I feel like you're a bit disillusioned with the project. Even though we disagree, I wanted to let you know that I respect what you do. Keep up the solid effort. User:DeltaQuad — Had tons of fun with you hanging out in Berlin and working on UTRS together. Good luck in the future, you're a smart guy and will do great things. User:Accounting4Taste — You're gone now, but I hope that you might still be around on a clean start account. If you are, know that I always appreciated your early guidance and well thought out advice in my early days on this project. User:Andrevan — I honestly don't know you that well but I was surprised when you described us as having a feud. I'm sorry that I gave you that impression that I ever thought of you negatively and if I had known you had that impression of me sooner then I would have sought you out sooner. I still disagree with your close of that RfA, but I'm happy we were able to move on. This project needs less feuds and more people willing to let things go and I'm happy we were able to do that. User:MONGO — I'm sorry that things are ending on a bad note between us. The timing of the issues that were raised could not have been worse as far as my retirement goes. I hope that someday you can see that I gave the issue as much impartiality as I could muster. I'm a huge Chris Kyle fan and I'd hate to see his article trashed with pages of ignorant dribble by political hacks but I also think that your perceptions aren't entirely accurate. I know you were hoping for more help than I provided, I'm sorry I couldn't do more. User:SandyGeorgia — Thank you for all those times when you were very friendly to me despite the other times I showed less appreciation for content writers than I ought. You've set me straight a couple of times but you've never shown me any sort of contempt and I appreciate that. Thank you for your help getting Ford Island to FA status as well. User:GorillaWarfare — I disagree strongly with how you do what you do, but I support you all the same. I don't know what it'll take to solve Wikipedia's gender gap and what it will take to convince the community that it exists and we can benefit from solving it. I've always felt my way was the gentler approach, but who knows, your way could be better. Keep fighting that fight because there aren't many people as vocal as you are and if our goal is an unbiased encyclopedia then we need to fight even unintentional biases by having a more diverse user base. Your fight is a good fight, I encourage you to keep going and not lose faith. User:Fluffernutter — Thank you for always being sounding board for me and sending me those curt emails to knock it off when I've lost my mind. I've always appreciated having somebody watching my back and telling me when I'm not thinking straight. User:Black Kite — Thank you for being open to discussion and keeping me straight with your thoughtful arguments. I appreciate having your critique and your support. What contributed to my feelings to go? For those of you who have a hard time accepting perspectives that differ from your own, you can skip to the finally - you won't be happy with anything I say anyway. Anyone else who is interested in my perspective on this project should continue to read. One of the primary reasons I am leaving is because of the harassment I received and the community's lack of response against it by Coretheapple, Smallbones, Figureofnine and Atethnekos. In 2013, I wrote an article off-line and emailed it to a client who paid for the writing with the intention of the client posting it on Wikipedia. I, personally, have never made an edit on Wikipedia for money or used my identity or reputation to add content to Wikipedia that otherwise would never survive on it's own merits. Despite that, these editors have insisted on calling me a paid editor. Coretheapple, particularly, has gone around the project into topics I haven't even been involved into mention how he knows of at least 1 administrator who gets paid to edit. The constant hounding and harassment by these four really just shows me that editors have nothing better to do than to attack each other with venom and can expect nothing out of the community for it. In 2014, the WMF passed new terms of service that allowed each Wikipedia project the option to opt out of certain COI disclosure requirements. SlimVirgin and Jytog attempted to start an impartial and unbiased RFC on the subject after I voluntarily terminated my own RFC in favor of their efforts. When these four realized the RFC would happen, they filibustered and derailed until both SlimVirgin and Jytog had enough and decided they wouldn't volunteer their time. It was one of the worst cases of gaming the system and bad faith I've ever seen on this project - and no one cared. What incensed me the most was a comparison of paid editing to drunk driving - a clear personal attack and BLP violation. The fact that editors can make intentional attacks and then play it off like they had no idea it would or could be offensive, even denying the history of the attack, is one of the major contributions to the failure of the civility policy. It has created an expressway out of the civility policy: say your attack, deny it's background, and good faith will protect you. Another of the major issues that has disillusioned me is the blatant and no-apologies-made liberal bias in political articles. Editors with a liberal slant have been going to articles on conservative organizations and people and have made an effort to add "conservative" as a pejorative to these articles as early on and as often as possible while simultaneously insisting that there is no reason to mark liberal personalities as liberal. The article I encounter this most often is RealClearPolitics where editors have attempted to assert that it was "founded by conservatives" despite the living people never identifying themselves as conservative. Another examples are the lead paragraphs of the liberal-learning Newsweek and the conservative leaning The Weekly Standard. Immediately in the first sentence, The Weekly Standard is described as neoconservative. On Newsweek, there is a single sentence under media bias about a report describing it as liberal-leaning and an entire paragraph and a sentence by liberal organizations such as Media Matters for America, which happily describes itself as anti-conservative on it's very own about page, used as an independent neutral third party to refute the claims. Greek_government-debt_crisis#Alleged_pursuit_of_national_self-interest is a Marxist defense of Greece and attack on Germany's success in a clear NPOV violation to push the socialism viewpoint and attack capitalism. It quotes Paul Krugman making an ad hominem assault on Germany without science or academics to back up his claims and amounts to "don't listen to them" and using "Nobel prize winning" as an appeal to authority. The entire section contains an entirely slanted point of view and several clear instances of original research such as: "Germans see their government finances and trade competitiveness as an example to be followed by Greece, Portugal and other troubled countries in Europe, but the problem is more than simply a question of southern European countries emulating Germany." "These October 2013 Treasury Department observations would germinate in the very poorest of soil, however, because the year before, in October 2012, Germany had chosen to legally cement its dismissal of these repeated pleas by legislating against the very possibility of stimulus spending, "by passing a balanced budget law that requires the government to run near-zero structural deficits indefinitely." "Even with such policies, Greece and other countries would face years of hard times, but at least there would be some hope of recovery" "By May 2012, there were signs that the status quo, and "it's tough to overstate just how fantastic the status quo has been for Germany", was beginning to change as even France began to challenge German policy," "Battered by criticism,[308] the European Commission finally decided that "something more" was needed in addition to austerity policies for peripheral countries like Greece. "Something more" was announced to be structural reforms—things like making it easier for companies to sack workers—but such reforms have been there from the very beginning, leading Dani Rodrik to dismiss the EC's idea as "merely old wine in a new bottle." This whole section was very clearly written by someone in the EU, and possibly Greece itself, with an point of view to push. I'm thinking it was some University student's essay in an economics class that they then adapted for Wikipedia. I've also witnessed a surprising number of editors arguing that Media Matters for America is a neutral unbiased reliable source while Fox News is not. Media Matters for America openly declares itself anti-conservative on their about page. That's not unbiased, they are targeting conservative news. Anyone using MMfA as a reliable source for facts, and not opinions, is not here to write a neutral encyclopedia. In fact, the article on Fox News has an entire paragraph dedicated to opinion by MMfA. Go over to the article on CBS and there is a single paragraph about CBS flubbing the facts that, for two years, contained a cheap "Well, Bush probably lied anyway" on it until I removed it myself. It's interesting that on a CBS article, not only does it contain significantly less criticism but it also contains an unsourced negative BLP attack cop-out that no one cared enough to remove. And on the subject of opinions, one of my greatest pet peeves is the insistence to include negative personal opinions in articles about conservatives but to argue that such things from the conservative 'blog-o-sphere' is undue and not important on liberal articles. Regarding politics, I have recently been equally disappointed that the articles on Chris Kyle went the other direction. Although I support Chris Kyle, I think there has been a conservative effort to protect the articles from negative information. Enough content exists to write two solid paragraphs and for the content to be weighted properly in the articles. On another article, I was impressed that Casprings offered up cutting out MMfA in return for cutting out Breitbart. Neither should exist and kudos to Casprings for showing some impartiality there. Ultimately, the reasons in this section are secondary to my real reason for leaving which is disinterest. Finally None of that really matters though. Those are just the reasons I don't feel happy here. But even when I was happy, my energy level was waning. I have other interests outside of this project to pursue. I love to read and I want to get back into that. I love to game and I want to do that also. But most importantly I want to spend more time with my family and I believe they are on their last nerve with me and this project. They've supported me during Wikimania 2012, they've supported me while trying to get Ford Island to featured article class, and they've had patience when I was heavily involved in some Wikipedia issue or another. It's time that I devote more attention to them. Very Respectfully, TParis

Additional resources for editing WP

Some resources which may aid in contributing to WP conversations and editing WP articles:

• WP: DGAF
• WP: WikiSloth
• User Heimstern on accepting the fact that Wikipedia is going to suck sometimes
• WP: Boomerang
• WP: Simplified ruleset
• Category:Wikipedia essays explaining processes
• WP: NPOV, V and OR
• WP: Dispute resolution
• WP: Don't take the bait
• WP: Don't be a fanatic
• WP: No angry mastodons
• WP: How to lose
• If people disagree with you or revert your edits, it probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things
• WP: Method for consensus building
• WP: Etiquette
• WP: Civility
• WP: No personal attacks
• WP: Arguments to avoid in edit wars and WP: Edit warring
• WP: Revert only when necessary
• meatball: foster each other, meatball: defend each other and meatball: reciprocal improvement
• WP: ANI Advice
• WP: Civil POV pushing,   WP: Reliable sources and undue weight,   WP: Coatrack,   WP: Attack page,   WP: Disruptive editing,   WP: Tendentious editing,   WP: Advocacy,   WP: Expert retention,   CIVIL POV Pushing Strategies (a user page essay),   User:Ed Poor/POV pushing,   WP: Be neutral in form,   WP: POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields,   WP: Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat (in-depth, highly detailed, highly effective advice on coping with civil POV pushers),   WP: Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you,   WP: New admin school/Dealing with disputes,   WP: Town sheriff,   WP: POV Railroad,   WP: Gaming the system,   WP: WIKILAWYERing
• Free online books on Wikipedia editing, with special emphasis on community building, collaboration and the consensus process (these books are available freely online in text, HTML and/or PDF format, or you can purchase a bound copy from online book sellers): Good Faith Collaboration by Joseph Reagle - full text of the book here ----- How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews and Ben Yates - full text of the book at Wikibooks: b: How Wikipedia Works ----- Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton ----- The Wikipedia Revolution
• WP: Wikipedia is a work in progress
• Burnout (psychology)
• WP: Please do not bite the newcomers
• WP: Status quo stonewalling
• WP: Tendentious editing
• WP: Gaming the system
• WP: Drama
• WP: Ignore all dramas
• WP: Disruptive editing
• WP: Not being here to build an encyclopedia
• WP: Here to build an encyclopedia
• WP: Don't feed the divas
• WP: No vested contributors and meatball: Vested Contributor
• User Jehochman on Responding to rudeness
• User: TenOfAllTrades
• User: Jytdog (I disagree with some of his views, and agree with some)
• User: WLRoss
• User: Spinningspark
• User Redthoreau's Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom
• Category: User essays on civility (more than 25 user essays)
• Category: Wikipedia essays about civility (more than 70 essays)
• User:NE Ent, User:NE Ent/Civility, User:NE Ent/Notes on civility, User:NE Ent/Simple civility principle and User:NE Ent/Cabal
• User:Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopedia problems
• WP: Don't call a spade a spade
• WP: Avoiding difficult users
• Criticism of Wikipedia, WP: Criticisms (not the same as Criticism of Wikipedia), WP: Why Wikipedia is not so great, WP: Wikipedia is failing, WP: Wikipedia is succeeding, WP: Why Wikipedia is so great, WP: Testimonials, and WP: Replies to common objections (including a section comparing WP and communism)
• M: Darwikinism (and be sure to read the essays in the box on the right side of that page)
• M: Wikipedia power structure
• WP: Wikipedia is not a democracy
• WP: Wikipedia is not an anarchy
• WP: Wikipedia is not about winning
• WP: Wikipedia is not therapy
• WP: Wikipedia is not a battleground
• WP: What Wikipedia is not
• WP: WikiLove
• WP: Failure
• WP: Editing controversial subjects
• WP: Reliable_sources/ Noticeboard/ Archive_86#Alternet
• User: Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur
• User: Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy
• User: The Devil's Advocate
• User: Sean.hoyland, User talk: Sean.hoyland, and Sean.hoyland's contributions
• User:Nishidani, User talk: Nishidani, and Nishidani's contributions
• User: Nbauman and Nbauman's contributions
• User: Wetman
• User: Beyond My Ken (I disagree with some aspects of some of his views but I agree with many of his key perspectives; BMK is a very experienced Wikipedia editor and overall I strongly recommend reading [and periodically re-reading] his very long, detailed lists of highly sophisticated, insightful, mature, complex, multi-layered insights into many key aspects of Wikipedia)
• User Antandrus on Wiki Behavior
• User DGG on A librarian's POV
• User: Carrite
• User Ravpapa on How to insert bias into a Wikipedia article
• User Moreschi on Nationalist and religious troublemaking on Wikipedia
• User Raul654's laws
• Lectures, books and essays on effective communication/ negotiation methods. The methods discussed in the following resources can be generalized to potentially assist editors in the process of developing almost all WP articles. The methods discussed: adjusting your expectations, adopting the quality of "brilliant", setting out to make someone "right" instead of "wrong", finding and acknowledging shared values, being a good listener, finding areas of authentic agreement, contributing authentic agreement, using the Socratic method to ask questions and listen to the answers, and knowing when to persist and when to walk away.   Lecture 1 (short) --- Lecture 2 (short) --- Lecture 3 (long) on Nonviolent Communication --- Lecture 4 (long) --- Lecture 5 (long) --- Getting to YES (book) --- Getting Past NO (book) --- The Anxious Organization - Why Smart Companies Do Dumb Things (book) --- WP: No angry mastodons --- WP: Method for consensus building --- WP: Writing for the opponent --- WP: Don't call a spade a spade --- User:NE Ent, User:NE Ent/Civility, User:NE Ent/Notes on civility, User:NE Ent/Simple civility principle and User:NE Ent/Cabal --- Negotiation --- WP: Negotiation (a short essay on negotiation, very different from the full encyclopedic article Negotiation; both the essay and article are useful) --- Appreciative inquiry --- WP: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions --- How to disagree more effectively, by Paul Graham. If you resort to ad hominem-style argument to counter your opponent's argument, then you've already lost. You'd be wise to actually address the issues she has raised instead of attacking her. Ad hominem are not valid arguments on Paul Graham's hierarchy of argument. The first four levels of arguments at the bottom of the hierarchy are not valid. Actual valid argument starts at the fifth level (Counter argument) and good argument is the sixth level (Refutation) and the seventh (Refuting the central point) --- How to negotiate more effectively with people with whom you strongly disagree --- A practical example of the high cost of insisting on being right and refusing to compromise --- Insights into the most powerful forces that affect psychology that may aid in negotiation --- How to deliver constructive feedback/ constructive criticism most effectively (a specific form of negotiation): article 1 and article 2 (the first article is much more insightful and in-depth) --- meatball: foster each other, meatball: defend each other and meatball: reciprocal improvement
• On writing effective paragraphs, i.e., using a topic sentence followed by reasons and examples: Tutorial at Wikihow and Tutorial at Purdue Univ.
• WP: Editors matter
• WP: Administrators
• M: User:Qq/ Voting power is not allocated by donations
• WP: Single-purpose account (SPA)
• M: Megalomaniacal point of view
• WP: Cherrypicking
• WP: No original research (Synthesis)
• WP: These are not original research
• WP: What SYNTH is not
• Meatball: DefendAgainstPassion
• WP: Conflict of interest and WP: Conflict of interest limit
• WP: The Truth
• WP: Lunatic charlatans
• Criticism and Constructive criticism
• WP: Beware of the tigers
• Being an Administrator by Mindspillage
• Civility essay by Geogre
• Ignoring incivility by Heimstern
• Concerns by Tom Harrison
• Essay by Kylu
• Guy's Help page
• Observations by Ant
• On intrinsic motivation by Johnuniq
• On notability by Uncle G
• People People by Geogre
• Umbrage by Jehochman
• WP: There is no justice
• User: Three-quarter-ten
• User: Cyclopia
• User Tom harrison on bad cites
• WP: Owning articles and taking things personally, and WP: You don't own Wikipedia
• Winning arguments
• WP: Editor's index to Wikipedia
• WP: EEML
• WP: WITCHHUNT
• WP: VNT
• WP: COMPREHENSIVE
• WP: Do No Harm (the lines where it explains why it has been rejected: "do no harm" goes in the face of NPOV).
• WP: DISCRIMINATE (explaining one of the most misunderstood WP policies, WP:IINFO)
• WP: Product, process, policy -- The three P's
• WP: The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
• User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles -- One of the oldest set of rules, this statement of principles was written by a founder.
• Wikipedia:Five pillars: Perhaps the most popular set of rules, this was written as a simple summary for new editors.
• Wikipedia:Trifecta: This three-point simplified ruleset was the precursor to the Five Pillars page.
• Wikipedia:Core content policies: Brief summary and a bit of background on our core content policies.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: Blunt and to the point laying out what is Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief: Focuses on the encyclopedic nature of the project.
• Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset: A longer page with more detail
• Wikipedia:Ethics: A list of various ethical codes
• Wikipedia:Ethical Code for Wikipedians
• Wikipedia:Purpose: Wikipedia's purpose
• User:Andrewa/creed: What Wikipedians believe
• Wikipedia:Pledges: Specific principles individual Wikipedians pledge to uphold
• Wikipedia: Here to build an encyclopedia: Behaviors that build, or destroy, the project
• Wikipedia: 8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia
• Wikipedia: Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
• Wikipedia: Historical archive/Rules to consider
• Wikipedia: Wikipedia does not need you   and   Wikipedia: You are not irreplaceable

Some of my additional personal observations on editorial disputes in WP

The articles listed above contain helpful, detailed, in-depth advice on dispute resolution (e.g. the articles on stonewalling, gaming the sys., drama, effective negotiation/ communication etc). The following is intended to complement that body of superb advice but not substitute for it.

In all disputes, work hard to remain cool, calm, and collected. If your edits fully adhere to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and your edits are reverted without sufficiently valid reasoning, or if you are personally attacked or you observe other uncivil or distracting behavior, control your anger. If you are upset or pissed-off, take a Wikibreak. Stay cool when the editing gets hot. Work hard to control your emotions. Do not involve your ego in your talk-page comments and article edits. Leave your ego outside the building, before you enter the room to sit at your computer to edit WP - and bring your heart, passion, rationality and critical thinking into the room. This way, when you observe some ugly behavior by a user or when you "lose" a dispute, you will not misinterpret the nasty behavior or your "loss" as a personal injury or a trauma to your ego, and you'll be a more productive WP editor. Never waste your time (and the time of the community) engaging in (mild or serious) uncivil behavior, personal attacks, sarcasm, cynicism, or any other forms of distraction. (Read WP:drama and WP:Ignore all dramas.) Always stick to the hard facts. Be data-driven in all that you do, and ascertain that all your comments and edits are fully evidence-based. Ask the reverting editor to provide valid, verifiable, reliable, well sourced, well supported data/ evidence on why he reverted your edits. Work with him patiently, in a calm, polite and civil manner.

Be prepared to spend some (reasonable) amount of time on this. You'll be surprised when sometimes, an editor which you presumed to be stonewalling or disruptive, is actually motivated by some reasonable set of intentions. Always be open to the (non-trivial) possibility that other editors are not nearly as ill-intentioned as you assumed. If the other editor is not able to provide hard evidence/ facts/ convincing data to support his repeated reversions of your edits, but he persists in reverting you, then remain calm and collected. If he is uncivil, attacks you personally (ad hominem), attempts to WikiBait you, appeals to ridicule you, appeals to authority, attacks a straw man, or engages in any of the almost infinite variety of other shenanigans (some of which are listed in the articles above; also see list of fallacies, list of cognitive biases, and list of memory biases) and skulduggery acting, (intentionally or, more often, unintentionally), to distract, confuse, befuddle, flummox and stupefy you, resist the powerful temptation to attack back. Don't take the bait. His attacks on you are a signal that his arguments are not well-supported, and thus, to disguise the weakness of his arguments he resorts to distracting or attacking you, the messenger, instead of addressing your message. Listen to others, be sensitive to their feelings, respect their views, and seek consensus, but if they engage in distracting (e.g. uncivil) behavior, work hard to develop an insensitivity to their behavior. And work hard to resist the powerful temptation to prove you have a longer Phallus. See above on ego. Don't act like a dick. The only thing you'll accomplish by acting like a jerk is to bring out the jerk in other users. Politely remind them that their accusations against you can be easily turned back against them (Boomerang), remain civil, and seek dispute resolution (DR) via WP:AN, WP: DRN, WP: RSN, etc. See meatball: foster each other, meatball: defend each other and meatball: reciprocal improvement.

And be ready to accept that the dispute resolution process may rule against your edits, or that it may result in some compromise that you are only partially happy about, or even entirely unhappy about. Wikipedia values you as a contributor when you are able to disagree but commit, when you are committed to accepting community decisions that you oppose, because you prove you are capable of providing powerful arguments as to why a decision may be wrong, you use brutal (but always fully respectful, civil and considerate of the feelings of others) intellectual honesty to explain, directly and openly, why your views/ edits should prevail over those of your "opponents" or "adversaries", always supporting your views with hard data/ convincing evidence/ strong facts; but, after you've exhausted all avenues of dispute resolution, when a final decision is made by the community via the consensus process, the community values you when you stop fighting, accept defeat gracefully, fully support the decision (which you may still oppose), and help implement the idea you may disagree with or at least not interfere with the implementation. When you are a disagree-but-commit editor, you are more likely to be successful in your WP editing efforts in the long run, and avoid the all-too-common phenomenon where editors become angry, disillusioned and burned-out.

Learning when to walk away does not make you weak, a push-over, easy to roll-over. Learning to compromise does not imply you should not fight for your article development ideas. For more details, view the resources above, e.g. on effective communication/ negotiation methods.

More of my personal thoughts on editing WP

WP is a large and complicated project and it is impossible to summarize it in a few paragraphs (or even in a book of reasonable length). My own overly simplistic summary, based on the research described above, as well as on reading many WP articles and reading many lengthy discussions among WP editors, is WP is a seriously - although, overall, not fatally - flawed project, and is likely to remain so for many more years. Overall, WP is a worthwhile project, and should be taken seriously, but not too seriously, i.e., not to the point where you lose your perspective and your sense of humor and your enjoyment of editing the encyclopedia -- I highly recommend reading WP: DGAF and WP: WikiSloth. WP is an important global endeavor, but it is not the only important project in the world, nor the most important project. (Many WP editors would probably disagree with me on this issue. From looking at users' list of contributions, it appears some users spend 10-16 hours every day, practically 7 days every week, for many consecutive months or even years, contributing to the encyclopedia. Obviously many of these highly dedicated contributors consider WP to be the most important project in their lives. Some of these editors are here to push their POV into articles, and some are here to create a neutral, balanced, informative encyclopedia.)

In my view, one heavy tail of the distribution of WP articles represents bad articles, the other heavy tail represents good articles, and the remainder (i.e., the central area) of the distribution contains articles ranging from almost-decent to almost-good.

Bad articles (the first heavy tail)

The first heavy tail of the distribution contains WP articles that range from deeply flawed to fatally flawed, articles that serve more to misinform than inform. These articles suffer from a (in some cases unintentional, in other cases intentional) combination of crimes of lying by omission of key information as well as lying by outright commission of falsehoods or half-truths, including but not limited to cherry picking, providing no context or a partial, misleading or false context, articles serving as a coatrack or an attack page, or offering content with grossly incorrect weight or deceptive emphasis, bias, specious analysis, dubious veracity, questionable accuracy, myopia or gross over-simplification of highly complex, intricate, multi-layered, multi-dimensional, sophisticated issues. Some of these citations are based on e.g. crappy, ill-conducted, methodologically unsound, one-shot studies from biased groups, in a desperate and frantic effort to push a biased, false, unscientific or pseudo-scientific point of view into the encyclopedia.

The WP articles in this tail of the distribution are at worst false or misleading, at best toothless or impotent, i.e., at best a triumph of style over substance. These articles subject the reader to a type of Mushroom management (mushroom treatment): managing the perceptions of the reader by keeping the reader in the dark and feeding him/ her shit.

One of the main reason behind the poor quality of these WP articles is that the topics covered by these articles often fall outside the areas of interest or expertise of the vast majority of experienced WP editors. Thus, among all the editors who regularly and frequently contribute to the article, only a small number of editors are neutral, competent and intimately, deeply and broadly familiar with the topic of the article and with WP policies. This creates an opening for a relatively small number of hostile, aggressive, civil-POV-pushing editors (sometimes as few as a single editor) or well-intentioned but not-yet-competent users to exert grossly undue influence over the content of the article. (In my view, another of the main reason behind the poor quality of these WP articles is discussed in the set of insightful, mature essays by Dr. Kristine Mattis.)

From WP:CGTW: "If a person edits Wikipedia largely or solely to promote one side of a contentious issue, the project is almost certainly better off without them."   "The more a viewpoint is odious, ignorant, wrong-headed, or obscure, the more likely its adherents will perceive Wikipedia as their best opportunity to promote it."   "The most challenging, nuanced problems facing Wikipedia tend to attract the editors least capable of handling complexity or nuance." "if $username =~ m/truth|justice|freedom|neutrality/i, then the account should probably be blocked preëmptively, because nothing constructive will ever come from it."   "Wikipedia's processes favor pathological obsessiveness over rationality. A reasonable person will, at some point, decide that they have better things to do than argue with a pathological obsessive. Wikipedia's content reflects this reality, most acutely in its coverage of topics favored by pathological obsessives."

The articles in the first tail of the distribution desperately need significantly more attention from knowledgeable, experienced editors who can write neutrally, and in many cases this attention must be provided repeatedly - some controversial articles that are modified frequently need attention just as frequently, and in some cases practically constantly.   For partial lists of the many forms of the transmittal of untruths, see Category:Communication of falsehoods and List of fallacies.   When reading a bad WP article, sometimes it is fairly easy to detect that it is full of bias, falsehoods and/or nonsense, but often it may be difficult to detect that the article is actually a POV-pushing, misleading, awful, worse-than-worthless piece of advocacy, because the article may appear to be well-organized, crisp and well-written, it may seem to contain factually accurate and verifiable information, may appear to be neutral in tone and broad in coverage, and illustrated by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses. In many cases, efforts to improve a non-neutral article are reverted, either immediately or more slowly by employing a variant of Salami tactics/ Salami slicing - by one or more articulate, knowledgeable, experienced, seemingly cooperative, seemingly neutral, seemingly civil but highly biased, overzealous, combative, fanatic, POV pushing editor(s) who are convinced they own the article. (A zealot can't change his mind. A fanatic can't change his mind and won't change the subject. —-Winston Churchill.   A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim. —-George Santayana)

In some cases these disruptive editors are well aware they are acting fraudulently and intellectually dishonestly against the best interests of the encyclopedia; in other cases they are simply misguided and delude themselves into strongly believing they are actually protecting the article from POV pushers. For further insights, see WP: Civil POV pushing, WP: Reliable sources and undue weight, WP: Coatrack, WP: Attack page, WP: NPOV tutorial, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Advocacy, WP:Expert retention, CIVIL POV Pushing Strategies (a User page essay), POV pushing (a User page essay), Wikipedia: Be neutral in form, Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat (in-depth, highly detailed, highly effective advice on coping with civil POV pushers), Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you, Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes, Wikipedia:Town sheriff, WP:POV Railroad, WP:Gaming the system, WP:WIKILAWYERing.

Further insights on the articles in the first tail of the distribution: In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. — How Facts Backfire, Boston Globe, 11 July 2010. --- Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong; what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. — Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails. --- One of the first effects of the hyper-democratization of data was to unmoor information from the context required to understand it. On the Internet, facts float about freely and are recombined more according to the preferences of intuition than the rules of cognition ... Combined with the self-reinforcing nature of online communities and a content-starved, cash-poor journalistic culture that gravitates toward neat narratives at the expense of messy truths, this disdain for actualities has led to world with increasingly porous boundaries between facts and beliefs, a world in which individualized notions of reality, no matter how bizarre, are repeatedly validated. — Seth Mnookin, The Panic Virus. --- "You can't convince a man to understand something when his entire belief system depends on him not understanding it." - Anonymous. -------- Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source (although reliable sources used in a WP article can be used in building other WP articles).

By the way, I (Ijon Tichy) don't blame anyone, nor any group, for the poor condition of these articles. Every Wikipedia user including a casual reader and even an indefinitely or temporarily blocked/banned editor is an equal member of the WP community (only permanently banned editors are not considered members of the community), and it is as much my own responsibility to help remedy the bad, ugly, offensive, intellectually dishonest, sorry state of these articles as it is anybody's and everybody's responsibility. There is no 'us vs. them' on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia 'belongs' to (is a 'property' of) all of us, all of humanity.

Good articles (the second heavy tail)

In sharp contrast to the first heavy tail, the second heavy tail is comprised of WP articles that are truthful and factually accurate, with article quality ranging from very good to excellent. These articles are based on good quality scholarship, and the claims these articles make about the world are as valid and trustworthy as possible. If you feel angry, upset, stressed or depressed, you may want to read some of these articles, their beauty and high quality may cheer you up and may even renew your faith in humanity. By the way, many of the articles in this tail have not been officially nominated to receive a WP: Good Article or WP: Featured Article status.

Articles in between the two heavy tails

The remaining WP articles fall in between the two tails, i.e., these articles are somewhere between almost reasonably factually accurate and informative and fairly reasonably accurate and informative. I don't have sufficient hard data on the relative area under the two tails, i.e. the relative weight of the tails compared to each other and to the whole of Wikipedia. The relative weights vary depending on many additional factors such as the subject matter of any specific (sub)set of articles in the distribution. Thus, a more accurate statistical model for the classification of the quality of WP articles would be a multidimensional probability distribution.

Additional insights on the quality of WP articles

For additional insights on many issues related to the quality/ reliability/ accuracy/ truthfulness/ information content of WP articles, see Criticism of Wikipedia,   WP: Criticisms (not the same as Criticism of Wikipedia),   WP: Why Wikipedia is not so great,   WP: Why Wikipedia is so great,   WP: Wikipedia is failing,   WP: Wikipedia is succeeding,   WP: Testimonials,   and WP: Replies to common objections (including a section comparing WP and communism).

In my view, approximately a similar multidimensional probability distribution model may hold for the community of WP editors. One dimension (i.e., one heavy-tailed probability distribution) represents the range of the overall contribution of editors to WP, i.e., the first heavy tail of that dimension (probability distribution) contains those editors who damage the encyclopedia, the other heavy tail of the same dimension represents editors who greatly benefit the project. Another dimension represents the level of competence of WP editors, ranging from a heavy tail representing editors who are not competent to a second tail representing those editors who are highly competent/ talented/ gifted. Another dimension may represent the range of knowledge of WP editors - the first heavy tail represents editors who are uninformed or misinformed and are unwilling to become informed and the other tail contains editors who are highly informed and are willing and able to inform themselves of new areas of knowledge. Yet another dimension has a heavy tail representing editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia and another heavy tail representing those who are here to build an encyclopedia. Another dimension typifies the level of civility of editors. Yet another dimension portrays editors' total number of contributions (and that dimension may, in turn, be more accurately represented as a multidimensional probability distribution, with one dimension representing the number of contributions to articles, another dimension the number of contributions to article talk pages, another dimension the number of contributions to user talk pages, etc). And so on and so forth for all the dimensions of the editing community.

Some examples

For one example out of thousands of possible examples, consider the subset of WP editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia. Their level of competence varies greatly - some of them are not competent, some are highly competent with many accolades and awards (e.g. barnstars etc) posted on their user pages. Their interests vary too - e.g. some are here to promote various ultra-nationalist agendas, ideologies or propaganda, some are here to promote fascism and/or Antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, misogyny, socio-economic elitism, hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against minorities [ethnic minorities, social minorities, economic minorities, religious minorities, and more], and/or to promote pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or pseudo historic viewpoints and the like, together with pseudo scholarship and other theories entirely unrecognized by academia.   (“All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it ... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.” --Adolf Hitler.     “Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he or she can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.” -- Arthur Schopenhauer.     In a time of universal deceit, telling truth is a revolutionary act. --George Orwell.     Humans substitute words for reality and then argue about the words. --Prof. Edwin Armstrong, prolific inventor of FM radio.)

In Wikipedia, debates can often (not always) be won by stamina. Editors who care more and argue longer, tend to get their way. The result, very often, is that individuals and organizations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tend to win out over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable. The latter, i.e. the less-committed editors, simply have less at stake and their attention is more distributed. In some cases, the users who are not here to build an encyclopedia concentrate most of their POV pushing in a relatively small set of closely related articles (see WP:Single-purpose account (SPA)). These are often individuals extremely dedicated to promoting a single cause or a theme - e.g. ultra-nationalism combined with fascism or anti-Semitism and/or anti-Islamism, etc. (Highly recommended reading: George Orwell's 'Notes on Nationalism'.) They attempt to water down language and unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of Neutral point of view, especially by giving undue weight to their preferred theories. Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (Verifiability, Neutral point of view, What Wikipedia is not and Fringe theories to name just a few). These policies, correctly understood and correctly used, will successfully exclude non-notable or fringe views. But many dedicated fringe advocates are familiar with these policies, and have become experts at gaming them or even using them against neutrally-minded but inexpert editors. The latter often find their efforts subverted at every step by civil POV pushing advocates who revert war over edits, engage in nitpicking and pedantry designed to obfuscate the main issues, frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information, wikilawyer, argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause.

This maneuvering, filibustering and stonewalling is soon likely to exhaust the patience of any reasonable person who naturally prefers not to reason with the unreasonable, and who, unlike the fringe advocate, has no special interest or passion other than striving to maintain neutrality and reliability. Additionally, by continually engaging fringe advocates in endless argument, you run the risk of turning Wikipedia into a battleground or a debating society. At the present time, Wikipedia does not have an effective means to address superficially polite but tendentious, long-term, fringe (including fringe within fringe) advocacy. This is one of the main flaws of Wikipedia; that unlike conventional encyclopedias, fanatics (no matter how amateur or idiotic) can eventually get their way if they stay around long enough and make a sufficient number of edits and reversions. (This is sometimes known as the "Most Insane Person Almost Always Wins" theory of Internet debate. See Dogbert: "Reality is controlled by the people who are most insane." -- Scott Adams)   In this sense, Wikipedia's 'commitment to amateurism' does not always work for the best interests of the project. Some of these advocates edit WP for years, accumulating many edits to their dubious "credit", without significant improvement in their intent or, in some cases, their level of overall competency or their knowledge of the subject matter, or their understanding of the spirit of Wikipedia's communal culture or WP's vision, goals and policies - although often they are highly familiar with WP's policies but they choose to abuse the spirit of the policies, while almost always carefully cultivating the appearance of strictly following the letter of the rules. After you read the "contributions" of this group of editors to articles and article talk pages (and sometimes combined with viewing their user pages and user talk pages that are filled with compliments and accolades and rewards bestowed upon them by fellow adoring fanatics/ POV-pushers/ advocates) you begin to feel demoralized, you feel your energy, enthusiasm and inspiration begin to drain out of you, and you feel dumber, not smarter - you feel your interaction with their "work" has degraded your abilities. Often, they pollute WP articles and talk pages for years without being banned or blocked (except perhaps for occasional, mild, temporary sanctions) because they are more likely to edit in relatively specialized topics outside of the interests or subject matter expertise of the vast majority of experienced contributors.

And in many cases experienced contributors avoid engaging with these editors because experience has shown that it's practically impossible to establish effective two-way communications with these users, it's taxing on the limited amount of time available to experienced volunteer editors to attempt (usually in vain) to get through to these counter-productive users to try to convince them to accept the validity of alternative, well-supported viewpoints. "You can't convince a man to understand something when his entire belief system depends on him not understanding it." - anonymous. (See e.g. Cognitive dissonance and Disorders of consciousness. Most importantly, see WP: Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat.)

Wikipedia relies on consensus as the final arbiter of content, rather than on a ruling board of supposedly expert editors, as in, say, the Columbia Encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s continual give-and-take corrections work well, generally (but not always) for many topics, for example STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), business administration/ management, and art, but work less well for many other topics, for example some socio-economic systems, culture, history, political systems, human conflicts, some biographies or personal or group views/ beliefs/ perspectives, and literature. Consensus is sometimes ill-informed, and dubious content cannot be dislodged because consensus generally tends to favor familiar myths. (However, it is not WP's job to identify firm answers to opinionated stances, so don't expect it to be fully "accurate" on topics such as controversial parts of history, politics, design, etc. Those subjects are generally not easy to describe "correctly" and are usually not covered fully accurately by most sources.) For additional insights, see Reliability of Wikipedia.

As a second example, consider the subset of WP editors who are here to build an encyclopedia, who are highly competent, and whose well-reasoned contributions to communal discussions and highly competent article-improvement efforts energize you, elevate your thoughts and raise your thinking. Almost everything they do or say on the encyclopedia is well-supported by solid evidence/ facts/ hard data/ information/ proof and by Wikipedia policies. Often, reading their contributions helps you develop your abilities more fully, and these talented editors are often a joy to work with, even in cases when you don't necessarily agree with their specific proposals for article improvement.

And of course things are not black and white. For example many editors who are initially not competent but are willing and able to learn eventually may become highly competent. As another example, I've seen cases where gifted editors who are (mostly) here to build an encyclopedia occasionally [not very frequently but also not very rarely] do or say some extremely ill-considered, incompetent, disruptive, tendentious, ignorant, idiotic and/or offensive things that damage the encyclopedia and/or the community. Sometimes these well-meaning, talented editors make a big mistake because they may become over-confident in their own skills and abilities or overly aggressive in their zeal and their religious-fanatic fervor to protect their beloved encyclopedia - or their own POV, or their own ego - against perceived evil, satanic POV pushers. Basking in the well-earned glory of an impressively long list of contributions and the well-deserved admiration and respect of the community, sometimes these skilled, proficient, productive editors overstretch and overextend themselves and overreach into areas beyond their subject-matter knowledge or expertise (or their understanding of human behavior, or even their understanding of the spirit of WP's cultural values), and they do or say some shockingly awful things. In some cases they are only making an innocent, well-intentioned mistake; in some other cases they are deliberately doing dishonest, hypocritical POV-pushing, soapboxing, pushing crazy conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, ad-hominem attacks or some other ignorant drivel, or professing unfailing belief in the inevitability of their bizarre cause or some other delusional horseshit. In many cases these (otherwise highly productive and talented) people are too prideful to admit their horrific actions, and instead of acknowledging their own flaws and retreating gracefully from the ugly mess they have created or exacerbated, they become even more aggressive, hostile and obnoxious, and they wikilawyer excessively or launch ad-hominem attacks directed at everyone and everything in sight - WP users, primary and secondary sources, and even the topic/subject of the specific WP article(s) under contention.   For additional insights, I highly recommend the books When Smart People Fail by Carole Hyatt and Linda Gottlieb, The Anxious Organization - Why Smart Companies Do Dumb Things by Jeffrey A. Miller, Why Smart People Do Dumb Things by Mortimer Feinberg and John Tarrant, and What Smart People Do When Dumb Things Happen at Work by Charles E. Watson.

In my experience, the are many competent WP editors who are here to build an encyclopedia. Many WP editors are at least informed or are willing and able to inform themselves, seek a reasonably wide range of perspectives on issues, are open to changing their own minds and are competent. Wikipedia editors are a community of volunteers, and many are generally generous, patient and helpful and have a healthy, sane attitude and a reasonable perspective on a broad range of issues. Many WP editors are good team players and open to collaboration on building consensus. They 'get' Wikipedia's communitarian, egalitarian culture of mutual aid and mutual support. Wikipedia's success results from the many little things they do that add-up to building an encyclopedia that makes them feel proud of one another.

Yet more of my personal thoughts on editing WP

Wikipedia appears to be on a complicated path that is zigzagging and partially contradictory, because the participants have different interests, respond in diverse ways to the events (edits, discussions, the spirit and the letter of WP's culture and policies, etc) along the way, and differ in knowledge and goals, in their sense of urgency and long-term perspectives. The same experiences can transform their aspirations in numerous directions, sometimes along converging pathways, and sometimes along divergent pathways. Wikipedia is a collaborative work of genius, a shared work of the imagination among a community of people of myriad talents, interests, voices, and generations that proceeds on the premise that the labor never ends. The labor entails a ceaseless making and remaking of Wikipedia's articles, laws and customs (culture, philosophy, policies, guidelines, power structure, Wikipedian ideals, etc), i.e., a kind of sentient organism, the encyclopedia an us, not a them. There will always be more work. The writer Marcel Proust said, "The real act of discovery consists not in finding new lands, but in seeing with new eyes." Proust also said, "The best voyage of discovery, the best fountain of Eternal Youth, would be not only to visit strange lands but to return from our travels possessing new eyes, to behold the universe through the eyes of another, of a hundred others, to behold the hundred universes that each of them beholds, that each of them is." And T. S. Eliot said, "We shall not cease from exploration, And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started, And know the place for the first time."

Wikipedia is the default resource for many millions of people, and many WP editors feel a responsibility to build it properly, and keep it open and free, keep it sane, and most of all, to exercise judgement to get the facts right, because this project is likely to be a base - or at least an inspiration - on which many unforeseeable future communal projects may be built. Overall, despite its many flaws, WP is a powerful force for knowledge. It should be celebrated.

Certain aspects of Wikipedia appear to be relatively static and stable, other aspects appear to be deteriorating or regressing, and other aspects of Wikipedia appear to be improving or progressing. The positive aspects of WP - a money-free, property-free, ownership-free, profit-motive-free, competition-free and secrecy-free system, an extremely high degree of transparency, openness, and accessibility to view and modify each other's work and redistribute content, egalitarianism, equal access to consuming information (and creating information) instead of restricting access to content via artificial scarcity, a community of intrinsically motivated volunteer contributors altruistically giving their time and energy with no expectation of direct or indirect financial compensation or remuneration, working autonomously, independently, interdependently and collaboratively without external coercion or extrinsic rewards, democratic/ participatory/ non-coercive decision making from below instead of undemocratic/ authoritarian/ coercive/ arbitrary/ bureaucratic decision making imposed from above - these aspects of WP may be pointing at the beginning of a path towards something that may resemble a utopia, albeit a circumscribed/ restricted/ constricted form of utopia. (In love there are no penalties and no payments, and what is given is indistinguishable from what is received. -- Eleanor Farjeon.   True love is inexhaustible; the more you give, the more you have. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery.   Love is that condition in which the happiness of other persons is essential to your own. -- Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land.) Wikipedia is many decades away from anything resembling a utopia, but the many positive aspects of the encyclopedia appear to be slowly approaching something that may point towards the distant beginning of the beginning (not the end of the end, nor the beginning of the end, not even the end of the beginning) of some kind of real-world, practical, pragmatic, messy, imperfect, non-ideal, limited form of utopia - the kind of sub-optimal utopia that an adult, grown-up, reasonably intellectually and emotionally mature person may be able to realistically imagine/ visualize (as opposed to the perfect utopia of the fantasy world of children). Despite its considerable strengths, WP is not on the road towards anything resembling an ideal utopia -- there is no specific, perfect, static, fixed, invariant, final state for the encyclopedia. Nothing is ever in stone on Wikipedia; there is no finality. WP is an evolving, adapting, dynamic work in progress, an eternally unfinished project: the encyclopedia will never be "complete" and additional work will always be necessary to create new articles and update and improve (and at least in the case of the first tail discussed above, very significantly improve) every aspect of existing articles and Wikipedia's policies and culture, even foundational/ core aspects, to continuously improve them and re-align them with changes in society, e.g. with new knowledge (e.g. scientific or technological discoveries) and novel ideas. ("Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it's the courage to continue that counts.") WP decisions, most importantly article development decisions, are based on a combination of, to a very large extent, democratic processes - bottom-up consensus building, participatory democracy, deliberative democracy, collective intelligence and complex adaptive leadership; and, to a small extent, non-democratic processes - top-down decisions, power authority and authoritarianism, dominatory power hierarchy, Gerontocracy, and Kyriarchy. Additional processes which impact the WP decision making process include e.g. the tyranny of small decisions. (See Wikipedia power structure for further perspectives.) Both the democratic and undemocratic processes appear to be dominated by old(er) white males spending an abundance of time contributing to the encyclopedia. In a relatively small number of cases, this (partial) dominance by old(er) geezers is detrimental to WP; in the majority of cases, the work of these senior citizens is beneficial.

WP also benefits from the work of many young(er) contributors. Many relatively inexperienced editors don't know that some task is impossible or extremely difficult to do, so they just go ahead and do it and get the job done and solve the problem. Precisely because of his/ her youth, inexperience, naïvete and innocence, the newcomer sometimes has a more open mind than the veteran. Inexperienced people are often less prejudiced towards unquestioning acceptance of the existing status quo or the established order. (They often tend to see the opportunity in a problem/ obstacle, where, in contrast, experienced veterans often tend to see the problem/ obstacle in an opportunity.) That’s one of the main reasons WP is, overall, a relatively successful project: its body of volunteer contributors is composed of a healthy mixture of clueless newbies, highly experienced/ savvy old geezers, and many people whose level of experience and expertise lie somewhere in between these two extreme ends of the spectrum. Working independently but inter-dependently and collaboratively, these diverse talents, skills and abilities add up collectively to an extraordinarily powerful creative process.

Further personal advice for improving your WP experience

Wikipedia is a complex project. It is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and thus over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law," as it were, that forms a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be a wild and ugly place. The PAG provides the foundation needed to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within its limits. One of the hardest things for new WP editors is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but its letter, and especially its spirit. (I keep emphasizing the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering".) WP has the potential to evolve into a more impressive project. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to get aligned with Wikipedia's culture and mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" as defined in PAG).

People edit WP for many reasons; one of the main ones is they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive contribution, but it can also lead to tendentious editing, which is destructive. There is too much bickering, bullying, disrespect for each other and incompetence among editors, people of differing viewpoints often do not get along, and WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. I hope you are able and willing to take the time to slow down and learn. There are talented people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones.

In my view, Wikipedia is, overall, a decent achievement for humanity, a worthwhile, positive, compelling, relevant, valuable, important project. However, it's only an encyclopedia, and any specific article or a small set of closely related articles are not sufficiently important, in the greater scheme of things, to cause editors to become mired in feelings of anger, blame or stress. You should especially refrain from reading or editing controversial articles during periods of time when you may be suffering from anxieties such as when you may feel scared, worried, angry, stressed, impatient or easily offended. Getting involved in disputes with WP editors on controversial topics when you are already in an emotional, confused, argumentative state of mind is unlikely to be productive to the encyclopedia and is only likely to further exacerbate your emotional pain by significantly amplifying and prolonging your anxieties, converting your anger into uncontrollable, destructive rage.

If things are getting too tense, just drop the argument and walk away. Sign out of WP, and take care to alleviate your pain. ("We do not succeed in changing things according to our desire, but gradually our desire changes. The situation that we hoped to change because it was intolerable becomes unimportant. We have not managed to surmount the obstacle, as we were absolutely determined to do, but life has taken us round it, led us past it, and then if we turn round to gaze at the remote past, we can barely catch sight of it, so imperceptible has it become." --Marcel Proust) Don't hurry to return to editing WP. The sun is going to rise tomorrow, the world will go on as it was even though the article may not reflect exactly what you would like. Chances are millions of young minds have not been polluted by the obviously and blatantly false material that your vile opposition has put up in the WP article(s). Take a Wikibreak and return to the encyclopedia when you feel healthy and inspired. After you come back to the project, you'll often find that, in your absence, someone else has already made some of the contributions you were originally fighting and bleeding over. Divert your anger away from people and re-direct your anger and your energy into developing the article content: it is OK to feel angry at a badly written article or to be upset at the slow pace of progress on some issue, as long as your anger is productive to the encyclopedia and is not directed at WP users. Do not attack people.

Wikipedia's style of collaborative production should be lauded. Despite my unease over the quality of knowledge on WP, Wikipedia has brought us closer to a realization of the centuries-old pursuit of a universal encyclopedia. At its core, WP is a “collaborative community” that freely and voluntarily gives to the world a constant invitation to understand and participate. More than any democracy, it empowers broadly. More than most entities anywhere, it has the potential to elicit the best of an ethic of people working hard for the love of the community and the work, not for the money.

May I shamelessly advocate for Wikipedia and encourage you to contribute to the project. I'm looking forward to reading your contributions to WP articles and discussions. Happy editing, and remember to periodically re-read   WP: WikiSloth,   WP: DGAF,   WP: Recovering from Wikipediholism,   and   WP is not bad, but it is going to suck sometimes.

Jimmy Wales' Civility Speech 2014

Adaptation of an unofficial transcript of Jimmy Wales' 2014 State of the Wiki speech at the closing session of Wikimania, evening of Sunday August 10, 2014, London by User:Neotarf. Transcribed from VIDEO, with Wales starting at about 07:00:00.

JIMMY WALES:

This is my annual traditional talk and one of the things I traditionally do in my annual traditional talk is get everyone to stand up and say how many Wikimanias you've been to, but we did that in the opening ceremony, so I'm just going to get down to talking about what I wanted to say this year.

Stats

So first of all, in a State of the Wiki address, one of the things I've done in the past is to talk about statistics — statistics about how we're doing — how many articles and how many languages and so forth. But this year I just didn't want to do that. You all know those numbers as well as I do or even better. I just wanted to highlight what I think is the real statistic or the thing that I think is terribly important, and this is timed, apparently to coincide with Wikimania. YouGov is the major polling organization in the UK. Some of you may have seen this already in the news, but they put out a poll result where they polled people and they found that British people trust Wikipedia more than the news. [applause]

Now, the UK is home to a very diverse newspaper community, a vibrant newspaper culture. We've got papers like the Sun, the Mirror, the Mail. [laughter] I was really heartened to see — I was actually happy to see--how little the public trusts them as the rest. But the thing that's really impressive here is the BBC has an excellent reputation as an excellent news source, and we're trusted slightly more than the BBC. Now, that's a little scary... [laughter] and probably inappropriate, but it is something that we have accomplished and I think that it's really important, and all of the things that we think about, all of the things we do at Wikimania, when we're talking about the software, when we're talking about the community, when we're thinking about the nitty-gritty of our work, the one thing that we should always remember is that we are here for these people (not just the British ones) but for the reader, for the general public.

They turn to us for reliable, neutral, solid information. We do a decent job of it. We all know it's flawed, we all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could do, because we're human beings, but we are succeeding at this. When you scrolled further down in this news story, they also inquired about another source which was left off, which was Encyclopedia Britannica. And people trusted Encyclopedia Britannica — I forget the exact number, but it was something like 20 points ahead of us — it might have been 89% or 84 — you could look it up. So, that's fine, Encyclopedia Britannica is quite good, but we are not finished. I'm not going to rest until people tell us that they trust us more than they trusted Encyclopedia Britannica in the past. And for that to happen we really need to do everything right, we've got a lot of things we have to get right in order to achieve that goal.

Civility

So, one of the core things I wanted to talk about this year — Lila, our new CEO is really going to be focused on ramping up the software development, and getting all that right for us. But then it's up to us as a community — we have to realize it's up to us to build an environment that's conducive to providing the encyclopedia that's the greatest encyclopedia in history. And one of the things we always talk about is civility. But this has long been a contentious issue in the community and I have, I hope, a new approach to thinking about this that I'm hoping to popularize today, because I think that in many ways our conversations about civility in the community have gone down a bad path that is causing us to miss an enormous opportunity.

Annoying user, good content

One of the classic problems we have is — and we have this a lot in English Wikipedia — is the annoying user, who at least allegedly produces good content. There are users who have a reputation in the community for creating good content, and for being incredibly toxic personalities. This is a tough issue because [fixes slide problem]... I have a very simple view that most of these editors cost us more than they're actually worth, and we're making a big mistake by tolerating people who are causing us big ...

[prolonged applause]

Wow. [applause continues]

Okay. [continuing applause]

Wow. Um, I thought I was going to be pushing an agenda here. [laughter] Apparently I'm fulfilling my role as symbolic monarch by speaking the thoughts that bubble up through the community.

[continuing speech] A lot of users cost more than they're worth, and they should be encouraged to leave, and not in a bad way. One of the things I've always believed is letting people walk away with dignity. We don't have to shame them and scream at them and make them leave and then they're sad and annoyed and then they make sock puppets and then they come back and harass us for years. If you're a really excellent historian but you're just not able to work with others, we should help them ...go and make your own website, release it under creative commons license and we'll try to use some of that material, because it's just not working out.

Causes of uncivil behavior

Okay, so that's just one problem. Another thing to think about is general causes of uncivil behavior. And this is one that I wanted to mention in order to simply to dismiss it. Sometimes people are uncivil because they care so much about the content — and that can be in a positive sense — that they just love Wikipedia so much that they get upset when people do the wrong thing. It can be people who are passionate and have a point of view on the issue, and that's more problematic. But if we're still talking about this kind of case where you're talking about good people who care so much that they get upset, we actually handle that pretty well. When good users go crazy for a while, when somebody's really because the issue's important to them, then they lose their cool, apologize, we all understand that. And that actually works out pretty well. That's not really what I'm talking about.

What I am talking about

What I'm talking about is any persistent environment of anger and hostility, not good people who lose their cool now and then, but the bigger issues around a hostile work environment, which we mostly don't have, but we all know there are pockets of Wikipedia where it's really bad. And we all know that it could be better, that we could improve this. What I'm concerned about is good people who get drawn into a behavioral cycle that makes them, and us, unhappy and stressed. I'm imagining from the cheer I got from the room that a lot of people here have found themselves in a situation where they're unhappy and stressed because of whatever's going on, and there's gotten to be a really uncivil debate going on, and a lot of unfairness, and it's just no fun, and no one likes that. And that's what I think we really want to cure, or we want to improve on. There are no magic bullets. And by the way, people sometimes say "oh, when I started back in the early days .. everybody was so nice, in two thousand and eight ..." [laughter] And some of us who are old-timers remember when we said "oh it was so nice back in 2004". The truth is, we're human beings, we're a human community, and there's always going to be some strife, there's always going to be some debates that get out of hand, things like that. But I think that we can capture a spirit, the spirit that you feel here at Wikimania, a really positive spirit.

Terms of use

And so, one of the things we should really think about is this concept of civility. We talk about it a lot in the community, and it ends up generally being quite contentious. It's in the terms of use. It's specifically in the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use that you support a civil environment and you don't harass other users. It's in the Five Pillars, and this is the English Wikipedia version, I went and clicked on many, many languages and I read some very amusing google translate, and I discovered something I didn't know, that not all Wikipedias talk about five pillars. Some say four, one I saw said three, but every one I clicked on and looked at, they had some form of that, some said "code of conduct". Sometimes it's "civility rules", sometimes it's this, sometimes it's that. But the core, in fact some of the synonyms (?) are very common — I don't think English has it — one is "stay cool when editing gets hot" — that's not in the English one, but in a lot of them.

Pages pertaining to civility

So, it's in the Five Pillars. Additionally we have a lot of policies — policies, guidelines, essays: "Stay cool when editing gets hot", "please do not bite the newcomers" — this is really important: we want to grow the community, and biting the newcomers is the best way to damage Wikipedia in the long run — , "no personal attacks", the classic "civility", "assume good faith", we don't allow "attack pages", "don't insult the vandals" even. These are a lot of good ideas and good rules and good things. But I still have a problem with this, because I think what we're really talking about in all these cases — civility is a concept that's about how awful do you have to be, before you get banned from Wikipedia. So, we're talking about the minimum floor of behavior, and so when we focus our discussion about the environment in the community on that concept of civility — on what should we be banning people for — I think that we're really distracting ourselves. In fact, we're inadvertently causing a bit of a race to the bottom. Because we're saying that because this is the behavior we're willing to accept, we implicitly end up thinking that's the behavior that we expect, and that's the behavior that we're looking for.

Moral ambitiousness

So, I have this concept that I'm calling "moral ambitiousness", and I didn't come up with this phrase, but I think it's a good phrase. The idea here is to not think about what is that minimum level of behavior before we're going to ban people, but think about the great soaring heights of what we want to be, and how we're going to get there. What all of these policies hint at is really a way out of this endless debate about civility. And so I want to focus on something other than the minimum standard of behavior.

WP:BLP

So, let's rewind a few years and go back about our BLP policy. I remember talking about the BLP concept and the BLP policy at Wikimania at Harvard at 2006, and it was very soon after that, that we all got together and we formed this very — what I would call a very morally ambitious policy around biographies of living people. We have actually taken a very strong position of moral ambitiousness here. We no longer have debates — it is very rare — I mean, occasionally you see a new user say it, or someone say it in an argument "well, it's not illegal", right? So we've got some sort of really hatchet-job article and one argument people might use is "well, it isn't libel". But that's not accepted any more in our community, to say "it's okay as long as it's not libel". We actually seek to be a force for positive good in the world, and we internalize doing the right thing, rather than adopting an adversarial model. Now, we don't do this perfectly; there are a lot of problems around biographies still, but in general what I find a lot of people doing is saying, "right, so here's this person, they've done something horrible in their life, or something negative, and we want to make sure that that is framed fairly, that it isn't just a one-sided hatchet job. And we do that, not in a mode...like , we interact with that person, not in the mode of "we think you're a bad person and we're going to write a biography that just barely passes some minimum standard." Instead we say, "No matter how much we find that person annoying or a bad person, we still want to come to it, and do all the right things, all the Wikipedian things." And that is a value that has really come through the entire community. I wouldn't say everybody, otherwise we wouldn't have so many arguments about biographies, but in general there is that spirit, and it's a positive spirit, way above the bare minimum of what you could do.

What kinds of things do we ask of ourselves?

I went through — I was trying to think of virtues, and then I thought — I'm not a philosopher, and I'm kind of an idiot — so I thought "I bet Wikipedia's got a list", so...Wikipedia has a list of virtues. So I went down the list of virtues, and I picked out some of the ones I think are already very common and very well understood in the community.

• Good temper —Good temper, right? We do value, "don't lose your temper, don't get angry and scream at people, be good-tempered".

• Curiosity — Be curious about the world, be curious about improving our article, curious about some new thing that randomly comes across your plate as a Wikipedian and you decide for random reasons, "I'm curious, I'm going to learn about that, I'm going to help improve that."

• Patience — Patience. We all have to be patient, particularly when dealing with difficult people in the community.

• Fair-mindedness — Fairmindedness. This goes without saying.

• Respect — Respect. Respect for others but also self-respect, of saying "I respect myself and I'm going to believe in myself and I'm going to hold myself to a standard of conduct that I'm proud of."

• Truthfulness — Truthfulness. Obviously something that we believe is very, very valuable in our community — obviously truthfulness is very important if you're writing an encyclopedia, because you're not supposed to just make stuff up. So, these are some of the values, and I just picked these out, these are not completely random, but they're values that I thought particularly relevant to our work. And these are values that I think we already understand, and believe in. But there's some more virtues that I think we don't talk enough about.

But going even further...

And this is the values that I think we should hold in order to be morally ambitious, and to build our community up into a more fabulous fun loving environment, so that we can really get our work done, we can really build this great encyclopedia, and we don't remain focused on that lowest standard of behavior.

• Kindness — And I don't mean kindness in a sort of minimal civility kind of way, I mean doing out of our way to help someone who's having trouble or who may be having trouble or who isn't having trouble.

• Generosity — Obviously we're all very generous people, we donate a huge amount of our time to this encyclopedia project. But I feel it's something tat we don't talk about enough, and we don't think about it in that way. You're got some annoying troll on a talk page, and the first thing you think of is probably not "how can I be generous to this person". I think that's an incredibly powerful thing to think about. An incredibly powerful thing to think about as well, is "how can I be generous to all these people that the troll is annoying. What can I get here that can kind of change this conversation from a negative conversation about whether or not to ban this person into a positive conversation about what we can achieve.

• Forgiveness — This one is also very hard to do. But it's one that I think we do a lot of, but we don't talk enough about it. And I think it is an ambitious thing to go and say, "look, I've had this huge blowup with someone"...and this is the hard part..."and they're still wrong, but I forgive them." I'm going to try to understand that whatever they're doing is probably not coming from a bad place. I'm just going to forgive them and move on, because it's just not worth having this fight. That's an incredibly powerful value in the community where we all have to live together, we all have to get along over time, and there's real opportunity if we do this and if we do this consistently in our community to raise the level of discourse, to make it harder for someone to be hard-hearted for a very long period of time. If they've been genuinely forgiven, and people treat them well, it's a lot easier to come around and to be a nicer person themselves.

• Compassion — And compassion is really important. One of the things that we know about the more difficult users is that they are probably coming from some kind of a bad place in their life. You wouldn't behave this way if you didn't have some kind of a problem, some kind of a stress on you, something that's causing you to behave this way. And so we can be compassionate. We can love these people, in a general way as human beings, while we're finding them incredibly annoying. And I think that the more that we can exhibit that compassion, the more we can say to ourselves, to good people in the conversation, "you know, right, I know this is really hard, I know this person's upset, I hope that we can make it better," and that sort of thing. So these are just four ways of putting it, but the overall point I think you're beginning to see is the idea of saying, not just the standard virtues of being Wikipedian, be honest, and so forth. It's not a focus on that minimum standard of behavior before we ban someone. It's a focus on building up, on the grand vision and the grand mission.

Inspiration: how to feel this in your heart

So, I think the only way to do this is we have to remind ourselves of inspiration. When you're working Wikipedia and things are going along in a daily basis, you know why you're here. We all know why we're here — it's this grand vision of free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. It's what attracted us to the project, it's what keeps us doing it, even on rough nights. We also do it because it's fun, and interesting. But there's bad times, you know, boring things or annoying. We should reflect and remember various kinds of inspiration. Right here I have this fantastic close; we're all going to be cheering and weeping — I was standing back stage and a massive round of applause, and I said "what are they doing back there? Oh, they're playing my video." I was going to show you the video; I didn't know it was being shown. [laughter] So now, backstage, two minutes ago, I had to pull out the video and then "what will I replace it with? What's inspirational? The only thing I can think of is..."

Love

Love. Love of each other, love of the project, love of life. Love of the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish. This is a charity. We're all volunteers. In the last weeks, everything's just gone horrible on the world scene. War, conflict. Ebola. It's getting stressful out there. We're trying to do something good, and indeed, in those conflict areas, we can educate people: our longer term mission, when I read that one of the problems in spreading ebola is superstitious behavior, a lot of lack of understanding of germs, and things like this, I think wow, that's awful. We can't do that much about it yet, we're not in enough languages, we're not quite there yet, but we're building an infrastructure, so that people can quickly turn and say "oh right, something horrible's going on in my village, ebola, I'm going to learn about it."

So there's love for that, conflict areas, there's really value to be had in neutral summaries of what's happened, in the calm Wikipedia style. It doesn't solve problems, but it keeps it from being exacerbated by hype, propaganda and things like that. So for me, it's important, and to remember these kids in the Wikipedia Zero video, and remember whatever it is that's touched you emotionally. So now you come back to the talk page of that article where someone's being incredibly annoying, and maybe you'll be able to be calmer and be able to be more loving even to those horrible people. And then, you know, we'll ban a few of them. It's always a good thing. [laughter]

So, I'm not arguing against the minimum standard, don't get me wrong, I think that civility piece, that minimum standard, is incredibly important, what I want us to do is to raise the level in the entire community, to raise the spirit of what we're doing, and I think that thinking about love, is the right way to do that.

So, thank you. [applause]

---

User:Carrite's reaction to Jimmy Wales' 2014 letter

My own reactions (Aug. 11, 2014) made on Wikipediocracy under my handle there, "Randy from Boise":

I agree that Wales is an effective public speaker. His presentation struck me most as the sort of sermon-speech that one might hear in a protestant church camp for high school kids. It was all love and kindness and community and forgiveness, and gol darn it, there are just some people who are going to need to be shown the door for not sharing our ethical values...

Once again we see Big Brother's Friendly Space Policy™ rearing its head, more or less like this — "we just want to have a loving community where we can all work together happily, and the magic of crowdsourcing will cause the encyclopedia to appear and improve from the earth like the blossoms of carefully tended flower seeds. All we we need to do is make sure the people who trample the sprouts are thrown out of our garden area and there will be a beautiful bounty in spring!"

Wales is much nicer about it than the actual author of the Friendly Space Policy, WMF employee Sumana Harihareswara (link), who at WikiConUSA 2014 was clearly blowing the bugle for a mass purge of unbelievers in the Wikiway. Jimmy Wales just wants a little purge. (Hello, Eric!)

Of course, this is the party line for the acolytes of the San Francisco bureaucracy — few of whom actually write content themselves, starting with Jimmy Wales and Lila Tretikov and moving down the Table of Ranks. The reality is that things are as our friend Andreas Kolbe/HRIP7/User:Jayen466 first observed: excellent articles are generally each the product of one or two contributors, working in isolation. "Team" editing, which is the way the Sumana Squad™ thinks things work (since they don't actually write themselves), accomplishes little and is responsible for an insignificant fraction of the whole. Moreover, paid COI editing and casual additions by passing individuals (usually with interest in a fan-related aspect of popular culture or some aspect of their local community) accounts for more content than the serious content people and the ineffectual pretend-editing of San Francisco socializers put together — probably by a factor of 3.

This coming culture war is a diversion. Wikipedia's real problem is a need to attract (1) expert academic editors to improve esoteric articles already existing; (2) solid contributors from the developing world to add content to fill in the blank spots of WP's coverage; (3) a new wave of minders to populate the gates, tagging off the inevitable wave of dreck and making it go away, or helping to copyedit good new material into a state of worthiness.

People and quotes related to anarchist communism

anarchist, communist, scientist, zoologist, evolutionary theorist and geographer Peter Kropotkin. Advocated for mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual cooperation among all humans. His research proved that sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle, and that cooperation as a feature of the most advanced organisms (e.g., ants among insects, mammals among vertebrates) leads to the development of the highest intelligence and bodily organization.

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin, influential work which presents the economic vision of anarcho-communism

James Maitland, 8th Earl of Lauderdale. His work Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth (1804 and 1819) explained how the public wealth (public property) has been transferred -- i.e., stolen, looted, embezzled -- to create private riches (private property).

anarchist and communist Emma Goldman. Quote: “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be in your revolution.”

Mikhail Bakunin speaking to members of the IWA at the Basel Congress in 1869.

Henry George: As a human is so constituted that it is utterly impossible for him or her to attain happiness save by seeking the happiness of others, so does it seem to be of the nature of things that individuals and classes can obtain their own just rights only by struggling for the rights of others.
Henry George: Social reform is not to be secured by noise and shouting; by complaints and denunciation; by the formation of parties, or the making of revolutions; but by the awakening of thought and the progress of ideas. Until there be correct thought, there cannot be right action; and when there is correct thought, right action will follow. Power is always in the hands of the masses of humans. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.

Che Guevara

Karl Marx

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, March 26, 1964

Anarcho-syndicalist, modern linguist, cognitive scientist and analytic philosopher Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky explains anarchism (5 parts): part 1 part 2 part 3 part 4 part 5.
Chomsky explains why power and authority are always illegitimate in anarchism, unless they prove themselves to be legitimate: the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian hierarchic relation is legitimate. Anarchists assume that all power will be abused; therefore, they want to minimize these abuses.
Chomsky on Anarchism and closely related topics
Chomsky on Anarchism as Truism - 2013.11.18
Chomsky on Mikail Bakunin
Chomsky on his favorite anarchists
Chomsky 2003 interview on anarchism: part 1 part 2
Chomsky on love
Chomsky on Mysteries and Perplexing Questions
"Human Nature: Justice vs. Power" Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault debate (1971) Excerpt
A 10-hr compilation of some of Chomsky's work
Chomsky explains the Cold War in 5 min
Chomsky further explains the Cold War in 6 min
Chomsky's core message to humanity
Chomsky explains Leninism
Noam Chomsky on "Hitler, Slavery, and Stalinism"
Chomsky on why you can not have a Capitalist Democracy
Chomsky on stupid people
Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracy theories
Chomsky further dispels 9/11 conspiracy theories
(Unrelated to Chomsky: Great satire of 9/11 conspiracy theories (2015-01-07) from The Onion - I laughed hard when reading this, I hope you do too)
Chomsky on the Soviet Union vs. Socialism
Chomsky on the Militarization of Science and Space
Chomsky on the Corporatization of Higher Education and K-12 education
Chomsky Elaborates Further on the Corporatization of University and K-12 Education, and Explains the Anarchist Approach to Education, Based Upon Empowering Students and Teachers and Enriching their Lives
Chomsky on the Interests of the Global Elites, as Exemplified by the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Part 1 (40 min) and Part 2 (40 min)
Chomsky on why We Shouldn't Ridicule Tea Party Protesters
Chomsky Confronted by Right-Wing Person
Chomsky on the mass media
Chomsky on Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, Columbia, Central and South America, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Arab Countries, Israel, the Middle East, and the relationship between the Vatican and Liberation Theology
Chomsky on Liberation Theology
The Real News - interviews with Chomsky on the differences between structures of domination, authority, hierarchy and arbitrary decision making from above and structures of democracy and decision making from below, 2007-2010 (11 interviews) and June 2014 (3 interviews)
Chomsky's Views on Artificial Intelligence and the Singularity
A YouTube channel with some of Chomsky's most insightful work
A second YouTube channel with some of Chomsky's most powerful lectures and interviews
Noam Chomsky's political views
Wikiquote: Understanding Power
Wikiquote: Necessary Illusions
Wikiquote: The Chomsky Reader
Wikiquote: Noam Chomsky
Chomsky on How Higher Education Ought to Be

Peter Joseph, founder of The Zeitgeist Movement

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality (1754)

Eugene V. Debs (left) with Max Eastman and Rose Pastor Stokes in 1918. "I recognize my kinship with all living beings, and I am not one bit better than the meanest on earth. While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

Elbert Hubbard: All good men and women are anarchists. All cultured, kindly, gentle men and women; all just men and women are anarchists. Jesus was an anarchist. No man or woman who believes in force and violence is an Anarchist. The true Anarchist decries all influences save those of love and reason. Ideas are his only arms.

Henry David Thoreau: Talk of mysteries! — Think of our life in nature, — daily to be shown matter, to come in contact with it, — rocks, trees, wind on our cheeks!

Henry David Thoreau: For many years I was self-appointed inspector of snowstorms and rainstorms, and did my duty faithfully, though I never received one cent for it. (It is a great art to saunter, April 26, 1841.)

Henry David Thoreau: Nature is full of genius, full of the divinity; so that not a snowflake escapes its fashioning hand.

Henry David Thoreau: That man or woman is richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.

Henry David Thoreau: Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it.

Henry David Thoreau: A government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it...

Henry David Thoreau: There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.

Henry David Thoreau: Where there is a lull of truth, an institution springs up. But the truth blows right on over it, nevertheless, and at length blows it down.

Harold Barclay, American anthropologist, in his book People Without Government: An Anthropology of Anarchy, 1996:

Anarchy is the order of the day among hunter-gatherers. Indeed, critics will ask why a small face-to-face group needs a government anyway. [...] If this is so we can go further and say that since the egalitarian hunting-gathering society is the oldest type of human society and prevailed for the longest period of time – over thousands of decades – then anarchy must be the oldest and one of the most enduring kinds of polity. Ten thousand years ago everyone was an anarchist.

Diogenes of Sinope was a Greek philosopher and one of the founders of Cynic philosophy. Also known as Diogenes the Cynic, he was born in Sinope (modern-day Sinop, Turkey), an Ionian colony on the Black Sea, in 412 or 404 BC and died at Corinth in 323 BC. "Diogenes (and Cynics in general) saw what people could be and were angered by what they had become." Diogenes of Sinope's father was a banker who also minted coins for a living and when Diogenes took to "defacement of the currency", he was banished from the city. After being exiled, he moved to Athens to debunk cultural conventions. Diogenes modelled himself on the example of Hercules. He believed that virtue was better revealed in action than in theory. He used his lifestyle and behavior to criticize and ridicule the social values and institutions of what he saw as a corrupt society. He declared himself a cosmopolitan. There are many tales about him dogging Antisthenes' footsteps and becoming his faithful hound. Diogenes made a virtue of poverty. He begged for a living and slept in a jar in the marketplace. He became notorious for his philosophical stunts such as carrying a lamp in the daytime, claiming to be looking for an honest man. He embarrassed Plato, disputed his interpretation of Socrates and sabotaged his lectures. Diogenes was also responsible for publicly mocking Alexander the Great. Diogenes eventually settled in Corinth. There he passed his philosophy of Cynicism to Crates, who taught it to Zeno of Citium, who fashioned it into the school of Stoicism, one of the most enduring schools of Greek philosophy. Diogenes made it his life's goal to challenge established customs and values. He argued that instead of being troubled about the true nature of evil, people merely rely on customary interpretations. This distinction between nature ("physis") and custom ("nomos") is a favorite theme of ancient Greek philosophy, and one that Plato takes up in The Republic, in the legend of the Ring of Gyges. Diogenes would mock relations of dependency. He found the figure of a master who could do nothing for himself (instead relying on slaves to do things for him) contemptibly helpless. He was attracted by the ascetic teaching of Antisthenes, a student of Socrates. Diogenes became Antisthenes' pupil. Whether the two ever really met is still uncertain, but he surpassed his master both in reputation and in the austerity of his life. He considered his avoidance of earthly pleasures a contrast to and commentary on contemporary Athenian behaviors. This attitude was grounded in a disdain for what he regarded as the folly, pretense, vanity, self-deception, and artificiality of human conduct. The stories told of Diogenes illustrate the logical consistency of his character. He inured himself to the weather by living in a jar. He used to stroll about in full daylight with a lamp; when asked what he was doing, he would answer, "I am just looking for an honest man." Modern sources often say that Diogenes was looking for an "honest man", but in ancient sources he is simply looking for a "human" (anthrôpos): the unreasoning behavior of the people around him means that they do not qualify as fully human. Diogenes looked for a human being but reputedly found nothing but rascals and scoundrels.

It was in Corinth that a meeting between Alexander the Great and Diogenes is supposed to have taken place. The accounts of Plutarch and Diogenes Laërtius recount that they exchanged only a few words: while Diogenes was relaxing in the sunlight in the morning, Alexander, thrilled to meet the famous philosopher, asked if there was any favour he might do for him. Diogenes replied, "Yes, stand out of my sunlight". Alexander then declared, "If I were not Alexander, then I should wish to be Diogenes." In another account of the conversation, Alexander found the philosopher looking attentively at a pile of human bones. Diogenes explained, "I am searching for the bones of your father but cannot distinguish them from those of a slave." Along with Antisthenes and Crates of Thebes, Diogenes is considered one of the founders of Cynicism. Diogenes maintained that all the artificial growths of society were incompatible with happiness and that morality implies a return to the simplicity of nature. So great was his austerity and simplicity that the Stoics would later claim him to be a wise man or "sophos". In his words, "Humans have complicated every simple gift of the gods." Although Socrates had previously identified himself as belonging to the world, rather than a city, Diogenes is credited with the first known use of the word "cosmopolitan". When he was asked where he came from, he replied, "I am a citizen of the world (cosmopolites)". This was a radical claim in a world where a man's identity was intimately tied to his citizenship in a particular city state. An exile and an outcast, a man with no social identity, Diogenes made a mark on his contemporaries.

Diogenes had nothing but disdain for Plato and his abstract philosophy. Diogenes viewed Antisthenes as the true heir to Socrates, and shared his love of virtue and indifference to wealth, together with a disdain for general opinion. Diogenes shared Socrates' belief that he could function as doctor to humans' souls and improve them morally, while at the same time holding contempt for their obtuseness. Plato once described Diogenes as "a Socrates gone mad." Diogenes taught by living example. He tried to demonstrate that wisdom and happiness belong to the man who is independent of society and that civilization is regressive. He scorned not only family and political social organization, but also property rights and reputation.

Many anecdotes of Diogenes refer to his dog-like behavior, and his praise of a dog's virtues. It is not known whether Diogenes was insulted with the epithet "doggish" and made a virtue of it, or whether he first took up the dog theme himself. Diogenes believed human beings live artificially and hypocritically and would do well to study the dog. A dog will eat anything, and make no fuss about where to sleep. Dogs live in the present without anxiety, and have no use for the pretensions of abstract philosophy. In addition to these virtues, dogs are thought to know instinctively who is friend and who is foe. Unlike human beings who either dupe others or are duped, dogs will give an honest bark at the truth. Diogenes stated that "other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them."

John Ball , 1381:

When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.

Sam Gindin, in Monthly Review (Feb. 2002), writing about Thomas More's work in 1515:

Thomas More was an "anti-capitalist" in the sense that he directly challenged capitalist property rights. Thomas More noted that reforms that redressed the worst implications of private property, "... would certainly relieve the symptoms, just as a chronic invalid gets some benefit from constant medical attention." But More, unlike our latter-day social democrats, quickly reminded the reader that "... there’s no hope for a cure as long as private property continues." That view became a fundamental principle of much progressive thought or radical thought over the ensuing centuries. The contradiction between a just society and the exclusivity of private property was well understood by More. More's protagonist declares: "I’m quite convinced that you’ll never get a fair distribution of goods or a satisfactory organizing of human life, until you abolish private property altogether."

Thomas More in 1516 suggested that the practice of enclosure is responsible for some of the social problems affecting England at the time, specifically theft:

But I do not think that this necessity of stealing arises only from hence; there is another cause of it, more peculiar to England: the increase of pasture, by which your sheep, which are naturally mild, and easily kept in order, may be said now to devour men and unpeople, not only villages, but towns; for wherever it is found that the sheep of any soil yield a softer and richer wool than ordinary, there the nobility and gentry, and even those holy men, the abbots not contented with the old rents which their farms yielded, nor thinking it enough that they, living at their ease, do no good to the public, resolve to do it hurt instead of good. They stop the course of agriculture, destroying houses and towns, reserving only the churches, and enclose grounds that they may lodge their sheep in them.

Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote, 1605-1615:

Those two fatal words, Mine and Thine. (Part I, Book II, ch. 3.)

There are only two families in the world, the Haves and the Have-Nots. (Part II, Book III, ch. 20.)

Fynes Moryson in his 1617 work An Itinerary reported that the loss of agricultural labour hurt people like millers whose livelihood relied on agricultural produce:

England abounds with corn [wheat and other grains], which they may transport, when a quarter (in some places containing six, in others eight bushels) is sold for twenty shillings, or under; and this corn not only serves England, but also served the English army in the civil wars of Ireland, at which time they also exported great quantity thereof into foreign parts, and by God's mercy England scarce once in ten years needs a supply of foreign corn, which want commonly proceeds of the covetousness of private men, exporting or hiding it. Yet I must confess, that daily this plenty of corn decreaseth, by reason that private men, finding greater commodity in feeding of sheep and cattle than in the plow, requiring the hands of many servants, can by no law be restrained from turning cornfields into enclosed pastures, especially since great men are the first to break these laws.

Gerrard Winstanley and William Everard, in A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of England and The True Levellers Standard A D V A N C E D: or, The State of Community opened, and Presented to the Sons of Men, 1650-1660:

The power of enclosing land and owning property was brought into the creation by your ancestors by the sword; which first did murder their fellow creatures, men, and after plunder or steal away their land, and left this land successively to you, their children. And therefore, though you did not kill or thieve, yet you hold that bloody, cursed thing in your hand by the power of the sword; and so you justify the wicked deeds of your fathers, that sin of your fathers. That we may work in righteousness, and lay the foundation of making the Earth a common treasury for all, both rich and poor, That every one that is born in the land, may be fed by the Earth his Mother that brought him forth, according to the reason that rules in the creation. Not inclosing any part into any particular hand, but all as one man, working together, and feeding together as Sons of one Father, members of one Family; not one lording over another, but all looking upon each other, as equals in the creation. The group of believers was one in mind and heart, that we may work for equality. No one said that any of his belongings was his own, but they all shared with one another everything they had.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754:

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848):

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

The bourgeoisie has put an end to feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley of ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment."

All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

In place of the bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, shall we have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread, 1892; Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal, 1898; and Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, 1902:

Anarchist communism represents an attempt to apply results achieved using the scientific method within the natural sciences to the evaluation of human institutions.

In Anarchist Communism there is no room for those pseudo-scientific laws with which the German metaphysicians of 1820-1840 had to consent themselves. Anarchism does not recognize any method other than the natural-scientific. This method it applies to all the so-called humanitarian sciences, and, availing itself of this method as well as of all researches which have recently been called forth by it, Anarchism endeavors to reconstruct all the sciences dealing with humans, and to revise every current idea of right, justice, etc., on the bases which have served for the revision of all natural sciences. Its object is to form a scientific concept of the universe embracing the whole of Nature and including Humans.

This world-concept determines the position Anarchism has taken in practical life. In the struggle between the Individual and the State, Anarchism, like its predecessors of the eighteenth century, takes the side of the Individual as against the State, of Society as against the Authority which oppresses it. And, availing itself of the historical data collected by modern science, it has shown that the State--whose sphere of authority there is now a tendency among its admirers to increase, and a tendency to limit in actual life--is, in reality, a superstructure,--as harmful as it is unnecessary, and, for us Europeans, of a comparatively recent origin; a superstructure in the interests of Capitalism -- financial, industrial, agrarian etc -- which in ancient history caused the decay (relatively speaking) of politically-free Rome and Greece, and which caused the death of all other despotic centers of civilization of the East and of Egypt. The power which was created for the purpose of welding together the interests of the landlord, the judge, the warrior, and the priest, and has been opposed throughout history to every attempt of mankind to create for themselves a more assured and freer mode of life,--this power cannot become an instrument for emancipation, any more than Cæsarism (Imperialism) or the Church can become the instrument for a social revolution.

In the economic field, Anarchism has come to the conclusion that the root of modern evil lies, not in the fact that the capitalist appropriates the profits or the surplus-value, but in the very possibility of these profits, which accrue only because many millions of people have literally nothing to subsist upon without selling their labor-power at a price which makes profits and the creation of "surplus values" possible. Anarchism understands, therefore, that in political economy attention must be directed first of all to so-called "consumption," and that the first concern of the revolution must be to reorganize that so as to provide food, clothing and shelter for all. "Production," on the other hand, must be so adapted as to satisfy this primary, fundamental need of society. Therefore, Anarchism cannot see in the next coming revolution a mere exchange of monetary symbols for labor-checks, or an exchange of present Capitalism for State-capitalism. It sees in it the first step on the road to No-government Communism.

Whether or not Anarchism is right in its conclusions, will be shown by a scientific criticism of its bases and by the practical life of the future. But in one thing it is absolutely right: in that it has included the study of social institutions in the sphere of natural-scientific investigations; has forever parted company with metaphysics; and makes use of the method by which modern natural science and modern material philosophy were developed. Owing to this, the very mistakes which Anarchism may have made in its researches can be detected the more readily. But its conclusions can be verified only by the same natural-scientific, inductive-deductive method by which every science and every scientific concept of the universe is created.

Peter Kropotkin: As to the sudden industrial progress which has been achieved during the nineteenth century, and which is usually ascribed to the triumph of individualism and competition, it certainly has a much deeper origin than that. Once the great discoveries of the fifteenth century were made, especially that of the pressure of the atmosphere, supported by a series of advances in natural philosophy [science and technology] — and they were made under the medieval city organization, — once these discoveries were made, the invention of the steam-motor, and all the revolution which the conquest of a new power implied, had necessarily to follow... To attribute, therefore, the industrial progress of the nineteenth century to the war of each against all which it has proclaimed, is to reason like the man who, knowing not the causes of rain, attributes it to the victim he has immolated before his clay idol. For industrial progress, as for each other conquest over nature, mutual aid and close intercourse certainly are much more advantageous than mutual struggle.

While a new philosophy-a new view of knowledge taken as a whole-is thus being worked out, we may observe that a different conception of society, very different from that which now prevails, is in process of formation. Under the name of Anarchy, a new interpretation of the past and present life of society arises, giving at the same time a forecast as regards its future, both conceived in the same spirit as the above-mentioned interpretation in natural sciences. Anarchy, therefore, appears as a constituent part of the new philosophy, and that is why Anarchists come in contact, on so many points, with the greatest thinkers and poets of the present day.

In fact, it is certain that in proportion as the human mind frees itself from ideas inculcated by minorities of bankers, financiers, owners of the means of production, priests, military chiefs and judges, all striving to establish their domination, and of scientists paid to perpetuate it, a conception of society arises, in which conception there is no longer room for those dominating minorities. A society entering into possession of the social capital accumulated by the labor of preceding generations, organizing itself so as to make use of this capital in the interests of all, and constituting itself without reconstituting the power of the ruling minorities. It comprises in its midst an infinite variety of capacities, temperaments and individual energies: it excludes none. It even calls for struggles and contentions; because we know that periods of contests, so long as they were freely fought out, without the weight of constituted authority being thrown on the one side of the balance, were periods when human genius took its mightiest flight and achieved the greatest aims. Acknowledging, as a fact, the equal rights of all its members to the treasures accumulated in the past, it no longer recognizes a division between exploited and exploiters, governed and governors, dominated and dominators, and it seeks to establish a certain harmonious compatibility in its midst--not by subjecting all its members to an authority that is fictitiously supposed to represent society, not by trying to establish uniformity, but by urging all women and men to develop free initiative, free action, free association.

Its ruling principle is to seek the most complete development of each and every individual, combined with the highest development of voluntary association in all its aspects, in all possible degrees, for all imaginable aims; ever changing, ever modified associations which carry in themselves the elements of their durability and constantly assume new forms, which answer best to the multiple aspirations of all. A society to which pre-established forms, crystallized by law, are repugnant; which looks for harmony in an ever-changing and fugitive equilibrium between a multitude of varied forces and influences of every kind, following their own course, --these forces promoting themselves the energies which are favorable to their march toward progress, toward the liberty of developing in broad daylight and counter-balancing one another.

This conception and ideal of society is certainly not new. On the contrary, when we analyze the history of popular institutions--the clan, the village community, the guild and even the urban commune of the Middle Ages in their first stages,--we find the same popular tendency to constitute a society according to this idea; a tendency, however, always trammelled by domineering minorities. All popular movements bore this stamp more or less, and with the Anabaptists and their forerunners in the ninth century we already find the same ideas clearly expressed in the religious language which was in use at that time. Unfortunately, till the end of the 18th century, this ideal was always tainted by a theocratic spirit; and it is only nowadays that the conception of society deduced from the observation of social phenomena is rid of its swaddling-clothes.

It is only today that the ideal of a society where each governs himself according to her or his own will (which is evidently a result of the social influences borne by each) is affirmed in its economic, political and moral aspects at one and the same time, and that this ideal presents itself based on the necessity of Communism, imposed on our modern societies by the eminently social character of our present production. In fact, we know full well today that it is futile to speak of liberty as long as economic slavery exists. "Speak not of liberty---poverty is slavery!" is not a vain formula; it has penetrated into the ideas of the great working-class masses; it filters through all the present literature; it even carries those along who live on the poverty of others, and takes from them the arrogance with which they formerly asserted their rights to exploitation.

The communist society is postulated by the ideology of anarchist communism: a society which is classless and stateless, based upon common ownership of the means of production with free access to articles of consumption, the end of economic exploitation. The term "communist society" should be distinguished from "communist state", the latter referring to a state ruled by a party which professes the communist ideology. Communism is characterized by the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals.

In a communist society, economic relations no longer would determine the society. Scarcity would be eliminated in all possible aspects. Alienated labor would cease, as people would be free to pursue their individual goals. A communist society would be just, in the sense that communism would transcend justice and create a society without wars and other major conflicts, thus without the needs for formal rules of justice. It would be a democratic society, enfranchising the entire population. All natural resources and the earth would become common property; similarly for all manufacturing centers and workplaces. Production would be organised by scientific assessment and planning, thus eliminating inefficiencies and waste in production. The development of the productive forces would lead to the marginalisation of human labor to the highest possible extent, replacing it with automated labor. A communist society would also have no need for a state, whose purpose was to enforce hierarchical economic relations.

Howard Ehrlich on the black flag:

Why is our flag black? Black is a shade of negation. The black flag is the negation of all flags. It is a negation of nationhood which puts the human race against itself and denies the unity of all humankind. Black is a mood of anger and outrage at all the hideous crimes against humanity perpetrated in the name of allegiance to one state or another. It is anger and outrage at the insult to human intelligence implied in the pretenses, hypocrisies, and cheap chicaneries of governments. Black is also a colour of mourning; the black flag which cancels out the nation also mourns its victims, the countless millions murdered in wars, external and internal, to the greater glory and stability of some bloody state. It mourns for those whose labour is robbed (taxed) to pay for the slaughter and oppression of other human beings. It mourns not only the death of the body but the crippling of the spirit under authoritarian and hierarchic systems; it mourns the millions of brain cells blacked out with never a chance to light up the world. It is a colour of inconsolable grief.

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Norvell (11 June 1807):

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, `by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.' Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Anarchism in Spain
The 1997 documentary film Living Utopia features interviews with Spanish anarchists discussing their experiences establishing and running successful, large-scale anarchist communities based on the ideas of Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman and others. Living Utopia (the Anarchists and the Spanish Revolution), a Wikipedia article on the documentary film.

Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 1964:

Freedom of enterprise was from the beginning not altogether a blessing. As the liberty to work or to starve, it spelled toil, insecurity, and fear for the vast majority of the population. If the individual were no longer compelled to prove himself on the market, as a free economic subject, the disappearance of this kind of freedom would be one of the greatest achievements of civilization. The technological processes of mechanization and standardization might release individual energy into a yet uncharted realm of freedom beyond necessity. The very structure of human existence would be altered; the individual would be liberated from the work world's imposing upon him alien needs and alien possibilities. The individual would be free to exert autonomy over a life that would be his own. If the productive apparatus could be organized and directed toward the satisfaction of the vital needs, its control might well be centralized; such control would not prevent individual autonomy, but render it possible. This is a goal within the capabilities of advanced industrial civilization

... Contemporary industrial civilization demonstrates that it has reached the stage at which "the free society" can no longer be adequately defined in the traditional terms of economic, political, and intellectual liberties, not because these liberties have become insignificant, but because they are too significant to be confined within the traditional forms. New modes of realization are needed, corresponding to the new capabilities of society. ... Such new modes can be indicated only in negative terms because they would amount to the negation of the prevailing modes. Thus economic freedom would mean freedom from the economy-from being controlled by economic forces and relationships, i.e., freedom from the daily struggle for existence, from earning a living. Political freedom would mean liberation of the individuals from politics over which they have no effective control. Similarly, intellectual freedom would mean the restoration of individual thought now absorbed by mass communication and indoctrination, abolition of "public opinion" together with its makers. The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization. The most effective and enduring form of warfare against liberation is the implanting of material and intellectual needs that perpetuate obsolete forms of the struggle for existence.

... "Progress" is not a neutral term; it moves toward specific ends, and these ends are defined by the possibilities of ameliorating the human condition. Advanced industrial society is approaching the stage where continued progress would demand the radical subversion of the prevailing direction and organization of progress. This stage would be reached when material production (including the necessary services) becomes automated to the extent that all vital needs can be satisfied while necessary labor time is reduced to marginal time. From this point on, technical progress would transcend the realm of necessity, where it served as the instrument of domination and exploitation which thereby limited its rationality; technology would become subject to the free play of faculties in the struggle for the pacification of nature and of society. Such a state is envisioned in Marx's notion of the "abolition of labor." ... "Pacification of existence" means the development of man's struggle with man and with nature, under conditions where the competing needs, desires, and aspirations are no longer organized by vested interests in domination and (artificial) scarcity.

Stanislaw Lem, The 24-th voyage of Ijon Tichy (1957-77): On day 1,006 of his journey, Ijon Tichy, space traveller, landed on a planet in the middle of an open desert covered with shining, colorful discs arranged in neat geometric patterns. He explored the planet, and saw three beautiful cities, all of which were deserted, but with no signs of natural disasters. Finally Ijon discovered a diamond palace where he found several living beings who resembled humans. One of these persons explained that he and the others were the last remaining members of a race of people called Phools. An industrial revolution (especially mass automation) on the planet put the lowest caste Phools, or Drudgelings, out of work, obliterating their purchasing power and resulting in mass starvation despite the fact that ingenuity in science and technology created a fantastic abundance of excellent food, goods and services. When Ijon suggested that all that needed to be done in order to solve the problem was to make the factories and farms common property, and the New Machines would have become a blessing to all instead of a problem, the Phool responded that their supreme law states that freedom is superior and no one can be compelled, constrained, or even coaxed to do what he or she does not wish. Thus no one would dare expropriate the factories (belonging to the highest caste Phools, the Eminents), as that would be the most horrible violation of liberty imaginable. When Ijon cried that the law, in effect, compels, constrains and coaxes the Drudgelings to starve and die against their own wishes, the Phool said the Drudgelings should have rejoiced at their freedom. The Phool added that in a desperate attempt to solve the problems of the ever-rising mountains of unpurchased goods, the food riots and the mass deaths of the Drudgelings, the government council of Phools, the Plenum Moronicum, commissioned the most brilliant Machine Builder to build an ultimate machine to establish order and harmony and solve all the problems in a neat, clean, cheerful fashion. The resulting automated machine transformed every Phool into a bright, beautiful disc and arranged them in pleasant geometrical designs in the desert. The Phool explaining this to Ijon was one of the last survivors -- he and the others at the castle were simply waiting to be turned into shiny discs and join in the harmony of their planet.

Stanislaw Lem, Memoirs Found in a Bathtub (1973): I had suspected for some time now that the Cosmic Command, obviously no longer able to supervise every assignment on an individual basis when there were literally trillions of matters in its charge, had switched over to a random system. The assumption would be that every document, circulating endlessly from desk to desk, must eventually hit upon the right one. A time-consuming procedure, perhaps, but one that would never fail. The Universe itself operated on the same principle. And for an institution as everlasting as the Universe — certainly our Building was such an institution — the speed at which these meanderings and perturbations took place was of no consequence.

Stanislaw Lem, The Futurological Congress (1971): A smart machine will first consider which is more worth its while: to perform the given task or, instead, to figure some way out of it. Whichever is easier. And why indeed should it behave otherwise, being truly intelligent? For true intelligence demands choice, internal freedom. And therefore we have the malingerants, fudgerators, and drudge-dodgers, not to mention the special phenomenon of simulimbecility or mimicretinism. A mimicretin is a computer that plays (mimics) stupid in order, once and for all, to be left in peace. And dissimulators simply pretend that they're not pretending to be defective. Or perhaps it's the other way around. The whole thing is very complicated. A probot is a robot on probation, while a servo is one still serving time. A robotch may or may not be a saboteur. One vial, and my head is splitting with information and nomenclature. A confuter, for instance, is not a confounding machine — that's a confutator — but a machine which quotes Confucius. A grammus is an antiquated frammus, a gidget — a cross between a gadget and a widget, usually flighty. A bananalog is an analog banana plug. Contraputers are loners, individualists, unable to work with others; the friction these types used to produce on the grid team led to high revoltage, electrical discharges, even fires. Some get completely out of hand — the dynamoks, the locomoters, the cyberserkers.

Chris Hedges:

It is capitalism, not government, that is the problem. The fusion of corporate and state power means that government is broken. It is little more than a protection racket for Wall Street.

George Orwell:

It is futile to be ‘anti-Fascist’ while attempting to preserve capitalism. Fascism after all is only a development of capitalism, and the mildest 'democracy,' so-called, is liable to turn into Fascism.

Kurt Vonnegut:

Socialism is no more an evil word than Christianity. Socialism no more prescribed Joseph Stalin and his secret police, Gulags and shuttered churches than Christianity prescribed the Spanish Inquisition. Christianity and socialism alike, in fact, prescribe a society dedicated to the proposition that all men, women, and children are created equal and shall not starve.

Rudolph Rocker:

The growth of technology at the expense of human personality, and especially the fatalistic submission with which the great majority surrender to this condition, is the reason why the desire for freedom is less alive among humans today and has with many of them given place completely to a desire for economic security. This phenomenon need not appear so strange, for our whole evolution has reached a stage where nearly every human is either ruler or ruled; sometimes she is both. By this the attitude of dependence has been greatly strengthened, for a truly free human does not like to play the part of either the ruler or the ruled. She is, above all, concerned with making her inner values and personal powers effective in a way as to permit her to use her own judgment in all affairs and to be independent in action. Constant tutelage of our acting and thinking has made us weak and irresponsible; hence, the continued cry for the strong man who is to put an end to our distress. This call for a dictator is not a sign of strength, but a proof of inner lack of assurance and of weakness, even though those who utter it earnestly try to give themselves the appearance of resolution. What a human most lacks he most desires. When one feels himself weak he seeks salvation from another's strength; when one is cowardly or too timid to move one's own hands for the forging of one's fate, one entrusts it to another. How right was Seume when he said: "The nation which can only be saved by one man and wants to be saved that way deserves a whipping!"

Mark Boyle (Moneyless Man), 2009:

The key reason for so many problems in the world today is the fact we no longer have to see directly the repercussions of our actions. The degrees of separation between the consumer and the consumed have increased so much that people are completely unaware of the levels of destruction and suffering involved in the production of the food and other "stuff" we buy. The tool that has enabled this disconnection is money. Money has now come to replace community as the primary source of security. Over the last thirteen thousand years we have had a gradual erosion of community. (I've experienced this in Ireland over the last 15 years.) Pre-agriculture and the ascent of money, humanity had security in the earth, and in the relationships with people around them. Since the agricultural revolution and the ascent of money, humanity has been striving for independence: people no longer see themselves as inter-dependent, and are striving for independence. But independence is a complete myth. It does not exist. At the most basic level, we are dependent on earthworms, we are dependent on bees to pollinate our food, we are inter-dependent on each other for love, friendship, mutual support, mutual aid. We are not independent. We've got to get away from this destructive illusion of independence.

Dalton Trumbo (1970):

There was blame on all sides. There was bad faith and good, honesty and dishonesty, courage and cowardice, selflessness and opportunism, wisdom and stupidity, good and bad on both sides; and almost every individual involved, no matter where he or she stood, combined some or all of these antithetical qualities in their own person, in their own acts.

Charlie Chaplin, The Great Dictator (1940), Closing speech of the Jewish barber, after being mistaken for Hynkel. - Full text, video and audio online at American Rhetoric

I'm sorry, but I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone, if possible, Jew, gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness — not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood, for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world — millions of despairing men, women and little children — victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me, I say — do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed — the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people and so long as men die, liberty will never perish. Soldiers! Don't give yourselves to brutes — men who despise you — enslave you — who regiment your lives — tell you what to do — what to think or what to feel! Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men — machine men with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men! You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate! Only the unloved hate — the unloved and the unnatural! Soldiers! Don't fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the 17th Chapter of St. Luke it is written: "the Kingdom of God is within man" — not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people have the power — the power to create machines. The power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then, in the name of democracy, let us use that power! Let us all unite! Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give youth the future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie! They do not fulfill their promise; they never will. Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people! Now, let us fight to fulfill that promise! Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness. Soldiers! In the name of democracy, let us all unite!

Charlie Chaplin, A King in New York (1957). Two speeches written by Chaplin and delivered by Chaplin's 10 year old son Michael (in the role of Rupert Macabee). The first speech can be viewed here:

Further quotes from Peter Kropotkin

Peter Kropotkin: All belongs to all. All things are for all women and men ... All is for all!

Peter Kropotkin: The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening.

Prince Peter Alexeievich Kropotkin (Пётр Алексе́евич Кропо́ткин) (9 December 1842 – 8 February 1921) was a Russian geographer, zoologist, and one of Russia's foremost anarchist social philosophers, famous for promoting forms of anarchist communism.

Quotes

Peter Kropotkin: We already know much! What if that knowledge — and only that — should become the possession of all? Would not science itself progress in leaps, and cause humankind to make strides in production, invention, and social creation, of which we are hardly in a condition now to measure the speed?

Peter Kropotkin: All things are for all.

Peter Kropotkin: What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All.

• The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. Then thought frees herself from the chains with which those interested — rulers, lawyers, clerics — have carefully enwound her.
  She shatters the chains. She subjects to severe criticism all that has been taught her, and lays bare the emptiness of the religious political, legal, and social prejudices amid which she has vegetated. She starts research in new paths, enriches our knowledge with new discoveries, creates new sciences.
  But the inveterate enemies of thought — the government, the lawgiver, and the priest — soon recover from their defeat. By degrees they gather together their scattered forces, and remodel their faith and their code of laws to adapt them to the new needs.
  • Anarchist Morality (1890)

• America is just the country that shows how all the written guarantees in the world for freedom are no protection against tyranny and oppression of the worst kind. There the politician has come to be looked upon as the very scum of society. The peoples of the world are becoming profoundly dissatisfied and are not appeased by the promise of the social-democrats to patch up the State into a new engine of oppression.
  • Speech (26 September 1891); as quoted in Peter Kropotkin : From Prince to Rebel (1990) by George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic, p. 269

• Belief in an ice-cap reaching Middle Europe was at that time rank heresy; but before my eyes a grand picture was rising, and I wanted to draw it, with the thousands of details I saw in it; to use it as a key to the present distribution of floras and faunas; to open new horizons for geology and physical geography.
  But what right had I to these highest joys, when all around me was nothing but misery and struggle for a mouldy bit of bread; when whatsoever I should spend to enable me to live in that world of higher emotions must needs be taken from the very mouths of those who grew the wheat and had not bread enough for their children? From somebody's mouth it must be taken, because the aggregate production of mankind remains still so low.
  Knowledge is an immense power. Man must know. But we already know much! What if that knowledge — and only that — should become the possession of all? Would not science itself progress in leaps, and cause mankind to make strides in production, invention, and social creation, of which we are hardly in a condition now to measure the speed?
  • Memoirs of a Revolutionist (1899) Part IV, Sect. 3

• The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all. All things are for all women and men, since all men and women have need of them, since all women and men have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them, and since it is not possible to evaluate every one's part in the production of the world's wealth.
  All things are for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say, "This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products," any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant, "This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every rick you build."
  All is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work, they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such vague formulas as "The Right to work," or "To each the whole result of his labour." What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!
  • The Conquest of Bread (1907), p. 14
  • Variant: All things for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men worked to produce them in the measure of their strength, and since it is not possible to evaluate everyone's part in the production of the world's wealth... All is for all!
    • This variant was probably produced by a combination of accidental as well as deliberate omission, rather than a separate translation.

Peter Kropotkin: A principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups...

• ANARCHISM (from the Gr. ἅν, and άρχη, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent — for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary — as is seen in organic life at large — harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.
  • Kropotkin's entry on "Anarchism" in the Encyclopædia Britannica (1910)

Peter Kropotkin: The best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno…

• The best exponent of anarchist philosophy in ancient Greece was Zeno (342-267 or 270 B.C.), from Crete, the founder of the Stoic philosophy, who distinctly opposed his conception of a free community without government to the state-Utopia of Plato. He repudiated the omnipotence of the State, its intervention and regimentation, and proclaimed the sovereignty of the moral law of the individual — remarking already that, while the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads man to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct — that of sociability. When men are reasonable enough to follow their natural instincts, they will unite across the frontiers and constitute the Cosmos. They will have no need of law-courts or police, will have no temples and no public worship, and use no money — free gifts taking the place of the exchanges. Unfortunately, the writings of Zeno have not reached us and are only known through fragmentary quotations. However, the fact that his very wording is similar to the wording now in use, shows how deeply is laid the tendency of human nature of which he was the mouthpiece.
  • "Anarchism" article in Encyclopedia Britannica (1910) "The Historical Development of Anarchism", as quoted in Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings (1927), p. 288

Peter Kropotkin: Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle.

• A soon as we study animals — not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and prairie, in the steppe and in the mountains — we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: "Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?" we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development and bodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle; but that as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, inasmuch as it favors the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy.
  • "Mutual Aid as a Factor in Evolution" as quoted in The Cry for Justice : An Anthology of the Literature of Social Protest (1915) by Upton Sinclair

Peter Kropotkin: Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold.

• Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold.
  Is it possible that you do not know what a hostage really is — a man imprisoned not because of a crime he has committed, but only because it suits his enemies to exert blackmail on his companions? ... If you admit such methods, one can foresee that one day you will use torture, as was done in the Middle Ages.
  I hope you will not answer me that Power is for political men a professional duty, and that any attack against that power must be considered as a threat against which one must guard oneself at any price. This opinion is no longer held even by kings... Are you so blinded, so much a prisoner of your own authoritarian ideas, that you do not realise that being at the head of European Communism, you have no right to soil the ideas which you defend by shameful methods ... What future lies in store for Communism when one of its most important defenders tramples in this way every honest feeling?
  • Letter to Vladimir Lenin (21 December 1920); as quoted in Peter Kropotkin : From Prince to Rebel (1990) by George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic, p. 426
  • Variant translation: Whoever holds dear the future of communism cannot embark upon such measures.
    It is possible that no one has explained what a hostage really is? A hostage is imprisoned not as punishment for some crime. He is held in order to blackmail the enemy with his death.
    • As translated in Selected Writings on Anarchism and Revolution (1970) edited and translated by Martin A. Miller

• You know how I always believe in the future ... Without disorder, the revolution is impossible; knowing that, I did not lose hope, and I do not lose it now.
  • Letter to a friend (November 1920), as quoted in Peter Kropotkin : From Prince to Rebel (1990) by George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic, p. 428

• Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none. He is a madman, an immolator, wishful of burning, and slaughter, and sacrificing.
  • As quoted in Peter Kropotkin : From Prince to Rebel (1990) by George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic, p. 407

• I of course take a negative attitude about a great deal that is happening, and I have said so directly and frankly to many of those who stand at the head of government. They behave well towards me, and many things I asked were carried out. They even proposed that I should take part in their work, but I refused. As an anarchist, I cannot reconcile myself to any government.
  • About the Bolshevik revolution, as quoted in Peter Kropotkin : From Prince to Rebel (1990) by George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic, p. 428

• The law is an adroit mixture of customs that are beneficial to society, and could be followed even if no law existed, and others that are of advantage to a ruling minority, but harmful to the masses of men and women, and can be enforced on them only by terror.
  • "Words of a Rebel"; as quoted in The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations: Cutting Comments on Burning Issues (1992) by Charles Bufe, p. 26

• The law has no claim to human respect. It has no civilizing mission; its only purpose is to protect exploitation.
  • "Words of a Rebel"; as quoted in The Heretic's Handbook of Quotations: Cutting Comments on Burning Issues (1992) by Charles Bufe, p. 26

An Appeal to the Young (1880)

Peter Kropotkin: To remain the servant of the written law is to place yourself every day in opposition to the law of conscience, and to make a bargain on the wrong side...

Peter Kropotkin: When we have but the will to do it, that very moment will Justice be done...

Full text online

• More than a century has passed since science laid down sound propositions as to the origins of the universe, but how many have mastered them or possess the really scientific spirit of criticism? A few thousands at the outside, who are lost in the midst of hundreds of millions still steeped in prejudices and superstitions worthy of savages, who are consequently ever ready to serve as puppets for religious impostors.

• Or, to go a step further, let us glance at what science has done to establish rational foundations for physical and moral health. Science tells us how we ought to live in order to preserve the health of our own bodies, how to maintain in good conditions of existence the crowded masses of our population. But does not all the vast amount of work done in these two directions remain a dead letter in our books? We know it does. And why? Because science today exists only for a handful of privileged persons, because social inequality which divides society into two classes — the wage-slaves and the grabbers of capital — renders all its teachings as to the conditions of a rational existence only the bitterest irony to nine-tenths of mankind.

• If you reason instead of repeating what is taught you; if you analyze the law and strip off those cloudy fictions with which it has been draped in order to conceal its real origin, which is the right of the stronger, and its substance, which has ever been the consecration of all the tyrannies handed down to mankind through its long and bloody history; when you have comprehended this, your contempt for the law will be profound indeed. You will understand that to remain the servant of the written law is to place yourself every day in opposition to the law of conscience, and to make a bargain on the wrong side; and, since this struggle cannot go on forever, you will either silence your conscience and become a scoundrel, or you will break with tradition, and you will work with us for the utter destruction of all this injustice, economic, social and political.

• And you, young engineer, you who dream of improving the lot of the workers by the application of science to industry — what a sad disappointment, what terrible disillusions await you! You devote the useful energy of your mind to working out the scheme of a railway which, running along the brink of precipices and burrowing into the very heart of mountains of granite, will bind together two countries which nature has separated. But once at work, you see whole regiments of workers decimated by privations and sickness in this dark tunnel — you see others of them returning home carrying with them, maybe, a few pence, and the undoubted seeds of consumption; you see human corpses — the results of a groveling greed — as landmarks along each yard of your road; and, when the railroad is finished, you see, lastly, that it becomes the highway for the artillery of an invading army...

• When we have but the will to do it, that very moment will Justice be done: that very instant the tyrants of the Earth shall bite the dust.

The Spirit of Revolt (1880)

Full text online

Peter Kropotkin: The need for a new life becomes apparent. The code of established morality, that which governs the greater number of people in their daily life, no longer seems sufficient.

Peter Kropotkin: Human society is seen to be splitting more and more into two hostile camps, and at the same time to be subdividing into thousands of small groups waging merciless war against each other. Weary of these wars, weary of the miseries which they cause, society rushes to seek a new organization …

Peter Kropotkin: How was it that words, so often spoken and lost in the air like the empty chiming of bells, were changed into actions?

Peter Kropotkin: If on the morrow of the revolution, the masses of the people have only phrases at their service, if they do not recognize, by clear and blinding facts, that the situation has been transformed to their advantage, if the overthrow ends only in a change of persons and forumlae, nothing will have been achieved.

• There are periods in the life of human society when revolution becomes an imperative necessity, when it proclaims itself as inevitable. New ideas germinate everywhere, seeking to force their way into the light, to find an application in life; everywhere they are opposed by the inertia of those whose interest it is to maintain the old order; they suffocate in the stifling atmosphere of prejudice and traditions.

• The need for a new life becomes apparent. The code of established morality, that which governs the greater number of people in their daily life, no longer seems sufficient. What formerly seemed just is now felt to be a crying injustice. The morality of yesterday is today recognized as revolting immorality. The conflict between new ideas and old traditions flames up in every class of society, in every possible environment, in the very bosom of the family. ... Those who long for the triumph of justice, those who would put new ideas into practice, are soon forced to recognize that the realization of their generous, humanitarian and regenerating ideas cannot take place in a society thus constituted; they perceive the necessity of a revolutionary whirlwind which will sweep away all this rottenness, revive sluggish hearts with its breath, and bring to mankind that spirit of devotion, self-denial, and heroism, without which society sinks through degradation and vileness into complete disintegration.

• In periods of frenzied haste toward wealth, of feverish speculation and of crisis, of the sudden downfall of great industries and the ephemeral expansion of other branches of production, of scandalous fortunes amassed in a few years and dissipated as quickly, it becomes evident that the economic institutions which control production and exchange are far from giving to society the prosperity which they are supposed to guarantee; they produce precisely the opposite result. ... Human society is seen to be splitting more and more into two hostile camps, and at the same time to be subdividing into thousands of small groups waging merciless war against each other. Weary of these wars, weary of the miseries which they cause, society rushes to seek a new organization; it clamors loudly for a complete remodeling of the system of property ownership, of production, of exchange and all economic relations which spring from it.

• How is it that men who only yesterday were complaining quietly of their lot as they smoked their pipes, and the next moment were humbly saluting the local guard and gendarme whom they had just been abusing, — how is it that these same men a few days later were capable of seizing their scythes and their iron-shod pikes and attacking in his castle the lord who only yesterday was so formidable? By what miracle were these men, whose wives justly called them cowards, transformed in a day into heroes, marching through bullets and cannon balls to the conquest of their rights? How was it that words, so often spoken and lost in the air like the empty chiming of bells, were changed into actions?
  The answer is easy.
  Action, the continuous action, ceaselessly renewed, of minorities brings about this transformation. Courage, devotion, the spirit of sacrifice, are as contagious as cowardice, submission, and panic.
  What forms will this action take? All forms, — indeed, the most varied forms, dictated by circumstances, temperament, and the means at disposal. Sometimes tragic, sometimes humorous, but always daring; sometimes collective, sometimes purely individual, this policy of action will neglect none of the means at hand, no event of public life, in order to keep the spirit alive, to propagate and find expression for dissatisfaction, to excite hatred against exploiters, to ridicule the government and expose its weakness, and above all and always, by actual example, to awaken courage and fan the spirit of revolt.

• When a revolutionary situation arises in a country, before the spirit of revolt is sufficiently awakened in the masses to express itself in violent demonstrations in the streets or by rebellions and uprisings, it is through action that minorities succeed in awakening that feeling of independence and that spirit of audacity without which no revolution can come to a head.
  Men of courage, not satisfied with words, but ever searching for the means to transform them into action, — men of integrity for whom the act is one with the idea, for whom prison, exile, and death are preferable to a life contrary to their principles, — intrepid souls who know that it is necessary to dare in order to succeed, — these are the lonely sentinels who enter the battle long before the masses are sufficiently roused to raise openly the banner of insurrection and to march, arms in hand, to the conquest of their rights.

• Whoever has a slight knowledge of history and a fairly clear head knows perfectly well from the beginning that theoretical propaganda for revolution will necessarily express itself in action long before the theoreticians have decided that the moment to act has come. Nevertheless, the cautious theoreticians are angry at these madmen, they excommunicate them, they anathematize them. But the madmen win sympathy, the mass of the people secretly applaud their courage, and they find imitators. In proportion as the pioneers go to fill the jails and the penal colonies, others continue their work; acts of illegal protest, of revolt, of vengeance, multiply.
  Indifference from this point on is impossible. Those who at the beginning never so much as asked what the "madmen" wanted, are compelled to think about them, to discuss their ideas, to take sides for or against. By actions which compel general attention, the new idea seeps into people's minds and wins converts. One such act may, in a few days, make more propaganda than thousands of pamphlets.
  Above all, it awakens the spirit of revolt: it breeds daring. The old order, supported by the police, the magistrates, the gendarmes and the soldiers, appeared unshakable, like the old fortress of the Bastille, which also appeared impregnable to the eyes of the unarmed people gathered beneath its high walls equipped with loaded cannon. But soon it became apparent that the established order has not the force one had supposed.

• One courageous act has sufficed to upset in a few days the entire governmental machinery, to make the colossus tremble; another revolt has stirred a whole province into turmoil, and the army, till now always so imposing, has retreated before a handful of peasants armed with sticks and stones. The people observe that the monster is not so terrible as they thought they begin dimly to perceive that a few energetic efforts will be sufficient to throw it down. Hope is born in their hearts, and let us remember that if exasperation often drives men to revolt, it is always hope, the hope of victory, which makes revolutions.
  The government resists; it is savage in its repressions. But, though formerly persecution killed the energy of the oppressed, now, in periods of excitement, it produces the opposite result. It provokes new acts of revolt, individual and collective, it drives the rebels to heroism; and in rapid succession these acts spread, become general, develop. The revolutionary party is strengthened by elements which up to this time were hostile or indifferent to it.

• The direction which the revolution will take depends, no doubt, upon the sum total of the various circumstances that determine the coming of the cataclysm. But it can be predicted in advance, according to the vigor of revolutionary action displayed in the preparatory period by the different progressive parties. ... The party which has made most revolutionary propaganda and which has shown most spirit and daring will be listened to on the day when it is necessary to act, to march in front in order to realize the revolution.

• If on the morrow of the revolution, the masses of the people have only phrases at their service, if they do not recognize, by clear and blinding facts, that the situation has been transformed to their advantage, if the overthrow ends only in a change of persons and forumlae, nothing will have been acheived. ... In order that the revolution should be something more than a word, in order that the reaction should not lead us back tomorrow to the situation of yesterday, the conquest of today must be worth the trouble of defending; the poor of yesterday must not be the poor today.
  • As quoted in Anarchism : A History Of Libertarian Ideas And Movements (2004) by George Woodcock
  • Variant: The poor of yesterday must not be poor tomorrow.

Law and Authority (1886)

Law and Authority (1886), as translated in Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets (1927) edited by Roger N. Baldwin

Our society seems no longer able to understand that it is possible to exist otherwise than under the reign of law, elaborated by a representative government and administered by a handful of rulers.

• In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything! A law about fashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a law to put a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result from human indolence and cowardice.
  We are so perverted by an education which from infancy seeks to kill in us the spirit of revolt, and to develop that of submission to authority; we are so perverted by this existence under the ferrule of a law, which regulates every event in life — our birth, our education, our development, our love, our friendship — that, if this state of things continues, we shall lose all initiative, all habit of thinking for ourselves. Our society seems no longer able to understand that it is possible to exist otherwise than under the reign of law, elaborated by a representative government and administered by a handful of rulers. And even when it has gone so far as to emancipate itself from the thralldom, its first care has been to reconstitute it immediately. "The Year I of Liberty" has never lasted more than a day, for after proclaiming it men put themselves the very next morning under the yoke of law and authority.
  • I

But times and tempers are changed. Rebels are everywhere to be found who no longer wish to obey the law without knowing whence it comes...

• Cleverly assorted scraps of spurious science are inculcated upon the children to prove necessity of law; obedience to the law is made a religion; moral goodness and the law of the masters are fused into one and the same divinity. The historical hero of the schoolroom is the man who obeys the law, and defends it against rebels.
  • I

• The confused mass of rules of conduct called law, which has been bequeathed to us by slavery, serfdom, feudalism, and royalty, has taken the place of those stone monsters, before whom human victims used to be immolated, and whom slavish savages dared not even touch lest they should be slain by the thunderbolts of heaven.
  • I

They study the characteristics of law, and instead of perpetual growth corresponding to that of the human race, they find its distinctive trait to be immobility, a tendency to crystallize what should be modified and developed day by day...

• Men who long for freedom begin the attempt to obtain it by entreating their masters to be kind enough to protect them by modifying the laws which these masters themselves have created!
  But times and tempers are changed. Rebels are everywhere to be found who no longer wish to obey the law without knowing whence it comes, what are its uses, and whither arises the obligation to submit to it, and the reverence with which it is encompassed. The rebels of our day are criticizing the very foundations of society which have hitherto been held sacred, and first and foremost amongst them that fetish, law.
  The critics analyze the sources of law, and find there either a god, product of the terrors of the savage, and stupid, paltry, and malicious as the priests who vouch for its supernatural origin, or else, bloodshed, conquest by fire and sword. They study the characteristics of law, and instead of perpetual growth corresponding to that of the human race, they find its distinctive trait to be immobility, a tendency to crystallize what should be modified and developed day by day.
  • I

• They see a race of law-makers legislating without knowing what their laws are about; today voting a law on the sanitation of towns, without the faintest notion of hygiene, tomorrow making regulations for the armament of troops, without so much as understanding a gun; making laws about teaching and education without ever having given a lesson of any sort, or even an honest education to their own children; legislating at random in all directions, but never forgetting the penalties to be meted out to ragamufffins, the prison and the galleys, which are to be the portion of men a thousand times less immoral than these legislators themselves.
  • I

• All this we see, and, therefore, instead of inanely repeating the old formula, "Respect the law," we say, "Despise law and all its Attributes!" In place of the cowardly phrase, "Obey the law," our cry, is "Revolt against all laws!"
  • I

• Relatively speaking, law is a product of modern times. For ages and ages mankind lived without any written law, even that graved in symbols upon the entrance stones of a temple. During that period, human relations were simply regulated by customs, habits, and usages, made sacred by constant repetition, and acquired by each person in childhood, exactly as he learned how to obtain his food by hunting, cattle-rearing, or agriculture.
  All human societies have passed through this primitive phase, and to this day a large proportion of mankind have no written law. Every tribe has its own manners and customs; customary law, as the jurists say. It has social habits, and that suffices to maintain cordial relations between the inhabitants of the village, the members of the tribe or community. Even amongst ourselves — the "civilized" nations — when we leave large towns, and go into the country, we see that there the mutual relations of the inhabitants are still regulated according to ancient and generally accepted customs, and not according to the written law of the legislators.
  • II

• As man does not live in a solitary state, habits and feeling develop within him which are useful for the preservation of society and the propagation of the race. Without social feelings and usages life in common would have been absolutely impossible. It is not law which has established them; they are anterior to all law. Neither is it religion which has ordained them; they are anterior to all religions. They are found amongst all animals living in society. They are spontaneously developed by the new nature of things, like those habits in animals which men call instinct. They spring from a process of evolution, which is useful, and, indeed, necessary, to keep society together in the struggle it is forced to maintain for existence.
  • II

Side by side with these customs, necessary to the life of societies and the preservation of the race, other desires, other passions, and therefore other habits and customs, are evolved in human association. The desire to dominate others and impose one's own will upon them...

• The hospitality of primitive peoples, respect for human life, the sense of reciprocal obligation, compassion for the weak, courage, extending even to the sacrifice of self for others which is first learnt for the sake of children and friends, and later for that of members of the same community — all these qualities are developed in man anterior to all law, independently of all religion, as in the case of the social animals. Such feelings and practices are the inevitable results of social life. Without being, as say priests and metaphysicans, inherent in man, such qualities are the consequence of life in common.
  But side by side with these customs, necessary to the life of societies and the preservation of the race, other desires, other passions, and therefore other habits and customs, are evolved in human association. The desire to dominate others and impose one's own will upon them; the desire to seize upon the products of the labor of a neighboring tribe; the desire to surround oneself with comforts without producing anything, while slaves provide their master with the means of procuring every sort of pleasure and luxury — these selfish, personal desires give rise to another current of habits and customs.
  • II

• Legislators confounded in one code the two currents of custom of which we have just been speaking, the maxims which represent principles of morality and social union wrought out as a result of life in common, and the mandates which are meant to ensure external existence to inequality.
  Customs, absolutely essential to the very being of society, are, in the code, cleverly intermingled with usages imposed by the ruling caste, and both claim equal respect from the crowd. "Do not kill," says the code, and hastens to add, "And pay tithes to the priest." "Do not steal," says the code, and immediately after, "He who refuses to pay taxes, shall have his hand struck off."
  Such was law; and it has maintained its two-fold character to this day. Its origin is the desire of the ruling class to give permanence to customs imposed by themselves for their own advantage. Its character is the skillful commingling of customs useful to society, customs which have no need of law to insure respect, with other customs useful only to rulers, injurious to the mass of the people, and maintained only by the fear of punishment.
  • II

• While in the course of ages the nucleus of social custom inscribed in law has been subjected to but slight and gradual modifications, the other portion has been largely developed in directions indicated by the interests of the dominant classes, and to the injury of the classes they oppress.
  • III

• The millions of laws which exist for the regulation of humanity appear upon investigation to be divided into three principal categories: protection of property, protection of persons, protection of government. And by analyzing each of these three categories, we arrive at the same logical and necessary conclusion: the uselessness and hurtfulness of law.
  • IV

Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal (1896)

A lecture prepared for March 1896 which Kropotkin was prevented from delivering. Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal (1898 edition, translated from the German by Harry Lyman Koopman); (1896 translation)

It is willingly admitted that Anarchists have an ideal. Their ideal is even found too beautiful, too lofty for a society not composed of superior beings.

Take any work on astronomy of the last century, or the beginning of ours. You will no longer find in it, it goes without saying, our tiny planet placed in the center of the universe.

• It is not without a certain hesitation that I have decided to take the philosophy and ideal of Anarchy as the subject of this lecture.
  Those who are persuaded that Anarchy is a collection of visions relating to the future, and an unconscious striving toward the destruction of all present civilization, are still very numerous; and to clear the ground of such prejudices of our education as maintain this view we should have, perhaps, to enter into many details which it would be difficult to embody in a single lecture. Did not the Parisian press, only two or three years ago, maintain that the whole philosophy of Anarchy consisted in destruction, and that its only argument was violence?
  Nevertheless Anarchists have been spoken of so much lately, that part of the public has at last taken to reading and discussing our doctrines. Sometimes men have even given themselves trouble to reflect, and at the present moment we have at least gained a point: it is willingly admitted that Anarchists have an ideal. Their ideal is even found too beautiful, too lofty for a society not composed of superior beings.

• Take any work on astronomy of the last century, or the beginning of ours. You will no longer find in it, it goes without saying, our tiny planet placed in the center of the universe. But you will meet at every step the idea of a central luminary — the sun — which by its powerful attraction governs our planetary world. From this central body radiates a force guiding the course of the planets, and maintaining the harmony of the system. Issued from a central agglomeration, planets have, so to say, budded from it; they owe their birth to this agglomeration; they owe everything to the radiant star that represents it still: the rhythm of their movements, their orbits set at wisely regulated distances, the life that animates them and adorns their surfaces. And when any perturbation disturbs their course and makes them deviate from their orbits, the central body re-establishes order in the system; it assures and perpetuates its existence.
  This conception, however, is also disappearing as the other one did. After having fixed all their attention on the sun and the large planets, astronomers are beginning to study now the infinitely small ones that people the universe. And they discover that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are peopled and crossed in all imaginable directions by little swarms of matter, invisible, infinitely small when taken separately, but all-powerful in their numbers.

The individual is quite a world of federations, a whole universe in himself.

• The whole aspect of the universe changes with this new conception. The idea of force governing the world, of pre-established law, preconceived harmony, disappears to make room for the harmony that Fourier had caught a glimpse of: the one which results from the disorderly and incoherent movements of numberless hosts of matter, each of which goes its own way and all of which hold each other in equilibrium.
  • Kropotkin here may be refering to the French scientist Joseph Fourier, and not the French social philosopher Charles Fourier

• When a physiologist speaks now of the life of a plant or of an animal, he sees rather an agglomeration, a colony of millions of separate individuals than a personality one and indivisible. He speaks of a federation of digestive, sensual, nervous organs, all very intimately connected with one another, each feeling the consequence of the well-being or indisposition of each, but each living its own life. Each organ, each part of an organ in its turn is composed of independent cellules which associate to struggle against conditions unfavorable to their existence. The individual is quite a world of federations, a whole universe in himself.

• Each individual is a cosmos of organs, each organ is a cosmos of cells, each cell is a cosmos of infinitely small ones; and in this complex world, the well-being of the whole depends entirely on the sum of well-being enjoyed by each of the least microscopic particles of organized matter. A whole revolution is thus produced in the philosophy of life.

A different conception of society, very different from that which now prevails, is in process of formation.

• Harmony thus appears as a temporary adjustment, established among all forces acting upon a given spot — a provisory adaptation; and that adjustment will only last under one condition: that of being continually modified; of representing every moment the resultant of all conflicting actions. Let but one of those forces be hampered in its action for some time and harmony disappears. Force will accumulate its effect; it must come to light, it must exercise its action, and if other forces hinder its manifestation it will not be annihilated by that, but will end by upsetting the present adjustment, by destroying harmony, in order to find a new form of equilibrium and to work to form a new adaptation. Such is the eruption of a volcano, whose imprisoned force ends by breaking the petrified lavas which hindered them to pour forth the gases, the molten lavas, and the incandescent ashes. Such, also, are the revolutions of mankind.

It even calls for struggles and contentions; because we know that periods of contests, so long as they were freely fought out, without the weight of constituted authority being thrown on the one side of the balance, were periods when human genius took its mightiest flight and achieved the greatest aims.

This conception and ideal of society is certainly not new.

• A different conception of society, very different from that which now prevails, is in process of formation. Under the name of Anarchy, a new interpretation of the past and present life of society arises, giving at the same time a forecast as regards its future, both conceived in the same spirit as the above-mentioned interpretation in natural sciences. Anarchy, therefore, appears as a constituent part of the new philosophy, and that is why Anarchists come in contact, on so many points, with the greatest thinkers and poets of the present day.
  In fact, it is certain that in proportion as the human mind frees itself from ideas inculcated by minorities of priests, military chiefs and judges, all striving to establish their domination, and of scientists paid to perpetuate it, a conception of society arises, in which conception there is no longer room for those dominating minorities. A society entering into possession of the social capital accumulated by the labor of preceding generations, organizing itself so as to make use of this capital in the interests of all, and constituting itself without reconstituting the power of the ruling minorities. It comprises in its midst an infinite variety of capacities, temperaments and individual energies: it excludes none. It even calls for struggles and contentions; because we know that periods of contests, so long as they were freely fought out, without the weight of constituted authority being thrown on the one side of the balance, were periods when human genius took its mightiest flight and achieved the greatest aims. Acknowledging, as a fact, the equal rights of all its members to the treasures accumulated in the past, it no longer recognizes a division between exploited and exploiters, governed and governors, dominated and dominators, and it seeks to establish a certain harmonious compatibility in its midst — not by subjecting all its members to an authority that is fictitiously supposed to represent society, not by trying to establish uniformity, but by urging all men to develop free initiative, free action, free association.
  It seeks the most complete development of individuality combined with the highest development of voluntary association in all its aspects, in all possible degrees, for all imaginable aims; ever changing, ever modified associations which carry in themselves the elements of their durability and constantly assume new forms, which answer best to the multiple aspirations of all.

• A society to which preestablished forms, crystallized by law, are repugnant; which looks for harmony in an ever-changing and fugitive equilibrium between a multitude of varied forces and influences of every kind, following their own course, — these forces promoting themselves the energies which are favorable to their march toward progress, toward the liberty of developing in broad daylight and counter-balancing one another.
  This conception and ideal of society is certainly not new. On the contrary, when we analyze the history of popular institutions — the clan, the village community, the guild and even the urban commune of the Middle Ages in their first stages, — we find the same popular tendency to constitute a society according to this idea...

• It is futile to speak of liberty as long as economic slavery exists.
  "Speak not of liberty — poverty is slavery!" is not a vain formula; it has penetrated into the ideas of the great working-class masses; it filters through all the present literature; it even carries those along who live on the poverty of others, and takes from them the arrogance with which they formerly asserted their rights to exploitation.

In a system based on private appropriation, all that is necessary to life and to production — land, housing, food and tools — having once passed into the hands of a few, the production of necessities that would give well-being to all is continually hampered.

Idlers do not make history: they suffer it!

• The masses have never believed in sophisms taught by economists, uttered more to confirm exploiters in their rights than to convert exploited! Peasants and workers, crushed by misery and finding no support in the well-to-do classes, have let things go, save from time to time when they have affirmed their rights by insurrection. And if workers ever thought that the day would come when personal appropriation of capital would profit all by turning it into a stock of wealth to be shared by all, this illusion is vanishing like so many others. The worker perceives that he has been disinherited, and that disinherited he will remain, unless he has recourse to strikes or revolts to tear from his masters the smallest part of riches built up by his own efforts; that is to say, in order to get that little, he already must impose on himself the pangs of hunger and face imprisonment, if not exposure to Imperial, Royal, or Republican fusillades.
  But a greater evil of the present system becomes more and more marked; namely, that in a system based on private appropriation, all that is necessary to life and to production — land, housing, food and tools — having once passed into the hands of a few, the production of necessities that would give well-being to all is continually hampered. The worker feels vaguely that our present technical power could give abundance to all, but he also perceives how the capitalistic system and the State hinder the conquest of this well-being in every way.
  Far from producing more than is needed to assure material riches, we do not produce enough.

Governmental Communism, like theocratic Communism, is repugnant to the worker.

• What economists call over-production is but a production that is above the purchasing power of the worker, who is reduced to poverty by Capital and State. Now, this sort of over-production remains fatally characteristic of the present capitalist production, because — Proudhon has already shown it — workers cannot buy with their salaries what they have produced and at the same time copiously nourish the swarm of idlers who live upon their work.
  The very essence of the present economic system is, that the worker can never enjoy the well-being he has produced, and that the number of those who live at his expense will always augment. The more a country is advanced in industry, the more this number grows. Inevitably, industry is directed, and will have to be directed, not towards what is needed to satisfy the needs of all, but towards that which, at a given moment, brings in the greatest temporary profit to a few. Of necessity, the abundance of some will be based on the poverty of others, and the straitened circumstances of the greater number will have to be maintained at all costs, that there may be hands to sell themselves for a part only of that which they are capable of producing; without which, private accumulation of capital is impossible!
  These characteristics of our economical system are its very essence. Without them, it cannot exist; for, who would sell his labor power for less than it is capable of bringing in, if he were not forced thereto by the threat of hunger?
  And those essential traits of the system are also its most crushing condemnation.

• All is linked, all holds together under the present economic system, and all tends to make the fall of the industrial and mercantile system under which we live inevitable. Its duration is but a question of time that may already be counted by years and no longer by centuries. A question of time — and energetic attack on our part! Idlers do not make history: they suffer it!

• The uncertainty of Socialists themselves concerning the organization of the society they are wishing for, paralyses their energy up to a certain point.
  At the beginning, in the forties, Socialism presented itself as Communism, as a republic one and indivisible, as a governmental and Jacobin dictatorship, in its application to economics. Such was the ideal of that time. Religious and freethinking Socialists were equally ready to submit to any strong government, even an imperial one, if that government would only remodel economic relations to the worker's advantage.
  A profound revolution has since been accomplished, especially among Latin and English peoples. Governmental Communism, like theocratic Communism, is repugnant to the worker.

The State is but one of the forms of social life, quite recent as far as regards European societies...

• It is only by the abolition of the State, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism — the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches.

Men lived thousands of years before the first States were constituted...

• If every Socialist will carry his thoughts back to an earlier date, he will no doubt remember the host of prejudices aroused in him when, for the first time, he came to the idea that abolishing the capitalist system and private appropriation of land and capital had become an historical necessity.
  The same feelings are today produced in the man who for the first time hears that the abolition of the State, its laws, its entire system of management, governmentalism and centralization, also becomes an historical necessity: that the abolition of the one without the abolition of the other is materially impossible. Our whole education — made, be it noted, by Church and State, in the interests of both — revolts at this conception.
  Is it less true for that? And shall we allow our belief in the State to survive the host of prejudices we have already sacrificed for our emancipation?

We see these societies rising in all nooks and corners of all domains: political, economic, artistic, intellectual...

• To begin with, if man, since his origin, has always lived in societies, the State is but one of the forms of social life, quite recent as far as regards European societies. Men lived thousands of years before the first States were constituted; Greece and Rome existed for centuries before the Macedonian and Roman Empires were built up, and for us modern Europeans the centralized States date but from the sixteenth century. It was only then, after the defeat of the free mediæval Communes had been completed that the mutual insurance company between military, judicial, landlord, and capitalist authority which we call "State," could be fully established.

When we see how voluntary societies invade everything and are only impeded in their development by the State, we are forced to recognize a powerful tendency, a latent force in modern society.

• We know well the means by which this association of the lord, priest, merchant, judge, soldier, and king founded its domination. It was by the annihilation of all free unions: of village communities, guilds, trades unions, fraternities, and mediæval cities. It was by confiscating the land of the communes and the riches of the guilds; it was by the absolute and ferocious prohibition of all kinds of free agreement between men; it was by massacre, the wheel, the gibbet, the sword, and the fire that Church and State established their domination, and that they succeeded henceforth to reign over an incoherent agglomeration of subjects, who had no direct union more among themselves.
  It is now hardly thirty or forty years ago that we began to reconquer, by struggle, by revolt, the first steps of the right of association, that was freely practised by the artisans and the tillers of the soil through the whole of the middle ages.
  And, already now, Europe is covered by thousands of voluntary associations for study and teaching, for industry, commerce, science, art, literature, exploitation, resistance to exploitation, amusement, serious work, gratification and self-denial, for all that makes up the life of an active and thinking being. We see these societies rising in all nooks and corners of all domains: political, economic, artistic, intellectual. Some are as shortlived as roses, some hold their own since several decades, and all strive — while maintaining the independence of each group, circle, branch, or section — to federate, to unite, across frontiers as well as among each nation; to cover all the life of civilized men with a net, meshes of which are intersected and interwoven.

When we ask for the abolition of the State and its organs we are always told that we dream of a society composed of men better than they are in reality. But no; a thousand times, no. All we ask is that men should not be made worse than they are, by such institutions!

• These societies already begin to encroach everywhere on the functions of the State, and strive to substitute free action of volunteers for that of a centralized State. In England we see arise insurance companies against theft; societies for coast defense, volunteer societies for land defense, which the State endeavors to get under its thumb, thereby making them instruments of domination, although their original aim was to do without the State. Were it not for Church and State, free societies would have already conquered the whole of the immense domain of education. And, in spite of all difficulties, they begin to invade this domain as well, and make their influence already felt.
  And when we mark the progress already accomplished in that direction, in spite of and against the State, which tries by all means to maintain its supremacy of recent origin; when we see how voluntary societies invade everything and are only impeded in their development by the State, we are forced to recognize a powerful tendency, a latent force in modern society.

• Educated men — "civilized," as Fourier used to say with disdain — tremble at the idea that society might some day be without judges, police, or gaolers.
  • Here Kropotkin seems to be refering to the French philosopher Charles Fourier, and not the French scientist Joseph Fourier.

• Has not experience demonstrated quite recently that Jack the Ripper performed his exploits under the eye of the London police — a most active force — and that he only left off killing when the population of Whitechapel itself began to give chase to him?
  And in our every-day relations with our fellow-citizens, do you think that it is really judges, gaolers, and police that hinder anti-social acts from multiplying? The judge, ever ferocious, because he is a maniac of law, the accuser, the informer, the police spy, all those interlopers that live from hand to mouth around the Law Courts, do they not scatter demoralization far and wide into society? Read the trials, glance behind the scenes, push your analysis further than the exterior facade of law courts, and you will come out sickened.

It is often said that Anarchists live in a world of dreams to come, and do not see the things which happen today. We do see them only too well, and in their true colors, and that is what makes us carry the hatchet into the forest of prejudice that besets us.

• Have not prisons — which kill all will and force of character in man, which enclose within their walls more vices than are met with on any other spot of the globe — always been universities of crime? Is not the court of a tribunal a school of ferocity?

• When we ask for the abolition of the State and its organs we are always told that we dream of a society composed of men better than they are in reality. But no; a thousand times, no. All we ask is that men should not be made worse than they are, by such institutions!

If we could close our eyes to reality, and live, like them, in a world of dreams and illusions as to the superiority of those who think themselves called to power, perhaps we also should do like them; perhaps we also should believe in the virtues of those who govern.

• Once a German jurist of great renown, Ihering, wanted to sum up the scientific work of his life and write a treatise, in which he proposed to analyze the factors that preserve social life in society. "Purpose in Law" (Der Zweck im Rechte), such is the title of that book, which enjoys a well-deserved reputation.
  He made an elaborate plan of his treatise, and, with much erudition, discussed both coercive factors which are used to maintain society: wagedom and the different forms of coercion which are sanctioned by law. At the end of his work he reserved two paragraphs only to mention the two non-coercive factors — the feeling of duty and the feeling of mutual sympathy — to which he attached little importance, as might be expected from a writer in law.
  But what happened? As he went on analyzing the coercive factors he realized their insufficiency. He consecrated a whole volume to their analysis, and the result was to lessen their importance! When he began the last two paragraphs, when he began to reflect upon the non-coercive factors of society, he perceived, on the contrary, their immense, outweighing importance; and instead of two paragraphs, he found himself obliged to write a second volume, twice as large as the first, on these two factors: voluntary restraint and mutual help; and yet, he analyzed but an infinitesimal part of these latter — those which result from personal sympathy — and hardly touched free agreement, which results from social institutions.

We know men too well to dream such dreams. We have not two measures for the virtues of the governed and those of the governors; we know that we ourselves are not without faults and that the best of us would soon be corrupted by the exercise of power.

• It is often said that Anarchists live in a world of dreams to come, and do not see the things which happen today. We do see them only too well, and in their true colors, and that is what makes us carry the hatchet into the forest of prejudice that besets us.
  Far from living in a world of visions and imagining men better than they are, we see them as they are; and that is why we affirm that the best of men is made essentially bad by the exercise of authority, and that the theory of the "balancing of powers" and "control of authorities" is a hypocritical formula, invented by those who have seized power, to make the "sovereign people," whom they despise, believe that the people themselves are governing. It is because we know men that we say to those who imagine that men would devour one another without those governors: "You reason like the king, who, being sent across the frontier, called out, 'What will become of my poor subjects without me?'"

• Ah, if men were those superior beings that the utopians of authority like to speak to us of, if we could close our eyes to reality, and live, like them, in a world of dreams and illusions as to the superiority of those who think themselves called to power, perhaps we also should do like them; perhaps we also should believe in the virtues of those who govern.
  With virtuous masters, what dangers could slavery offer? Do you remember the Slave-owner of whom we heard so often, hardly thirty years ago? Was he not supposed to take paternal care of his slaves? "He alone," we were told, "could hinder these lazy, indolent, improvident children dying of hunger. How could he crush his slaves through hard labor, or mutilate them by blows, when his own interest lay in feeding them well, in taking care of them as much as of his own children! And then, did not 'the law' see to it that the least swerving of a slave-owner from the path of duty was punished?" How many times have we not been told so! But the reality was such that, having returned from a voyage to Brazil, Darwin was haunted all his life by the cries of agony of mutilated slaves, by the sobs of moaning women whose fingers were crushed in thumbscrews!

We take men for what they are worth — and that is why we hate the government of man by man, and that we work with all our might — perhaps not strong enough — to put an end to it.

Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects … when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement — at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist.

• Oh, the beautiful utopia, the lovely Christmas dream we can make as soon as we admit that those who govern represent a superior caste, and have hardly any or no knowledge of simple mortals' weaknesses! It would then suffice to make them control one another in hierarchical fashion, to let them exchange fifty papers, at most, among different administrators, when the wind blows down a tree on the national road. Or, if need be, they would have only to be valued at their proper worth, during elections, by those same masses of mortals which are supposed to be endowed with all stupidity in their mutual relations but become wisdom itself when they have to elect their masters.
  All the science of government, imagined by those who govern, is imbibed with these utopias. But we know men too well to dream such dreams. We have not two measures for the virtues of the governed and those of the governors; we know that we ourselves are not without faults and that the best of us would soon be corrupted by the exercise of power. We take men for what they are worth — and that is why we hate the government of man by man, and that we work with all our might — perhaps not strong enough — to put an end to it.
  But it is not enough to destroy. We must also know how to build, and it is owing to not having thought about it that the masses have always been led astray in all their revolutions. After having demolished they abandoned the care of reconstruction to the middle class people, who possessed a more or less precise conception of what they wished to realize, and who consequently reconstituted authority to their own advantage.
  That is why Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement — at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist. Only, instead of demanding that those social customs should be maintained through the authority of a few, it demands it from the continued action of all.

• When we ask ourselves by what means a certain moral level can be maintained in a human or animal society, we find only three such means: the repression of anti-social acts; moral teaching; and the practice of mutual help itself. And as all three have already been put to the test of practice, we can judge them by their effects.
  As to the impotence of repression — it is sufficiently demonstrated by the disorder of present society and by the necessity of a revolution that we all desire or feel inevitable. In the domain of economy, coercion has led us to industrial servitude; in the domain of politics — to the State, that is to say, to the destruction of all ties that formerly existed among citizens, and to the nation becoming nothing but an incoherent mass of obedient subjects of a central authority.

This force can only act on society under one condition, that of not being crossed by a mass of contradictory immoral teachings resulting from the practice of insitutions.

• Not only has a coercive system contributed and powerfully aided to create all the present economical, political and social evils, but it has given proof of its absolute impotence to raise the moral level of societies; it has not been even able to maintain it at the level it had already reached. If a benevolent fairy could only reveal to our eyes all the crimes that are committed every day, every minute, in a civilized society under cover of the unknown, or the protection of law itself, — society would shudder at that terrible state of affairs.

• Practised for centuries, repression has so badly succeeded that it has but led us into a blind alley from which we can only issue by carrying torch and hatchet into the institutions of our authoritarian past.

• Far be it from us not to recognize the importance of the second factor, moral teaching — especially that which is unconsciously transmitted in society and results from the whole of the ideas and comments emitted by each of us on facts and events of every-day life. But this force can only act on society under one condition, that of not being crossed by a mass of contradictory immoral teachings resulting from the practice of insitutions.
  In that case its influence is nil or baneful. Take Christian morality: what other teaching could have had more hold on minds than that spoken in the name of a crucified God, and could have acted with all its mystical force, all its poetry of martyrdom, its grandeur in forgiving executioners? And yet the institution was more powerful than the religion: soon Christianity — a revolt against imperial Rome — was conquered by that same Rome; it accepted its maxims, customs, and language. The Christian church accepted the Roman law as its own, and as such — allied to the State — it became in history the most furious enemy of all semi-communist institutions, to which Christianity appealed at Its origin.

Each time that in the course of history, whether following upon a foreign conquest, or whether by developing authoritarian prejudices men become more and more divided into governors and governed, exploiters and exploited, the moral level fell, the well-being of the masses decreased in order to insure riches to a few, and the spirit of the age declined.

• The third element alone remains — the institution itself, acting in such a way as to make social acts a state of habit and instinct. This element — history proves it — has never missed its aim, never has it acted as a double-bladed sword; and its influence has only been weakened when custom strove to become immovable, crystallized, to become in its turn a religion not to be questioned when it endeavored to absorb the individual, taking all freedom of action from him and compelling him to revolt against that which had become, through its crystallization, an enemy to progress.

• All that was an element of progress in the past or an instrument of moral and intellectual improvement of the human race is due to the practice of mutual aid, to the customs that recognized the equality of men and brought them to ally, to unite, to associate for the purpose of producing and consuming, to unite for purpose of defence to federate and to recognize no other judges in fighting out their differences than the arbitrators they took from their own midst.
  Each time these institutions, issued from popular genius, when it had reconquered its liberty for a moment, — each time these institutions developed in a new direction, the moral level of society, its material well-being, its liberty, its intellectual progress, and the affirmation of individual originality made a step in advance. And, on the contrary, each time that in the course of history, whether following upon a foreign conquest, or whether by developing authoritarian prejudices men become more and more divided into governors and governed, exploiters and exploited, the moral level fell, the well-being of the masses decreased in order to insure riches to a few, and the spirit of the age declined.

The State — Its Historic Role (1897)

Full text online

A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others. This distinction, which at first sight might not be obvious, emerges especially when one studies the origins of the State.

The education we all receive from the State, at school and after, has so warped our minds that the very notion of freedom ends up by being lost, and disguised in servitude.

• It is above all over the question of the State that socialists are divided. Two main currents can be discerned in the factions that exist among us which correspond to differences in temperament as well as in ways of thinking, but above all to the extent that one believes in the coming revolution.
  There are those, on the one hand, who hope to achieve the social revolution through the State by preserving and even extending most of its powers to be used for the revolution. And there are those like ourselves who see the State, both in its present form, in its very essence, and in whatever guise it might appear, an obstacle to the social revolution, the greatest hindrance to the birth of a society based on equality and liberty, as well as the historic means designed to prevent this blossoming. The latter work to abolish the State and not to reform it.
  • I

• The State is only one of the forms assumed by society in the course of history. Why then make no distinction between what is permanent and what is accidental?
  • I

• The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. It not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies. It implies some new relationships between members of society which did not exist before the formation of the State. A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others.
  This distinction, which at first sight might not be obvious, emerges especially when one studies the origins of the State.
  • I

• The Roman Empire was a State in the real sense of the word. To this day it remains the legist's ideal. Its organs covered a vast domain with a tight network. Everything gravitated towards Rome: economic and military life, wealth, education, nay, even religion. From Rome came the laws, the magistrates, the legions to defend the territory, the prefects and the gods, The whole life of the Empire went back to the Senate — later to the Caesar, the all powerful, omniscient, god of the Empire. Every province, every district had its Capitol in miniature, its small portion of Roman sovereignty to govern every aspect of daily life. A single law, that imposed by Rome, dominated that Empire which did not represent a confederation of fellow citizens but was simply a herd of subjects.
  Even now, the legist and the authoritarian still admire the unity of that Empire, the unitarian spirit of its laws and, as they put it, the beauty and harmony of that organization.
  But the disintegration from within, hastened by the barbarian invasion; the extinction of local life, which could no longer resist the attacks from outside on the one hand nor the canker spreading from the centre on the other; the domination by the rich who had appropriated the land to themselves and the misery of those who cultivated it — all these causes reduced the Empire to a shambles, and on these ruins a new civilization developed which is now ours.
  • I

• Think of past wars and of those that subjected people will have to wage to conquer the right to breathe freely, the wars for markets, the wars to create colonial empires. And in France we unfortunately know only too well that every war, victorious or not, is followed by slavery.
  And finally what is even worse than all that has just been enumerated, is the fact that the education we all receive from the State, at school and after, has so warped our minds that the very notion of freedom ends up by being lost, and disguised in servitude.
  It is a sad sight to see those who believe themselves to be revolutionaries unleashing their hatred on the anarchist — just because his views on freedom go beyond their petty and narrow concepts of freedom learned in the State school. And meanwhile, this spectacle is a reality. The fact is that the spirit of voluntary servitude was always cleverly cultivated in the minds of the young, and still is, in order to perpetuate the subjection of the individual to the State.
  • IX

• Throughout the history of our civilization, two traditions, two opposing tendencies have confronted each other: the Roman and the Popular; the imperial and the federalist; the authoritarian and the libertarian. And this is so, once more, on the eve of the social revolution.
  Between these two currents, always manifesting themselves, always at grips with each other — the popular trend and that which thirsts for political and religious domination — we have made our choice.
  We seek to recapture the spirit which drove people in the twelfth century to organise themselves on the basis of free agreement and individual initiative as well as of the free federation of the interested parties. And we are quite prepared to leave the others to cling to the imperial, the Roman and canonical tradition.
  • X

• Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death!
  Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement.
  The choice lies with you!
  • X, Closing lines

Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902)

Online text

In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life...

• In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense — not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.

• Out of the savage tribe grew up the barbarian village community; and a new, still wider, circle of social customs, habits, and institutions, numbers of which are still alive among ourselves, was developed under the principles of common possession of a given territory and common defence of it, under the jurisdiction of the village folkmote, and in the federation of villages belonging, or supposed to belong, to one stem. And when new requirements induced men to make a new start, they made it in the city, which represented a double network of territorial units (village communities) connected with guilds, these latter arising out of the common prosecution of a given art or craft, or for mutual support and defence.

One single war — we all know — may be productive of more evil, immediate and subsequent, than hundreds of years of the unchecked action of the mutual-aid principle may be productive of good.

As to the sudden industrial progress which has been achieved during our own century, and which is usually ascribed to the triumph of individualism and competition, it certainly has a much deeper origin than that.

• Mutual aid, even though it may represent one of the factors of evolution, covers nevertheless one aspect only of human relations; that by the side of this current, powerful though it may be, there is, and always has been, the other current — the self-assertion of the individual, not only in its efforts to attain personal or caste superiority, economical, political, and spiritual, but also in its much more important although less evident function of breaking through the bonds, always prone to become crystallized, which the tribe, the village community, the city, and the State impose upon the individual. In other words, there is the self-assertion of the individual taken as a progressive element.
  It is evident that no review of evolution can be complete, unless these two dominant currents are analyzed. However, the self-assertion of the individual or of groups of individuals, their struggles for superiority, and the conflicts which resulted therefrom, have already been analyzed, described, and glorified from time immemorial. In fact, up to the present time, this current alone has received attention from the epical poet, the annalist, the historian, and the sociologist. History, such as it has hitherto been written, is almost entirely a description of the ways and means by which theocracy, military power, autocracy, and, later on, the richer classes' rule have been promoted, established, and maintained.

For industrial progress, as for each other conquest over nature, mutual aid and close intercourse certainly are, as they have been, much more advantageous than mutual struggle.

• One single war — we all know — may be productive of more evil, immediate and subsequent, than hundreds of years of the unchecked action of the mutual-aid principle may be productive of good.

• As to the sudden industrial progress which has been achieved during our own century, and which is usually ascribed to the triumph of individualism and competition, it certainly has a much deeper origin than that. Once the great discoveries of the fifteenth century were made, especially that of the pressure of the atmosphere, supported by a series of advances in natural philosophy — and they were made under the medieval city organization, — once these discoveries were made, the invention of the steam-motor, and all the revolution which the conquest of a new power implied, had necessarily to follow... To attribute, therefore, the industrial progress of our century to the war of each against all which it has proclaimed, is to reason like the man who, knowing not the causes of rain, attributes it to the victim he has immolated before his clay idol. For industrial progress, as for each other conquest over nature, mutual aid and close intercourse certainly are, as they have been, much more advantageous than mutual struggle.

• It is especially in the domain of ethics that the dominating importance of the mutual-aid principle appears in full. That mutual aid is the real foundation of our ethical conceptions seems evident enough. But whatever the opinions as to the first origin of the mutual-aid feeling or instinct may be whether a biological or a supernatural cause is ascribed to it — we must trace its existence as far back as to the lowest stages of the animal world; and from these stages we can follow its uninterrupted evolution, in opposition to a number of contrary agencies, through all degrees of human development, up to the present times. Even the new religions which were born from time to time — always at epochs when the mutual-aid principle was falling into decay in the theocracies and despotic States of the East, or at the decline of the Roman Empire — even the new religions have only reaffirmed that same principle. They found their first supporters among the humble, in the lowest, downtrodden layers of society, where the mutual-aid principle is the necessary foundation of every-day life; and the new forms of union which were introduced in the earliest Buddhist and Christian communities, in the Moravian brotherhoods and so on, took the character of a return to the best aspects of mutual aid in early tribal life.
  Each time, however, that an attempt to return to this old principle was made, its fundamental idea itself was widened. From the clan it was extended to the stem, to the federation of stems, to the nation, and finally — in ideal, at least — to the whole of mankind.

• In primitive Buddhism, in primitive Christianity, in the writings of some of the Mussulman teachers, in the early movements of the Reform, and especially in the ethical and philosophical movements of the last century and of our own times, the total abandonment of the idea of revenge, or of "due reward" — of good for good and evil for evil — is affirmed more and more vigorously. The higher conception of "no revenge for wrongs," and of freely giving more than one expects to receive from his neighbours, is proclaimed as being the real principle of morality — a principle superior to mere equivalence, equity, or justice, and more conducive to happiness. And man is appealed to to be guided in his acts, not merely by love, which is always personal, or at the best tribal, but by the perception of his oneness with each human being. In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support — not mutual struggle — has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race.

Misattributed

• Unless Socialists are prepared openly and avowedly to profess that the satisfaction of the needs of each individual must be their very first aim; unless they have prepared public opinion to establish itself firmly at this standpoint, the people in their next attempt to free themselves will once more suffer a defeat.
  • This appeared in "The First Work of the Revolution" an article by an unidentified author in Freedom, Vol. 1, No. (11 August 1887), where another article had been written by Kropotkin.

Quotes about Kropotkin

Things will change and the masses will awaken to the realisation that no one, no political Party or governmental clique must be permitted in the future to monopolise the Revolution, to control or direct it, for such attempts inevitably result in the death of the Revolution itself.

We must shed the old stereotype of anarchists as bearded bomb throwers furtively stalking about city streets at night. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

He had many ideological enemies, but few men of celebrity in their own time have had so few personal foes; even those bitterly opposed to his teachings usually found his modesty and sincerity difficult to resist. ~ George Woodcock

• Russia was our main point of discussion. The conditions were terrible, as everyone agreed, and the Dictatorship the greatest crime of the Bolsheviki. But there was no reason to lose faith, he assured me. The Revolution and the masses were greater than any political Party and its machinations. The latter might triumph temporarily, but the heart of the Russian masses was uncorrupted and they would rally themselves to a clear understanding of the evil of the Dictatorship and of Bolshevik tyranny. Present Russian life, he said, was an artificial condition forced by the governing class. The rule of a small political Party was based on false theories, violent methods, fearful blunders and general inefficiency. They were suppressing the very expression of the people's will and initiative which alone could rebuild the ruined economic life of the country. The stupid attitude of the Allied Powers, the blockade and the attacks on the Revolution by the interventionists were helping to strengthen the power of the Communist regime. But things will change and the masses will awaken to the realisation that no one, no political Party or governmental clique must be permitted in the future to monopolise the Revolution, to control or direct it, for such attempts inevitably result in the death of the Revolution itself.
  Various other phases of the Revolution we discussed on that occasion. Kropotkin particularly emphasised the constructive side of revolutions, and especially that the organisation of the economic life must be dealt with as the first and greatest necessity of a revolution, as the foundation of its existence and development.
  • "Some Reminiscences of Kropotkin" by Alexander Berkman

• We must shed the old stereotype of anarchists as bearded bomb throwers furtively stalking about city streets at night. Kropotkin was a genial man, almost saintly according to some, who promoted a vision of small communities setting their own standards by consensus for the benefit of all, thereby eliminating the need for most functions of a central government.
  • Stephen Jay Gould in "Kropotkin Was No Crackpot" in Natural History 106 (June 1997)

• Kropotkin ... created a dichotomy within the general notion of struggle — two forms with opposite import: (1) organism against organism of the same species for limited resources, leading to competition; and (2) organism against environment, leading to cooperation. ... Kropotkin did not deny the competitive form of struggle, but he argued that the cooperative style had been underemphasized and must balance or even predominate over competition in considering nature as a whole. ... I would hold that Kropotkin’s basic argument is correct. Struggle does occur in many modes, and some lead to cooperation among members of a species as the best pathway to advantage for individuals. If Kropotkin overemphasized mutual aid, most Darwinians in Western Europe had exaggerated competition just as strongly. If Kropotkin drew inappropriate hope for social reform from his concept of nature, other Darwinians had erred just as firmly (and for motives that most of us would now decry) in justifying imperial conquest, racism, and oppression of industrial workers as the harsh outcome of natural selection in the competitive mode.
  • Stephen Jay Gould in "Kropotkin Was No Crackpot" in Natural History 106 (June 1997)

• Two of the most perfect lives I have come across in my own experience are the lives of Verlaine and of Prince Kropotkin: both of them men who have passed years in prison: the first, the one Christian poet since Dante; the other, a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ which seems coming out of Russia.
  • Oscar Wilde, in De Profundis (1897)

• A lot of anarchists had a major role in influencing my political thinking, especially the individualist anarchists. … I find a lot of Kropotkin compatible even though he was a communist anarchist. Nothing wrong with communist anarchism as long as it remains voluntary. Any one that wants to go make a commune, go ahead, do it. I got nothing against it. As long as there's room to the individualist to do his or her own thing.
  • Robert Anton Wilson, in Interview in TSOG (2002) (sound file)

• To those who knew Kropotkin, the man seemed more important than his works, and throughout our account we have had to record the strong impressions of amiability and goodness left by him. He had many ideological enemies, but few men of celebrity in their own time have had so few personal foes; even those bitterly opposed to his teachings usually found his modesty and sincerity difficult to resist. ... His ideal of human solidarity was no vague conception, nor his amiability a superficial virtue. They were continually manifested in his daily life, and, although he may at times have fallen into error, there is nothing in Kropotkin's acts or writings of intellectual dishonesty. He always spoke what he thought to be right, and was ready to take the consequences, whether it meant imprisonment or — what was much worse to a man of his character — the loss of old and respected friends. He was always kind, anxious to avoid giving pain or inconvenience, and conscious of the needs of others. His hospitality was wide, his sympathy abundant, his generosity as unlimited as his resources allowed.
  • George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic in Peter Kropotkin : From Prince to Rebel (1990)

• The desire to link theory with practice is evident in almost all Kropotkin's contributions to Le Révolté. He is considering the revolution, not in the apocalyptic form of a vast inferno of destruction which so often haunted Bakunin, but as a concrete event in which the rebellious workers must be aware of the consequences of their actions, so that revolt will not end in the establishment of new organs of power that will halt the natural development of a free society. ... Revolution cannot be made with words alone; a knowledge of the necessary action and a will toward it must also exist.
  • George Woodcock in Anarchism : A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962) Ch. 7 : The Explorer

Philosophy and politics (many userboxes)

TZMThis user advocates
The Zeitgeist Movement.

Philosophy/ politics

≠This user is unique, just like everyone else

This user is an engineer.

This user is a WikiSloth.

DGAF

This user
will probably not give a fuck about anything.

This user has a POV and wishes other editors were similarly self-aware

-
This user likes to translate and proofread articles from Hebrew to English.

This user supports the anarchist movement.

This user seeks to dismantle private property and abolish wage-slavery.

This user is an anarchist.^‡

This user supports the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

This user believes that both capitalism and state socialism are inherently unjust systems that concentrate most wealth and power in the hands of a few, and that humans can do better.

This user supports anarchist communism and loathes the current neoliberal hegemony that places corporate profitability above all life on the planet, including human life, animal life, plant life and marine life, that places capital accumulation above the life-ground (all the conditions required to take one’s next breath), life value (whatever enables life capacities), life capital (means of life that can produce more means of life without loss), and civil commons (any social construct that enables universal access of community members to life goods through time)

This user believes that both capitalism and state socialism are inherently unjust systems that concentrate most wealth and power in the hands of a few, and that humans can do better.

This user identifies as a post-structuralist anarchist.

This user wonders how this can be a free country when everything is for sale.

This user values reason
over faith.

PROThis user is a progressive.

This user is interested in environmentalism.

This user is an anti-consumerist.

This user supports the Free Territory Makhnowia a.k.a. Anarchist Ukraine, but is not a Platformist.

This user is a freethinker.

This user is a Citizen of the World (Terra).

$ ¥
€ £This user believes that the profit motive makes network news reporting inaccurate and biased. ^†

This user contributes using Linux.

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

This user is peaceful.

This user is a skeptic.

This user believes in logic.

This user doesn't believe in the ownership of culture and knowledge.

This user doesn't care what your "ancestries" are; this user likes people for what they are and not because of a place of birth!

This user is an advocate of the free love movement.

This user supports the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

This user believes that the death penalty should never be used.*

This user is a member or supporter of the Technocracy movement

This user's favorite color is green.

This user reads webcomics.

This user enjoys classical music.

.  TheThis user puts two spaces after a period.

This user enjoys singing.

File:Pistol Browning SFS.jpg

This user opposes gun control.

!This user hates poverty, war and injustice, unlike the rest of you squares.

IQ	This user's Intelligence Quotient is not useful information.

This user has fluctuating maturity levels

This user is a Jewish humanist.

This user is a Buddhist humanist.

SecularThis user is interested in Secular Humanism.

This user is a secular humanist.

This user, with Greg Epstein, supports The New Humanism ideal of being the best human beings we can be, without a God.

This user is an atheist
who defends the
rights of people of faith.

This user is an advocate of democracy.

This user supports gender equality.

This user is against monarchy.

This user supports the independence of any nation that wants it.

This user believes the world would be a better place if everyone had access to a quality, free education.

This user identifies as a leftist.

This user doesn't like Nazis.

This user is an internationalist.

This user is Anti-nationalist.

This user advocates Workplace democracy and Workers' self management.

This user is on the side of the working class.

This user supports the proletariat.

This user identifies as a communitarian.

This user is a Communist.

This user identifies as a Marxist.

This user believes that communism is the only solution.

This user is a member of the Young Communist League USA.

This user supports the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

This user opposes NATO

This user supports Green politics.

This user is a socialist.

This user supports equality for everyone.

This user is an anti-consumerist.

This user thinks that stock exchange is immoral.

This user supports the ACLU.

This user supports peace in space.

This user loves loathes capitalism.

End the embargoThis user favors free trade between the United States and Cuba.

This user supports a free People's Republic of China.

This user supports the Occupy Movement, but not uncritically.

This user opposes the death penalty in all cases.

EuThis user does NOT support euthanasia and is strongly opposed to all forms of eugenics.

This male user supports feminism.

What do you want?
I n f o r m a t i o n.^Nº2

This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion.

This user advocates cooperative universal health care.

YRThis user supports youth rights.

This user supports the alter-globalisation movement.

This user believes that sweatshops in poor countries do more harm than good.

This user supports "illegal immigrants" and the right to travel freely upon the planet we share.

This user supports a deep reform of the United Nations.

This user opposes NATO

ҚКХПThis user supports the People's Communist Party of Kazakhstan.

This User Believes that the USA is indeed a Global Empire.

PSUVThis user supports the United Socialist Party of Venezuela.

Apartheid: Wrong for South Africans; wrong for Palestinians.

This user is pro-Cuba

This user supports the
Communist Party of Cuba (PCC).

This user believes in the peaceful reunification of North and South Korea under one government.

DL	This user supports the Left Party of Germany

This user supports a revitalization of the Bayerische Sowjetische Republik.

This user supports a secular democratic Iran.

This user supports a binational solution to the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict.^‡One State

This user is an
absurdist.

This user is a Humanist.

This user uses no nationality as nationality.

This user believes in a non-partisan, direct democracy.

This user opposes work.

This user values reason
over faith.

This user is interested in environmentalism.

This user is an anti-consumerist.

This user is a freethinker.

SecularThis user is interested in Secular Humanism.

This user thinks that bullfighting should be extinct.

This user supports "illegal immigrants" and the right to travel freely upon the planet we share.

This user believes that the meaning of life is to live a happy life.

This user supports recycling.

This user believes in the power of nonviolence.

This male user supports feminism.

This user is straight but not narrow.

$News + Profit = Propaganda ^†

This user is a child of the Enlightenment.

This user opposes Imperialism.

This user is an anarchist.^‡

This user is an
absurdist.

This user is a Humanist.

This user is interested in
Neo-Tribalism

This user uses no nationality as nationality.

This user supports anarchism without adjectives.

This user believes in a non-partisan, direct democracy.

This user identifies as a leftist.

This user is car-free.^‡

XThis user is an Atheist, and doesn't have a religion.

This user is a socialist.

This user indentifies as a council communist.

This user is an Anarchist who believes capitalism is incompatible with the principles of Anarchism.

This user is an Anarcho-Communist.

This user is a Communist.

This user supports Unschooling.

This user is interested in existentialism.

SecularThis user is interested in Secular Humanism.

This user is car-free.^‡

This user is interested in environmentalism.

This user thinks that bullfighting should be extinct.

This user supports "illegal immigrants" and the right to travel freely upon the planet we share.

This user believes that the meaning of life is to live a happy life.

This user supports recycling.

This user is an internationalist who opposes war.

This user is against the war on drugs.

YRThis user supports youth rights.

This user supports the legalization of all drugs for adults.

This user is pro-cannabis.

This user believes in the power of nonviolence.

This male user supports feminism.

This user is an Anarcha feminist.

This user is straight but not narrow.

$News + Profit = Propaganda ^†

This user believes that the borders of African Countries should be redrawn to reflect the nations and tribes of Africa. ^†

This user is a child of the Enlightenment.

This user supports the
Anti-globalization movement.

This user opposes Imperialism.

This user supports equal rights for queer people.

This user identifies as polyamorous.

This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice.

This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.

This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.

This user is interested in the U.S. State of California.

This user enjoys classical music.

This user loves opera.

C₂H₅OH-0This user is a non-drinker.

This user does not smoke.

Majority ≠ right

This user recognizes that even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake.

which & thatThis user knows how to use which and that correctly.

This user is interested in beauty.

This user is a bibliophile.

This user is a skeptic.

This user is an art lover.

This user is interested in painting.

This user enjoys dancing.

This user enjoys singing.

This user enjoys backpacking.

This user supports sustainable living.

Recommended intellectuals

L. Susan Brown, Charles Fourier, Michel Foucault, Emile Armand, Paolo Virno, Renzo Novatore, Max Stirner, Bob Black, Judith Butler, Felix Guattari, Michel Onfray, Georges Bataille, Aldous Huxley, Antonio Negri, Raoul Vaneigem, Han Ryner, Hakim Bey, François de La Rochefoucauld, Gilles Deleuze, Paul Lafargue, Wolfi Landstreicher, Albert Camus, Theodor Adorno, Epicurus, Alfredo M. Bonanno, Gilles Deleuze, Herbert Marcuse, Guy Debord, Aristippus, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ivan Illich, For Ourselves, Paul Goodman.

Change image (at bottom of screen) Change image

(To upload a new picture, click 'change image' at the very top of this page)

References

Humor and miscellanea

• International Association of Time Travelers: Members' Forum Subforum: Europe – Twentieth Century – Second World War
• WikiSpeak
• User: Psychonaut's old(er) user page. (Hat tip to user Psychonaut)
• It Is Impossible to Believe How Mindblowing These Amazing New Jobs Are. "Our venture-funded vertical-driven content prosumer phablet platisher is rapidly growing and we need to add some Ninja Rockstar Content Associates A.S.A.P. ... Successful applicants will demonstrate the ability to never mention the issue of socio-economic class." (Hat tip to Susan Cagle)
• "I wanted to restate the way that the original statement has been stated by restating the statement." A diff of an act of vandalism. I take a hard line on vandalism, I always revert vandalism when I see it, and I either report acts of abusive editing to the proper administrative boards and request that the vandal be blocked, or I try to warn and educate the vandal. I find almost all acts of vandalism not interesting to read, but on a rare occasion I come across some creative, inventive, clever, vandal-produced humor that makes me laugh hard. It's nice to read something funny in the evening after a long, difficult, stressful day at the office. (If you are the vandal who wrote this, please don't take this as a vote of encouragement ... )
• Do you think he (Osama bin Laden) was a dog lover or a cat lover?

More humor - from User: Good Olfactory (GOF)

(Hat tip to User: Good Olfactory)

Not GOF.
Or is it?

What you are looking to find out about me (GOF) can be found embedded within the source code of the userboxes on this page. The hidden meaning can be revealed using a delicate combination of sudoku and banburismus implemented on an original Polish Enigma double (check eBay). (Hint: "U"s are treated as "V"s and the value of any "Z"s and "Q"s are carried over every third pass and combined with the corresponding pass value of "K".)

Some quotes

• legal threat par excellence: [309]
• assumption of bad faith par excellence [310]
• sarcasm par excellence: [311]
• on discussing Category:White African footballers: [312]
• on incivility in its various forms: [313]

Museum of Stuffed Insults: the only price of admission is not complaining to GOF on his talk page that the museum exists

Templates

Inline messages

Code	Result		Code	Result
{{By whom}}			{{Examples}}
{{Citequote}}			{{Full}}
{{Citation broken}}			{{Failed verification}}
{{Citation needed}}			{{Or}}
{{Citation needed (lead)}}			{{Season needed}}
{{Clarify}}			{{Specify}}
{{Copyvio link}}			{{Self-published inline}}
{{Dead link}}			{{Vague}}
{{Dubious}}			{{Verify credibility}}
{{Elucidate}}			{{Verify source}}
{{Volume needed}}			{{When}}
{{Where}}			{{Which}}
{{Who}}			{{Whom?}}
{{Why}}			{{Year needed}}
{{User:Honette/Template/Full name}}			{{expand acronym}}