User talk:Monochrome Monitor

Oh shit, I wish I could help you. It sounds like a great idea! I'm not a specialist in Turkey, although you're right that I've done 99% of that page's edits :P Maybe ask @

Léo Cebin:[reply

]

Seems that @

PKK rebellion article for commons viewers too see. After this, will be necessary only make a upload if changes happen. And will be more easy to see where the action is happening. Um simples Wikipedista (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC) [It's me, I changed my nick][reply

]

Of course, that's exactly what I've been hoping. But the thing is it's not an actual war yet... just unrest. It shows clashes. So if the map were to be of anything it would be of "places where kurds declared autonomy" --

Léo Cebin:[reply

]

More one thing. I found a source of news that I think that you will like: [4] A simple Wikipedian ^{(said and did)} 06:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks that's great! Here's a great source --Monochrome_Monitor 12:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC) @Um simples Wikipedista:][reply]

I think that the Finklestein para should be restored. I didn't put it up originally: I remember that there was a lot of discussion when it was put in. I just edited it to respond to the flag that it needed more explanation. I tried to clarify briefly what his book says. It was an important book which documents its points well. It initiated a lot of discussion re: the uniqueness issue, and I believe that it forced historians to re-examine the claims to uniqueness. For that reason, I think that it is more than a fringe contribution. At the same time partly because of the Holocaust Industry, but mainly because of his continual support for the Palestinians he has earned the wrath of many supporters of Israel. Over the years, I have read a number of attempts to refute his research and writing and have yet to be convinced that he is unreliable.Joel Mc (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book did NOT force historians to re-examine uniqueness. There has been no such earth-shaking shift. I find scholarship takes a middle road of acknowledging the unique parts of the holocaust (ie, death camps) while also acknowledging it in the context of other genocides. It's not a question of unique vs universal, which is a false dichotomy. It's a question of which side specific scholarship leans towards. Elements of specificism and universalism are found in every book on the subject I have read, with many erring towards one side. This is not an issue about Israel. If this article was about I/P it would be reasonable to mention finklestein (albeit with disclaimers). But it's not, it's about the Holocaust. His theory that Jews in America "invented" the holocaust and are using it to extort europe and defend Israel is patent, and dangerous, nonsense. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you read any books reviews in the mainstream press? His research (about distribution of restitution funds) is one thing, and he was right in debunking Joan Peter's book as baseless. But his polemics are another thing. He does not have merit in saying, for example, that the Holocaust only came into the public eye in the 70s as part of an American Jewish plot to increase sympathy for Israel following the 6 day war. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not surprise you at all that the book was praised by Storm Front, David Duke, and David Irving? That's not anti-Israel, it's anti-jewish.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And aren't you at all bothered by him saying that reparations are extortion and blackmail? --Monochrome_Monitor 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His theory that Jews in America "invented" the holocaust and are using it to extort europe and defend Israel is patent, and dangerous, nonsense.

This statement means you have never read the book, nor followed Finkelstein's work except in cursory reviews from quarter baked hostile critics. I have had to restore it, as illegitimately censored. It is a minor, but significant point of view.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, Nish! Since when is the new york times quarter baked? --Monochrome_Monitor 17:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean he denies it. I mean he distinguishes between the holocaust and "the holocaust", ie, its public perception. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the NYTs taken seriously in serious quarters. It took me 2 and a half decades to persuade an American cousin of mine not to read it. He's a high-flyer, and has finally begun to entertain doubts. I cut my teeth on Raul Hilberg's masterpiece - it constituted one of the key moments in my long reading life- and I've never seen anything that suggests Hilberg's judgement on these things is askew. His position was generally close to Finkelstein's, meaning NF's position has extremely strong credentials of informed endorsement. NF is one of 40 academics I can name, mostly Jewish, whose careers ran into a wall when they disagreed with the majority on things like this. No argument, just strongarm tactics of 'fire the bum' and make his or her career collapse. Thuggery. His dad got a good pension directly from the German government because of their responsibility for his trials in the death camps. His mother went through official Jewish channels, and got a one-time handout that was a disgraceful pittance.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the distribution of funds. I'm talking about him maintaining this was done because of Israel. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd venture, against NF, that the lessons of the holocaust have been more deeply absorbed in parts of the diaspora like the U.S. and Great Britain (outside the incestuously self-referential lobbying bodies that presume to speak up for 'everyone in the community') than it has in Israel. 1967 changed a lot of things, unfortunately. I just get twitchy when I see a consensus or a 'public' attitude. 'Truth' is always a partial, fragmentary perception, twigged by individuals, and lost in the crowd.Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Great.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We Irish never forget!Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot, you're Irish. I remember you saying something about that. Do you live in Britain or (Northern) Ireland? --Monochrome_Monitor 18:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. To be precise, I live in my library, and in my gardens.Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gardens? --Monochrome_Monitor 18:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think having '4' warrants the plural.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Do you have one for each genus? --Monochrome_Monitor 19:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have four for one genius! Whoops, lapsus.:) One's for vegetables, one's for social ambiance, shadily overseen by a sprawling magnolia, and hedged with the stupidly named mock orange, which in Italian is more precisely defined, given its scent, as angel's breasts. The third and fourth are hanging gardens, tiered, for fruit trees,-figs, kiwis, apples, quinces, cherries,plums, with strawberry beds- furnished with nooks for solitude, and a goldfish pool. There are a lot of snakes there, but all friendly.Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that do you mean non-venomous, or non-aggressive? --Monochrome_Monitor 19:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly non-venomous. Snakes generally aren't aggressive, and the only one I ever killed, much to my lifelong grief, I killed because relatives were panic-stricken at its innocuous presence near their car. I've never quite forgiven myself, and make a point of picking them up, when asked by locals to do so, and relocating them in bushland close by. In my gardens they can just slither about till they find what they're looking for. That memory, now that I've evoked it, will ruin dinner, and serves me right: a small snake, reared up against a wall, its eye fixed with terror, as I thwacked it, all because folks were worrying they were late for an appointment.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's terrible. I have never forgiven myself for accidentally killing a tadpole by putting it in water which was too warm. Hopefully you'll get plenty opportunity to redeem yourself in the eyes of the snake gods. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes?? The Irish?? not sure where this discussion is going. But seriously I find that some of the discussion seems to join those who continually question Finkelstein’s scholarship. Reacting to this, Chicago Professor John Mersheimer’s comments are relevant: "Finkelstein makes compelling arguments in almost all of his writings, and thus he has played a key role in shaping both the academic and public discourse on a host of important subjects. In my opinion, that is the highest accolade one can accord a scholar.”(see: http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/T0003.pdf) Finally, a (the?) dean of Holocaust scholars, Raul Hilberg, has said: “...I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough." Joel Mc (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we already mentioned Hilberg. Of course he likes him, he's his "hero", they are likeminded. So he's not exactly representative of a neutral majority... --Monochrome_Monitor 13:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Neutrality' and 'majority' are question-begging, and 'neutral majority' is a dangerous coalescence of words. Scholarship is obliged to strive for neutrality (Hilberg's upset a lot of people, he didn't use adjectives), but cannot avoid a perspectival framework that makes every approach to the empirical 'angular'. One must simply work with and against it, consciously. It is extremely rare to find critics of either Hilberg or Finkelstein questioning the exactness of their sourcing and data, something which is wildly askew in the polemics of Finkelstein's critics. Anytime there is a consensus in scholarship, the best scholars will start to think around its edges, or test the foundations. A majority view is a formula for complacency, thrown around in lieu of specific argument. A long time ago, people read Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't deny there's a conflict of interest. Finklestein wrote the book and and said his inspiration was hilberg, and hilberg praised it. Of course. They are like minded. Saying Hilberg is a neutral arbiter is disingenuous. --Monochrome_Monitor 14:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no conflict of interest. You are using an abstract assumption that may have some heuristic value at times, but contradicts everything we know about Hilberg. Scholars of his moral and intellectual caliber don't do favours. He wasn't even a 'friend' of NF's. They met only once. And they don't make calculations of personal advantage in their work. Finkelstein was ostracized by pro-Palestinian militants for many of his positions, which weren't 'politically correct'. Had he or Finkelstein made different , 'canny' choices, they would have enjoyed more prestigious careers than those awarded them, the sort of sinecures loud-mouthed smarmy louts in the commentariat enjoy.Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't know where you got the idea that Hilberg is the "dean" of holocaust scholars. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always used words like those with a citation in mind. See here, here, herehere, here and here, for example. Some like to qualify this with 'American', perhaps in deference to his great Israeli contemporary Yehuda Bauer, but Hilberg pioneered the field, and did so at great risk to his academic future, in isolation.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like Bauer. Hilberg is too functionalist for me. Bauer is pretty rational and even-handed. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not arguing more about finklestein.. I'm not going to remove it, I would want a consensus for that and you two seem to feel strongly about it. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with 'feeling strongly'. Everything to do with evaluating carefully wiki criteria on sourcing in the face of a huge hall of heckling fools in the commentariat. I'm doing a review of the Hamas article and have read a lot by Matthew Levitt, seconded by Dennis Ross . I regard the latter as a walking disaster and thoroughly disreputable. Levitt is highly prejudiced, identifiably connected to an official Israeli position, and yet knows his subject well. So, whatever my personal views, I use him frequently. It's as simple as that. Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! However you word it. I'm trying to defuse the confrontation.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What confrontation? Simon delegated to me an adversarial advisory role. I'd never engage in a 'confrontation' with you:I'm too old, and you're too nice. I will however, to honour Simon's confidence, 'confront' you with reasoned views that you might find distasteful. Cheers, dear.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting exchange about Bauer and Hilberg. I read the following years ago and was able to find it again. I doubt that Raul Hilberg had any heroes.http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/a-human-being-without-fault-1.230016 Joel Mc (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwww you're sweet Nish. It was fine when I was just er, playfully sparring with you, but it got less fun when another joined in, it started to feel like a quarrel (in which I was outnumbered 2:1). --Monochrome_Monitor 19:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, . . just on a point of form, I barged in on a conversation Joel Mc sought with you. It was I who 'joined in', not Joel, and therefore I must bear any blame you might apportion. As time goes on, I think you'll see the other side to being 'outnumbered' - it is the heroic role. There's no honour in the brute force of numbers, and to stand one's ground (Gloucester in King Lear has it:'I am tied to th' stake, and I must stand the course.') has the merit of dignity, the honour of sincerity and, as often as not, the witness of fidelity to truth. There, I'm being pompous . .it's time to catch my nightly film. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the film! I hope it's something good. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MM. I got your off-Wiki communication. I have taken a prolonged wikibreak due to the anniversary of my mothers death coming up. I nursed her in her final 3 months at home. 3 years now but the memories are more vivid. Not easy watching your only immediate relative slipping away. So I have not felt much like editing. Feeling a bit better, and I would like to sincerely apologise. I was not intentionally ignoring you. Call it a retreat from the world. It goes after the 19th March. Till the next year.. Greetings Nishidani also! I hope all is well with you and yours, as always. Your friend (both of you) Simon

talk) 02:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you Simon! Do whatever you need for your own wellbeing during your yartzeit. No need to apologize, you've been a wikiblessing for me. ♥--Monochrome_Monitor 02:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is uncanny. I got worried two months ago at not seeing any edits from Simon, and all those Bugle posts dumped mechanically on the talk page. On the one hand, this place can be stressful, and a quiet break might have been just the thing, so I held off from an intrusive query as to whether or not all was well. After 2 months while remonstrating obnoxiously with our young MM, I thought, since she had your email, of asking her to use that channel to send on my best regards, and a request you not reply if all was well. And I didn't do that, because, again, it would look nosey. I'm delighted on the one hand to hear you are well, and, on the other, moved by your period of commemorative mourning, something I share, since I don't celebrate my birthday, it being the anniversity of my mother's death to the hour, and attentive relatives never fuss over it, intuiting that the day cannot be festive, however much I feel thankful for her bearing me (until I became obnoxious in early youth, causing her endless embarrassment by refusing to knuckle under the rules of the prestigious school she sent me to, a fucking concentration camp of bright kids and reactionary politics). Best wishes and my thoughts to you and your mother this coming month.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since

Jewish humour

. It ran like this.

One day early in the morning, the rabbi of Chelm had a visit, announced, as extremely urgent, from one of his local community, Yankel. Yankel persisted in badgering his keep to be allowed to see the busy rabbi, and at last the latter relented.

'Rabbi, you must help me. Something dreadful happened today, and I need your advice.'

'Good grief! What happened? I'll see what I can do.'

'I was having breakfast this morning and. . .

'Oh come now, man, get to the matter, don't beat about the bush!'

'Right. I was having breakfast and took a slice of bread. . . '

'Now, now, I have no interest whatsoever in what you had for breakfast. Cut to the chase, my good man...

'As I buttered the slice of bread . . .'

'Goodness me, get out. I've no time to waste on . .

'The bread slipped out of my hand, and fell on the floor.'

'So?'

'It fell on the floor on the buttered side up..'

'Nonsense. That's impossible. You mustn't have looked closely.'

'No, rabbi. It fell with the buttered side up.'

'This is not a religious problem. It's simple physics that every piece of buttered bread that falls on the floor must fall with the buttered side down.'

'But, rabbi, I have excellent sight, and I swear on the Torah it fell as I said it did.'

The rabbi fixed Yankel in a severe gaze, scanning his face for the telltale signs of sincerity, and quickly convinced himself Yankel had told the truth.

'Well, son, this is an extraordinary business. I've never heard the likes of it, and it will take some time for me to examine all of my books to find out an answer for that situation. At that, agreeing that Yankel would be called when a solution was found, the Rabbi retired to his extensive library, and began reading.

No solution was forthcoming over the following week, and the rabbi started to send letters out to all of the surpassing masters of the Kabbalistic tradition, the eruditi of the Zohar, and eminent sages, from Baghdad to the forsaken nooks of Jerusalem, to the yeshivot in New York. No one could come up with a text that would cut the Gordian knot in this case and throw light on the miracle. An intense round-robin of correspondence ensued through all the global quarters of far-flung Talmudic study centres. Finally, after 3 years, Yankel was summoned.

'The problem has been clarified, Yankel. All is clear. The problem was that you buttered the wrong side of the bread.' Best Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm sure at least one hostile reader of my contributions will take my mentioning this, to both of you no doubt, familiar joke, in an obscurely negative light. But as told by Ovadia, one of the great exponents of the Bulgarian Yiddish tradition, it drew a lovely knowing chuckle through the crowd for the way Ovadia cited it in the context of his memories of his friend).Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wrote some of that article! :P --Monochrome_Monitor 21:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) well, not the jokes part.[reply]

I'm sorry about your mother Nish. :( I'm not that young! I feel old. Can you believe in a few months I'll be 19? Ughhhhh. Simon remembers when I was sixteen! --Monochrome_Monitor 00:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel sorry. She died almost instantly, managing to put a smile on her face just in time, as a last message. A lesson absorbed by my father when his turn came.The genius of that specific joke lies in the delay. It's very deep, and one could say that Eco's second novel Foucault's Pendulum is an extended 509 page (in Italian) gloss on an otherwise culturally specific anecdote, teasing out from it the generic lessons for reading. In other words the 'Jewish' joke's amorously self-mocking ironies conceal a piece of acute wisdom that, mutatis mutandis applies to the most advanced forms of human hermeutic intelligence. So it can't be taken as a satire on a closed community, or religious hair-splitting precisely because we all tend to massively overread, and in doing so, conjure up either self-confirming conspiracies (politically) or deliciously foible-ridden conceptual machines in semiotics (academically), that annul the 'obvious', which however is never obvious (in classical Latin, the 'obvious' is what gets in one's habitual way, something therefore like St.Paul's 'skandalon'/'scandal' to dulled reason).Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MM. You might consider adding to the Jewish Humour version this link, which is far more pregnantly lyrically than my quick recall of his speech.Nishidani (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nish can remember a time before I existed MM! At least in this incarnation. Grab every second and love it, use it and grow within it love. Nish, I appreciate the kind words more than I can say. And the joke. I suspect it is based entirely on a real incident. The loss of Umberto Eco is a great blow. His works are a treasure. There is an excellent short interview that was featured in The Forward that I shall send to you, discussing his final work. Yours with a roll up! Simon

talk) 01:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, the joke was hilarious Nish. It reflects something about human nature. Dogma is the convenient foundation of virtually all knowledge. Having nominal axioms to fall back on makes us feel secure epistemologically. The joke section of the article wasn't my work, it's very... vanilla. I did a few sentences in the lead.--Monochrome_Monitor 12:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you care to add this, here is the version recounted at the funeral, literally translated. If not, fine.

'In a Jewish hamlet in the vast Tsarist empire, there's a community of ultra-orthodox Jews of impressive distinction. Their rabbi was an outstanding authority on the kabbalah. One day, the rabbi sees one of the members of his congregation arrive at his home pallid and panting, his brow beaded with cold sweat, who says: 'Rabbi, hear me out!' Worried by his appearance, the Rabbi says:'Yankele, sit down. What on earth have you seen, Satan himself?' 'No, it's worse than that.' 'Oh dear, good grief. Well, tell me all about it.' 'Well, Rabbi. I was making breakfast, with a hunk of black bread, plenty of butter, and I was spreading the butter on the bread, with a cup of hot sugared tea and. .' The Rabbi breaks in.'Goodness me, Yankele. You ae being silly, aren't you? You come here and all you have to tell me is about your breakfast?' 'Hang on, Rabbi, just let me finish, please! Well then, I was smacking my lips, looking forward to the bounty when, out of the blue,, my cat leapt up onto the table and caused the slice of bread to fall onto the floor. Now, you go tell me what side of the bread hit the floor?' 'Don't be a moron, Yankele. It's a simple matter of physics. It fell on the buttered side.' 'No, rabbi! It fell on the unbuttered side.'At this point, the rabbi himself also was astonished, and the blood left his face. He said: 'Are you pulling my leg? Look, this is a serious matter, it's a mystical thing.' 'Rabbi, I swear to you that's what happened. And I have witnesses'. 'Go home, Yankele. This is something I have to look more deeply into.' So the Rabbi began to undertake his research, took down books on the Kabbalah, and began to write letters to all of the kabbalists the world over, to those who dwell in the most reclusive depths of Jerusalem, to those of the splendid Jewish community of Prague, to Petersburg and New York, everywhere. Letters were exchanged, responsa give, all pulling apart various conclusions arrived at, so everything had to be re-examined all over again. Three years, for three years, this intense activity by the great rabbis continued. Then at last, one day, Yankele got word that he had been summoned by his Rabbi. He arrives, red in the face, overcome with emotion, and the Rabbi says to him: 'Yankele, take a seat. Listen to me. We've managed it at last. For three full years we have worked for you. The whole world of the Kabbalah has worked on your behalf alone. And finally we have come to a unanimous conclusion- the one and only possible conclusion. My dear Yankele, to explain what happened in your case there is only one answer, one alone. Yankele, you buttered the wrong side of the bread.^[1]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Rabenkind (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Jewish history because it copied and pasted text from another Wikipedia article. Doing that violates Wikipedia's licenses, which require attribution to all users who created and altered the content of a page.

As I wrote more than a week ago at Talk:Jews#Culture dump, in order to satisfy relevant copyright and attribution requirements, please comply with WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in this case is that I wrote much of that paragraph. But, whatever. --Monochrome_Monitor 06:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This module is always vandalized by Turks. So you can add an Semi-protection ? Kordestani (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC) I don't have the permissions for that, but I can ask. I agree, lots of people blank the page, it's really bad. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for reverting that shit. What a pain. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested! :D --Monochrome_Monitor 02:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand that what is an town is in Bingöl province as conflict. So there is no conflict in Bingöl province and you can remove that ?. Kordestani (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC) I have seen it before. It drives me craaaaaaazy and I can't figure out how to get rid of it. 17:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Working on it. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found it Haccilar before than you, but you first edited map :) Kordestani (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muahaha --Monochrome_Monitor 18:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about PKK-held positions in the mountains? They should be marked as "rural areas" @Kordestani:. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but PKK now not direct part of this conflict. The PKK is waiting for spring and summer. Also PKK now didn't totally controls any mountain in Turkey. But PKK can control mountains in Turkey in the future. PKK fights in rural areas and mountains and PKK's urban branch known as YDG-H and YPS is fights in cities. Kordestani (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they in mountains of the Kurdish region in Iraq? By the way, mind if I ask, are you a northern/southern/western/eastern Kurd? And which Kurdish languages do you speak?--Monochrome_Monitor 19:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes PKK's main headquarters in Qandil Mountains of the Kurdish region in Iraq. But PKK is very organized in Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey. PKK has different branches in Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey. PJAK is the Iranian Kurdistan branch of PKK. YPG is Syrian Kurdistan branch of PKK. YDG-H and YPS is Turkish Kurdistan branch of PKK. I'm from northern Kurdistan(Turkey). I'm an Kurmanji Kurd.. Kurmanji is an branch of Kurdish nation. Kordestani (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC

Well best of luck to you! I hope you get independence. But shhhh I'm supposed to be nuetral. ;)--Monochrome_Monitor 19:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alacakaya is an district of Elazığ Province but this town located in Diyarbakır Province on this map.. Location of Alacakaya is wrong and should be corrected. Kordestani (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it's in elazig, but I got the coordinates right, so it must be a problem with the image used in the template. [5]--Monochrome_Monitor 18:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said I removed Sapata in the edit summary but I didn't... weird. Thanks for catching that! --Monochrome_Monitor 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right.. There isn't a place called Şapata. Şapata named place is doesn't exist. Kordestani (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC

It's a place in Romania. But not turkey. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome Monitor, You can slide it up a the coordinates of these district ? Or put as located in Elazığ province ?.. Or we will remove this Alacakaya district. Kordestani (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates are right, I don't want to change them. The problem is the map. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this Canaanites 'The Canaanites themselves inhabited the region since the 8th millennium BCE.' That appears to be sourced, but is utter nonsense. A little reflection would tell you it is meaningless, since we cannot use an ethnonym like that to speak of the deep past. It is technically impossible to identify a specific people that far back.

(2) the identification of Israel on the Merneptah stele with Canaanites whoever Canaanites were is theory, not a fact.

(3)and are archeologically attested as early as the mid-third millennium BCE.'(Aubet The Phoenicians and the West p.9. read it. It says no such thing. Second even had this source said that, it would only contradict the earlier 'since the 8th millennium BCE' nonsense.

(4)generally this is all very sneaky. Israel on the Merneptah stele =Canaanite. The Canaanites were materially indistinguishable from the Israelites, the Canaanites were there since the 8th millennium, hence the ancestors of the Jews were in Israel since the 8th millennium BCE. The problem in this snippety approach is, by the same token one can patch up a statement saying, the Phoenicians defined themselves as kan'ani (Canaanites), the Canaanites were interchangeable with the Israel of the Merneptah stele, the Canaanites were there since the the 8millenium BCE, hence the Phoenicians were there since the 8th m illenium BCE. Hilarious. Think about it.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is wikipedia not allowed to mention prehistory? I'm not trying to be sneaky Nish, I was just reading the article on Israelites and saw the reference and thought it was relevant. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not your fault that the article is stupid. My presence is disliked there, but the article is rife with incoherencies. The point is, no one knows what ethno-cultural' group inhabited prehistoric anywhere. You have only a definition of people in terms of the cultural style, not of ethnic groups. It is epistemologically impossible to ascertain let alone affirm what the article is saying, which means it has been tampered with for an ideological end.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your syllogism is an oversimplification. You can say that about tons of other pages, like about the Basques. But I'll revert it. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you say, but what about other pages, I'm likely to think (but not say):'So, if they get away with it on other pages, why can't our page get away with it'). I'm sure you don't think that way, but it is what that kind of argument implies. The syllogism/analogy is correct. The page regarding ancient history is a patchwork stitched up to produce an impression. Really, the history of the Jews, once you start from the ancient diversity, rather than try to mimic a superficially Biblical image of unity, is far, far more interesting that this (suffice it to read the Tanakh closely, with the relevant scholarship at hand). Of one of any number of examples of why those who have reedited back the page to its former shape, just changing a few words, take this:

'Yahweh,[50][51][52][53] one of the Ancient Canaanite national gods.' Well, again, whoever wrote that is just pasting in an ill-read snippet, and knows nothing of the subject. Yahweh in the northern theory may have emerged as an epithet for a Canaanite God, but he is not in that pantheon in that name form. To the contrary, the textual evidence, both Biblical and Egyptian points to an even more interesting association with the extra-Canaanite, Transjordan region of Edom, specifically Se'ir. The early Israelites in all probability (esp if you make them out to be Canaanites), as the -el in Israel indicates, did not worship a Yahweh. That is in Noll's book mentioned in close proximity to this, but Noll is clipped for this, some other author for that, when the whole period cannor be factually told, but only described per hypotheses ordered according to the scholarly consensuses they gain.

By the above, I am not suggesting you try and fix this. My interest here is only to make a methodological point. There is no method in the patchwork - it's a mosaic of nice bits to fit a theory, not a summation that harmonizes the know or probable facts. Anyway, I must catch my nightly movie, esp. since I've run out of beer.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! --Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sippenhaft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scandinavian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A certain user seems to be reverting your edits on Sikh-related articles, adding back in the "genocide" category. Any idea who the master (if there is one) might be? Thanks, GAB^Hello! 20:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Some guy named alpha mp. It's silly how wikipedians with povs always add stuff about their favored group into genocide categories. Like, there's been some absolute bullshit stuff in there. Wikipedia needs to seriously have a decision about whether to follow the mainstream and legal definition of genocide (intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part) or to cave to everyone's special interests. It's ridiculous how in this topic people don't use mainstream definitions because they are "too exclusive". And I'm not being super picky and only including genocides recognized by multiple states or authorities. It's the same with the holocaust too. In our WP:CATEGORYies we offer the conflicting syllogism of: The holocaust is a genocide. Not a genocide atrocity (ie killing of jehovah's witnesses, siege of stalingrad) is part of the holocaust. Therefore not a genocide is a genocide. Actually only jews and roma faced genocide according to the definition. Well, counting the utashe (I would consider them different genocides but some group them together) Serbs too.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I just realized they just made an account and all their edits are reversions of my edits. That IS suspicious.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @GeneralizationsAreBad:[reply]

Yeah, I just didn't know who the master was, and I thought you might know. GAB^Hello! 21:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean you think it's a sock? --Monochrome_Monitor 21:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MM. It looks like you are trying to move

It was discussed on the talk page so I figured it was fine, but if there's a proper way to do it I apologize for the impropriety. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOT being facetious --Monochrome_Monitor 02:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it discussed? I have looked everywhere but cannot see any evidence of consensus for what you did.

talk) 16:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

"Comment - This is going to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I only bring it up to rebut the argument that "We don't have an "Indo European people" article either. There is no such "people"." While it may be true that we don't have an Indo European people article (yet), these "Foo peoples"-type articles, where "Foo" is a language group are quite common on WP. We have: Indo-Aryan peoples, Tai peoples, Austronesian peoples, Polynesian peoples, Uralic peoples, Pearic peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples, Samoyedic peoples, Celtic peoples, need I go on? I'm not saying this article, as currently written, is particularly good, but "Semitic peoples" is a valid concept. It just needs to be rewritten with a different focus.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The trick is in the plural -s. It might indeed be possible to write an article about the many different Semitic peoples and their history. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)"

"Ah, yes, the plural -s. I'd just assumed this was already at "Semitic peoples". I would have sworn I saw an "s" up there. Funny the way the brain works (or doesn't) sometimes. In any case, it doesn't invalidate the point, it just means the article should be moved to

Semitic peoples."--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs

22:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• "If it is unclear, my point and initial proposal is exactly the same as that put forward by Maunus. As for there not being an Indo-European cultures article either, good, there shouldn't be. But there is an article about Proto-Indo-Europeans. FunkMonk (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)"

--Monochrome_Monitor 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove

It is particularly disturbing that you were warned once,[6] and still did this again.[7]

If you had not participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_26#Category:Semitic_peoples, you could have done a WP:Non-admin closure on it, but having disagreed with the proposal, you should have left it to run its course. As it is, removing the CFD tag from the page looks as if you were seeking to avoid drawing attention to the discussion. – Fayenatic London 12:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't trying to avoid discussion. I thought it was silly that the complaint of one user can deface a page like that. Anyway, I don't even remember when I deleted it :/ --Monochrome_Monitor 12:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the intro at

PS: Sorry, I'm confusing myself; I was thinking of a similar discussion around same time that referred to be AADD and AADP sections at same time. What I meant in this case was AADP's section

WP:OTHERCONTENT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for explaining and being very nice about this. I love your signature :) --Monochrome_Monitor 04:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a consensus! Nice precedent setting. Myself I never minded the flags but didn't care for them either. :/ It is difficult how some are flags of the perpetrating force and others of the place where the atrocity occurred. That's very problematic. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

I knew you would do this, so typical. Enforcement isn't even the right page for it... --Monochrome_Monitor 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fa goodness sake, MM. Why on earth did you, a bright-as-button young woman majoring in physics, make an edit summary calling the professor Emeritus of Linguistics at TAU 'not a reliable linguist'? You really deserve to be served coffee brewed by a Tierra del Fuegan, or spaghetti cooked in diesel fuel. No something worse, a big mac at MacTrumps for that, i.e. something far more indigestible that an AE/AI penalty. Look over your edits, and if some even are as bad as that one, apologize for the lapse.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're sweet in a weird, ambivalent way Nish :P

Don't appeal to authority! I don't think he's reliable because his views are so fringe. I suppose that's not synonymous with being an unreliable source... but god, his theories are outlandish. He thinks Sephardic Jews are descended from Berbers, how bizarre. Anyway, it's not about him, it's about the article being a soapbox for minority views, which is mentioned on the talk page. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Let's take the discussion here, eh? Apparently I can't reply in your section and I'm all out of words. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Wexler's views come from a very bizarre need to deny that jews exist. "‘I deny the existence of the Jewish people. Ninety-five percent of the Jews are of Iranian origin.’" Thinking that's bullshit isn't a "zionist ideological need". It's anti historical revisionism. His views themselves come from an anti-jewish ideological need.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he freaking praised his own book and bashed everyone elses under a false name and then lied about it and continues to lie about it. That doesn't reflect positively on his integrity. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MM, have you been editing

talk) 22:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks Simon, that's very kind of you :) You've been a huge blessing to me. I'll get to Dr. Strangelove when you've finished copyediting Shakshouka! --Monochrome_Monitor 22:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MM,

Thanks for your willingess to help with mentorship. I saw your comment at Cullen328 (talk · contribs). I am 100% ready to work with you and I promise not to disappoint you.

Thank you.

I said I would try to help you and advocate for you, not be a mentor. :P I do think they are blowing this out of proportion, my advice is, come clean. Tell them why you made the page about yourself and made the sockpuppet account. I don't think it was malicious. If you're honest I do think they'll give you a break. @Wikicology:--Monochrome_Monitor 17:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much MM. I appreciate your help. I'm currently compiling my statement and I will put it on the evidence page any moment from now. Warm regards.

t@lk to M£ 18:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! ping me so I remember. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will ping you. Warm regards.

t@lk to M£ 20:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

talk) 15:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Simon is stalking my talkpage, like a good

WP:MENTOR. :P --Monochrome_Monitor 15:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Went through the entire essay again, still not sure how it will affect me.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing behavior has become disturbingly puerile on this topic. I jhave absolutely no ideological interest in this argument and I know it thoroughly. The page before, later, now and after will have structural problems, things to weed out or improve, but you get nowhere simply reverting blankly. Use the talk page before you jump the gun, like Galassi.Nishidani (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being patient with me and coming here, I'll explain my thoughts. The largest study of Ashkenazi Jewish genes found no evidence of any Khazar origin. The entire theory is specious at best. For one, the evidence that the Khazars converted in mass is non-existent. For two, we know next to nothing about their civilization, we barely even know the language, yet we assume these people somehow became jews and their history, language, culture vanished without a trace? I do like to keep an open mind about things, but not to entertain thoroughly disproved theories. There have literally been two genetic studies that lended any shred of credence to the theory. One by the thoroughly biased "Jews don't exist" Elhaik, whose methods were completely deceptive and whose findings were rejected by the scientific community, and another on Levites whose results were contradicted in later studies. That's it. Hell, even David Duke, who used to espouse the theory like many jew haters, stopped believing it do to the overwhelming evidence against it. So, yes, part of my loathing of the "theory" is it being inimical to decent scientific methodology.

Another is, you have to understand how offensive it is. And I know wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I am a squishy meatbag and I have feelings. It's like with the article holocaust denial. Some people wanted it to not be point blank called "antisemitic", and called me biased for saying it was terribly offensive NOT to call it that. No, in both cases I advocate for what I feel evidence strongly supports as truth, but also in both false things have particularly harmful consequences. This isn't some silly I/P article. Wikipedia affects how many people see the world. It shouldn't pussyfoot around about holocaust denial or about the legitimacy of Jews as a people. And yes, it IS similar. Not just because the theory is beloved by jew-haters. Do you understand what I mean? Shver Tzu Zein A Yid, European Jews were burned alive and gassed for being Jews, but survived against all the odds. This bullshit theory negates their suffering by saying European Jews aren't Jews. It's absolutely disgusting and its proponents know that. Even though showing human emotions harms my credibility on wikipedia, I'm telling you this because I trust you. Hell, it's not even about me. Half of my lithuanian forebears are originally from portugal, so I'd only be half khazar according to the theory :P It's really about human dignity and not feeding the racists. --Monochrome_Monitor 07:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'The largest study of Ashkenazi Jewish genes found no evidence of any Khazar origin.' Elhaik's paper is no longer Khazar-focused. Genetically, it actually overlaps with the consensus perspective on Middle Eastern origins of the Ashkenazi founding lines, which is what rush readers are missing. I expect the intelligent thing to do is to acknowledge and differentiate the two papers, explain them briefly, air serious criticisms of the former and, when specialists comment on his second paper, outline their reactions, which means waiting several months. It's methodologically incorrect to confuse the two positions, and ethically improper to jump to conclusions about the 2016 paper in terms of what a few critics said re the paper written 4 years earlier. To rush and crush simply flags one's nervousness about a topic. Serious critics win arguments because they write and review with an informed but detached serenity, something most newspaper spinning of this hi-falutin work can't manage because it is all written to a deadline, and invariably in a sensationalist climate to win readers over. Neutrality means giving a fair exposition of what is being said, in a way that readers can make up their minds. We do not make their minds up for them. If we do, we play politics. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MM, I understand your feelings. Your feelings are important. But I don't share your view that citing reliable sources in a WP article 'negates their [the Jews] suffering,' simply because nothing can ever negate, or even reduce, their suffering. And I share your concerns regarding racists and anti-semites and other shit-heads like that, but please see WP: Wikipedia is not censored. WP does not censor itself just because we (including you and I) may be worried about what some fucking racists and/or anti-semites might think. Fuck all the racists and all the anti-semites in the world, and may they all rot in hell. The best way to fight back against racists and anti-semites is to dis-empower them. Let's not empower racists or anti-semites by giving them the power to censor the encyclopedia.

The racists and anti-semites shield/censor themselves from the truth (e.g. holocaust denial, etc). This weakens their positions. In contrast, WP editors (including Jewish editors such as yourself and myself) don't censor. This empowers us and strengthens our positions in the long run. Ijon Tichy (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm totally anti-censorship myself. I like the approach of the nizkor project, the best way to fight hate is to educate people, not to censor dissenting voices. That's why I'm not saying we shouldn't include the one or two studies purporting to support the theory, as long as we include the counter-studies. My issue is not with the details but with how its summarized in the lead. Saying "some support it and others don't" is just nonsense. It's giving people the idea that's it's not as fringe as it actually is. I think it should be summarized in a way that makes it clear that it's not given a thought in scholarship except in passing when researchers say "oh, of course this also shows no evidence of khazar origin". That's my problem. Not the content, but the way it's reflected in the lead. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've guests for some days, and can't handle this adequately, but I will note this. The Khazar mother page was an absolute mess, identical to the sheer chaos of the

Shakespeare Authorship Question. It took Tom Reedy and myself, along with more than a little help from wiki friends, two years out of our lives to (a) battle the idiot clique that had taken over the page to push a crazy fringe POV with no academic endorsement (b) rewrite it from top to bottom (c) drive it to FA level. I played a secondary role:Tom is the expert of that, but the hard labour was eased by knowing several editors with different perspectives could work on trust to improve it, and get the details right, because every source was scrutinized by all, evaluated and then edited according to stringent wiki protocols. I found the Khazar page in a hopeless mess, dominated by nutters,wholly out of whack with contemporary scholarship. I had to fight my way into it, which I dislike and then gradually managed to give it a top to bottom review by gathering in all of the best contemporary scholarship on the subject. Several editors could see that this attempt to 'fix' it was a positive improvement over the bickered POV battled versions that preceded, and watched over it to keep out the niggling messers and reverters. What was interesting to me there(apart from a semi-professional interest in the anthropology of ancient central Asian tribes) was the way anti-Semitism, on one hand, or Israel-legitimacy panic merchants on the other, tussled and pushed articles into the public purview to spin the complex history of the Khazars and the more complex history of the how that history was interpreted, predominantly among Jewish scholars. Politics was everywhere in the public domain for some decades in discussing the subject, there was scarce attention to what Turkology, Slavic historiography and Byzantine scholarship was actually doing. Politics, fucking politics, everwhere. It's the great sop to minds that desire clear cut ideological answers, that do not exist for a subject as abstruse as this. Well the politics is pretty straight forward: you either get anti-Semitic scumbags using it to attack Jews, or you get ultrapatriots dismissing what was an honourable belief or reasoned theory in Jewish scholarship because since 1967, an atmosphere of reading everything in terms of 'does it legitimate or delegitimate Jews =Israel"? predominates among controversialists. I wanted to get rid of that, unplug the endless bitching over POVs by simply giving a fair synthesis of what scholarship in the relevant fields has said over the last century or so and esp. recently. I couldn't give a fuck how either side, the anti-Semites, like David 'Dook' or the panic-stirring constituency of 'pro-Israeli' controversialists, spin things. I have no certainly about anything regarding details on the Khazars, it's all as if, perhaps, likely, less probable, etc. Nearly everyone who jumps into this page, or has tried to split it, return it to its old state, mess with it without closely parsing all of the scholarly sources, has a strong belief that I find absurd, and appears to entertain a private conviction that I am a very devious editor pushing either an anti-Semitic cause under cover of scholarship, or using this to help the Palestinians. I take the first suspicion as something not worth answering: as to the second, well, it's obvious I wish Israel to decide whether it will become a crowning honour of a millennial Jewish dream to have a state where one is amongst one's own, hypermodern, a showcase and light to the failed states around it for what will, vision and hard work can do to forge a democratic bi-ethnic if fundamentally Hebrew-cultured state, or whether it persists in playing the ambiguous game of colonialism for an extra few kilometres of real estate carpetbagging driven by nationalism, religious fundamentalism,ethnic enmity, pure mythological prevarication, and Americanoid dreams of superpower exceptionalism. But while a partisan for the Tibetans, I did the Epic of King Gesar rewrite because I've always loved that epic, not to prove something against the Chinese occupation, and likewise, while a partisan for the Palestinian cause, I did the Khazar article because I've been reading the ethnography of the central Eurasian tribal worlds for half a century, and the scholarship on them had by the time I wrote been so intense that it enabled me to do what one cannot yet do with a dozen other large tribes in that configuration (and it had the sexy attraction of being a real historical whodunit, full of obscure tantalizingly obscure mysteries that cannot probably be resolved. You don't have to believe this: but I'd sacrifice any preconception or belief in a strong probability, if evidence came out contradicting it. To the contrary, such controversion of a likely hypothesis always makes my blood tingle. I live in books, and regard the political side as sheer toxic waste, and I pity the upcoming generation when it fails to feel the thrill of hermeneutic complexities. Politics is stupid because it's a confession that you cannot hold in your mind several conflicting hypoitheses with equanimity, skepticism, doubt, or allow the surprises of alternative ways of thinking to titillate that curiosity which, if it withers, means you're effectively dead to the world. By all means, at your age, espouse some politics, but keep in mind that political minds suffer intellectual burnout because they dwell on simplifications, certainties and electoral group think. When both you and Galassi, without reading all the sources kept reverting back to a statement that said this has been definitively refuted you were simply inserting an outright POV lie. There is only one inferior kibitzer reviewer who uses that term, and it belies the scholarship. Must run, but all I am saying is that the habit of reverting on this underworked page is otiose and lazy. It needs to be substantially developed by close examination of sources, and through fair discussion on the talk page to overcome disagreements. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Your assertion that "it was a valid opinion in jewish scholarship before israel" is off-target. It has little to do with Israel. It's about European Jews and the Haskalah, and the stream of Jews fresh out of the ghettoes who did away with Yiddishkeit for socialism as soon as it was convenient. The Khazar nonsense was only entertained by a few intelligentsia as part of the extreme end of the stream of Jewish thought which sought to solve the jewish question by redefining what it means to be Jewish completely. Case in point, the reform movement in Germany and America declaring that Jews are not a people, but merely a religion. From its onset it was used to deny Jewish peoplehood, its no coincidence its supporters (wexler, elhaik) today do the same. Koessler himself said he advocated the theory as a way to make antisemitism obsolete. Of course, the alternative solution to antisemitism was to defend the jewish people by restoring the jewish state in zion. But it's not a question of pre-israel vs post-israel, it is a matter of being loved as a gentile or hated as a jew. That ultimatum precedes modern Zionism by milennia. In the glory days of the Labor Bund a significant number of quixotic jews preferred the former, but today most Jews prefer the latter, and the few who don't are rightfully deemed wicked sons.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had my first genuine health scare last week. Blood pressure and potential ticker issues. However it would appear to be stress related, as, if I cut down smoking and take my full dose of tranquilisers, I find the buzzing in my ears stops. So I have been taming a magpie and a large black beast I take to be a raven. Fat magpie and the dinosaur-like black thing are bitter rivals for the cheese and inferior quality chicken roll I put out for them. Consequently my balcony has become a small battleground. I am teaching them to co-exist by timesharing the space and giving them an insight into the complex idea of different times for their feeding. I sit on a beanbag so the beasts are at eye level when they feed on the balcony ledge. The full -length French windows give me an excellent view. Viz:

My flat is the top floor of the mansion block immediately facing the viewer, to the extreme right. You will notice the small balcony. You can see the sunlight reflecting off one of my French windows. The picture appears to have been taken at about 8 - 9pm on a summer evening judging by the shadows. The clothing appears to date it to approx 1908 - 1912. The play of light on the windows is still the same today. Seeing it in the commons gave me goosebumps. The Khazar's thing. It is a delightful aspect of Jewish history. I like the legend that the Khazars received delegations from the Christian, Islamic and Jewish faiths. Islam was rejected because the Khazars liked a drink. They were unimpressed by Christianity so chose Judiasm. My nan's family were Khazars. I get my colouring from my grandads' lot. In a hot summer I make the late

You're just the master of understatements, aren't you? ;) YOU SMOKE?!!?! I'm going to get you to quit, this is an intervention. I'm happy you're feeling better now.:) --Monochrome_Monitor 22:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No time to answer, I'm still a tour guide for friends for some days, aand with Simon's note, I feel that if helping Wikipedia is related to stress I'd rather drop editing here, than be, even marginally, associated with his health worries. I can't see anything you wrote above about this being a key issue related to the whole historical crux of the persecution of Jews. The Khazar theory had long roots in a certain vein of Jewish thinking because it showed it was possible to have a Jewish state, which banned sectarianism, the underlying message of the Kuzari book being -if history allows us to establish a state, we will not persecute Christians or Muslims as they have us, either by pogroms or dhimmitude. We will teach them tolerance among the children of Abraham.

I'll set you a bit of productive homework (I must be off) inspired by your mention of Lithuanian forebears. The Karaites of Lithuania escaped the Holocaust because that communities convinced the Nazi racist world that they were descended from Turkish royalty, and therefore did not have what the Nazis thought of as the taint of 'Jewish' blood. They survived, and then went to Israel. Koestler for one knew that, and it affected his rather shaky book (Koestler supported the use of terrorism, and was an Irgun man). The development of the theory section of the article should mention this curious twist in the Nazi use of the Khazar theory. The anti-Semites use it to call Jews racially inferior: the Karaites turned it against the anti-Semites to step round their genocidal plans. Read Steven Bayme Understanding Jewish History: Texts and Commentaries,

KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1997 pp.147-148. It should be in the article. Must rush (cheers Simon) Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And please read Simon's post in its deeper, if you like 'psychoanalytical' drift. On that level he is gently nudging us to appreciate that a 'right' argument can be flawed by the wrong motivation, and a 'wrong' argument inspired by genuinely good motives, not that I think he is judging the merits of who of us, magpie and raven, is in the right or wrong. The dialectic of argument clarifies both the argument's status, while acting as a corrective to each interlocutors private self-understanding, which tends to disrupt intuitions of truths, formal and personal. Acute.Nishidani (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my Litvak forebears were not Karaites :P They were lucky fuckers though. They were well-to-do enough to have their house raided by the Bolshevics (and my great grandmother's sister and grandmother shot in broad daylight while they were at the market) and so they got the fuck out of there in the 20s. Thank God, if they had stayed there's a 95% I wouldn't exist. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's mom's family. Dad's were out of vilna by the 90s-10s to escape the pogroms of czarist Russia. They are the ones who were originally porteguese. My great great grandfather was out because he deserted from the Russian army! Hahahaha.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I never thought they were Karaites. The Lithuanian connection reminded me of that curious irony of what happened to the Karaites, and that is an angle the page should include. I think my first encounter with anti-Semitism was on being invited to a Lithuanian schoolmate's home, and overhearing a quip from his grandparents. The second was when a teacher, noting my radical politics at 15, tried to swing them the other way, and passed me on an American book explaining the New Deal as a Jewish conspiracy. I returned it, not personally, but placing it on his desk, after forcing myself to at least read to the end of the first chapter.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you didn't actually think they were Karaites, I was kidding. Hence the ":P" As for a lithuanian schoolmate, yeah, lithuania is a very jewhatey country. This article describes it quite well. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Simon, where exactly are your folks from? --Monochrome_Monitor 21:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said from Khazarland and my nan was from Kirk Douglas. Now give it a rest MM. Sod lithu bloody ania and stop visualising a top ten of jewhatey places. It will make you ill. I am serious.

talk) 21:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 21:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Ooh, I have edited Stella's wikipage before! I am a proud relative of the guy who ruled that Coca Cola is kosher. Because of him the world's Halakhic Jews can enjoy the beverage. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be proud of this, this last one. My brother or best mate, as you will, raised his children (of part Jewish descent) telling them from the cradle Cola Cola was actually cat's piss and they believed it (I think it a fairly reasonable hypothesis from an experienced pub crawler's perspective) until they were old enough to sip the sort of stuff Simon and myself regard as a proper drop, starting with a shandy which was ritually consumed just after taking a religious vow at 13 never to touch alcohol until 18. Till that age, they were slaked on lemonade pressed from home-grown lemons :) Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was a

talk) 17:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

MM, I'm very sorry that you had an unpleasant experience earlier. Taken alone, the sock-puppeting and the COI autobiography issue might have been resolved without any serious action. Even the legal threat that he made could have been smoothed over. However, when editors began looking at his contributions, the true damage to the project became apparent. As someone said, that was "the line in the sand". The falsified medical articles were just the beginning.There are @ 500-plus articles to be read and corrected, plus references that he has added to other articles.This situation is really sad, for everyone. I suggest you read this section for an overview. First article I read: here. Random from today- click on the citations and compare them to the sentences: Nigerian Academy of Science, Isa Marte Hussaini. Then read this,and I think you will understand why people are so angry. Your good heart does you credit. It's much better to err on the side of kindness, than the side of cruelty, and I would send you a kitten, (if I knew how!) Love the "monotone monitor". (The first computer I used was a year or two older) Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're amazing. Yeah, the evidence is pretty damning, it was probably silly of me to gloss it over. HAhaha, "monotone monitor" :P Chrome! Monotone is cute though. Would be a good joke account. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, that article. Yes there's a lot of stuff that needs combing through. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the replies on the "Workshop" page. They're greatly appreciated :) Claudia 20201 (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU for your reply on my talk page. This must be my lucky day, everyone is being so nice to me. :) --Monochrome_Monitor 22:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! Monochrome Monitor You deserve it :) Claudia 20201 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Сan I invite you here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_28#Category:Indo-European-speaking_peoples ? Cathry

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Early Modern English

added a link pointing to Ligature

Modern English

added a link pointing to Ligature

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most objectionable component of your editing style is your tendency to make large and undiscussed deletions. The related edit comments invariably include emotive and subjective language explaining why you personally believe that such information is not good.

Separately, in case you think hiding information from readers is a good thing, I suggest you read Censorship#Criticism_of_censorship: removing information hinders discussion and progress in society.

Removing block quotes of fringe opinions which dominate an article, thereby putting the representation of those viewpoints in proportion is not "censorship" and calling it such is not only ridiculous, but revealing of an unhelpful, polemical approach to editing. Drsmoo (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is more subtle. There is always a middle ground in debates around UNDUE. Full censorship of sources is rarely necessary - what may be reasonable is a reduced weighting of text in the article itself, but retention of the underlying sources. Why hinder readers who may be using wikipedia to do some research by removing high quality sources describing well known scholarly debates. If you think it's overweight, then reduce the weighting but keep the sources. Hiding the existance of dissenting opinions by deleting everything is censorship in its most basic form.

talk) 07:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The most objectionable component of your editing style is your tendency to pull stunts like this after this and then to hypocritically patronize me like a self-righteous prick. But yes, my edit summaries are atrocious. --Monochrome_Monitor 04:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it

talk) 14:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghetto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, meddling and frigging about with text in defiance of evidence (which may be partial or wrong, but can be correct) given on the talk page is tantamount to edit-warring. Go there before tampering with the text. Both Entine and Yanover are shit sources, but, unlike edit warriors, I haven't removed them. I try to get the nonsense they are pushing correctly paraphrased. But there are a whole bunch of issues there, even in paraphrase. Go to that page, but before you do, read

Maybe I too belong to Category:Wikipedians with way too much time on their hands, but I thought I'd point out that, on your user page, you change from third person to first person, not from plural to singular.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Wow, thanks! Haha I didn't notice that. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi dear, this is a first! Let's raise one to it: you removed one of my more substantial edits, and I reversed it back, of course. And this while I'm hardly editing anymore :-)
Some smart newspaper guy - or municipality PR smart... donkey - made up the line "Jerusalem's age pushed back: now 7000 years old". BS. Shuafat has only been "included" (pro forma, administratively) into J'lem after 1967. Not 7k, 6k, 5k, 4k, 3k, 2k, 1k, 500 years ago, or 100 years ago - no, hardly 50. Finding Chalcolithic or other prehistoric traces in Shuafat and basing a new "birthday" for J'lem on that is... it starts with "bull" and ends beneath his tail. Take a better look at it and I hope we can leave it at this. I'm off & back to real life, cheers! ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... kay. I think you're talking about the article Jerusalem? Maybe clarify? :) And I've never heard someone I apparently reverted be so gracious! --Monochrome_Monitor 05:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jerusalem. I have separated "Shuafat" and its prehistoric findings from "City of David & J'lem proper" and its own prehistory. Now Debresser has re-reverted... Once you get a ball rolling in the wrong direction, you can't stop it that easily anymore.
We do go back quite a while, so the tone between us "goes without saying". OK, now don't push me :-) ArmindenArminden (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not technically part of jerusalem proper we should put it in the article on shuafat. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boooo I wanted to discuss it in email but you don't accept it! --Monochrome_Monitor 00:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have my email??? / The discussion is ongoing on the talk page. Sorry, I have a "real life" backlog from here till Timbuktou :-) ArmindenArminden (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tada!--Monochrome_Monitor 14:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does that work? I mean, being sure it doesn't go into the public domain? I'm kinda shy (or not, but that's the thing: Arminden can say anything, the other guy with an email... not so much). ArmindenArminden (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, the emails? The email adresses of users are stored in wikipedia's private servers. They don't have any access to the emails you send.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Madagascar Plan has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely ridiculous. I used one sentence with the source's wording, which I sourced.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the same copy vio with a different citation is still a copyright violation. Please refer to the policy page WP:copyrights for more information on this topic. — Diannaa (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the same violation. I used wording completely different from the source paraphrasing text in the article's body per LEAD. If whoever put that cite in wasn't chastised for it, why am I?--Monochrome_Monitor 21:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, I made a mistake. The wording of the second edit was not the same as the source webpage at all. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Monochrome_Monitor 21:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference whether one has 'decimate' or 'devastate', but the edit summary was incorrect. 'Decimate' etymologically means reduced by one tenth, and is still used in literate circles to mean the substantial reduction of a community or population, never its entire destruction. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know where decimate comes from. The roman army, yada yada. But it sounds like near-total destruction... To me, at least. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Either way I was the one who put in "decimate" originally :P--Monochrome_Monitor 21:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irony of ironies, Debresser, who can't stand the sight of me apparently, reverted your edit. The only problem was the edit summary, but 'devastate' is probably more vivid, and less clinical than decimate, and your sense that a better term might be used was (this time round!) sure-footed.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, you are united in opposition to me! Debresser seems to have a problem with me too. Check out this clusterfuck.[8]--Monochrome_Monitor 21:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd wear down the patience of Job. And half of your edits require wasting hours fixing them, when they are not irreparable. You are profoundly superficial and careless in your editing.

here

• 1.It was not just a question of reverting the lead (you ignored the talk page). What you did is restore Michael Gervers, James M. Powell (eds.) Tolerance and Intolerance: Social Conflict in the Age of the Crusades, Syracuse University Press, 2001 pp=84–85, the source which formed the basis for someone adding:

Christian commentators have long been concerned with the fate of the ten lost tribes. Prester John placed them somewhere in Inner Asia. Matthew Paris speculated that the Tartars could be from the ten lost tribes. However, Christian commentators and polemicists described the Khazars as a people without a known faith

There is no mention of the Khazar-Ashkenazi on those pages, and therefore it was to be removed, as I did, as

WP:OR

. You didn't even check it, because anyone who checks it would have added the proper attribution, not to those editors but to Adam Knobler, 'Crusading for the Messiah;Jews as Instruments of Christian Anti-Islamic Holy War,' on pp.83-91 of that book.

• 2. You challenge the use of scholars like
  WP:RS
  to all articles, but lower the bar for comments you like, and raise it against scholars you dislike.

• 3 You erased, while reintroducing Lipshiz and Cnaan, the references to the views of 2 qualified scholars Alexander Beider and Bernard Spolsky. They state points of view that disconcert your self-assured beliefs in the truth, therefore, you cancel them from the page, even though they are infinitely more acceptable as sources than the crap you drag in.

• 4 Like Galassi, the evidence is that you did not look at the nature of what you were doing. You made a blind, blanket revert, even if it meant re- introducing that prester John original research.
• Above all, since I’ve taken considerable trouble for some months to write boringly long talk page analyses to try and at least make you see the world of scholarship is not simple, that magisterial thinkers and historians can disagree, and that it is not our privilege, as anonymous editors to adjudicate who is right and who is wrong, and –it’s almost a year now – you have shown no signs of budging an inch from your pertinacious desire to have your way. I’ve given up. This is the last comment I’ll exchange with you. In the future, if this kind of behaviour recurs, consider yourself to be just assisting me with compiling further evidence that you are of no use to some areas of this encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prester jon is a mythical figure, you were right to delete that. I'm working on it.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YOU restored things said by entine that I deleted. "most dismiss it as a fantasy". I added new sources.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MM the “Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry” seems to be a relatively good article to me. I am not sure that it can be improved further. I think a lot of good work was done but now it is probably best if it is only improved on the margins.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its pretty good right now but I think my edits are an improvement. You?[9]--Monochrome_Monitor 20:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)@Jonney2000:[reply]

Honestly I cannot tell a significant different between the two version. So in the interest of stability it is probably best to leave it alone.Jonney2000 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the difs....? I added a whole new paragraph. @Jonney2000:--Monochrome_Monitor 20:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version is fine. If you don't think so can you explain why?Jonney2000 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current version is bad but there's always room for improvement. My edit removed weird tone things like "intriguingly", it gives a new paragraph about the history of the khazar theory. It replaces the unsourced "most dismiss it as a fantasy" with sourced parts. It's minor overall but it's an improvement. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC) @Jonney2000:[reply]

@Jonney2000: tell me what you think about the version I just put out. The intro keeps the current one's basic structure with the exception of deleting a quote I think gives a false balance.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In this edit summery you wrote that "Canaanite" and "Phenocian" are the same thing. You might know this and you might not, but,

The city states on the coast of Lebanon and modern-day northern Israel coast were called "Phenocian" by the Greeks and the Romans. All of those spoke (dialects of) the "Phenocian" langauge and they were sometimes federated and sometimes dominated by one city state (if I am not wrong it was for the most part Sidon). Those people called themselves "Cannanites" and they indeed lived in (parts of) Canaan. The problem is the Romans and Greeks have ruined historical etymologoy. They created the "Palestine" thing and renamed Aram as "Syria" which I mourn until this day. It's a sad thing that people say "Judea is a name that refers to hill region in southern Palestine".

So don't assume that because logically you are right, that Phenocians are technically Cannanites, but historiography is annoying and we have to work according to it.

Someone told me recently that I am patronizing, so if you feel that way, it wasn't intended.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that saying "or" is bad, considering phoenicians are canaanites. You're right they aren't synonymous. I agree that the greeks fucked things up. You're not patronizing, you're sweet. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 16:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But for some reason there's a Phenocia and (the rest of) Canaan. If the Phenocians heard that they would roll in their graves, but so will the Arameans and Israelites. The Philistines will be touched to say they were revived in the 20th century.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, YES. The פלשtim, eh? ;) --Monochrome_Monitor 20:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cute.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is. No need to rub it in.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to my report, I didn't know of the other one. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really really would request that you take a 7 day break from editing MM. I think it is affecting your nerves. You want to get ill over what is effectively a hobby? This stuff can spill into real life interactions MM. Just state you are experiencing some wikistress and are taking time out to recover your spirits. Make the announcement on your userpage. You badly need a break here. Simon

talk) 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia calms me down simon. It makes me feel like I have some control over the chaotic world I live in. My life is a mess right now. I can't figure out how to get fucking housing for college. It's my life that spills into wikipedia, not the other way round.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop tag-teaming me with your Zionist friend. No sooner do I edit an article on Zionism than I get irritating messages on my talk page. Do not post there again. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not tag-teaming with anyone, those are persecutory delusions. I wasn't going to comment on your talk page or about Sand. What bothered me was you using the word "zio", that's it. And you still haven't apologized either.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologise for what? The fact you are stalking my talk page (with perfectly innocent intentions, of course) in the wake of some Zionist editor and kicking up a fuss over nothing? If you don't like the edit summaries I give when removing rubbish from my talk page, don't troll it. This is my last message to you. --BowlAndSpoon (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was stalking drsmoo, not you. It's just not a nice word. It's a very mean thing to say.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from the topic of the Khazars on all pages of Wikipedia

You have been sanctioned per the discussion at WP:AN3

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This ban may be appealed in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The measure adopted is one that will cause you some grief, and, probably anger against myself. The latter is neither here nor there. It's far more severe than what I expected. Wiki however is like reality itself: things never play out as one anticipates. If it is any consolation, I was permabanned for 9 reverts over several articles in 49 days. I took it on the chin, as Foreman did in Zaire, and only got back because, unknown to me, two editors from either 'side' (Ravpapa/Nableezy) thought that after some time spent in the cooler, I should be invited back unconditionally. Oddly, their proposal was accepted. I say 'oddly' because normally one was expected to make a personal plea. I didn't. I was raised never to whinge, let alone 'grease' one's way back into someone's good graces. I think you should reflect on the psychodynamics of what happened: all it needed from you, once Simon put in his avuncular suggestion, was a sign of contrite regret ('Sorry' is enough) and some imagination ('I accept Simon's offer, but will extend the voluntary wiki break for a month,'etc) to convince the board you recognized you'd gone beyond the limit. When I came back from my permaban, I imposed on myself a discipline of self-suspension, for a month each time, whenever I made an infraction, even if no one reported me. I was off Wikipedia on several occasions. The aim is, whatever the group dynamics and power plays out there, ignore them: make the battleground one's own impatience, intolerance, self-conceit, or whatever the focus, and expect of oneself higher standards than the community requires. At a certain age, one gets slack, and I found this a corrective spur to fend off the complaisance of being 'grown up'. If you parse what Simon said, it was the opposite of throwing you under the bus: he went out on a limb, allowing you to see the stress this incident caused, while nonetheless making a last minute bid to stave off a sanction which, I suspect, he might have thought deep down, to be due, but which his empathy and avuncular care obliged him to ward off. You missed that, by expressing disappointment at what struck you as a failure to back you to the hilt. All nurture begins with indulgence, but the hardest thing in parenting is to apply the rod, those forms of angry reproval or punitive actions (I would be locked as a child in the laundry if I didn't eat my greens, or don an animal costume) that send us the message that indulgence has its limits. The limitation is only on two article, esp. the Khazar hypothesis which I am not now rushing to 'fix' unilaterally by undoing your work. If I edit it, it will be after collegial agreements with Jonney and anyone else, on the talk page. By all means revert this if you think it condescending.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jewish peoplehood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethnos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you cited in your recent edit to

1. I fixed the deadlink. 2. I literally copied and pasted cites from the clans respective pages. I didn't know about pink, I'll delete that and add a tag.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I didn't know where the sources came from. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the family website is problematic. If they were claiming something ridiculous maybe, but they're the one to know. Who better to know the origins of their family than them?--Monochrome_Monitor 02:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Nusseibeh family, you would be on more solid ground if you wrote that they "claim" such origin, though it's relevance to the article is debatable. The Al-Riyadh article is obviously way below the line (do you honest believe everything that is written there?). This edit] is also unacceptable; Tsvi Misinai's fringe theories are not accepted by scholars. Zero^talk 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's a self-published source with no obvious fact-checking. I can create a website that says I am descended from Solomon and Sheba, but that wouldn't make it a reliable source for that fact. (Let's assume for the moment that I was notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article.) I'm not saying the claim is wrong, just that the family website isn't a good source for it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it's the source used on that clan's page. Also, why'd you delete the samaritan part? That's actually a very mainstream observation, as opposed to say, nationalist claims of descent from jebusites.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a wikipedia page :P --Monochrome_Monitor 04:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Your edit is nonsensical ("Black Hebrew Israelitism are groups") and poorly sourced. Please read and follow

You don't like it. Fine. I'm just trying to make it comparable with the british israelites article, its a double standard otherwise. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC) You're also misusing the term "vandalism". Reverting an edit and addressing its complaints is not[reply]

vandalism. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC) And please clarify what "academic sources" contradict my edits. None of them do.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There is no "British Israelites" article. You're comparing British Israelism, an article about a philosophy, and Black Hebrew Israelites, an article about people. Apples and oranges.

(2) What "complaints" are you addressing?

(3) I don't have Black Zion at hand, but I don't believe it describes Black Hebrews as Afrocentric. Nor does it say -- as you wrote, attributing it to the book -- that the movement is rooted in the Pentecostal Holiness movement. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point. There is no Black Hebrew Israelism page. That is like having a page on Christians but not Christianity. A page about the movement should be the priority over a page about the movement's adherents. Right now page fails to mention much of their ideology and their arguments. The complaint I refer to was the use of apologetics index. As for its roots in the holiness movement [10]. As for its afrocentrism [11] it's been termed as such by some scholars, but this is complicated by the fact that black hebrews hate africans and think they're from israel, not africa. Sp I can understand your objection to such a characterization.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use black zion as a cite, I left it uncited, but that could be easily fixed.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the
  List of genocides by death toll page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

https://books.google.com/books?id=D7ntCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&dq=arab+palestinian+ethnicity&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ5a-hgszNAhVE2B4KHWW-AzgQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=arab%20palestinian%20ethnicity&f=false

Jonney2000 (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Thanks jonney, you're always awesome.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under

The definition of a

WP:1RR violation is two reverts within a 24-hour period. It doesn't matter whether the reverts are on the same day. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks then!--Monochrome_Monitor 03:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I already undid it ooops.Jonney2000 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Dahiya doctrine. Please self-revert and instead of imposing your will through reverts attempt to gain a consensus at the talk page. nableezy - 03:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC) There's nothing to talk about. Reverts should not be used wantonly- as you reverted me. It's obvious that the term is a politically motivated label not supported by the content of the page. Namely it accuses israel of "state terrorism", a fringe concept, and in the case of Israel riddled with anti-semitic motifs. It's a ridiculous characterization.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So your position is that whoever reverts you does it wantonly (it clearly wasnt, I gave the justification for the revert in the edit-summary), whereas your reverts are what exactly? Righting the great wrongs of the world? As far as the term is a politically motivated label, well, that really isnt all that relevant, whats relevant is do reliable sources call it this? If you want to say "state terrorism" is a "fringe concept" you can, but thats laughable on Wikipedia because

WP:FRINGE has a very specific meaning here, and that clearly doesnt apply to this topic. As far as in the case of Israel riddled with anti-semitic motifs well Im just gonna go ahead and call bullshit there, what anti-semitic motif could possibly be there? To accuse Israel of terrorism is by default anti-semitic? You want people to take you seriously when thats the argument you fall back on? I dont really care what you think about it, just dont continue reverting or you may be reported. Im of a mind to report you anyway for some of the personal attacks Ive seen in your revert's edit-summaries, but in the hopes that you calm down with the reverts Ill wait on that. nableezy - 03:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Ohohohoh that's rich. You call bullshit. No connection at all between calling israel a terrorist state and antisemitic motifs, huh? Here's some: American officials are bought off by AIPAC, Jews stage "false flag" terrorist attacks for their political gain, (hilariously that site is called "Zionism: The Poison Apple of the World", yet it claims to be "anti-zionist" and not "antisemitic") The Holocaust never happened and in fact Jews wanted to commit genocide against Germans, Israel did 9/11 (remove asterisk in link). and in case you think this mysterious correlation only reflects the views of loonies on the internet... it also applies to real-life loonies! Like this fellow, and everyone knows this guy loves the Jews, oh look it's David Duke!--Monochrome_Monitor 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what personal attacks are you referring to exactly? Me saying "stop POV pushing"? --Monochrome_Monitor 08:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC) I am sorry for my tone, it sounds hostile but unfortunately that's way I debate things.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that if an antisemite makes an argument or comparison that renders the argument itself antisemitic? And anybody, say a Jewish international law professor educated at Penn, Yale and Harvard and UN Special Rapporteur who makes such an argument, they are engaging in antisemitism? Also, you need to re-write some of the above. We have a

policy on what can be written about living people, and Im pretty sure calling the president of Turkey a loonie falls under that policy. nableezy - 08:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You are talking about causation. I am talking about correlation. Richard Falk has anti-semitic views[1], he only proves my point. He is jewish by ethnicity but that doesn't mean anything. Gilad Atzmon is an admitted antisemite^[2], and falk endorsed him. If a black man is president of the KKK, does that mean he's not a racist? (that's a reference to the chapelle show) Hated minorites can internalize their hatred and direct it at their in-group, it's not just a jewish thing. Nor does it matter where he was educated. He's a 9/11 "truther"^[1] who posted a blatantly antisemitic cartoon. As for Erdogan, you are talking about biographies of living persons- meaning I can't call him a loony on his article. That's fair. It doesn't mean I can't engage in free speech on my own talk page. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia (see

WP:BLPTALK). It applies to calling somebody a "rabid antisemite" or a "loonie" on your own talk page. Please remove those comments, otherwise I may ask that they be removed by an administrator and you be sanctioned. There is no free speech here, sorry to be the one to break that to you. I for one will not continue to discuss this until that is complete. nableezy - 18:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Monochrome Monitor Please do not argue with this gentleman.Jonney2000 (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You going to redact any of the above? nableezy - 04:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, from close inspection of the at least one of above individual's record, including intense criticism of his utterances by pro-Palestinian groups, It would probably not be wise to push this. Ample evidence of R/S published claims as to his apparent anti-Semitic attitudes are noted in the individual's article. As to Erdogan, I have no opinion as to his sanity.

talk) 04:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Here I have to disagree, Simon. I've broken

WP:BLP

more than a few times on a talk page, and if another editor objects, I have no temperamental problem in striking it out. As to the merits of the issue, MM is showing that she is relying on any casual source to label a living person a loonie or anti-Semite merely on the strength of absurdly dumb secondary sources, or blogosphere gossip, which thrives on loose citation and guilt by association. I've checked one item, and here are the results (without wanting to get into an argument over Atzmon).

this, by Yair Rosenberg, a freelance journo, is cited as proof Atzmon is a Holocaust denier. Yair cites Alan Dershowitz, a man with a distinguished record for his . . . . . . Dershowitz in turn cites Atzmon’s own words in the following way:

He declares himself a “proud, self-hating Jew” (54).

Well, any competent lawyer would shoot down this

eminence grise

for systematic distortion of the primary source material on numerous topics like this. What Atzmon wrote was:

I was what some call an ‘independent critical thinker’. I may also be what some Jews regard as a ‘proud, self-hating Jew.’

Atzmon is using a rhetorical ploy, conceding tactically in an argument that what his adversaries say of him might be the case. He doesn't assert that definition itself, he adopts the words used by some critics, and says perhaps they have a point. Distortion based on a refusal to appreciate the value of nuance in an argument.

And what allows Atzmon to hate himself? He goes on to say:

'I came across an interesting insight into the subject of anti-Semitism. It goes like this: ‘While in the past an “anti-Semite” was someone who hates Jews, nowadays it is the other way around, an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate’.

Atzmon at least here aappears to be saying he hates that part of his Jewishness which defines itself, in a recent tradition, exclusively as hatred for antisemites, whose ‘Jewish’ identity is nothing other than a trend, he argues, to single out some ‘other’ and define them by hatred. This is a extremely touchy issue, but the debt to Jean-Paul Sartre’s classic analysis of the antisemite, Réflexions sur la question juive, (1946) is obvious to anyone trained to read controversies with skeptical ears pricked for allusions.

The antisemite, Sartre argues defines himself by hate (Puisque l’antisémite a choisi la haine, nous sommes obligés de conclure que c’est l’état passionné qu’il aime p.20/’Cette phrase;’Je hais les Juifs’ , est de celles qu’on prononce en groupe; en la prononçant on se rattache à une tradition et à une communauté’p.25 (Gallimard 1954). In short, an antisemite uses ‘Jews’ as a pretext to define an otherwise feeble identitry. I hate Jews therefore I exist. Unless you have Sartre’s text (or comments on it) in mind, you will completely misread Atzmon here.

As to the holocaust denial, Yair, then Dershowitz, and numerous other airy bloggers pick up to get at

United Nations Special Rapporteur

and many distinguished scholars, what bloggers of this kind never mention is that Atzmon wrote in that same book:

Atzmon writes that as a youngster:

’In the 1970s Holocaust survivors were part of our social landscape. They were our neighbours, we met them in our family gatherings, in the classroom, in politics, in the corner shop. They were a part of our lives. The dark numbers tattooed on their white arms never faded away. It always had a chilling effect. Yet I must mention that I can hardly recall a single Holocaust survivor who ever attempted to manipulate me emotionally. Recently I spoke to a Scottish friend who volunteered in a Kibbutz in the 1970s. This Kibbutz was known for its high percentage of Holocaust survivors. My Scottish friend pointed out to me that he really enjoyed his time there working and talking with these survivors. They were largely very quiet and polite, they never used their past as a claim for fame. It was the young Israelis who he couldn’t stand. My experience was very similar – as far as my personal experience is concerned, it is always the alleged sons, daughters and grandchildren of survivors who exploit the Holocaust as a political argument, or a claim for some form of exceptionalism.’

That rings true to me, since I have friends whose relatives, some of them, survived the holocaust. There are a great many people in that community who like Norman Finkelstein, get pissed off at what they take to be the obscenity of endlessly using this argument to get at critics of Israel's policies in the Palestine territories. And if Atzmon or Finkelstein, from within that world, gets annoyed, shouting 'antisemite' only feeds the beast.

Jonney gave as usual and eminently sensible piece of advice. The request was innocent enough. Learn policy compliance, and strike those words out.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you two can find things to agree on.[12] (I'm actually horrified)--Monochrome_Monitor 12:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that it took you just 12 minutes to read the above, and, ignoring it except for what looks like a point of agreement, repeating your error. An anti-Semite hates Jews period: Atzmon hates, there, what is 'Jewish' in himself, and in some other who may be 'Jewish' which he then defines as the desire everywhere and on every topic to stake one's claim to be exceptional, beyond normal history and universal rules and principles. The entailed obverse of his statement would be : 'I love you in so far as you are a fellow human being/I love myself in so far as I lose my narcissistic self-identification with one ethnic group, and its religious exclusiveness'. That's his problem. It is not, on that evidence, 'antisemitism'. This is pointless. Just strike out what you wrote, and drop it.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not striking it out. This is ridiculous. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well Nish, we disagree on nuances here. My advice was by the way a request not to escalate this, in the scheme of things, rather minor issue. I have slept (a medicated one alas) on my comments above, and I feel A-S to be too crude and simplistic in this particular case. However I can only use one tool of comparison as a gauge for this individual's utterances if taken in their entirety over years. The very recent

talk) 14:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That's interesting, but I never take any official political judgement seriously. Drama like this, Jonney caught it on the wing, only happens because a sensible request has the person digging his/her heels in. It's lamentable. This may be piddling, but MM has, I've continued to note, been consistently reverted (and not only by me or Nableey, the usual suspects, i.e. by User:MShabazz and by User:NPguy (see here. From what I understand NPguy is an expert on these issues), and won't learn to just ease up. I see Richard Falk is still up there, u struck out, as someone with antisemitic viewes. Wikipedia is not a place for missionary work, - at it's best, when collegial, it is actually fun and creative. I've dropped these notes here because, as in the past, she can't take a premonitory hint. She digs her heels in for trench warfare.

I have no idea where the truth lies. That Atzmon has it in for one of our most authoritative voices in the I/P area, the deeply anti-Zionist editor

WP:BLP

. That article is an appalling comedy of decontextualized dyscitation, and MM fell for it.

I'll defend anyone who is the subject of collective antipathy, even if he or she's a cunt, if there is the slightest evidence of hysterical smearing that ignores the evidence, or regards rumour as proof, without source control. Whenever, in the massive flood of meme circulation which we are deluged with, I sit down to ferret out what was actually said by this or that person, I find that 95% of the time there is a complete skewing of what was said or written, ripped from context, to be spun for some political end. This has been diagnosed as one of the major threats to democracy - universal access to an internet that does not exercise, as we try in our wiki culture to do, acute control over the reliability of information. That's my only point.

I've read Otto Weininger, and Israel Shahak, and, in reading what little I googled from Atzmon, I can pick up a range of allusions to the extremely intricate, sometimes decidedly neurotic world, a byblow of anti-Semitism, from which he comes. The greatest trump card in the hands of anti-Semites, esp. on the internet, is that the word, like the Holocaust, has been so insistently abused that people generally no longer pay attention any more, and that, dear friend, is what I object to. It's the old Greek moral in The Boy Who Cried Wolf. People like Rosenberg, Dershowitz, Halily, and by the same token MM who gets her info from such poor sources, are lowering our guard, while thinking they are keeping the world on its nervous toes.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha poor sources. Being reverted does not mean you are wrong. I am right about terrorism vs war crimes. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, another 8 minutes without thinking over advice. You fell hook line and sinker, taking at their word frankly libelous distortions, because you don't study in depth, you google around for smear stuff. I.e.

To buttress what I said about the other two using an irresponsible smear source to make their charges against Atzmon, example the following:

• Eventually, he writes, a nuclear war will erupt between Iran and Israel, which will lead to the killing of tens of millions of people. "Some brave people will say that Hitler was right after all." (Yaniv Halily, 'The protocols of Gilad Atzmon,' Ynet 14 November 2011)

You found this horrifying. Yeah, but it turns out to be a total, probably libellous distortion of Atzmon: The original text has:

‘Ethics, as reflected in Kant’s categorical imperative, is also bound up with temporality: ‘act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ Kant reviews the moral act in respect to its temporal perspective. The universal law is looked upon from the perspective of the future and the past. Ethics and temporality can be seen as an endless dialogue between ‘yesterday ‘ and ‘tomorrow’. The present should be understood as a creative dynamic mode where past premeditates its future. But far more crucially, it is also where the imaginary future can rewrite its past. I will try to elucidate the idea through a simple and hypothetical yet horrifying war scenario. We, for instance, can envisage an horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called ‘pre-emptive’ nuclear attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish. I guess that among the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all. The above is obviously a fictional scenario, and by no means a wishful one, yet such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrific development should restrain Israeli or Zionist aggression towards Iran. As we know, Israeli officials threaten to flatten Iran rather too often. In practice, pre-TSS Israelis make this devastating scenario into a possible reality. Seemingly, Israeli and Zionist politicians fail to see their own actions in the light of history. They fail to look at their actions in terms of their consequences. From an ethical perspective, the above ‘imaginary’ scenario is there to prevent Israel from attacking Iran. Yet, as we all know, Israel and its lobbies are desperate to dismantle the so-called ‘Iranian threat.’

That is a perfectly normal example of philosophical illustration of a keynote in Kantian ethics. No where can you find a basis for what Atzmon is reported as saying, i.e. "Some brave people (distorting some may be bold enough) will say that Hitler was right after all."Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to report you for this, someone else may, and would have solid grounds for doing so. But you've learnt nothing, and if you persist in not taking a hint, it's gunna happen.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned iran.

We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least.

[13]

The Protocols is widely considered a forgery. It is a manual for a prospective new member of the “Elders”, describing how they will run the world through control of the media and finance, replacing the traditional social order with one based on mass manipulation. Though the book is considered a hoax by most experts and regarded as a vile anti-Semitic text, it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe both the century unfolding and the political reality in which we live.

[14]

You may wonder at this stage whether I regard the credit crunch as a Zionist plot. In fact it is the opposite. It is actually a Zionist accident. The patient didn’t make it to the end. This Zionist accident is a glimpse into Political Zionism’s sinister agenda. This Zionist accident provides us with an opportunity to see that as far as misery is concerned, we are together with the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the Afghans. We share one enemy.

[15]

It is rather obvious that some Jews are rather unhappy with Charles Dickens’ Fagin and Shakespeare’s Shylock who they regard as ‘anti Semitic’. I get the impression that the prominent Zionist enthusiast and London Barrister Anthony Julius would like to see these cultural iconic characters diminished from popular discourse... It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Julius and others are concerned with Fagin or Shylock. Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the blood-thirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind Israeli barbarism and organ trafficking seem to be just other events in an endless hellish continuum....As much as Julius and others would like to remove some crucial stereotypes from our collective cultural discourse, they can actually expect the complete opposite. Fagin and Shylock are now more popular than ever before. Devastatingly enough, it is Fagin and Shylock who shed light over the Jewish state and its lobbies around the world. Fagin is neither alone nor is he an isolated fictional episode.

[16]

65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews?

[17]

If there is one Jew I fully admire, it must be Paul Eisen

[18]

--Monochrome_Monitor 18:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are retroactively attempting to justify your taking on trust two reports about Atzmon each of which, on examination, was shown to utterly distort his views. I'm not going to take the bait and flatter you by taking each of these and examining them. Looking at Atzmon's wiki page I see it is full of source distortion, that has to be fixed, and then there's a more important issue than debating your impressionistic opinions, the Uefa cup.Nishidani (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the quotes were deceptive. When he says "some might call me a proud self hater", he is embracing it. [19] Here he explicitly calls himself a "profound self-hater". Similarly, omitting the clause "some might be bold enough to say" (with bold having a positive connotation) does not make it less heinous. Some might say you are an apologist for racism that even he who once said "zionism is the continuation of nazism in spirit", condemns. Your fastidious verification of quotes is also hypocritical, which I will get to later. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I share your horror. Atzmon is one of the most outspoken and least "subtle" antisemites in the world. He doesn't hide or obfuscate his anti semitism in any way. The sections on his website are titled "Jewish Power" and the like. Attempts to twist him into being an anti Zionist strike me as dishonest. Btw, the self-hating Jew quote that nishidani removed was “I’m not a self-hating Jew,” he replies, “I’m a proud self-hating Jew! It’s a big difference… I celebrate my hatred towards everything I represent – or better to say [everything] I’m associated with." https://web.archive.org/web/20100223072804/http://www.cyprus-mail.com/living/wandering-jazz-player/20100221 Drsmoo (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a link that proved to be dead and the wayback machine failed. You found the correct link, fine. Does anyone as a Jew, have a right to get hysterical because another Jew repudiates his being a Jew? If he or she does, it means that for the outraged person, being Jew means having 'property rights' over what someone of the same ethnicity thinks, and that is, I suspect, what gets Atzmon to make his extreme statements. No. I've seen an Albanian try to harass a Macedonian friend of mine in exactly this way. No one has such an invasive meddling right to mind control over his fellows. No more than any German would have had a right to take to task an acquaintance of mine, a senior bureaucrat, who left Germany, and, with my assistance, took up life in a new country because he wanted to erase all associations with his ethnic and national origins, because of WW2, and because he was convinced Germany would try to establish a reich in the European Economic Community. An anti-Semite hates Jews: Atzmon's parents are both Israeli and Jews: his mother is proud of him, and when his father, working in the defense industry, finally grasped what his son was arguing against, it moved him deeply. These cheap blogosphere clichés twisting a personal struggle into a threat to Israel, or a threat, akin to the run-up to the Holocaust, just pander to off-the-shelf prejudice.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He hangs out with Paul Eisen. That's not anti-zionism.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eisen is a Jew who denies the Holocaust apparently. In this there is a similarity with Elie Wiesel, who complained whenever genocide was used of the Armenians. The world is celebrating the latter's memory for bearing witness.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[url=http://www.voelkermord.at/docs/Scholars_Denying_IAGS.pdf] You are wrong. Don't be so callous, the man just died.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. But thanks, that is something I did not know. Adam Shatz disagrees. I originally read this in Finkelstein, and have now checked him. He sources everything he writes. The issue is more complex. Norman Finkelstein writes:

The Holocaust Industry, Verso 2003 pp.69-70

'the one truly holocaust denier is Bernard Lewis. A French court even convicted Lewis of denying genocide. But Lewis denied the Turkish genocide of Armenians during World War 1, not the Nazi genocide of Jews, and Lewis is pro-Israel. Accordingly, this instance of Holocaust denial raises no hackles in the United States. Turkey is an Israeli ally, extenuating matters even further. Mention of an Armenian genocide is therefore taboo. Elie Wiesel and Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg as well as the AJC and Yad Vashem withdrew from an international conference on genocide in Tel Aviv because the academic sponsors, against Israeli government urging, included sessions on the Armenian case. Wiesel also sought, unilaterally, to abort the conference and, according to Yehuda Bauer, personally lobbied others not to attend.(source:Israel Charny (1982), Haaretz 20 April 1990) The US Holocaust Council practically eliminated mention of the Armenians in the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum, and Jewish lobbyists in Congress blocked a day of remembrance for the Armenian genocide.'Verso 2003 pp.69-70

Elie Wiesel's version of this many decades later is completely different and contradicts what Yehuda Bauer, one of the greatest Holocaust historians of our time, said. He said that the government put huge pressure on him and he resigned from the conferenced chair in order "not to offend out Armenian guests')(Elie Wiesel, And the Sea is Never Full, Knopf 2010 p.92) a statement that is frankly ridiculous if one takes Bauer's testimony seriously.

I have no reason to distrust Bauer. I'm glad you noted to me he had signed with Bauer a letter to the New York Times much later, protesting Turkey's approach. See the method? Anything, I keep repeating, needs multiple sourcing, and control of the original sources being used by third parties in this case. In Wiesel's case, he admits that what he would say on such an issue is determined by a calculation of how it might affect Israel, or because of lobbying pressures from Israel, and not on the intrinsic merits of the argument. it is precisely this that the Atzmons of this world protest over - the failure of individuals within a community to think for themselves, because they learn to calibrate everything they might say for its political ramifications for the state of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make a great effort to not judge him and to rationalize his views, whereas you assume the worst of my intentions. Using finklestein as proof makes me think your antipathy towards goldberg is from finklestein. Goldberg is the leading voice of the American Jewish left. Finklestein is a pariah of the american jewish community whose following is the far-left and the far-right. He's nowhere near Atzmon nor is he an antisemite but he borders on conspiracy at times. Also I don't appreciate his admiration for hezbollah.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please comments on my updating the page Shahrbanu here or at the talk page of the article. Nannadeem (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Monochrome_Monitor nableezy - 22:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the request at

Thanks for your time :)--Monochrome_Monitor 05:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallel Yaffa Ariel--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MM, please refrain from any input in I/P areas for the stated time.

talk) 01:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I wish you would've told me that earlier. I thought that talk pages and articles were different for some reason. Sorry, I'm not angry with you or anything.--Monochrome_Monitor 01:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ohh sorry--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, I received a similarly highly irregular message re: this AFD from Bolter on my talk page, a message that I interpreted as an attempt to tweak or game me in an aggressively

WP:BATTLEGROUND manner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

There was nothing highly irregular about Bolter's note to MM. He had no way of knowing MM had undertaken a voluntary break from this area. His editing is neither aggressive nor gaming. To the contrary, he is open to changing his mind, ready to listen to advice for a mentor or others, fair in his judgements. We disagree frequently, - thank goodness, we need independent spirits here -and he would have not unreasonable grounds to think most of my views on a world he knows well disreputable. He contacted me, he contacted MM, and MM and I often end up on the opposite ends of an argument: which means he was seeking wider input from people of distinct POVs on the I/P area. That might or might not be borderline

WP:CANVASS but it was in good faith.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Absolutely Nish. As our U.S. colleagues say; there is nothing to see here ;) Simon

talk) 17:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Gregory, if I wanted to call people who will agree with me, I wouldn't call you. I simply called the 10 people I"ve seen involved in previous talks. I explained it to you on my talkpage and you brought it to the AfD thread, someone explained it to you on the thread, now your bring it here..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter I honestly didn't know my sanction applied to talk pages. You did nothing wrong. :)--Monochrome_Monitor 20:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And MM you were not sanctioned, your rap sheet is probably cleaner than mine. Simon's proposal for a voluntary suspension was accepted, another sign that the excellence of his judgement is acknowledged by third parties. Just dotting the i's.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ps. If this is any consolation, MM, you might get a laugh from noting that another editor wrote of me:

Let’s keep in mind that Curly Turkey, in reference to Nishidani's edits to the History of Japan article, said the following about Nishidani. "Any citations provided by Nishidani need to be double-checked—he has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the how or the why of sourcing on Wikipedia." "improving the encyclopaedia is not what you're here for" "Leave the copyediting to the competent, please." "you don't understand what sourcing is about and are willing to disrupt article space to push the slightest of POVs. This brings all of your sourcing into question"

This was said, with links, by an editor I now work well with, and was cited and challenged as a proper description of me by an editor I think a disaster.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for that MM ;) Simon

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arameans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaldeans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Assyria page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arameans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaldeans. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of the edit, I think this too (4th time?) violates your voluntary agreement.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi G, hope all's ok with you and yours. By my calculation your voluntary topic ban expires at midnight London B.S.T. on the 6th of August. There are a couple of minor infractions which were due to T/P restriction confusion, (it was not made clear) and the above, which is minor, but a breach. I'm overlooking it but any more will result in a re-think. Just saying. After the 6th the mentoring conditions will come into force as agreed at the AE. I'm hoping you are still good with that. I'm expecting more info as to what areas you are editing G, at the mo I am getting none. Remember this is an explicit condition, as is briefing me on proposed edits before they are made. I am not being hard on you love, but it will do you good ;). Your friend Si.

talk) 22:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I was always irritated by the "don't edit anything jew-related" thing. It's way too vague and indiscriminate. I edited the page because it was linked to on beheadings in islam, which I edited also. Regardless, please call of Nici. He's being a jerk as usual and I've deliberately restrained myself in my interactions with him.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beheadings in Islam. Sure, but you might also keep in mind that when you are parking your car in the Mamilla Mall parking lot, underneath are the skeletons presumed to belong to several thousand Christians beheaded by Jews, who were revenging the massacre of their own by Byzantines, who were revenged the crucifixion, . .till you go back to the splendid warrant for mass murder that is the Book of Joshua, pure fiction of course. But, no one identifying with any one people in antiquity should adopt a 'holier than thou' approach, looking at their barbarity, while ignoring one's own. We all descend from barbarians, -it's all over every sacred book, apart from historical chronicles, and no one is innocent.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good old moral relativism and the "cycle of violence"... I suppose that chain of events ends with the holocaust "in revenge for the crucifixion". There's a difference between the prophet of a religion massacring hundreds of defenseless people and the adherents. The massacres by joshua are a fiction. The massacres by muhammad are historical fact. Regardless, what piqued my interest in the article was not battles in the 7th century.. it was recent events.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrate. That is not moral relativism, but ethical universalism, meaning all behavior, irrespective of ethnic interests or defenses, falls under the same rule. Have you forgotten Kings 18:16-45, where the prophet Elijah, like Mohammad, had 450 prophets of Baal slaughtered because he did not like their religion. Elijah has an important place in Islamic tradition. God is a fiction, the promised land is a fiction, the exodus is a fiction, the invasion of Canaan is a fiction, as you yourself admitted: fictions inflect reality, as divine warrants for genocide inflected the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheistic world. That's why I'm a pagan. Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about theology. I'm talking about real people getting killed. The devastation of the Peloponnesian war cannot be compared to that of the Trojan war. The real massacre of 800 surrendering jews cannot be compared to the fictional massacre of 450 self-mutilating cult leaders.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theology influences behavior because it underwrites cultural practices, according to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Tanakh is full of endorsements of pious murder (Psalm 137), and it has influenced all three traditions. I mentioned the Mamilla massacre because it is roughly contemporary with the massacre of Jews. They were barbarous times, less so than ours, and no group comes out clean. Nishidani (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better comparison would be to Yemenite Jewish convert Dhu Nuwas's massacres of 20,000 Arabian Christians. By far the most brutal and deadly non-fictional act perpetrated by Jews in their 3 millennia. Of course no one comes out clean, not even buddhism and certainly not paganism. (cough cough) Your strongest point is that Christianity and Islam are byproducts of Judaism and thus the violence they wrought is indirectly a product of Judaism because culture influences behavior. I generally don't think x made y means that x made f(y) though. Just because Australopithecus made Albert Einstein doesn't mean the genius of Einstein reflects on the character of Australopithecus, the fact that Judaism made Christianity/Islam doesn't mean that the of actions of Christians/Muslims reflects on the character of Judaism. But I digress. Just because no one is clean doesn't mean distinctions can't be made. How many people have been killed for Judaism? Islam? Christianity? Saying that it doesn't matter how much the latter two exceeds the former because none = 0 is moral relativism. Americans bombed civilians in Dresden and Tokyo and dropped two a-bombs but a distinction can be made between their behavior and the Nazis. The argument that "none are clean" is precisely the equivocation of neo-nazis who say that "germans suffered a lot too in the war". Feel free to call godwin's law, I'm by no means calling you a nazi, I'm just comparing two forms of moral relativism. One is far more heinous than the others, but both are fallacious. (Note how I'm not equating the two) When I note that muslims murdered a bunch of people recently, it's fallacious to say "so did Elijah 3000 years ago!" --Monochrome_Monitor 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your strongest point that the Christianity and Islam are by products of Judaism and thus the violence they wrought is indirectly a product of Judaism because culture influences behavior

If you read closely, I didn't say that. I said the 3 traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam were influenced by the Tanakh. Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my thinking the Tanakh, being the primary sacred text of Judaism written/compiled by jews, influencing the two later religions is pretty similar to judaism influencing them. Sure it can be argued that this influence doesn't make them byproducts. Anyway I extrapolated based on the fact that Christianity is directly a product of Judaism (or at least a jewish movement that was commandeered by gentiles who perverted it into something Jesus would find abhorrent) and Islam is also a product of Judaism.... because the abrahamic tradition starts with judaism.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tanakh and the New Testament were all written by 'Jews'. Judaism as we know it was formulated later, like Christianity, both in polemical boundary setting between the two. To take Christianity as a 'perversion' of Judaism is ahistorical, in that sense. Jewish religious movements from the Hellenic period until way past post-Kochba times were characterized by great diversity. History is in the details. Once you adopt a broad-brush ethnonym and identify it with an religious essentialism in such abstract nouns as 'Judaism', 'Christianity' and 'Islam' all you get is confusion. One partial motivation for my doing the Khazars article was to outline that, in the conflict between the three, the steppe converts to Judaism are shown to exercise more political intelligence than their proselytizing monotheistic competitors. Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second temple judiasm was very diverse. But neither the saducees, essenes, nor pharisees would deify a human being. I say christianity is a perversion of judaism with thorough knowledge of its history and development. Saying christianity is a jewish movement is oversimplification, given how its jewish members were condemned as heretic "judaizers" and had no influence on the development of the religion post mid 2nd century. And early christianity actively reinvented itself in a reaction to judaism- or to quote the council of Nicea they moved the date of easter so they could "have nothing in common with this odious people, the jews". No christians of jewish extraction were invited to that council by the way.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to play this game:'No Christians of Jewish extraction were invited to the council of Nicea' = 'No Christians of Jewish extraction were invited to the

Pier Pasolini, namely The Gospel According to St. Matthew (film)

, who dedicated to the pope of that time. The blogosphere is full of resentment, point-scoring, grievance, by sifters who search for the ammo to justify their own partisanship, and vindicate an ethnos, or a cause. Don't go there.

I don't contest your right to be a wiki missionary for Judaism, however. That's okay, but you won't find much help in editing from modern scholarship. Christian, Jewish and purely secular scholars are quite detached from point-scoring, because ultimately it is tedious, and better left in the hands of evangelicals and biblical tub-thumpers. In short, if I may be allowed to offer a piece of advice, stick to the minutiae of history, for all sides, and forget who may be the beneficiary.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A mission for judaism? What nonsense is that? Are you on a mission for paganism? My mission is more against the deep-seated christian bias in wikipedia than it is for judaism, which I know little about and don't pretend to. I have much more respect for islam as a religion. And I wasn't talking about calling jesus the messiah. I was talking about calling him God. Two very different things.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC) I'm a secular deist with jewish flavor. I love the altruistic writings of the prophets but there's no reason I should accept the virulent misogyny of the talmud. Whenever I make a point that can interpreted as pro-jewish, you immediately accuse me of shilling, as if I'm a mindless automaton and Chabad feeds me the punch cards. (or a "tribalist" who only cares about "my own kind") My views are far more nuanced than you believe, certainly more nuanced than your own, which are actual regurgitations of hamas talking points.[20] "The role of the occupation is attack, and we in Palestine are fulfilling the reaction", "The locally manufactured shells fired by the resistance are a natural response to the Israeli occupation". (the locally produced home-grown grass fed rockets you called "harmless".)--Monochrome_Monitor 19:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'the deep-seated christian bias in wikipedia than it is for judaism'. Really? Let's drop it. I've fallen into the old aavuncular role of presuming to be able to give you some general advice. It's condescending, I know. Well-intentioned, I think. But if I review the above, I see a disappointing tendency to just talk rapidly past things I've thought over for a half a century. If I point out 4 narrative sections of the Tanakh are fictions, you automatically jump at that to dismiss the whole of the Tanakh as unhistorical: thus if I cite Elijah, without a glance at the scholarship, you undercut it as part of the Tanakh, which is then fiction, ergo no priests of Baal were ever killed. That may be true, but it is not how an historical imagination works: it is the way a political mind functions in debate. If I make a general point about the epistemology of interpreting another group's beliefs, you think of Hamas. Pointless, utterly pointless. Good luck. Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you object to? Of course english wikipedia is biased by the fact that the anglosphere is overwhelmingly christian. Some pages have overt apologetics, such as the Shroud of Turin. Some pages while critical in tone are approaching the topic from a fundamentally christian perspective, when I say deep-seated I'm referring to this permeation of christian thought in enlightenment thought which leaks into wikipedia.Thus Category:Hebrew Bible is in Category:Old Testament, "because it's convenient". (even though the old testament is a derivative of the hebrew bible, not vice versa.) I never said the Tanakh is fundamentally ahistorical. I believe it's a historically reliable document post 9th century or so and that earlier texts are either semi-historical (ie united monarchy) or genuine oral traditions with kernels of truth (ie Judges). I believe Elijah (9th century Israel) has a historic counterpart but I'm hesitant to take stories like his contest with the baal worshipper literally considering the improbable miracle of fire raining from the sky. Later prophets are more like poets than wonder-workers so I'm less inclined to think their stories have been embellished. Also I generally disregard your constant griping about my hopelessness because for whatever reasons you keep coming back to my talk page. This time it was the need to tell me I've broken sanctions that I agreed to despite never actually getting assurance that I broke 1RR. 4 times.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a fundamentally christian perspective, when I say deep-seated I'm referring to this permeation of christian thought in enlightenment thought which leaks into wikipedia.

I revel in jokes, and a touch of hilarity is a good way to end a meaningless conversation. That one must not go down the memory hole. Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you adhere to the outdated views of Peter Gay who viewed christianity and the enlightenment as diametric opposites. Enlightment thought and christian thought were bedfellows. Read Two Treatises of Government and then get back to me.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's even more hilarious, asserting you've read one primary source like Locke (I don't believe you), and then saying anyone who disagrees with you, like Peter Gay, who had actually read all of the thinkers of that period in their original languages, and had taken on board the critical scholarship of historiography over 3 decades, doesn't know what they're talking about. You're 19teenish and can see through the bullshit.

My first impression on reading that cosmic presumption in your declaration was an image I retain of

Theodor Adorno spending every Saturday afternoon for a year when he was 15 reading, under the close tutelage of Siegfried Kracauer, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He later wrote with Max Horkheimer a Dialectic of Enlightenment, some passages of which (pp.92ff) are not dissimilar to Ernest Gellner's summation of that same phenomenon (Plough, Sword and Book, 1988 pp.113ff.), though from a diametrically opposite approach etc.etc. So I won't get 'back to you', except to suggest you read a book that came to mind instantly, Lewis Samuel Feuer's Ideology and the Ideologists 1975. Feuer argued that the Judeo-Christian worldview did survive the enlightenment assault on religion, taking shape as the 'Mosaic myth' in the millenarian utopistic ideologies ('ideology' was coined in 1804 or thereabouts) that afflicted the world for the following 2 centuries. No doubt, like with Gay and a few hundred key thinkers of the last 2 centuries, you will have an instant impression Feuer too is stupid, wrong like everyone else about the Judeo-Christian tradition's impact within the secular reformation of the 18th century onwards, since they disagree with your impressions of John Locke. Everyone older than yourself is 'outdated'? Really! Farcical.Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Now there you go again reverting to your old "argue against MM by saying she's lying because she can't actually know what she's talking about because she's 19". Cool it with the hysterics. There's a little thing called "civics class" where the teacher is at liberty to assign reading, did you ever consider that? I generally avoid the neologistic term "judeo-christian" given its unsavory usage. You may not be aware (this is a fundamentally American term) but "Judeo-Christian" is less used today as an interfaith bridge between Jews and Christians than it is as means of excluding Islam from having any place in American society. Peter Gay's work is outdated and I'm not the only one who's said it. And most significantly The Enlightenment and Religion: The Myths of Modernity is a more modern perspective on the role of religion in the enlightenment. And here's a review of it which takes the outdatedness of the "Gay paradigm" (their words) as axiomatic.--Monochrome_Monitor 11:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Now this is silly and I want to stop arguing about it. It would be so much easier if you could admit to your fallibility just this once, say your view of the enlightenment as enlightened vs religious is antiquated, indeed that's the version of history I was taught in school so I would not blame you.I never pretended to be wiser or more knowledgeable than you but when I am "right" about specific things it would be gracious to say so, or at least to end the discussion on the pretense that you don't want it to (further) devolve into bitter polemic, not because I am hopeless or you have "given up" on me or talking to me is "useless". That is hurtful.--Monochrome_Monitor 12:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:'the deep-seated christian bias in wikipedia than it is for judaism'.

a fundamentally christian perspective, when I say deep-seated I'm referring to this permeation of christian thought in enlightenment thought which leaks into wikipedia.

I revel in jokes, and a touch of hilarity is a good way to end a meaningless conversation. That one must not go down the memory hole. Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Inference

I see you adhere to the outdated views of Peter Gay who viewed christianity and the enlightenment as diametric opposites. Enlightment thought and christian thought were bedfellows.

It would be so much easier if you could admit to your fallibility just this once, say your view of the enlightenment as enlightened vs religious is antiquated,

Nowhere did I mention my views of Peter Gay's interpretation of the Enlightenment. To the contrary I cited works by Ernest Gellner (the enlightenment as a completion of the (religious) Reformation), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno (a totally different way of reading the enlightenment), Lewis Samuel Feuer (on the Judeo-Christian structure of the revolutionary ideologies that emerged from it). All Christian thought is profoundly grounded in the Old Testament/Tanakh, and you can't see the obvious, what every scholar, not to speak of every serious Christian, knows.

See, you don't read closely. You confused my views with those of Peter Gay, and used him as a strawman or rather 'projected' his views on me, and triumphantly flourished research which challenged Gay, as if it somehow related to me as his putative spokesman. Weird. All of our conversations are like this, - you're angling to win some victory over the old guy, without understanding syllogistic reasoning indeed trampling over the step-by-step construction of a logical argument from evidence -and that is why I am dropping the bad habit.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what happens when I check in. This is why I don't go out much.
  talk) 20:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Since I regard your getting around and about more important than my annotations on this page, Simon, I undertake to shut up. Now you have no excuses for not hitting the tiles and enjoying an evening out. Best. Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never shut up, anyone. How dreary that would be! Simon

talk) 21:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course christian thought is rooted in "old testament" thought. I affirmed that above, although I noted the pagan influences. It seems our views are not dissimilar at all. I don't have an agenda to "win" and beat the old guy, but I do have an agenda to achieve some respect from you- not even for my merits (or lack thereof) but as a human being. You make me feel shitty about myself, to put it crudely. I spend most of my time learning (I aced that psych class by the way) and you belittle almost everything I say about what I've learned as superficial. Otherwise you deny I have any connection to my words at all and simply say "you know nothing about X" or "you didn't read Y" and "you plagiarized Z from a blog". --Monochrome_Monitor 01:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine any culture as the precipitate of a major combination of disparate influences, just as water combines hydrogen and oxygen. The constituent elements can be isolated, but water chemically is a tertium quid with respect to its constitutive elements - it behaves differently. Christianity, began as an intensely Jewish revisionism of several strands of thinking, and for millennia it was and still is in intensive contact with the fundamental texts of Judaism, and has thoroughly absorbed them into the texture of its thinking. That is why Zionism, otherwise an absurd proposition, worked, because the Christian constituency it pitched itself to was thoroughly imbued with the Old Testament stories (indeed believed them perhaps more ardently than the secular Zionists). Now, with this rough analogy, what you were doing in your assertion was a bit like the miraculous water imagined by Poe for Too-whit's island, (The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket, ch.18) which had two distinct veins which never commingled though forming the same liquid. You were using the word 'Christian' as an antithesis of Jew when much of it is compounded of ideas and material that lie at the heart of Jewish tradition. The Enlightenment - decentered the Christian hegemony of discourse by opening up to the 'Orient' within, absorbing it and led directly to the Great Sanhedrin, that liberated the French Jews, and resistance to the Enlightenment was the seedbed of modern anti-Semitism, which regarded this equality as a subversive. That is why one speaks of, except perhaps in the lunatic zones of American 'Christianity', the Judeo-Christian tradition. The OT is as much a part of Christianity as it is of Judaism. No one has proprietorial rights. In that sense it is not 'Jewish'. When Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were nudging George W. to destroy the middle eastern congeries of sovereign state dictatorships, what they did was, every morning when decisions had to be taken, prime him with selected readings from the Old Testament culled from the most bellicose sectors. They weren't using a 'Jewish source'. They were, in that cultural code, prodding him with a foundational source for Christian militancy, from what they took to be the Christian Bible, just as Crusaders did as they slaughtered their way to the 'Holy Land'.

Of course, the Jewish traditions retained their separateness, not taking on board Christianity, but the obverse does not hold - Christian discourse thoroughly metabolized the former, and can't detach itself from it. Most Jewish editors here are comfortable about not knowing even the basics of Christianity - and that is historically understandable - who wants to know what bugged anti-Semites, just tell'em to fuck off and leave me alone - but Christians who are ignorant of the core Judaic structures in their tradition are doomed to be historically illiterate - anti-Semitism arose from this failure to acknowledge the huge debt of derivation (just as Japanese traditionally denied their huge roots in Korean peninsular culture, or Islamic radicals their debt to European fascism, or ultra-orthodox literalists the debts of Judaism to all sorts of Near Eastern cultures. Why I take you to task is that this feeling for the complexities of history, the complicated strands of identity, is absent, so far. You make dichotomic generalizations, think of self-contained units or essences. We are, culturally, mongrels and that's why as a child when we pleaded with our parents for a dog, my mother told us:'Okay boys. Just wait until a stray comes your way and hangs about. If it's a mongrel, we'll adopt him.' Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The formation of water is a combination reaction, the formation of precipitates is a single/double replacement reaction. I know what you meant to convey, but if you're going to use a technical analogy you shouldn't bungle the details. I have said, numerous times, how Christianity is a mixture of Greek philosophy,Gnosticism, and Judaic religion, so I don't see what nuance I'm missing. I also know that the Enlightenment directly led to the emancipation of the Jews, and I'm not saying the Enlightenment was a bad thing, I'm saying it was never free of Christian influences, which also isn't a wholly a bad thing. I don't know what the Great Sanhedrin are, unless you mean the Grand Sanhedrin? Lastly your denigration of Zionism as "ridiculous" was wholly unnecessary. You haven't explicitly admitted to anti-Zionism but it was to be expected (even though I was told that you were "a Zionist, just far left").

Thanks, for the usual laugh in your trying to teach me rudimentary chemistry,but I memorized the Mendeleev periodic table when I was 13, when I wrote my first adolescent book on the history of the discovery, industrial production and uses of every element in it. My mother was a chemist, and that was my first career option. This is verifiable. I still have the manuscript. I'm sure I can get a nephew to photograph, say 'Aluminium' and send an uploaded copy if doubts persist. Generally, this is again proving that I am a bad influence, MM, and we should just quietly agree to adopt an interaction ban. I've failed in trying to get you to sharpen your wits so that you don't get into trouble.

When I thought it was worthwhile helping out Simon to train you, I privately thought of myself as Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby, with the irony that I’d be teaching you to go 15 rounds, probably with myself among others. Simon could take you only so far, as a Zionist, unlike a post-Zionist like myself. You needed to learn to shadow box with a real adversary to fulfill the promise he saw in you.Adversary in the sense of someone who is in the game professionally, but would prefer fair strong competition, rather than a thrown fight because the odds of the rival were minimal. One plays by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, and if that obliges an old pug to drop a tip to a bantam weight how to avoid leading with one’s chin while swinging a haymaker, it’s all to the good. No self-respecting pugilist, unlike your average streetfighter, relishes a pushover. I was deeply impressed when my father, discussing who were the best soldiers in the world, told me the Gurkhas would come first by general repute, but he preferred the Maoris, illustrating the point by an anecdote about a Maori chief,who was perplexed on seeing a surrender flag flown above a white settlement that his tribe had laid siege to. Enquiries led him to understand his adversaries were surrendering because they had run out of provisions and ammunition. He immediately arranged for some of his men to go into the settlement and give them supplies from his own ammunition stocks, so they wouldn’t have to surrender out of necessity, but either win or lose the fight on fair terms.

Perhaps I’m just not a good tutor.You still keep leading with your chin while telegraphing your punches. I'm fairly certain I know why you play this silly game, let me use a metaphor to ease my tedium - trying constantly to trip someone up and hurting yourself because you use a gammy leg to topple a marathon walker wearing shin guards. Virtually any sentence you write in polemic with me leaks like a sieve. Time and again I’ve tried to show you how your prose doesn’t fit the complexities. Take this from the above.

I don't know what the Great Sanhedrin are, unless you mean the Grand Sanhedrin?

I used ‘Great Sanhedrin’ because that was the term used by Franz Kobler when I read his book Napoleon and the Jews when it first came out (1975).(Masada Press, Jerusalem pp.157,esp.pp.158 ‘The Session and Decision of the Great Sanhedrin ’. ) I’ve seen it used thus for decades.

But, Nope. You know better because evidently it didn’t ring a bell, you had to wikicheck it and found that someone in wikipedia gave the title Grand Sanhedrin to the topic. That you relied on wikipedia’s arbitrary, negotiated language to think you could score a point, ('Oh, you must mean this, because what you wrote is wrong') is again silly. A moment’s checking in google books would have yielded ‘Great Sanhedrin’

• Frederic Cople Jaher,The Jews and the Nation: Revolution, Emancipation, State Formation, and the Liberal Paradigm in America and France, Princeton University Press, 2009 p.123
• Jon Bloomberg, The Jewish World in the Modern Age, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2004 p.44
• Susan Punzel Conner, The Age of Napoleon, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004 p.39

For me to persist would mean slipping from tough mentoring to bullying a sophomore. For you to persist, would mean making yourself feel, as you put it, 'shitty' by, in my view, insisting on respect while doing everything to undermine such a recognition, by assertive statements that are either hideously superficial, provocatively incoherent or just plain wrong. Neither is a pretty prospect, and to allow this to drag on would be to make myself culpable of confirming a Wiederholungszwang. So let's agree to ignore each other. It's the 6th. I'm sure Simon's mentorship will prove more practical than mine. Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We shall see. The slow-motion judo match above worries me slightly in how you can match up to the intellectual heavyweights you will encounter in the future. You will have to raise your game G. We may as well use it to advantage. Please minutely re-read the above G, note each blow you let through, and note each self inflicted wound. Learn the technique, think of it as a masterclass in WP

talk) 19:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

In the coincidences that plague my life, I found confirmation a minute ago when watching the under 48 kg judo gold medal fight between Jeong Bokyeong and Paula Pareto. After the Ist 30 seconds, I said to myself the Korean had the gold sewn up. Objectively, she is the better judoka- quick off the mark like dad's pants on wedding night, technically fast, fluent, etc. Pareto won.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]