User talk:NonZionist

Welcome!

Hello, NonZionist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Greetings, hope you enjoy wikipedia. HG | Talk 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your user page statement

We're a collaborative project, people with many different views get to edit here -- as long as they can do so in a civil manner.

An interesting thing happened with your user page (see its "history"). You posted a statement. It got deleted, then restored, and then deleted again. The volunteer editors involved are disagreeing about whether it is appropriate for you to post your statement. One editor is citing a policy, which you can read at: WP:SOAP. You can also look at WP:USER for info on user pages.

I can't say how this disagreement over your statement will play out. You may be allowed to restore this statement, maybe not. If you want to pursue it further, you might try contact User talk:HalfShadow who deleted it, or contact my Talk, if you think I may be helpful. I'd encourage you not to get too hung up over the statement, but simply notice it as a curious byproduct of how Wikipedia functions. Best wishes, HG | Talk 15:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the welcome, HG, and thanks for the information about my user page. My participation here is very tentative and exploratory, so I'm bemused, not annoyed. There are so many criteria an article needs to satisfy that I am amazed anything EVER gets posted!

"Reliable sources", to me, means "Establishment". The problem with this is that the Establishment is often wrong. If we lived in the Middle Ages, our "reliable sources" would be telling us that the Earth is flat. Those of us who know the Earth is round would then have to find a way to work around the obstacle, defending the spirit of truth while working within the letter of the law. I see that is not an easy task.

My user page is an attempt to jump a step ahead -- to proclaim, in a controlled and relatively private setting, that the emperor indeed has no clothes. I expect a certain amount of opposition. I'm not seeking a big splash or a huge controversy, but I have to make at least a few little waves -- otherwise, I'm not doing my job. Truth is arrived at through an adversarial process. Anyway, I can assure you that my intentions are constructive and cooperative. NonZionist (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. fyi You are welcome to utilize reliable sources that mention or substantiate anti-Establishment views. However, it is true that, for better or worse, Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH but rather verification of its articles through the mainstream secondary literature. Take care, HG | Talk 18:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think you'll have a problem with your revised user page. Glad to see you've been reading up on our policies, etc. By the way, you can delete your signature if you want, your user page is one place (along w/articles) that it's not needed! Take care, HG | Talk 03:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Review

{{helpme}}I'm wondering whether I am ready to add to an article. The text I would like to insert is here. How does it look? What should I do next? -- NonZionist (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The deed is done! Woohoo!

When to use the <references/> tag

{{helpme}}I've been using the <ref> tag in citations in my talk page comments. To get the citation to appear, I'm then forced to put a <references/> at the end of my comment. But that dumps references for the entire page! I doubt that this endears me to other wikipedians. What is the correct way to get citations to appear in talk pages?

Don't use the ref tag just use brackets and it will show up like this [1]

Wikipedia-related dialogue

If you have strong disagreements with my general editorial orientation, please express your concerns here.

Wikipedia is based on consensus and NPOV. Consensus is achieved in one of two ways: Either we silence the opposition, or we dialogue with the opposition. I prefer the latter approach.

We all have POV's. NPOV, to the extent that it is achievable, is a BALANCE of conflicting POV's. It is achieved by adding POV's not by subtracting them.

With this in mind, I open my talk page to those who are willing to participate in a constructive civil work-related dialogue. If we put down stereotypes and come to know the editorial concerns of the other, then we will be better able to collaborate on this project.

Hi NonZionist. I got your message. I'm a bit busy editing in the JIDF talk area. Was there something specific you wanted to discuss or try to work upon? I'm very new here. It seems you are as well, but I'm impressed with your ability to have picked it all up so quickly it seems. Just curious (and I'm not sure this is the right place either) but do you not believe Israel should exist? Should Jews not be in that area? In my mind, that's what "Zionism" means. Anyway, despite the fact that we are supposed to "assume good faith" I find your name a bit offensive to a lot of my core values and beliefs. I don't say this to offend you, but Zionism to me just means homeland for my people. Therefore a "non-Zionist" would mean that they do not believe that Jews should have a home. --Einsteindonut (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for your friendly tone, Einsteindonut. My impression of you here is far better than my impression at JIDF!

You are actually the inspiration for my outreach here. After User:Oboler accused me of being a sock-puppet, I viewed your user page -- since you are one of the main antagonists at JIDF! I was shocked by your comments. My own user page was removed without explanation for comments that were not hostile, merely polemical. That is one of my grievances: You are allowed to say anything, but if we attempt to respond, the bogus "Anti-Semitic" label is used to silence us. Do you not see how that censorship CREATES hostility, and may lead some to actually BECOME anti-Semitic?!

I assume most people non-Jews (and even quite a few Jews) are anti-Semitic. I don't understand which comments shocked you? And about your user page being removed? --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for responding. I continue to find your comments helpful.

• I was shocked to find you expressing so much frustration. It led me to see that there are grievances on both sides of the divide, and that is what inspired me to seek dialogue. I'm sorry I didn't make this clear in my initial message -- I have a wife, so my messages get rushed! Keep that in mind: I mean no offense, but in haste I sometimes omit essential qualifiers.

• As an American, I assume that most people are NOT anti-Semitic. In theory, at least, we Americans give primacy to the individual, not the tribe or race. Ethnicity, for me, is of no interest. Ethnic groups are too diverse to support characterization. Variation among individuals is far more significant than variation among groups.

When I say "anti-semitic" it has nothing to do with ethnicity. Anti-semitism to me is hatred of the Jewish people. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, Einsteindonut. Much as I enjoy discussing these issues with you, I am reluctant to go beyond the stated aim, which is to facilitate wikipedia cooperation and understanding. I believe I detect an unwarranted defensive hostility in your latest reply, and that is the opposite of what I hope to achieve here. Every reasonable person would agree that Jews are an ethnicity, a religion, or both, yet here you claim, without any explanation, that there is no relationship between ethnicity and "the Jewish people"! You have not tried to make your response helpful.

You are putting words in my mouth here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the extremely censorial climate in the U.S., I feel as if I have already gone far out on a limb, here. However, I'm hopeful that wikipedia will tolerate my efforts, so long as they bear positive fruit and have a strictly positive orientation. That is why it is essential that we maintain a cooperative attitude. This is about co-existence and collaboration, not about winning and losing. -- NonZionist (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you as don't feel the climate in the USA is "censorial." --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• For me, all individuals are "created equal" -- i.e., have the same political status and rights. Thus, denigration of one group is no better and no worse than denigration of another. I see anti-Semitism in that context: It is just one denigration among many. It should not be our SOLE concern or obsession. I think a COSMOPOLITAN attitude is healthy, here: Oppose ALL ethnic denigration.

That's very noble. Being Jewish, I am concerned about the Jewish people first. I feel many Jews made mistakes by being on the front lines during the Civil Rights movement, all for what? To have those relationships deteriorate soon after? No one is going to look out for the Jewish people, except for the Jewish people. The world has proven this. History has proven this. If your concern is for everyone, mazel tov. My concern is that charity starts in one's own backyard first. If you are not Jewish, I don't expect you to lift a finger for the Jewish people. I don't expect you to understand our concerns. I expect my people to do it for ourselves. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why you are not concerned about it. You do not have a horse in this race. If your history involved thousands of years of people hating you for who you are, then you might be a bit concerned about it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I strongly oppose ALL ethnic denigration. But I avoid ranking ethnic concerns, putting one ethnicity above another. I believe that such rankings are regressive and divisive and contribute to strife. Here in America, under a system based on the EQUALITY of individuals, Jews and non-Jews alike have found security and prosperity. The equality I embrace is the best remedy for the hatred that concerns you. -- NonZionist (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The removal of my web page was intended to be an example of a grievance "on the other side", to show you that you are not the only one frustrated. When misplaced fear of "anti-Semitism" results in a suppression of essential communication, resentment may develop and may turn into real anti-Semitism. This is why organizations like the JIDF can be COUNTER-productive: They can and do foster the very evil they claim to oppose.

I don't know what you are talking about as far as removal of your web page. I disagree w/ you with regard to the JIDF. Evil is evil.--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The web page is not important. If you're curious, you can probably find it in the page history somewhere. I used it only as an example to show you that we are both in the same boat! -- NonZionist (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

got it. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

-- NonZionist (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I will gladly answer your questions.

• I am anti-fascist, not anti-Jewish! I believe that Jews and non-Jews alike should be FREE to live ANYWHERE. The entire WORLD is our homeland! It seems like the height of folly to confine ourselves to one tiny piece of territory that already belongs to other people. (I am not Jewish, but I can empathize: Hence the "we".)

Everyone should be free to live anywhere? Disagree. There are rules and laws. I do not like this veiled speech "that already belongs to other people" assuming with regard to a "tiny piece of territory" - you are assuming a lot here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And I disagree with you: So let us agree to disagree. That is the point of this exercise: To come to the realization that we both have a right to exist and have our own opinions and perceptions. To pursue this discussion further, we should collaborate on an article! It could be an article on the "Homeland" concept, perhaps. In the talk page, you could promote your perspective and I could promote mine, and, ideally, both perspectives would be represented in the final article. -- NonZionist (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel the truth is subjective. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The right to exist belongs to PEOPLE, not to fascist regimes. Zionists claim just the opposite: They grant their regime an eternal "Right to Exist", while denying that right to mere human beings. Elevating the state above the human being and making an idol out of the state is statism, something I strongly reject. States need to be judged according to their BEHAVIOR. Dysfunctional murderous regimes need to be abolished.

Not sure what you are considering a "fascist regime" here but it seems you are referring to all Zionists as "Fascists." I also disagree with your statement about zionists denying the rights to others to exist. You also seem to be implying here that the "zionist regime" needs to be abolished? --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for voicing your concern.

• I agree that Zionists are not all alike. The same can be said of Communists, or of any political group. However, it is the violent hard-core who determine the character of the group. When we condemn "communism", we are not condemning monks who practice communism in a monastery: We are condemning Stalin, Mao, Beria, etc..

• Prominent American Jews -- including Einstein! -- applied the label "fascist" to Zionism way back in Dec 1948, in a letter to the New York Times. The letter is also available here. Their warning was ignored, and that is bad, both for Jews and for non-Jews: No one benefits from the fascist disease.

I'm not sure that the letter is not a forgery. Apparently it doesn't exist in any archives. It doesn't seem real to me. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The letter appears both in Jewish sources and in wikipedia. That you discount it tells me that you do not know your own history. Believe me: Einstein, Arendt, and other great Jewish scholars had good reason for writing that letter. Study your own history and you will begin to understand. -- NonZionist (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong to assume that I don't know my history:

Stephen Crittenden: Of course there was a famous letter published in The New York Times in December, 1948 and signed by people like Albert Einstein, and Hannah Arendt, when Menachem Begin came to the United States as the head of a new political party that had been formed out of the Irgun, and in that letter they stated that it was 'inconceivable that people who opposed fascism throughout the world could support the movement he represented', that it had been involved in terrorism, that it had been closely influenced by Italian fascism, and that it preached a mixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism and racial superiority. Wasn't all that true?

Walter Laqueur: Look, at the time this National Liberation movement and for many people this was a National Liberation movement like Kenyatta, or like in China or like any other. It was anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, so I personally have not the slightest sympathy, but you should see that in the context of the time, the period of decolonisation, the British Empire withdrawing, and here the Israeli terrorists were given the same treatment let's say, like the Indians whio were fighting the British. And the other nationalists after all.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1918071.htm

• Zionists deny the very EXISTENCE of Palestinians. "It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." -- Golda Meir Statement to The Sunday Times, 15 Jun 1969

That is one statement by one person to try to back up a rather bold and general "point." --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement has been made REPEATEDLY, throughout the history of Zionism. Israel was advertised, falsely, as "a land without a people for a people without land". But again, my aim is not to argue with you. I seek only to show you that I have a right to exist and a basis for disagreeing with you. Collaboration depends on tolerance for differing views! -- NonZionist (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Most Americans know very little about what our own government has been doing overseas for the last sixty years. If we knew, we would be horrified for life. Perhaps you are in a similar position: As one on the inside, you do not see what one on the outside sees. Whether this horror "implies" that a dysfunctional government "needs to be abolished" is secondary, derivative and not relevant to this dialogue. My aim here is to air grievances and deflate stereotypes, so that we can work together on the encyclopedia. -- NonZionist (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Zionism, to me, means fascism -- ethnic supremacy, devotion to war, scapegoating other ethnic groups. "NonZionist" means "non-fascist": It means that I reject an ideology that is being forced down our throats here in America. I stand, instead, for our original American philosophy -- the primacy of the INDIVIDUAL over the state or tribe, with EQUAL rights for ALL, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity.

Here you explain it. Well, Zionism is not fascism. Nor any of the other things in which you wrongly attribute to it. It's a shame you have such a misconception as to what Zionism actually is, but let me assure you, it is NOT Fascism.--Einsteindonut (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Einstein and a significant number of other Jews would disagree with you -- see the letter cited above. But again, my aim in this dialogue is not to prove who is "right" and who is "wrong". Rather, it is to show you what our fears and concerns are, so that you can see us as rational beings like yourself and not as an "Anti-Semitic Demons". -- NonZionist (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, that letter might be a forgery and does not prove anything. I feel it is very wrong and irresponsible for you or for anyone to be flinging around such labels and generalizations. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And I, in turn, believe that Israeli policies are extremely irresponsible, but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether I have a right to think for myself and come to my own conclusions. And if my conclusions differ from yours: Are you still willing to work with me and seek consensus?

Would if--hypothetically-- the majority of people on Wikipedia advocated Nazism? Should I be forced to work with them and seek "consensus?"

Perhaps this brief response will help you to see why Zionist efforts encounter so much resistance. It's not your ethnicity that terrifies us: It is your ideology. Similar ethnic-based ideologies have led to war -- to millions of people being killed.

No need to be so scared as I think your entire perception of what Zionism is is way off.--Einsteindonut (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You MAY be correct. However, we see many of the signs of fascism: Censorship (a la JIDF, CAMERA, etc.), destruction of our most basic rights, going back to the Magna Carta, devotion to war, hyper-militarism, justifications for military aggression, corporate domination, etc.. So my fear is not exactly groundless! -- NonZionist (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the JIDF and CAMERA are involved in censorship, you seem to have completely missed the point of both organizations. Your fear is completely unwarranted. Meanwhile, your generalizations and general misguidance on these topics does terrify me, as this type of ignorance on these matters is the very cause of Jew hatred (anti-semitism.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So we are each afraid of the other? That is the result when so much essential communication is suppressed! Can we at least find SOME common ground? Do we both oppose violence and war? -- NonZionist (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a time for war and a time for peace and I am a strong advocate for self-defense. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration here at wikipedia is possible, if we are willing to listen to each other's concerns. Your concern, apparently, is ethnicity; my concern is fascism. It ought to be possible to write articles that satisfy both concerns. Best wishes, friend!

My concern is not ethnicity. I have many concerns. Please do not simplify them.--Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an oversimplification of concerns. My concern is NOT ethnicity. My concerns is that people get their facts straight. Perhaps you should change your name to NonFascist since Zionism does not equal Fascism, contrary to your belief.--Einsteindonut (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Zionism is not intrinsically 'fascistic'. It covers an extremely complex history spanning deeply pious Jews content to live within an Arab-dominated Palestine, when making aliyah there, to minority movements like those of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Avraham Stern which found inspiration in fascism, but did so while they were vigorously opposed, challenged and out-politicked by other Zionists, who were ideologically opposed to Fascism. While I, for one, might deplore Zionism as an historical movement, that belief is not germane to editing in this encyclopedia. Wiki does not need simplistic and simplifying editors. It sorely requires people with a good grounding in academic books on the subjects to be edited, and a thorough understanding of the fact that attitudes and outrage come cheap, knowledge and care for facts, written to NPOV, a relative scarcity. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the flinging around of this term and feel you are both getting it very wrong. Jabotinsky was not challenged by just "other zionists" but labor zionsist, who found inspiration of extreme leftist movements. From my knowledge, anyone with any knowledge at all can be on Wikipedia. On the one hand you say Wiki does not need simplifying editors, while on the other hand, you are trying to tell me that Jabotinsky found inspiration in fascism without backing that up. Of course, no need to, as I realize there is plenty of propaganda out there to, in fact, back up your points. The question is if that is even truthful. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Nishidani. When you include the qualifier "intrinsically", I agree with you, and I do not wish to simplify. But this page is not the place to delve into the complex history of Zionism. My aim, here, is simply to address motives and concerns, so that we can see beyond the stereotypes that block collaboration and foster edit wars. Outrage does indeed come cheap, but that passion can sometimes be channeled: It can prompt us to do research and become better scholars. -- NonZionist (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

'My aim, here, is simply to address motives and concerns

Then you are off on the wrong foot. Motives are either (a) historical causes or intentions, relevant to the article, and therefore requiring due research or 'delving' into the complex history of Zionism or (b) personal, i.e., other editors' attitudes, things which are obvious to all, but which are a distraction from writing to the text, and not against a fellow-editor. The point is, no one is interested in documenting attitudes or motives. The encyclopedia asks us to lend our intelligence and knowledge to the composition of WP:NPOV articles. Please take care to mark this distinction. If you don't, your efforts will enjoy a very short life. Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well stated, Nishidani. --Einsteindonut (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to our motives as editors. Motives are addressed in WP:FAITH, for example. Tell me please how we can achieve collaboration, if NOT through dialogue and understanding. NPOV, so far as I can see, is achieved through collaboration, since no one here is God: No one individual has perfect objectivity or access to "The Truth". Mistrust is an obstacle to collaboration, and that obstacle is what I seek to remove through dialogue about motives and concerns. If you have a better way, Nishidani, please tell us! -- NonZionist (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And here, I believe, I must end the discussion. I do not want this to become a distraction from our work. I have done my best to defend the concepts that make an encyclopedia possible: the freedom to think, the freedom to disagree, tolerance for differing views, trust, cooperation. We have barely begun, but it is time to pass the torch to someone better qualified. I thank Einsteindonut and Nishidani for participating. Stay positive! -- NonZionist (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity. --Einsteindonut (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Non zionist. I would be very happy to collaborate on an article with you and Eisteindounut. Lets choose a completely non controversial, non middle east or political topic, to work on together and that way can focus on WP work, not just debates.. Cheersaharon42 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested. Do you have an article in mind? If not, I've found that it makes sense to start with a WP:RS and then work backwards: This is easier than starting with an article concept and then searching for a WP:RS. -- NonZionist (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism

Hi NonZionist,

In your first 4 edits on Wikipedia I saw two examples of what amounted to racism by an account that was just created. The two examples are your user page where you stated that Zionism is Facism (this is clearly resolved) and your statement on the talk page at the JIDF that (dismissing all the documented evidence) suddenly asserted that a baseless charge of antisemitism was being used to stiffle debate. This is a tactic that I'm sure you will appreciate is in common usage by facist political parties in places like the UK. Even they however don't usually try using it AFTER a concensus has been established, with reliable sources, that show how the subject being examined really is antisemitic. This looked very much like an attack on principle against anything being called antisemitic (even that which clearly according to all editors of all backgrounds and political positions WAS antisemitic - and that is not mentioning the external researcher). There is really only one reason for launching an attack like that. Using a new account that one doen't mind being banned is perhaps a convenient tool (remember this was hyour 4th edit). A balance of probabilities, based on the above as well as the time of your appearance when others who had been trying to undermine the listing of the group as antisemitic vanished, is more then enough grounds to create serious concern. Out of interest, even facebook have now agreed it is racist and have removed it (you can check that for yourself in Facebook... it is not yet published any where).

All that said, if you are a new editor I appologise for the accusation of sock puppetry, but not for reaction strongly against your comment (which I would still urge you to remove, in which case I will be happy to remove mine in turn - just let me know on my talk page). If you want to edit Wikipedia, that is welcome, if you want to use Wikipedia as a political platform to promote your POV, as already mentiond by others, this is the wrong place for it. If the intention is to make more comments like the first one you made on the JIDF talk page... well, think how you would feel if Neo-Nazi's went around trying to promote their views in Wikipedia. Think how people on Wikipedia would react. What I am saying is that racist comments are racist regardless of the political orientation of the person making the comments. History repeates first as tradegy, then as farce. Following others attempts (which had been rejected and led directly to the various sources being added to validate the claim the group was antisemitic), your statement looked very much liek the second repetition.

If you would like to discuss and debate the topic, happy to do that too... but off wikipedia. There is a forum at my Zionism On The Web site... you are welcome to join, though I believe the name nonZionist is already taken (we have more than one non-Zionist engaging in discussion already).

Good luck with your editing, if you want us both to withdraw our statements on that talk page, please let me know.

Oboler (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Dr. Oboler. I hope you realize by now that I am NOT a "sock puppet". I do not object to your strong reaction, if you do not object to mine. Together, perhaps we can achieve NPOV. I would like such a collaboration.

Thank you also for inviting me to your forum. For now, however, I will decline. My aim is to faciliate cooperation at wikipedia, not to engage in an interminable argument over Zionism. The issues that concern me currently are issues pertinent to the creation of an encyclopedia: the freedom to think, the freedom to speak frankly, the freedom to disagree, the freedom to deviate from the party line, tolerance for differing views, intellectual diversity and community. Destroy this intellectual freedom and we end up with something that resembles the Conservapedia.

I've just come from forums where a high level of intellectual freedom prevails. I trusted that this same high level would apply here at wikipedia. In the JIDF discussion, I tried to honor you and the other participants by speaking frankly. I soon found out that the truth -- as I see it -- is too hot for some here to handle. I find this very sad, but I can live with it. I am willing to mince my words and adhere to the party line and speak in fables, as one would speak in a totalitarian society. But I cannot be happy about this loss of the ability to communicate freely.

Inevitably, the suppression of politically incorrect information and communication impacts our work here. It would do so, even if I were to leave: Someone else would simply take my place. Sooner or later, we MUST learn to live and work WITH other human beings. The process is painful -- we are forced to confront Sacred Cows and abandon Golden Calfs -- but there is no alternative.

I have been studying Israel and Zionism for the last twenty years. I am well-informed. I have great admiration for the Israeli peace movement, and I feel some empathy for Israeli culture. As I explained above and in my initial user page, I believe strongly in Jefferson's "all are created equal". I strongly OPPOSE racism and ethnic supremacy. I am strongly opposed to Naziism in particular and fascism in general.

Since so many Jews perished at the hands of fascists sixty-five years ago, you and I should be allies in struggle! I wish that could be so!

Instead, I find you accusing me of "racism", the very thing I oppose! How do you explain this? Are you perhaps being disingenuous, using words to mean the very opposite of what one might expect? Are Zionists deflecting attention away from their own ideology of race and ethnic supremacy, projecting their own sins onto their critics? What other explanation is there?

I attribute our irreconcilable disagreement to the pernicious and divisive role of fascist ideology. I reject such ideology. I put the human being first. I seek a just peace for ALL, freedom and equal rights for ALL. What could possibly be controversial, objectionable, or racist about this position? And yet, here we are on opposite sides. What can explain that?

I'm sorry, I do not know how to bridge this chasm, Dr. Oboler. At best, we can agree to disagree. But perhaps I have at least convinced you of my good faith. -- NonZionist (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you miss the point. Wikipedia is not a forum for exercising one's right to 'speak freely' etc. Abusing its pages to push one's views is not acceptable, except when on a talk page a proposed edit is contested, and one must argue for or against it by mustering evidence pro and con. I have very strong personal views critical of Zionism, which influence my reading of what is relevant or not, but the point of editing is to provide for fellow editors material of high quality pertinent to articles, preferably from book sources. That is what is prized. Exercising a 'the freedom to deviate from the party line' is a ridiculous cliché here, for there is a quite public decidedly clear clash between what is poorly referred to as 'pro-Palestinian' and 'pro-Israeli' members, and no one 'party line' prevails. Talking in the abstract like this is all very fine, but the proof of the pudding is in the specific concrete edits of quality content you might make on articles that interest you. This is what others expect. The rest, I am afraid, borders on waffle, and posturing. I may well think, personally, that the JIDF, like so many organisations that run down and showcase things to highlight their 'threat potential', is a bizarre, ludicrous and political operation, but this private view does not mean I have a right to argue against it on the relevant pages. The only right an editor has is to ensure by close control of sources that the way that organization is described here by its members or supporters, respects Wiki requirements for neutrality, notability and quality of evidence.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I welcome the criticism, Nishidani, and again, I agree with you. My interaction with Oboler DID occur on a talk page, where a controversial edit was being contested. I weighed in on the side of the skeptics: I said that the motives of the JIDF and similar organizations need to be scrutinized and I questioned whether such organizations are not counter-productive. If skepticism becomes taboo, then are we not reduced to the level of True Believers in a party line?

On THIS page (also talk), in the discussion with Einsteindonut and Oboler, I have used abstractions because I am looking for common ground -- e.g., a general abstract belief in the freedom of speak frankly. We are more likely to agree on these basic principles than on specifics. Positions have been defined and clarified, so some progress has been made.

As a novice, I do not feel qualified to take this dialogue further: I need to EARN my keep by making quality edits. Thank you for your comments, however. -- NonZionist (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments have a rather severe schoolmarmish priggishness about them. I/P articles are fascinating but a virtual minefield for dispute, which leads nowhere, unless one is highly focused on quality sources, and avoiding personalised confrontational styles. Willingness to volunteer unpaid time and knowledge towards the improvement of a global encyclopedia, in a world where most venues of information are disinformative, is an admirable thing. Good luck, good editing, and though I am retired, if I can help out in anyway, please feel free to drop me a note on my page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are fine -- no need to apologize. But maybe you can offer me some advice -- or direct me to advice pages.

• First, as I said, I need to earn my keep. Can you recommend to me a few relatively non-controversial articles that need work?

• Second, I've proposed (talk) and then implemented an edit to the Mikheil_Saakashvili article. I used information gleaned from WSJ:"U.S. Ally Proves Volatile Amid Dispute With Russia". My first two edits! Although two editors approved, the second edit (35,779 bytes) was reverted without discussion. I noted the reversion on the article's talk page, complained to the author of the reversion, and then reverted the reversion. Did I do the right thing?

• Third, to avoid injecting my own POV into Mikheil_Saakashvili, I used the WSJ article with minor rewording and many piecemeal quotes. Is this "transcription" the right approach? We are not supposed to add [WP:OR]] and WP:SYNTH, so what does that leave?

• Fourth, a friendly question. I looked (enviously!) at your user-page contributions list, and noticed the term "dog-leg edit". What is that, exactly?

Enjoy! -- NonZionist (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• All wiki articles invite at the least a tweak. All I/P articles require large amounts of work, but it is best to keep off contentious ones (Mohammed Durrah/Jerusalem/etc. If an article's content interests you, read up the talk page and observe editors' interactions for a while. Then propose an edit.
• Re Mikheil_Saakashvili, clearly the objection is tinged by a certain discomfort at the WSJ source. When one sees discomfort, try to understand the reasons for it, and negotiate an understanding Saakashvili did a supremely stupid thing, but one can understand how the average Georgian feels now that we have these disastrous and distressing consequences. I've dropped a note on the page to the effect that your edit was reasonable and correct. Two regional analysts and specialists are interviewed on this today by Phillip Adams, and the talk is available on the Australian ABC network if you are interested in listening to it at Late Night Live 04 September 2008&p=1 George and the New Cold War
• The WSJ is an unchallengeable WP:RS, though i personally think it the Western version of Pravda, and in my daily download only read it to humour my masochism, and professional interest in ideology. To paraphrase closely a source, using key words or expressions in citational form, is a minor art. You seem to be comfortable with it.If this is your editing style, composed and restrained, then you won't need my help anywhere. Just make sure you don't revert more than twice, and only then when the objection is quite irrationally motivated. It would help to look around in contentious areas for administrators who are knowledgeable and neutral, and, ask them just to take a peep in and offer some advice, if the merest trace of a conflict is in the air. But generally, don't trouble them, and, as you did well on the talk-page, air your point of view there. That is proof of your bona fides if an admin is called in, as well as the procedurally correct thing to do always.
• A dog-leg edit is what happens when a stray mongrel like myself, trotting down Wiki's Las Ramblas-wide boulevards of knowledge to some specifric destination, notes a lamppost of interest (an article) and cocks his leg at it en passant to leave a minor tweaky mark of his passage there. In short, it means a piss-ant post or edit, in an article I haven't the time to thoroughly engage with.Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

i dont like unbalanced censoring..help sought

hi, in abkhazia article, all attempts to balance the lead with russian motives is removed by a cotery of reverters even though i added neutral references!!nevertheless us view and even sweden's view find mention!!! ..can you visit that page and see how 1. stalin's georgian ethnicity and2. western disregard for "territorial integrity" (of serbia NOT GEORGIA) are consistently weeded out..i aint russian..but i prefer referenced truth deserving its rightful place..your help sought to tackle a cotery of georgian (user:kober) and us stooges...Cityvalyu (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed your comments in Talk: Abkhazia and I've added what I hope is a helpful response. It is, essentially, a request for more information. In turn, if you have time, perhaps you would be willing to review my change at Mikheil_Saakashvili.

I like the Gandhi statements on your user page. Here's another Gandhi quote:

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" -- Gandhi

-- NonZionist (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bloody well said!Skeletor 0 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Petraeus on Iraq

A tag has been placed on Petraeus on Iraq requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.    SIS  13:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but I'm not certain, that the material could be included in the Petraeus article. However, it does not work as a stand alone article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RS -- are you saying the BBC is not a reliable source?!
• WP:Notable -- Petraeus declaring that victory is unattainable is not notable?!
• WP:V -- direct quotes are not verifiable?!
• WP:CSD#A1 -- Gen. David Petraeus is not identifiable to the reader?

In short, the criteria for deletion have NOT been met. IF it is possible to integrate the information in the article into a related article, fine, please do so and THEN delete. However, the peremptory deletion of reliable notable information that is not available elsewhere reeks of censorship. -- NonZionist (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reason for <strike>: WP:AGF -- NonZionist (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Petraeus on Iraq

Hello. I noticed that you recently created the article Petraeus on Iraq. Since it appears to be intended as a collection of quotes, why don't you move it to Wikiquote? Wikiquote is a collection of quotes, while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so your article would fit much better there than here. Thank you, Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Petraeus on Iraq

I have nominated Petraeus on Iraq, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petraeus on Iraq. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.    SIS  23:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Petraeus etc.

Apologies for deleting your remark higher up. (Facile recourse to Nazi analogies, like shoah-biz and chucking antisemitic labels comes cheap). Main reason though was that the exchange addressed a hurt, and was, well, 'private' (neither I nor Tiamut use email on principle).

Multiplying articles is generally not a good idea, unless new or ancillary material to hand is so extensive that forking is advised to avoid undue weight. Creating a new article or a fork should imply that the editor has several reliable sources. You can't make an article out of one or two sources (Except for the JIDF!!!)

There's huge volumes of work to be done in this area. Book sources are rare and we are becoming a dumping house for newspaper clips. I haven't checked but surely there's some article on The Surge? I opened an article on Antonio Saura in the Italian Wiki for a friend yesterday, who didn't known much about Wiki but knows a lot about modernism and Spanish painting. It got slapped down. It will be back, when my friend starts putting in extensive material from many sources. If you want proposals to stick, develop them on a work-page on your computer, until you reach a point where others can see considerable work from multiple reliable sources has been done. Regards, and don't hesitate to ask if I can help (Bob Woodward's new book has fresh material on the Petraeus surge's background, by the way).Buon lavoroNishidani (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I noted JohnZ was for delete. His experience, mastery of the literature always carries authoritative weight for me, and you should heed the suggestions there. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done n-Z. I must sound like a bit of a prig for the cavilling. Keep up the good work.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your POV edits at the Gaza Conflict

Aside from your evident soapboxing which I have commented on a few times on the talk page, I find most of your edits there to be highly POV. [2] Personal Attack: [3],POV[4],POV [5],POV [6],POV [7],POV attack on Americans [8],POV [9] -- just for a few. I realise we all have different points of view, but your constant pushing of your agenda is not helping move the article to a balance, but creating dissention. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. We are trying to write articles that are neutral and balanced, using reliable sources. I urge you to try to keep this in mind as you edit, even on talk pages, which are not intended as a forum, but as a means of coming to a consensus. From that page: In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. I urge you to avoid personal attacks and attacks on ethnic groups and nationalities and to work at moving the article to a fair and neutral position. Thanks you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Tundrabuggy. I agree that we ALL have different POV's, even you. I, for one, learned the evils of fascism at an early age. My parent's generation lost TENS of MILLIONS of lives because the superpowers of their era went fascist. Opposition to fascism is my POV, and I do not see why I should be required to give it up and become soulless. Yes, I try to stay within wikipedia guidelines, and yes, I am not always successful. However, I freely admit that my efforts here have a larger PURPOSE. That purpose is to do my part to block fascism and global war. If that purpose is incompatible with wikipedia, then wikipedia might as well not exist, because the civilization that uses it will self-destruct and sink like the Titanic.

The article on the Israeli assault on Gaza is hugely biased. It puts the victims and the aggressors on the same moral plane. It imposes symmetry where there is none. I would be deeply offended by an article which imposed an artificial moral equivalence between Germany of the 1930s and its victimized minorities, and I hope you would be offended too. Well, I am equally offended by attempts to establish moral equivalence between Israel and its long-suffering victims. No matter how many bombs Israel drops, my indignation is not going to go away, because it rests on an UNSHAKEABLE moral foundation. The sooner the Israel-firsters realize that the better. With each bomb, Israel digs itself deeper into a hole. That saddens me. I am hoping that the Israelis will emerge from that abyss someday, return to their senses, and recover their humanity. That's WHY I resist those who would have us capitulate to Israel and its fascist ideology. That's WHY I resist those who are so very eager to dig the hole still deeper. NonZionist (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on your extremely non-civil and non-productive comment here: [10] It does not lead to productive editing to call fellow editors "fascists" and "vandals". Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I use the terms in a descriptive sense, not in a derogatory sense. Showing disregard for consensus when making edits IS vandalism. And an ideology of ethnic-supremacy and war-making that gives the state, tribe, or ethnic collective primacy over the individual IS a fascist ideology, as far as I can see. Look up the definition. Are we now to start censoring our dictionaries, deleting all words that Israel finds unpleasing? NonZionist (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, I didn't come here about any edits you've made to the article. I did, however, come here to discuss your edits to the talkpage. I've noticed that the major portion of your comments are about the general subject, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a whole, rather than about how to improve the article. Wikipedia is not your forum for educating others or arguing with them about the conflict and your views of it. You should only be editing the article or the talkpage if your purpose is to improve the article or suggest improvements to the article - no other reason. If you continue to make edits to the talkpage that constitute political soapboxing, I'm going to request that you be topic banned from the entire category of articles about the IP conflict. Avruch ^T 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're making a real effort to focus on the article content, I appreciate it. Thanks, Avruch ^T 19:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Avruch. Wikipedia needs to be a community -- see my response to RomaC, below -- and community is formed through dialogue. I believe in dialogue. I think the initial outbursts -- airing of grievances -- are a cathartic part of that dialogue, but now it is time to rein things in. Accordingly, I've greatly softened my tone, I've shortened my responses, I've made an effort to relate my responses to wikipedia, and I've invited others to change the venue. Let's see what happens next! NonZionist (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• NonZionist, I have read some of your comments on the Gaza confilict talk page and I too find them wildly inappropriate and in flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules. I too will request you be blocked from editing if you continue to post such comments. Some guy (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Staying cool when others provoke

NonZionist, Please remember that there are some editors who try to provoke outbursts or uncivil responses they can then use to try and discredit those with different points of view. Some of the editors who have come here to your Talk page to complain about you are the same ones who engaged you with reprehensible terms like "snuff" and "pornography" in reference to photodocumentation of dead Palestinian children. The articles I saw you involved with are important, you can and should continue to contribute. So stay cool, and don't let the bastards drag you down, ok? RomaC (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, RomaC. I much admire the work you're doing. I'm reluctant to take initiative in the actual editing, myself, probably because I am not sufficiently established to withstand the ensuing edit wars and the spotlight! But I can contribute as a member of the anti-fascist team, on projects initiated or suggested by others.

As I've said elsewhere, I do not believe that it is POSSIBLE to reach consensus with fascists: They've sold their soul to ideology, and have lost interest in truth, jusrtice, freedom, dignity, and all of the other things we value. I've seen forums destroyed by these relentless ideologues. If a forum -- or an encyclopedia -- is to be viable, participants need to share a common ground. We need to be a community, united by common values. Those who do not share these humanitarian values must be excluded: There's no alternative. Think of a medieval town: Tear down the surrounding wall and the town is quickly overrun and ceases to exist. That town is "Wikipedia".

The attempt to achieve consensus with fascists only draws us deeper into their abyss. Appeasement doesn't work with them: Each piece of meat thrown to the wolves only whets their appetite for more. There is no way for us all to "just get along" with these predators. Clear bright lines need to be drawn.

This doesn't mean that I "Hate" the ideologues. I actually feel sorry for these predators: They have painted themselves into a deadly corner, and now they are trapped. I would free them, if I could, and I encourage them to stop painting. But the survival of our community and its values is our first priority. Here in wikipedia, we must identify the wolves clearly and maintain a certain distance between ourselves and them. Else we become mutton.

NonZionist (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-Zionist, your comments on the ongoing warfare in Gaza is the most hypocritical pile of crap coming from a sanctimonious, over-opinionated, and, undereducated anti-Semite. The same one who states on his user page that he supports Putin's policy (btw, how is the latest move of your beloved President of/Head of/Tzar of Russia enabling him to rule until he dies?). Well, after I have ingested your "believes", you are welcome to "hear" out mine. I believe that those who overuse caps are a matter of their local psychiatrist concern. You probably need to be heard so much... Well, go bother specialists. As it for me and many others - who have seen your kind and are fed up with your pseudo-humanitarian approach - we know what truth is. We recognize terrorists when we see them. We know that the "State of Palestine" had never existed. We know that "occupied territories" in reference to Gaza strip is mostly a matter of speech, since Israel has neither civilian nor military strongholds their for 3 years. We know that "Palestinian resistance fighters", which is a yet another euphemism, is a very modern invention. We know where tribes, now allegedly united into Palestinian people, came from and when, and we know how much many of them hate each other. Their last year civil war has left no doubts my last statement is correct. Do not get me wrong, I'm not against Muslims, Arabs, or Christians, for that matter. On the contrary, I miss the good old days when the word "terror" had no Mediterranean/Levantine face attached. My childhood very close friends are Muslims, and so are many of the contemporary ones. It's the terror, for the lack of a better word, that inflicts Israel multiple civilian casualties, that I dislike. The terror blowing up buses, coffee-shops, restaurants, shelling civilians in Southern (and Northern) Israel. So, I don't give a damn whether you blame Israel for the excessive use of military force. I just hope children in Israel will not suffer from nocturia and other PTSD symptoms after having their childhood "wasted" by the hamas/jihad/popular resistance terrorists constantly shelling their towns. Israel has waited for 8 years, showing restraint and agility. Now, when it finally brought the fight to Gaza, whether it belongs, and "peacelovers" like you jump up high. Israel is neither responsible for hamas launching rockets from the high riser's roofs and school yards, nor it is to be blamed for the casualties of counter-fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.96.48 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote an earlier opponent of ritualistic aggression, "The truth will set you free.".

• Free to do what? Free to be more than just a thug. Free to dialogue INTELLIGENTLY, free to move beyond raving and hit-and-run slanders, free to interact with other human beings, free to see things from more than one side, free to rejoin the human race. You do not know what you're missing, friend.
• Put another way, lies and vicious slanders do a deadly prison make. All of the attacking, invading, bombing, slaughtering, terrorizing, torturing, demonizing, lying, self-pitying, and covering-up is futile and self-defeating: The more one kills, the more one makes enemies. Even if the killers manage to strangle the free press here in North America, the victims around the world know what happened and do not forget. And since there are more and more victims, the tide eventually turns and the wall of censorship collapses. One cannot make war against humanity forever and hope to win.
• Aggression is suicidal. Recall what happened to Germany, seventy years ago. The Germans who were once so boastful and contemptuous of their minorities and so craving of "glory", ended up crawling like rats through their bombed-out cities, starving or eating out of garbage cans.
• This is where the fascist disease leads. Those who defend this disease are slitting their own throats. But of course, that's just MY opinion. You are welcome to believe otherwise and learn the hard way. You have my sympathy, but I would not trade places with you for a minute. It's not what has been done to Palestinians and Lebanese and Iraqis that shocks me: It is what the killers do to themselves. NonZionist (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, the next time an anonymous I/P attacks you, ask yourself before replying. 'Is it worth my wasting my breathe, dignifying the person with a reply, when what I say is not only expected, but perhaps being elicited by provocations so that, once I've blown my cool, the record will be there, that I can be called to heel, and be suspended? Don't be naive. Some things are so obvious, they don't need to be said. Most things that are said aren't listened to.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance. Anonymous or otherwise, I feel sorry for the individual, and I try to show him the piece of the puzzle that he is missing. I see one phrase that could by construed as a personal attack, though it wasn't intended as such. I've now retracted it, regardless. I hope that's sufficient. Throughout the reply, I directed my criticism at "aggressors" and "killers" -- at evil-doers who are universally condemned. NonZionist (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

General Apology

NZ I would like to apopgize on behalf of the entire Wiki community for the behavoir of one our users, this 213.8.96.48. Unfortionatly, in order for wiki to fucntion properly, users like him must be allowed thus they are a nessesary evil. My olny advice has already been said "don't bother reacting." Although I'm sure you aren't, I would just like to say don't be discouraged. One of the goals of the whole wiki project is to put an end to such thoughts through worldwide unifrom education. I personally find your veiw of the world world refreashing even if there are parts I don't understand. If you ever want to talk, my talk page is open. Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, no apology is necessary! I'm the one who should apologize for my occasional lack of tact. Yes, education contributes to peace. I know this from personal experience. I used to be much like the people I argue with. Then I gained access to alternative sources of information and perspective, and I began to question my stereotypes and my indoctrination. My whole life changed! It's just a matter of finding the key that unlocks the heart and opens up the mind. I disagree with you on one point, however. I do not see 213.8.96.48 as an unmitigated evil. His comments create opportunities for dialogue: In this way, he helps us, whether he wants to or not! I compliment you on your attractive user page. It offers lots of good advice. NonZionist (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bit late. I wrote a quick draft on my page, and hadn't time, till now, to shift it here.

No apologies needed, since what I did was both presumptuous and vaguely paternalistic. I half expected a kick up the virtual coit, or a tweak of the intrusive snout, for barging in.

Most dialogues don't follow the Platonic model. They are, as the saying now goes, dialogues of the deaf. Indeed this variety is the norm. Dialogue is only fruitful if, with both parties, the ear is as attuned as finely as the tongue is trained to wag its tail at the first promptings of inward thought. We must learn to listen, not only to what is said, but what is not said in our interlocutors. Before that we do well to learn to listen to ourselves, and hear the murmur of dissonance in our own convictions.

For example 'fascist'. I generally use the term comically, as an old man, and exclusively to make my brother laugh. (He:'They forgot to pick up the dustbins' - Me: 'fascists'/He: 'this icecream's nowhere near like that cone we had in Hawaii 50 years ago': Me:'Yeah. I bet the vendor's dad was a fascist').

I do this because I take the phenomenon as far too important to be used anywhere but in highly analytic contexts, or as comic relief, to make fun of my own serious beliefs. To brandish it wildly is to travesty a problem that goes far deeper than fascism - the genocidal character of the century that just passed, from the destruction of the Herero people, down to recent times, which covers the way many states have acted: Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union, the United States, China, to name but a few. Anything fascists did, was done by Communists, save for the attempted extermination of the Jewish, Gypsy and Slavic peoples. Fascism was in this recursive to the past, and thought tribally, while embracing the latest technology. Communism (and I am Marxistically minded) was predominantly futuristic and thought of eliminating classes rather than ethnoi.

If you use, in a dialogue, the word 'fascist', you set off in your interlocutor a train of associations - communist, leftie, red, illiberal, subversive, ranting Hyde Parker from the fringe lunatic left, etc - that will generate a similar kind of response from yourself, Pavlovian, predictable. There is absolutely no point, unless one cares for language sufficiently to tread around it with care, (Servius spoke of Vergil licking his words into shape, like a she-bear did her cubs - this is too high an aspiration for mere conversation, of course), and the 'other' shows some responsiveness to nuance, for a 'dialogue' to take place. What you will get is a shooting match as two people talk past each other, and this is tantamount to wasting time.

Not all conversation should be subject to some code of mystical quietude and hyper-attentive pilpulism. Most of it, happily, never will be. We can say a lot without such anal 'rectitude' for le mot juste. But talk too much without thinking either about why you wish to talk or who the person prompting you to talk is, tends to wither one, in the end.

All we would like to say, on either side, about Israel and the Palestinians, has already been said, written, discussed, analysed ad nauseam. Despite this, few budge from their positions, and most attempts at discursive resolution end up as chess-matches of cunning, or overblown restatements of the usual rhetorical pabulum. Esp. in wiki I/P areas, where, underneath much intensive editing, a political conflict and an ideological wariness, tramples over any inconvenient fact. To yield on a point is taken as conceding politically capital one could well withhold from the indigent hands of the other.

And, in any case, we're here not to espouse our views, or exploit this medium as a forum, but simply to build an encyclopedia. If one is committed, as you and I am, to speak of the pro-Palestinian side, to securing an adherence to the principles of neutrality in articles dealing with these people, then we do well to do just that, not waste time in futile exchanges, but in study, preparation, and the search for effective data, reliably grounded, to get into these pages, that gives the full picture. It's a battle, but, reflect. Every moment spent in improper expositions of one's convictions might look, as it often does to Palestinians, as a betrayal of the ostensible good will, which they would surely rather that we show by concrete work on articles about them, rather than ostentatious conflicts with our colleagues about our respective world-views. I have to dine, unfortunately, and am, once more abusing this medium, but you asked for a word of advice, and this is what came to mind. Regards, and take care. Most people don't. Those who do, don't need to wear it one their sleeves. Ps. What Suskind wrote was said by Clinton, was said even earlier by . . but that would be an essay. It's true, these guys think like that. But it's also as old as the hill.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

squiks convo

I beg you let that conversation die so it can be archived. I dont even like looking at that sentence he wrote, so I respectfully ask that you not respond to him. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And I respectfully ask you to explain your approach.

• Ignorant dehumanizing stereotypes are evil. War propaganda is evil. It does not belong in wikipedia. Ignoring evil does not make it go away. Just the opposite, the more we acquiesce to evil, the more it thrives.
• Editors who live in the world of hasbara war-propaganda should either disclose their propaganda ties or recuse themselves from editing articles pertaining to Israel and its victims. When editors fail to do so, we need to help them to disclose themselves.
• This is more than just a matter of bias. The propagandist has a paranoid mindset and a total disregard for truth. He has no grounding in reality. The more he speaks, the more this detachment from reality becomes apparent. So let him speak.

I will honor your request, but I ask you to read the above arguments and reconsider. NonZionist (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with what you said, but the people who have died I look at as family, some of my dear friends have lost their blood relatives in this bombardment, and when I read 'i personally do not care how many people die . . .' I literally cried for a half an hour, just imagining that human beings can speak such a thing was too much for me to comprehend. I don't think that the detachment will become apparent to him, as he qualified with his later response but still could not see how inhuman, not inhumane but inhuman, that comment was regardless of the end of the sentence. Some people are so far gone that they will not let any rationality disturb their preconceived notions. We would be better served in concentrating on ensuring that reality still exists in this encyclopedia then trying to convince one person to change their world view. Let us just let the facts stand on their own, indeed make sure the facts are allowed to stand, to the majority of humanity they will be able to speak on the situation better than we could. If you feel you need to engage him do what you have to do, but it is a great sadness that overcomes me every time I scroll past those words. Nableezy (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

+ Though I am not personally involved, I too see the dead as people, and I am horrified by the dehumanization I find in Israeli war propaganda. Don't these people realize that they dehumanize themselves, even as they dehumanize others? They have cut themselves off from the human race. I pity them.

+ I would like to support your approach, but I fear that the fans of reality are outnumbered here. A whole new hasbara army has been recruited. The facts are bombed into submission. We may not be able to change the mindset of the bombers, but we can at least help the bombers to reveal themselves.

+ What if I partitioned the last Squicks comment off into a new section? I'll then refer Squicks to my user page and post my reply there. I'd reply on his page, but Squicks has asked me not to post there. Would that enable his extremely offensive remark to be archived and satisfy your concerns? NonZionist (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for understanding Nableezy (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would both like to let it die, than let's let it die. I understand. The Squicks (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)