User talk:ZScarpia

Welcome!

Hello, ZScarpia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sceptre ^(Talk) 14:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hotel King David

Hello. I am sorry not to discuss more with you on the topic. I really have very few know-how about this event. I suggest you undertake modifications you suggest and then submit them to Zero.

Good work ;-)

User:ChrisC 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you ! You are welcome here if you want to give your mind in what was an edit war few days ago 1948 Arab-Israeli war. User:ChrisC 07:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but (if classed as a terrorist act) isn't couched, it's justification, as if taking the position that it possibly may not be considered a terrorist act. The only place that it isn't considered a terrorist attack is in Israel. Just like the only place 9/11 isn't classed as a terrorist attack is around Bin Laden's campfire. Pablo180 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But the point is, that there are two different opinions on whether the attack was terrorism or not, and if you insist that it was terrorism then you're quilty of the heinous Wikipedia crime of point-of-view pushing. I wrote that IF the bombing is viewed as terrorism, then it was the most lethal attack until the 80s. That was an attempt to make the statement acceptable to people of both viewpoints. As a matter of fact, there will be many within Israel who would view the attack as terrorism and it was condemned as such by people in the Jewish Agency at the time. The Irgun was a minority splinter group. Chaps like Begin and Shamir only started to object to being referred to as terrorists (it seems to me) when it became politically burdensome - it implied that they weren't any better than than the people practising terrorism against Israel. Also, I don't think that Bin Laden's friends would get too uptight at being seen as terrorists. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

JDL

G'day ZScarpia,

I didn't set out to remove anything from the Jewish Defense League article. I was doing RC patrol (attempting to scan all new changes to Wikipedia and remove vandalism, POV-pushing, defamation and other damaging material as soon as it's created), and I noticed what appeared to be an unregistered user's attempt at POV-pushing added to the JDL article. So, I clicked the little button admins see that says "rollback", and the changes were undone. However, looking at the changes in the cold light of a new day, they're not actually all that objectionable. So, I apologise for my hastiness, and I've reinstated the user's edits. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

reply

I've replied to you here: User_talk:Jaakobou#King_David_Hotel_bombing.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll reply there as well. -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected

I apologize. Not knowing the relevant literature at all well, I tried merely to copyedit. There was a lot a loose phrasing, and in tightening it, I appear to have made the wrong inference at that point (perhaps at others). Thanks for the note. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise. You didn't make an error of fact, which, in the last couple of days, I have done. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

King David Hotel bombing

Please refrain from adding your personal opinion to this page with your edit [1]. Please note this has now been removed by an administrator here [2] --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg - deletion of comments

Apparently he's been warned for deleting other users' comments.

It might be worth requesting that he restore all deleted comments - I don't see how it is unreasonable that he do the work (or restoring). If he refuses, then - well, kick things up a notch. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages: Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems he hasn't been more than "advised" - if he strays from the topic at hand, or his comment is not substantive - delete away. GrizzledOldMan (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Shoot

Allora, dimmi. I'm full of advice, which I never follow, since I forget it as often as not. But if you're game, you can't really 'shoot'. Nonetheless, shoot.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking for opinions and advice on what's been happening at the King David Hotel bombing article.
Firstly, I've been trying to negotiate with an editor, Mr J, an acceptable form for a sentence which he objected to in the Terrorism section. Mr J has refused to give me direct answers to my questions and ended by commenting that he couldn't understand what I was trying to ask. I'm looking for an opinion on whether I wrote clearly and logically (in which case Mr J was just being an erse) or not.
Next, Mr C appeared and turned the article upside down. After I made some restorations, he appeared on the talkpage along with Mr H, talking about removing the Layout section and cutting down the Attempted Attack section and merging it with text elsewhere. They copied the text of the latter over to the King David Hotel article, making it a mess in my opinion. They seem to have a real thing about getting rid of the heading (in fact, they seem to have a bit of a mania for getting rid of headings in general) of the Attempted attack section and (sub)merging the text elsewhere. The obvious reason for doing that is that they want to hide the information in that section as much as possible, but I can't see a reason why the information there would bother them overly. They do seem very keen to reduce the size of the article even though it isn't particularly long. The only reason that occurs to me is that they don't want information in the English Wikipedia article which isn't in the Hebrew version. Something else odd is that Mr H appears to have pulled some information from Thurston Clarke's book, so you'd expect him to have a reasonable grasp of the KDH bombing story, yet from the questions he's asking and some of the material he's been trying to insert, he obviously doesn't. I wondered if you would take a look at the article and the talkpage and tell me what you think and whether you think that I should be handling things differently?
The article seemed to become very popular suddenly. Do you know of any reason why? Thanks. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're coming under examination, and this is what G-Dett called the catenaccio technique. You're probably in line for a dose of the Chas Freeman treatment. I'm busy examining the stuff on the Judea/Samaria Arbcom page, which is turning, predictably, into the usual fiasco of fogged evidence, but will, as in the past, keep my eye on things in here. Most of the new editors have, as usual, no knowledge of the subject you've studied and worked on meticulously since Dec 2005. That gives you a certain standing as a serious, long-term, committed editor, and the record is one of informed knowledge, readiness for dialogue, and intelligent editing. Don't get unnerved. That's the aim.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sari Nusseibeh, Once Upon a Country, Halban, London 2009 p.41 Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Nableezy filed a report and it turned out User:Los Admiralos was a sockpuppet of User:NoCal100. While I have good instincts, I'm terrible at piecing the evidence together. But I do appreciate your trying to make it easier. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 21:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I would admire NoCal100's persistence if it wasn't taken to such an extreme that he's clearly obsessive (and it wasn't so damaging and disruptive). It's curious that it was so obvious that the Los Admiralos account was created by an experienced user. Presumably NoCal100 realised and didn't care that it would be exposed as a sockpuppet sooner rather than later. Hope the current Drorking doesn't get too unbearable or last too long. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Drork aint NoCal, you can verify that pretty easily. Drork edits from Israel, NoCal did not (one of his IPs was 12.54.125.181 (talk)). nableezy - 07:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I realised after Drork had typed a couple more sentences that his "personality" is very unlike that of NoCal100 and his family of socks. Probably I was confusing him with another editor (perhaps Epeefleche, who, of course, was eventually sanctioned for use of sockpuppets){struck-out: ZScarpia (talk)} who also looked to me to be a vexatious litigant against editors such as you and Tiamut and whose contribution history had very sock-like characteristics. Unfortunately, such confusion isn't uncommon in me. -- ZScarpia (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

removing others' negative comments

I know; I read that section. Among the other reasons why I have little tolerance for removing other users' comments you don't like, even if they are personal and negative, from talk pages other than your own is that a) it very often leads to exactly that sort of edit war as the original commentator restores it right back and b) the energies that go into the ensuing edit war would be far more productively used building consensus on how to improve the article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It was just the idea that editors removing the most vile, vicious hate speech ... wouldn't be on the right side of policy that I was baulking at. It is conceivable that comments can cross a line beyond which their removal becomes beneficial. (Just in case you're interested, the Jayjg - deletion of comments section above illustrates one dispute over deleted comments, by the way) -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sticking up for me during my latest block. If there is anything I can do for you in the future just let me know. Factsontheground (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Does that mean I've earned the right to patronise you with some advice? -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

King David Hotel Bomb

I think this is right. I'm not sure it's really notable that they were disguised. Presumably they didn't walk into the building wearing clothes that announced who they were! I just really disliked the "Wearing various types of disguises" language. And by-the-by it takes more than that to irritate me. NickCT (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for letting me know. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Your question at the other user talk page

I will answer you question about Masada 2000. First-of-all I have never visited the site neither before nor after it was mentioned at AN/I. I did not know about the site before I read about it in the post. I looked only at the differences mentioned in AN/I post in the wikipedia article itself, and very briefly. Only few of them were from Masada 2000, but I read the same stories about refugees in Jerusalem Post and in some books: please take a look at pages 289 and 288 Should I consider Jerusalem Post a racist site? I do not think so. Other edits were taken from American Thinker and Palestinian Media Watch, hardly racist sites either. I agree they are controversial, but I do not consider them to be neither racist nor hate speech. Once again, I am not talking about the site Masada 2000, only about the edits to the article that were made by Gilabrand. If you are to look at the thread, you will see that I was defending the actions of Gilabrand, but the only thing I said about the site in question was: "About Masada 2000. The site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia, so the user had the rights to refer to it.", and remember, when I said it, I only saw the edits added to the article, the very same edits that I knew about from the books I read before. Please also consider what me and Gilabrand felt, when we read the article that was written by the user. My heart is going out to people in Gaza in West Bank. They are suffering I know. The only thing in which our opinion is different from mine is that I believe they should look at Hamas and Islamic Jihad actions as for the main source of their sufferings. Israelis want peace, and I do too very, very much. I hope that answers your question. Please feel free to ask me more.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, you've obviously put a lot of effort into writing and deserve a proper reply. While I consider what to write, I'd like to let you know that, while I hope you appreciate the reasons why I intervened on the noticeboard, I apologise for offending you. -- ZScarpia (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ran HaCohen: Israel, a New Decade (10 April 2010) ... Am I being brainwashed?     ←   ZScarpia   15:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher

Hi ZScarpia. I just noticed you've started editing the Murder of Meredith Kercher (and checking sources)—excellent! I think that several of us who have been editing that page for a while are getting quite jaded by all the controversy and some serious incivility, which has hopefully stopped for the moment. So it's good to see someone else (you) taking an interest in the page. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Kind words. Thanks! -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning on Inappropriate Discusison

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. For your unsolicited comments on this talk page, including this inflammatory and wholly inappropriate comment: "Probably, neo-Nazis would be pleased about the differentiation between Jewish and German nationality." Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. nableezy - 16:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, please don't leave messages which imitate the look of official warnings on my talk page.     ←   ZScarpia   16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Antisemite and self-hating jew userbox: picture of Noam Chomsky

Hi.First, I doubt there would be problem using image of Noam Chomsky (or Norman Finkelstein) since it is not one of wikipedia policy describe at WP:Non-free content criteria. And, it doesn't give you the authority to impose your view on me just because you perceive it as mispresentation or defamation given that some people may share similar view as me alluding to Noam Chomsky. You should delete the images if it's a copyright violation or if such image was a violation of wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As for Mahathir Muhammad, he was well known for hatred towards Jews and Israel, and I don't find the information I posts in the userbox any violation of Wikipedia policy nor libellous. Again just because you perceive as it defamation doesn't give you the authority to impose your view on others by editing user pages. Lastly , I hope you will ask for my permission before editing or deleting my user page in the future. Do let me know if such content violate wikipedia policy. Thank you.--Thundera m117 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

ZS. Jacob Bernays (a relative of Freud's wife), in his 1850s lectures, would always raise his hat and bow his head in respect whenever his discussion of ancient texts in Greek or Latin happened to mention the name of Scaliger, one of the most praeternatural emendationists in the history of classical philology. I've always thought of this as the best argument for me to purchase, against my natural grain, a cap, or beret, and following his example, whenever I read the name of Chomsky, Finkelstein, Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, or a thousand other of those folks who have taught me to belong to the modern world, beyond parochial origins, ethnic liens on one's sensibility and intelligence, people who excite in me something of that sentiment so awkwardly, and even comically, alluded to in the middling but well-meaning poem by Siegfried Sassoon, 'The Grandeur of Ghosts'. Cheers, pal.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. It's good to hear from you. Drop by any time.     ←   ZScarpia   17:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries

Worse things have happen... Don't worry, be happy Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   10:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish

Please pardon my opacity, but I don't know what this comment means:

Scotch-Irish is the most commonly used term for the descendants of Scots who migrated to North America, but lately Scots-Irish has begun to gain currency among those who know that Scotch is considered offensive in Scotland. Oh dearie me, don't say you weren't warned!

Yopienso (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I underlined the section at the end of the first sentence to emphasise it: Scotch is considered offensive in Scotland. By changing the ending of the category name from Scots-Irish to Scotch-Irish, I suspect that you may find some rather irritated Scottish editors descending on you. But, if Americans prefer to refer to their ancestry that way, why listen to anyone else's complaints? Apologies if I've made a mistake and you were not the editor behind the name change; it just looked from the talk page as though you were. I have Ulster Scots ancestry myself by the way.     ←   ZScarpia   02:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha! An ally! Here's my original post: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chester_A._Arthur&diff=prev&oldid=360011129 I was trying to get "Cydebot" to call the category Scots-Irish instead of Scotch-Irish. I reverted his change and he reverted it right back. Yopienso (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

An Invitation

I would like to invite you to join a centralized discussion at WP:IPCOLL to contribute any thoughts you might have regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 6#Multiple articles - the founding myths of Israel harlan (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for MEDCAB Mediation

The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.

Ronk01 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You Are Mentioned on ANI

Please see here for the thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.     ←   ZScarpia   13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Right Granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Helpful One 14:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation: Israel and the Apartheid analogy

Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Straw_poll_on_titles. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. --Ludwigs2 06:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation

Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit

Thanks for that little bit of striking. I obviously hit a raw nerve. BTW are you talking a step back. In notice that over the last couple of days, you're only doing minimal comments on talk pages.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peter. I spent time wondering whether just going ahead and striking the comment on your talk page was the right way to act, so am glad that you didn't mind. Occasionally I like to step back from Wikipedia for a while, but the reason I've been writing less than normal recently is that I've had a friend staying. On Wikipedia, I've left loose ends all over the place. Hopefully I'll get round to tying up the most important ones sometime. Also, I do have a tendency to lurk on article talk pages rather than contributing content.     ←   ZScarpia   20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I have been searching for a long time for this book. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's good to know I did something useful today.     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

6-day

I was intrigued by this edit of yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preemptive_war&diff=399148953&oldid=397432537 What was the article, and do you think the content might be a useful addition to the article on the Six-Day War and its kinship? Shoplifter (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a search and see if I can dig out the article. I've only ever seen it reported in one place so you might find, if we can find anything, that its inclusion is argued against on the ground that its not mentioned in the major sources.     ←   ZScarpia   13:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani

re your note on Nishidani's page. He will be away until February. Paul B (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Paul.     ←   ZScarpia   00:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Opera

Given your apparent general interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict, perhaps you will find this article of interest. I began a major upheaval of it some two weeks ago and the current version is about 8/10 my work. It's a fascinating story the consequences of which are still felt today. My nearest goal is to make it GA status. If you do read it, all edits and/or criticism are more than welcome. You can find me in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-ipcoll on irc.freenode.net. Thanks! :-) Shoplifter (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ZScarpia. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Read. All the best.     ←   ZScarpia   03:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Further to the Arbitration Enforcement complaint you submitted today[3], and to the comment I made there, I would ask that you please endeavour to use edit summaries when editing in future. Edit summaries, as you might know, assist your fellow editors in figuring out what is happening on an article without having to examine in detail each diff; and it is especially useful to uninvolved administrators who are reviewing problematic exchanges of edits on articles (and whom you probably don't want to annoy! :P). If you struggle to remember to leave an edit summary, you can check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in the "Editing" tab of Special:Preferences. Thanks and regards, AGK [•] 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Read and understood. When I initially submitted the report, the instructions seemed to be saying that I should leave the summary field blank. After that I made a series of fast edits, mainly to try and sort out the diffs, before many people had read the report. I thought that the section title was information enough as an edit summary. In future I'll remember to add extra information.     ←   ZScarpia   18:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi ZScarpia, I'd like to thank you for the comment you made on AE. You've got it right, and it was really kind of you to make this appeal. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck!     ←   ZScarpia   13:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Humbug

You said [4] "rather than delete material better to add the part that balances it". But at the same time, you had just deleted a balancing part in parathesis from this source [5]. Perhaps you would like to take the issue to the talk page where you will find that I had already added some remarks when editing about the misuse of the interview in the article? In the circumstances meanwhile could I suggest you self-revert out of courtesy, since your undo seems out of order? --BozMo talk 14:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've re-added text similar to that which was in parentheses to the Lead. Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you'd added a comment to the talk page otherwise I would have discussed before reverting you.     ←   ZScarpia   14:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, we all do it sometimes. --BozMo talk 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Goldstone

Why have you decided to delete the description of the case with forbidden (according to the SA law) sex of white woman and black man? It seems very impressive

--LReit (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

[Diffs] I began re-working the section because the source, YNet, didn't support what the article was stating about what had been called Goldstone's acquittal script. While I was doing that, I added detail about the point the YNet article was trying to make, that "even when it came to far less serious offenses, Goldstone sided through and through with the racist policies of the Apartheid regime." Having done that, I thought that the resulting text (a statement of YNet's point and a listing of several, fairly trivial, examples) was giving way too much weight to what the YNet article had to say. Therefore, I removed the example listings, leaving just the statement.

When it comes down to it, I don't think that the source should be being used except as an example of the vilification that Goldstone was subjected to after the report was being produced. I'm sure that, as far as dealing with Goldstone's legal career in South Africa is concerned, far better sources are available. I think that the YNet article probably resides in BLP-concern territory. Here's what Richard Silverstein in the Tikun Olam blog has to say about the YNet article.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) (Material copied over to the Richard Goldstone article talk page. ^{00:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)})

I'm waiting for you comments here LReit (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone

After re-reading my response on Talk:Richard Goldstone, I decided it could have been phrased much better. My intent was to point you to reassurances that you were not completely alone in your opinion. I did not mean to sound like I was chastising you for not reviewing all the archived discussions on the page, something which I myself rarely have either the time or the inclination to do. Apologies for the lack of clarity. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't read it as criticism. In fact, I was very grateful that you drew my attention to the header because it made me realise that I hadn't properly been checking that I wasn't breaking the 1RR restriction on the article. Drawing my attention to the the notes about the previous discussions has probably helped me look less of an idiot too, of course. My latest edits were of the type where you get drawn in much deeper than you'd intended. Initially, I was just going to replace the word burglarized with burgled. While doing that I read the source and realised that it didn't support everything that had been written, including that the policemen had been acquitted of burglary, burglary being technically more than breaking-in. Also, I realised pretty quickly that the style was overly incendiary for a BLP (an impression which was reinforced somewhat when I scanned down to the comparisons with Mengele).     ←   ZScarpia   03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for the useful links on my user talkpage and for pointing out my mistake. It was highly appreciated. Poyani (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Good to make your acquaintance.     ←   ZScarpia   00:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Hey! I'm looking to de-redlink this template and I wonder if you could assist me with your valued opinion and shared knowledge on these questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#1985_PLO_ships_bombing Shoplifter (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict

Seeing as you've assembled an impressive array of sources, perhaps you could assist me in finding a stellar reference for the lede to this article. I would like to further clarify what the "final status" issues are, and buttress this with a solid source. To my knowledge, the Declaration of Principles that was agreed upon as part of the Oslo Accords affirms that the issues of borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees are to be decided at permanent status negotiations. From what I've read, security concerns are usually bundled together with the dispute over borders. Some sources also list water rights as an issue that was postponed during the Oslo talks to be included in negotiations on final status arrangements. Shoplifter (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what I've got. How about asking Harlan, who has a much better understanding of the legal stuff and a better array of law sources than I do (though he hasn't been active for a month)?     ←   ZScarpia   01:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, Harlan is the doyen of this field, but as you say it looks as if he hasn't been active for a bit. But I'll check in with him anyway. Shoplifter (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know why I've gone quiet, I'm about to be away from home for about a week.     ←   ZScarpia   22:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Vortex ring state

No problem; I looked at the articles and merge suggestions and got confused, so figured I'd leave it to others. Cheers, Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

English

Scarpia, The Oxford English Dictionary, Chambers Dictionary Collins Dictionary, Roget's, the BBC, The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph all recognise the word 'elder'. In fact the Daily Telegraph, Terry Gifford , Hughes biographer and Oxford University Press use the word to write about Hughes himself. If you feel sure it isn't an English term, perhaps consider contacting them to discuss it further. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. What I was trying to say wasn't that the word 'elder' is not a correct English term, but that it was not being used correctly. You can say that his brother was the elder by ten years, his brother was older by ten years or his brother was ten years his elder, but it isn't correct English to write "his brother is elder by ten years". Look at the examples that you've given. None of them use the word 'elder' in the way you did. If you look at the dictionary definitions you've linked to you'll see that the word is only used as an adjective if it precedes a noun of some sort. I have full versions of most of the reference works you listed. Before reverting you I consulted my copy of the OED which gives a far more detailed description than anything you've linked to.     ←   ZScarpia   22:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Mandate Palestine and British Mandate for Palestine

You were engaged in a previous conversation on this topic, please join the ongoing discussion here.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your edit on the British mandate for Palestine lead. While I think it is an improvement, my question is this:- was there ever a single "geopolitical polity" that was "sanctioned" by the British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Or was it in fact that the MfP legal instrument (along with the transjordan memorandum) sanctioned the creation of two geopolitical entities - Palestine and Transjordan (which were never administered as a single polity during the mandate period). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit. My edit was just trying to address the problem where the Mandate for Palestine was presented as 'the' polity, rather than the authorisation for the creation of one or more of them, in the original. In the interests of plain English, I think that the term "geopolitical polity" should probably be replaced.     ←   ZScarpia   11:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

King David Hotel bombing

Dear ZScarpia,

Thank you for your suggestion. I have reverted the article on the King David Hotel bombing. The article on Sir John Shaw covers the situation well. He was my father and as a fifteen year old schoolboy,I with my younger brother was flown from England to Palestine with other children of the personnel both of the mandatory government and the Iraq Petroleum Company arriving just a week after the bombing at the end of July 1946. Regards,

Jeremy Shaw John Jeremy Shaw (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Menachem Begin

Thank you for your helpful comments re: tone.86.12.129.12 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope things are going well for you in Salford.     ←   ZScarpia   14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)

Hi ZScarpia, please could you kindly take a look at the demerged article British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)? I know that you and Greyshark (who I have also messaged) took self-imposed leave from the debate, but you are both knowledgeable on the subject so your input would be very helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Undo of polemics

I'm guessing by now you've seen WP:UP#POLEMIC. In that effect, you should undo your operation here[6] or the matter will be brought for administrative consideration.
p.s. I trust you don't need someone explaining to you why content such as "It is not enough for the [[Israeli settlements|settler]] to delimit physically" , and "Hath not a Palestinian eyes?" is otherwise inappropriate.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you need to persuade that the text is polemical. Secondly, you have to establish that it was correct for you to just delete the text from the user talkpage without discussion. From my experience, you would find that, particularly in the IP area, it's frowned on to delete even personal attacks from user talkpages unless the text is grossly insulting. Does your removal of the text conform with the conditions expressed in the section of the talkpage guidelines dealing with editing other people's comments? You might like to note that WP:UP#POLEMIC only describes what should not be on talkpages, it doesn't say anything about whether it is justified to remove material, with or without permission, which you think fits the description. By all means, take the matter to arbitration, but perhaps you should make an effort to discuss it further first.     ←   ZScarpia   15:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Never received a barnstar? Shame!

		The Epic Barnstar
		for consistent, diligent, high quality work in the Middle East department over several years. Zerotalk 02:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ha-ha-ha ... thanks! Totally without any prompting on my part! It should, of course, have been me awarding you one ... but, if I did it right now, we'd probably be accused of being in some wikiclique.     ←   ZScarpia   02:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello ZScarpia. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

AE

[7] {Shrike @ 12:30, 10 April 2012}

Apprisal

I will amend my comments concerning the blocks, and will not ignore this point. I am currently editing from my phone, so am unable to properly do so just yet. Thank you for your patience.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards.     ←   ZScarpia   14:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Scarpy.

Your lynx-eyed attention is required at Murder of Shalhevet Pass to evaluate the status of my edit. It may be pure scruple: I am sure that if one edits a page, and then someone just automatically reverts you, you are entitled to one revert per day. Work on the page didn't revert anyone. I just brough the page at several points in line with sources. The predictable revert challenge occurred. I examined the nature of that revert and the additional material adduced to overcome my objection, and it all failed WP:V, so I reverted. If that wrong, and I fail to see how it is, then does the 1R rule mean you cannot edit the same page twice in one day, if others in the meantime have edited it? Thanks, and revert me if I erred.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think that the 1RR rule applies when you're reverting an IP editor, which you were in this case of your counter-reversion. If you can show that the material you were changing breached WP:V, I should think that you're pretty safe, as that would show that your edits were not disruptive. Hope that all's well in the garden.     ←   ZScarpia   19:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

AE

I have asked for enforcement: [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powder Hound 3000 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope you find pleasure running into old friends. Cheers, nableezy - 02:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back.     ←   ZScarpia   06:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

You have participated in enough discussions on that page to know there's no consensus for your edit. If you don't revert it I will take this to AE before it turns into an edit war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussions that I have participated in were run into the ground by point of view pushers. No consensus was formed. By all means, take it to AE. There, I will demonstrate the double standard and biased logic being deployed by a number of editors, you being one of the principal ones. As you know, I and a number of other editors object to the current wording of the Lead because it presents Jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel as a fact rather than a disputed position, breaching Wikipedia policies about how things should be presented if reliable sources disagree about them. You were one of the editors arguing in the last discussion that I took part in, that, no matter what anyone else says, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. As you'll remember, you even argued that, no matter what anyone else says, if Israel declared the Moon as its capital, Wikipedia would have to report that the Moon was Israel's capital. Well, Palestine, though, like Israel, not a state recognised by everybody, has declared East Jerusalem as its capital. Given your previous arguments, shouldn't you now be supporting the addition of a statement to the effect that Jerusalem, or at least East Jerusalem, is also the capital of Palestine?     ←   ZScarpia   18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Aww, are you feeling frustrated? Is that leading you to make edits you know there is no consensus for, in a topic area under ARBPIA restrictions and discretionary sanctions? Maybe you should take a break from editing before you get yourself into trouble.

I'd appreciate it if you could show me a diff of where I said that "if Israel declared the Moon as its capital, Wikipedia would have to report that the Moon was Israel's capital" I don't recall saying it, and wouldn't want to call you a liar without giving you the opportunity to show you weren't in fact lying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Patronising ... and deluded about whether and what consensus has been established. You're right that you didn't make the statement about Israel's capital and the Moon, though. It was brewcrewer (at 21:24 UTC on 5 January 2011). My bad. Also, brewcrewer used Mars, rather than the Moon, to make his point.     ←   ZScarpia   02:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Next time you should check before attributing stuff to me if you don't want to look foolish.

Based on past discussions, did you think your edit had consensus before you made it? An honest answer would be appreciated. We'll ignore for a second the fact that you knew based on my revert that I objected to the edit, but decided to edit war it in anyway. I'm just interested in how someone who thinks other people are "deluded about whether and what consensus has been established" thinks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're in no position to give advice about checking what editors have said so as not to look foolish. As far as looking foolish goes, other ways of managing it are by using hyperbole, such as inflating a couple of edits into an edit war, and expecting other editors to act in a way that you don't yourself, such as not making edits that you anticipate other editors will object to.     ←   ZScarpia   03:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean you knew you didn't have consensus for your edit, but made it anyway. As I thought. Do it again on an article like Jerusalem and I'll go directly to AE without the courtesy warning I gave you this time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A few POV-pushers with poor reasoning skills and specious arguments who have difficulty adhering to fundamental Wikipedia policies doesn't make a consensus. Nor do I have to refrain from making an edit because I anticipate that they will object. You, yourself, reverted an editor while claiming to have a consensus that you didn't have, while applying a double standard and also in the knowledge that other editors would object to your revert.     ←   ZScarpia   04:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is ridiculous on several levels. 1. You didn't need to anticipate anything, you already knew that someone objected to that edit. 2. The current wording is indeed the result of consensus (not to mention STATUSQUO). You are confusing your inability to achieve a consensus to change it with the fact that it was consensus that got it in there in the first place. 3. I did not anticipate any editor who has participated in the previous discussion objecting to my BRD revert. Most experienced editors don't try to edit war a contentious edit into a sentence that's the result of multiple discussions. 4. Your name calling is amusing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I repeat, I do not have to refrain from making an edit because I anticipate that it will meet objections from some other editors. N_maram would probably have objected to your revert. You objected to my revert of you, but, chances are, it would have been approved of by N_maram. You approved of Hertz1888's reversion of me, but it was objectionable to me and, probably N_maram. So what? You have a patent right to have your objections taken into account?

2. The current wording had consensus behind it a long time ago, but, it should be apparent to anyone neutral reading the article talkpage, it also lost it a long time ago. You refer to my inability to change the consensus. Well, who knows exactly what the consensus is now? You're suffering from delusions of grandeur if you think you know what it is or that your "arguments" have somehow won out.

3. You've made a big deal out of my knowing that at least one editor, you, would object to my revert of you. Well, you would have known that at least one editor, N_maram, would have objected to your revert of him. Again, so what? N_maram's addition was a "contentious edit", while the current state of the article is "result of multiple discussions!" Re-read the "multiple discussions." I doubt anyone neutral would say that the current wording is either not contentious or the result of multiple discussions (rather than being as it is despite multiple discussions).

4. "Fools laugh at what makes wise men weep."

5. "If you don't revert it I will take this to AE before it turns into an edit war." Except no edit war occurred, did it? And it doesn't look as though the developing consensus is going the way you would like it to.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Have you heard of BRD?

2. Do you understand the difference between "consensus to include" and "no consensus to change"? Apparently not. Go read WP:STATUSQUO.

3. a. BRD, b. see 2.

4. "When a wise man points at the moon, an idiot looks at his finger."

5. No edit war occurred because luckily for you someone stepped in and opened a discussion before you got in trouble. We'll see how the developing consensus goes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

1. More patronisation. Unlike you, I don't think that I'm the only one allowed to revert.

2. You do know that WP:STATUSQUO is only an essay don't you?

3. See 1 and 2.

4. Hopefully you're not so immodest to think that you're either a wise man or pointing at something worthwhile.

5. Lucky me, being saved by the intervention of Hertz1888. And there was me in complete ignorance that I was in danger of having an outbreak of edit warring.

6. Now get off my user talkpage, you've outstayed your welcome.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

... just so you know, major reasons for reverting you concerned YOU, specifically the lazy edit summary you gave for reverting N_maram (if you're going to tell someone to look at "multiple talkpage discussions", you should be prepared to point out exactly which ones you mean if challenged) and the partisan double-standards, reasoning processes and behaviour you show on that particular article. You should try reasoning towards a conclusion, rather than starting with a conclusion and constructing an argument around it. The BRD cycle depends on editors acting in good faith. Good faith editing doesn't include the methods you have show on that article, stonewalling and i-didn't-hear-that-ism.     ←   ZScarpia   16:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you still talking to me after you asked me to get off your talk page? And still editing your previous posts over and over? If I say I find that funny, will I get another silly quote?

Thanks for admitting you made your edit not because you wanted to improve the encyclopedia, but because you have some kind of problem with me personally. And then you lecture me about good faith editing? Hilarious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To be exact, I have a problem with your behaviour. I thought that your revert deserved to be re-reverted, though I did expect my revert to be quickly undone in turn. The first part of that was your edit summary. Hopefully the reason why I called it lazy doesn't need explaining and also why I would ask you to point out which bit of the talkpage and its archives you were basing your deletion on. Another part was the strong suspicion that you were just reflexively deleting the edit. If you had simply asked the editor to take his text to the talkpage first, I would not have reacted the same way. I doubt that you were really that interested in having a discussion, though. Based on what I've seen of your behaviour, I think that you would have listed a bunch of whatever reasons came to hand for not changing the Lead at all, stonewalled and refused to compromise.

As for editing my posts over and over, it's something I'm embarrassed about, but not embarrassed enough to stop doing it. I'm embarrassed because it's a fault. I don't think it's odd that you would find a fault funny. I do it, I suppose, because I'm a dweller and over-thinker, something that's a fundamental part of my personality and unlikely to change.

You're wrong to suppose from what I wrote that I had no interest in improving the article. When it comes to good faith editing, I think that we probably have different ideas of what that constitutes.

    ←   ZScarpia   03:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• 2016, AI:Noticeboard User:NMMGG. Persistent refusal to stop suggesting my editing at Ezra Nawi has personal motives.

That would be interesting

The said behaviour goes back a long way and effects almost every discussion talknic (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Something I wonder about with some editors is whether they're conscious that their reasoning is partisan.     ←   ZScarpia   11:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the new arrivals seem oblivious of both partisanship and guidelines. LOL talknic (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority issue

Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [9], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

RfArb: Jerusalem

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, ZScarpia. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jerusalem. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Complications

Yes, I'd be willing to work with you on that, and then maybe we could present the results to Sean, Claude, Dailycare and others for comment. I have run into some major complications here, however, involving a self-proclaimed Zionist and his over zealous editing and commenting, including labeling me an Anti-Semite, etc. I'm hoping to get the topic ban lifted. Here are some links, if you have the time. Some of the editors recommending the topic ban are virtually unknown to me. ANI Today, Nableezy apparently made a mistakenly false report about me on the ANI page User_talk:Nableezy#Colonialism, and I have been topic blocked. This scenario has been devolving rapidly over the course of several weeks, and I've been having a hard time trying to settle related issues. I filed a related content dispute case which has been closed because a related RfC is still alive, and I had been in the process of filing a an editing conduct against the interlocutor that is the other party of the IBAN, having confirmed the conduct issue with Malik Shabazz User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#Colonialism_article_revisited, when Malik in turn notified deskana User_talk:Deskana#Evildoer187_and_Ubikwit, and deskana filed the IBAN case.--Ubikwit (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm taking a look.     ←   ZScarpia   20:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI-discussion

Regarding this edit you may be interested in joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guerrilla of the Renmin removing links to China in many articles. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   04:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

King David blown up

Hi, in the paragraph "Army and police reports" the word "after" is in italics twice. Should the second one be "before"? I don't have Clarke handle, though I have Bethel. Cheers. Zero^talk 13:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, the second after should, instead, read before. Reading that section, I think the last sentence could do with a rewrite too.

Recently, I came across some interesting information, in A Line in the Sand by James Barr, I think, which casts light on the claim in the reports that the warning given to the French consulate was sent five minutes after the explosion. The book deals with French government support of the Zionist militant groups (which the French feared would be exposed by the documentation taken in the raid on the Jewish Agency). On the hotel bombing, it says that the statement about the timing of the warning to the consulate originated from the French consul himself. Again if I remember correctly, he lied to cover French embarrassment over questions such as why the consulate was picked-out to receive a warning (it wasn't the closest building to the site of the bomb and was also sited at the opposite end of the hotel from where the bomb was planted) and what actions they took in regard to notifying the authorities or the hotel about the warning that they'd received.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some journal articles by Meir Zamir about France's aid to the Irgun. I can send them if you like. Also, Bethel says that the French ambassador testified about the 5 minute delay. Zero^talk 12:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, do send copies of the articles.     ←   ZScarpia   03:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sent. Zero^talk 10:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   11:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ZScarpia. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbEnforcement Comments

You are only permitted to comment under your own section - that page is NOT for threaded discussions. Please either remove your comments, or move them under your own section. Thanks. ES&L 10:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Upon further review, your comments consisted of "saucy" and "really", and one sentence unrelated to the process. If you wish to re-add such comments, create your own section as per the page guidelines. Otherwise, I have removed them as out-of-process ES&L 11:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Israeli Declaration of Independence: When exactly did the Mandate end?

My recollection is that in February 1948 the British government stated that the Mandate would end. Without being able to see the relevant British document, it is hard to speculate exactly when that was. Further, if it said, for example midnight on the evening of 14 May 1948, does that mean Palestine time or London time. Do you know what the document said? Trahelliven (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

[10]. Zero^talk 08:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zero. In Palestine and Washington DC, at least, it was understood as being midnight Jerusalem time. That fell during a sabbath, so part of the reason for the timing of the Declaration was to allow the observant among those attending to be home again before the sabbath's start. It could well be that, as the Jewish day runs from sunset to sunset rather than midnight to midnight, that explains why some Israeli sources say that the Declaration was made the day before the Mandate ended. In the Declaration article's talkpage archives, or that of the Mandate article, there will be a couple of discussions on the subject of the timing of the Mandate's end.     ←   ZScarpia   23:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree that midnight Jerusalem time is what was understood. There is also an issue of whether the independence of Israel began at midnight or one minute past. The one minute past version seems to derive from the memo from agent Eppstein to the US government on the eve of independence, but it is not supported by any official documentation that anyone here has found. In some talk page archive there is a discussion of it. Zero^talk 02:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Waters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counterpunch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Hi, concerning your revert [11], making edit without providing and edit summary is disruptive, and in this case, since the topic is being discussed on talk(which you are fully aware) it also constitute edit warring.--PLNR (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

King David Hotel bombing

Hello, could you please explain why you reverted my edit to the King David Hotel bombing? As you acknowledged when you reverted it, it was not part of intercommunal violence in Palestine. I had removed the "Intercommunal violence" and replaced it with Jewish insurgency in Palestine, a far more apt choice given that this attack was aimed against the British authorities and not the Arabs.--RM (Be my friend) 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, somehow I mistook the order of versions. I've reverted my revert.     ←   ZScarpia   22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 November

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 Jewish insurgency in Palestine page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding

Just saying. Or maybe not. Brad Dyer (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get the impression that you're not very good at understanding definitions. Wikihounding: "is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Keep off my talkpage until you've got something sensible to say.     ←   ZScarpia   01:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

NoCal100 Sockpuppet Investigation Archive: Brad Dyer.     ←   ZScarpia   15:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sergeants affair revert

Could you please explain to me why you reverted my edit? It should be obvious that the reason the regulations were enacted were in response to insurgent attacks, and in addition, I believe the version I put in is a far more neutral one. I don't really think it's appropriate to state the British were trying to maintain civil order as required by the Mandate for two reasons: The British were arguably fighting to maintain their empire rather than civil order, and the British had very arguably violated the Mandate with the White Paper of 1939 and at one point claimed they were no longer bound by the Mandate due to the end of the League of Nations, so its misleading to insert the claim that they were simply maintaining order and following the Mandate.--RM (Be my friend) 22:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't change sourced text just because you don't like what the sources say. Misrepresenting a source by substituting your own unsourced opinions about what the truth was is not a form of rendering the text more neutral. If you want to make statements about what is 'arguable', source them. Whether the White Paper violated the Mandate is a matter of opinion. Obviously, the British Government argued that it didn't. In any case, whether it did or didn't is irrelevant to the question of whether the British had a responsibility to maintain order in Palestine. The British may (or may not) have argued that they were no longer bound by the terms of the Mandate in the period between the end of the League of Nations and the creation of the United Nations, but, during the relevant period, the United Nations had assumed responsibility for overseeing the mandates and, it follows, that the British were required then to abide by the terms of one covering Palestine. A request: when you add text in the middle of a section, do it without messing up the referencing.     ←   ZScarpia   01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Independence war

Hello ZScarpia,

you wrote : "Strictly speaking, what Ben-Gurion declared on 14 May 1948 was the creation of the state of Israel, to take place at midnight when Mandatory Palestine officially ceased to exist"

Strictly speaking, for most -not to say all- historians, the 1948 war didn't start on 15 May 1948 but on 30 November 1947. They call this the 1948 Palestine War. That's what they call the Independence war. The 14 May Decleration is just the victory assessment. The next day, it is a war against Arab League that started.

And we could even argue that the Independence of the Jews from the British started in 1944 and kept growing until they get the UN Vote. In truth, Yishuv lived 3 phases in their independence war :

• 1944 - 29 nov 1947 against the British ;
• 30 nov 1947 - 14 May 1948 against the Palestinian Arabs ;
• 15 May 1948 - February 1949 against the Arab States.

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Different people take different start dates for the War of 'Independence'. Here are a couple of sources which appear to take May, 1948 as its start:

• [12]: "The War for Independence: On May 15, one day after the creation of the State of Israel, the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded the new Jewish state."
• [13]: "On May 14, 1948, David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, declared the establishment of Israel, a Jewish state in the biblical homeland of the Jewish people. Immediately following Israel’s birth as a nation, five neighboring Arab nations – Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq – declared war on the fledgling state and thus began Israel’s War of Independence."

The discussion you're referring to was about WHO the Israelis gained 'independence' from. You'll notice that, even using the longer period to bookend the war, the combatants were Jews and Arabs. Strange that, if you're going to argue that the Israelis wrested 'independence' from the British, isn't it? And strange that something that hadn't existed before becomes 'independent' at the moment of its creation.     ←   ZScarpia   22:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

ADL (!!) and unitedwithisrael (??!) websites ? Don't be silly.

It was just for your information. I totaly don't care. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. 62.90.5.221 (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring/Unconstructive Editing at Jewish Insurgency in Palestine

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drsmoo (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Which particular discusssion would that be? The link you've provided is just a general one to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Also, no recent edits on any of the noticeboards are listed in your Contributions history.     ←   ZScarpia   15:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is up now on the Edit Warring Noticeboard Drsmoo (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

So, this report. I'd say you should wait until after you've created a report before telling the user you want to report that you've done so.     ←   ZScarpia   16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

No need to thank me

[14]

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification

As one of the editors who participated in the discussion leading up to this Rfc, please see Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Khazars

I think Jonney was trying to revert to an undisputed form of the article, the one, with one small alteration, we see here, before the edit-warring. If you check this against Jonney's revert. I'd appreciate it if you checked your edit against this link, to control whether I am correct. This mess has us all confused, thanks to the onslaught of repeated changes introduced by MM. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please allow the discussion of this issue to proceed before removing such a large amount of content and sources. Nishidani has set up a thread specifically for Proposals to re-draft the section in an orderly fashion and preclude the edit warring that has plagued this section in the past. Please discuss and allow consensus to form before making sweeping changes. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit I reverted appeared to me to be a massive change which removed sources and which didn't appear to have been discussed on the talkpage. If that wasn't the case, then my reasons for carrying out the revert were not valid.     ←   ZScarpia   18:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Everyone gets exhausted by the spectre of rapid, and massive revert or erasures, not least myself, so it was understandable. I'm glad more eyes than mine keep an eye on that page anyway. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose sanctions for an editor who made a blood libel statement

I have started a discussion about your recent edit at ANI, titled "Propose sanctions for an editor who made a blood libel statement".E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

NMMNG did you a favour advising you to close it. If you do re-open it, try harder to get your facts right. And in a request with the word 'libel' in the title, best not to make any of your own.     ←   ZScarpia   20:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement request closed

An Arbitration Enforcement case[15] in which you participated has been closed with the following result:

All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ZScarpia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

edit of Mandate for Palestine article

I wanted to suggest an edit to the lead paragraphs for this article.

The 2nd paragraph suggests the the Mandate for Palestine was put into a Trusteeship Agreement, which is not the case.

It was resolved in UNGA 181 that the Trusteeship Council would have some authority over Palestine during its transitional period, and during the 1948 War President Truman suggested Palestine become a Trusteeship Territory rather than to follow the Partition Plan, but of course we know this never took place.

The UN's Trusteeship Council website lists all former Trusteeship Territories and Palestine is not listed as one of them.

I believe the intent of this error is made clear by the mentioning of Article 80 of the UN Charter in this paragraph, which discussed rights of Mandates that are protected through their Trusteeship status. Some argue that Article 80 guarantees the Jews the right to settle and live in ALL parts of Palestine, forever. However Article 77 through 80 are clear that the rights of any Mandate expire once such agreement is concluded, and no Mandate is considered to be active it was not converted into a Trusteeship Agreement.

Thus, the Jewish settlement rights over all of the Mandate expire unless the Mandate was converteted into a Trust Territory, which is was not.

I cannot yet make this edit and was wondering if you would.

Thanks.

OscardoggyOscardoggy (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

See the article's talkpage and changes I made to the Lead of the article itself.     ←   ZScarpia   20:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ZScarpia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Archived comments

Your comments were 18 months old, referenced no reliable independent sources, appear to relate to an entirely different group, and made no specific actionable request. If you have a specific change you would advocate, and reliable independent sources on which to base it, please add a new comment. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If the page was overlong you would have a valid point, but it isn't. Material included on talkpages doesn't have to be sourced from what would generally be considered reliable sources. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'independent'. My comments linked to material on the group in question published on the Web. Note that I myself may want to add to the comments in future and they're partly their for my reference. How exactly does that fall foul of WP:NOTFORUM? Please don't single out my comments for removal again.     ←   ZScarpia   10:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose you didn't even wait for my reply before removing my comments again.     ←   ZScarpia   11:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI, unless a bot has died somewhere, archive index boxes normally appear automatigally after a while, but someone added it manually anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. clpo13's comment on the AI board, "JzG created Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism/Archive_1 when he removed those discussions, although he didn't put an archive box on the main talk page that would link to that page, which I'll do now," it did sound as though adding an archive link to the talkpage, if there isn't already one, is something that the archiving editor is supposed to do. And, of course, I did check whether there was an archive link on the talkpage after noticing my comments had been removed, which made it look as though they had just been deleted. Since another editor had earlier deleted parts of my first comment on the talkpage, I wasn't best pleased.     ←   ZScarpia   18:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ZScarpia. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

AE

Re your: "I've run various Google searches on the terms "Viktor Suvorov" and "conspiracy theory". ", you use an incorrect search engine. Use google scholars, which searches predominantly reliable academic sources. Thus, this neutral search immediately gives you the Uldrick's article (The Icebreaker Controversy: Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler?Author(s): Teddy J. Uldricks Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 626-643 Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2697571), where the author says:

"The icebreaker thesis has drawn intense criticism from much of the scholarly community. Suvorov's books are sensationalistic and journalistic in the worst sense. The author seldom supports his claims with credible documentation. Instead, he propounds what he thinks would have been the only proper defensive strategy for the USSR in 1941, and when he finds evidence that Soviet forces did not closely follow his prescription, he judges that the Red Army's preparations cannot possibly have been defensive, that they must betray an offensive intent. He also treats the analytical categories "defensive" and "offensive" as if they were mutually exclusive-that is, any given weapon, formation, or deployment must serve only one or the other purpose"

That is a good summary of the opinion of a scholarly community on that author. Regarding subscription, to question the source because it is not available to you is not a good approach. A better way would be to ask for an extended quote of to find it in some depository--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Paul, that's actually the same link which Icewhiz gave. Icewhiz wrote that Ulrich described the content of "Icebreaker" as "overarching conspiracy theories". The part you quote doesn't use the the phrase "conspiracy theory" let alone the the full one. Perhaps you could look for me. As I wrote, I don't have a JSTOR account so I can't look (though I hadn't realised that they're offering, now at least, a free subscription which allows you to read six articles a month). At AE, Icewhiz >should< reply with an adequate quote. It won't look good, though, if that makes Icewhiz's original comment look like a misrepresentation or exagerration. And I very much doubt that his recent contributions here will have enhanced his reputation for accuracy. I take it that your searches didn't turn up anything significant other than the one result I found?

"Icebreaker" isn't a book I'd be recommending as a source, but then the current AE case doesn't concern its use as such. MVBW's removal of a large amount of material didn't look like a good decision to me. From his edit comment, he seemed to be objecting to the fact that an IP editor was involved. I'm not sure how sanctions work in the Eastern-Europe-related area of Wikipedia. It doesn't look to me as though there's a restriction on edits by IP editors, though. As the text removed looked "good", starting a discussion on the talkpage would have been a better route than deleting it outright. If we take it as a given that deletion was a poor choice, it would have had to have been a very bad choice indeed to justify making personal comments about the editor who did it on the talkpage, particularly ones of the nature of the Hitler-apologist variety. My advice is to think twice before adding any comment featuring the word "you".

    ←   ZScarpia   09:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The extended quote from this source (page 640) is as follows:

" Rather, it seems more likely that a political and psychological need for an "Evil Empire" of Machiavellian cunning, totalitarian cohesion, and omnivorous geopolitical appetite has drawn many of Suvorov's disciples to his improbable ideas. For some Russians the attraction of Suvorov's thesis may be the urge to disparage every aspect of the hated Soviet past; for some Germans it may be the desire to justify the German war effort and the horrendous losses it entailed; for some American cold warriors it may be reluctance to let go of a beloved enmity. Moreover, the pervasiveness in the west over the last fifty years of the totalitarian explanation of the Soviet system has led the public and even many academics to expect from the Kremlin diabolically complex schemes of subversion and conquest. There is no room in this viewpoint for the weakness, misperception, hesitancy, and ambiguity, or for the need for improvisation and quick reaction to uncontrollable events, which beset political leaders, even in Moscow, in real-life international relations. A critical flaw in the overarching conspiracy theories advanced by Suvorov, Raack, and others is that they overestimate Soviet capabilities: Stalin was not omniscient, the USSR frequently had to react to threats from a position of relative weakness, and Soviet policies were often responses to German or western initiatives."

There are no restrictions for IPs. Yes, repeated removal of this text was really a serious misdeed. Normally, if something accidentally happens to me, and some user reverts me with an offensive edit summary, I never report them, for such emotional reaction is quite forgivable. Regarding Jstor, I can help you with finding needed articles if you want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably create a free JStor account for myself. If I happen to need to read more than six articles in one month it'll be good to have somebody to turn to, though.

Of the comments I could make about the fuller quote, probably the most important is that it still doesn't justify the claim that was being made that Suvorov was trying to shift the blame for starting the last world war from Hitler to Stalin, thus justifying accusations about Hitler-apologism.

The quote doesn't make clear whether Ulrich was attacking the whole book or just parts of it. As I hope was clear, I think it unlikely, as Suvorov claimed, that Stalin was planning to foment a world revolution and, unless a lot of the Second World War history I've read is wrong, even more fantastical that the Soviet Union was on the point of attacking Germany in summer 1941. The comment about "a political and psychological need for an "Evil Empire" of Machiavellian cunning, totalitarian cohesion, and omnivorous geopolitical appetite" is a very interesting one.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"The icebreaker thesis has drawn intense criticism from much of the scholarly community. Suvorov's books are sensationalistic and journalistic in the worst sense. The author seldom supports his claims with credible documentation" (the same source, P.630).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I think, in light of the evidences presented here it would be correct if you updated your statement at AE page. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz wrote this description of "Icebreaker": "The article in question is on a book that transfers responsibility for WWII from Hitler to Stalin. This article in Slavic Review sees this as "overarching conspiracy theories". The book is mainly known for this controversy." My opinion is still that it is highly inaccurate and very prejudicial to MVBW. I didn't question that the review used the phrase "overarching conspiracy theories"; I questioned whether the way the quotation is used was accurate. The text you've quoted has, if anything, confirmed my impression that the answer to that is that it wasn't, though I'd still have to read more of the review to make a judgement about the extent of that. The AE request is about some personal remarks you made about MVBW. Although, on the face of it, MVBW's removal of a large amount of text looks very questionable, making quite nasty personal comments wasn't a great reaction: it's a breach of the policy on civility in an area of Wikipedia which is quite fraught. You actually come across as pretty self-controlled and polite otherwise. Unless you've still getting to grips with what you can and can't do, it seems odd that you would risk being sanctioned that way.     ←   ZScarpia   22:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

More quotes:

"Suvorov argued that Stalin had sought a war between Germany and the western democracies since 1922, that he connived at Hitler's rise to power, and that he saw the Nazi assault on the western powers as the "icebreaker" that would reopen the path to revolution throughout Europe, blocked since 1920. After all, it was the chaos of World War I that had sparked the world's first successful communist revolution, so a second round of pan-European bloodletting might be necessary to restart the revolutionary process. This time, however, the European proletariat would have a powerful ally in the Red Army, which Stalin would throw into the fray when the competing imperialist powers had exhausted each other. Suvorov argues in great detail that Stalin was preparing to launch just such an attack on German forces in the summer of 1941, a campaign the Soviet dictator hoped would reach all the way into western Europe and support the communization of the continent. "

In other words, according to Uldrick, Suvurov claimed that Stalin helped Nazi to come to power to provoke a war that will lead to communisation of Europe. That supports the thesis that Stalin was a greater villain, and whitewashes Hitler. I also presented other sources that say that Suvorov whitewashed Hitler. I believe now you can rephrase you statement.

Regarding the reaction, there were no reaction until MVBW filed AE request against TTAAC, a user who opposed to MVBW's misdeeds, although in a redundantly aggressive manner. My reaction was limited with the posts on appropriate pages where I announced a reason I am going to file a request against MVBW. That is was not a "nasty personal comment", that was a correct description of a situation: if we are allowed to claim that Suvorov's "Icebreaker" is defending Hitler per a source X, why cannot we say the same about a user who pushes these views here? I believe what I did that is quite acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for misrepresenting the sequence of events. My description was written with crossed-fingers, hoping I wasn't too far off the mark. At AE, I concentrated on the way "Icebreaker" was being portrayed and avoided getting involved in the issue of personal comments.

It really is best to avoid making personal remarks on article talkpages. Doing so would have to have a very good justification in order to defend yourself at AI or AE. In contentious areas, it's inevitable that editors with contending viewpoints take a very dim view of the 'opposition'. To survive as an editor in those areas, though, you have to keep your lips buttoned and not make derogatory personal remarks or otherwise abuse talkpages. Sorry for getting preachy.

Suvorov is a strong anti-communist. Being a strong anti-communist doesn't make him a pro-Nazi. Criticising Stalin doesn't mean that he had the intention of exonerrating Hitler. To say that Suvorov white-washed Hitler is way over the top. The exagerration actually makes it looks as though you're whitewashing Stalin in order to blacken Hitler. As Suvorov said, both were monsters.

A lot of what you last quoted from "Icebreaker" doesn't look that unreasonable. In 1919-1920, the Bolsheviks had hoped to start a sequence of revolutions in Europe, but failed when the Red Army was stopped by the Poles. It could well be that Stalin preferred the Nazis to be in power rather than the German Social Democrats. Hitler managed to persuade capitalists that his anti-capitalism was just a show; it wouldn't be surprising if he managed to persuade Stalin that, though he was opposed to Communism in Germany, his being in power would be an advantage to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union secretly assisted Nazi Germany to re-arm. If I understand history correctly, it was doing that long before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin's ambivalent support for the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War and the restraining of French communists after the German invasion of France (until Germany attacked the Soviet Union) rather make it look as though he wasn't that opposed to Fascism. The British thought that war with Germany or Japan was likely and knew they couldn't win if they were fighting both at the same time. Therefore they decided to prepare for war against Japan and appease Germany. It would have cured a headache and delighted them if Germany and the Soviet Union started a war and bled each other dry, which Stalin would have been well aware of. Turning the tables by provoking a war between Germany and the UK would have been an obvious reaction. It's a bit dubious that he did that as a way of creating the conditions for revolutions rather than just weakening enemies, though. And the idea that the Soviet Union was preparing for an attack on Germany in the summer of 1941 is very, very far fetched. You wonder why the Red Army had such a shortage of rifles when the Germans attacked if that was the case.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

(I believe you don't mind me to remove extra ":"s) All what you say is a good start for an interesting discussion. However, that has little relevance to your post at AE (which is more formal thing). In reality, Icewhiz correctly transmitted what a reliable source says, and your statements ("You gave an inaccurate description of "Icebreaker" and about a need to check a context) have been properly addressed in my previous posts. I believe admins should know about that.

Again, I did no personal remarks on talk pages, only on the pages specifically intended for discussion of misconduct.

Regarding "exonerating Hitler". Yes, being anti-communist does not mean being pro-Nazi, but these things are not mutually exclusive either. Suvorov created a false impression that Stalin helped Hitler to come to power, and that he provoked WWII keeping in mind some big strategic goals. In reality, he was much more petty leader, in 1933 his was waiting, in panic, a joint attack ... by Poland and Japan (sic!). In 1930s, the main person responsible for foreign policy was Litvinov, and Stalin was busy with repressions. It was literally a battle of survival in Soviet leadership, he simply could not afford a luxury to think about foreign policy. In addition, one more consideration: one of Stalin's enemies was Comintern (he liquidated its leaders in 1930s and closed it in 1942). All Russian old communists believed World revolution would shift a political center to Europe. Did Stalin need such an outcome? He didn't need any World revolution, he needed a personal domination, in a form of conquest. In 1930s USSR was too weak for that, all authors agree about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

{EC] Paul, I created an account on JSTOR for myself and read Teddy J. Uldricks's article along with reading or looking at the abstracts of others in which Suvorov is mentioned or his writings discussed ([16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]). I also had a look at Wikipedia articles and talkpages where Suvorov's theories or those of R. C. Raack, which partially support Suvorov's, come up ([26][27][28][29][30]). One comment: as far as the article on "Icebreaker" goes, it would be good to have information on what light Suvorov's subsequent book "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II" throws on it.

As you'll have noticed by now, I added a comment at the AE case explaining that the impression that I'd had that a paid subseription was necessary to read Uldricks's article was incorrect and that I'd subsequently been able to read it. However, I also noted that the reading I'd done had confirmed my opinion of the inaccuracy and tendaciousness of Icewhiz's description.

I had a look at the diffs of comments forming the basis of the AE request, which confirmed that most of them were made at AE or Sandstein's talkpage, which could be seen as an extension of AE. There was one exception, the talkpage of the gas van article. The more I read it, the more permissible it looks to me.

Feel free to correct spellings. Neither my eyesight or my keyboard are what they were.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This is interesting discussion, but did you guys actually read the "Icebreaker" and other books by Suvorov? If not, I would strongly recommend reading them. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So much to read, so little time. I found the full text of "Icebreaker" online and parts of "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II", but most of what I read were reviews. As far as as histories of the Soviet Union in the lead up to and during the Second World War are concerned, I'd try to find something more modern, by a 'proper' historian with a specialist knowledge of Soviet and Russian history. I would be interested to read autobiogrgraphical works by Suvorov, but some of his more fantastical claims, such as that the Soviet Union was planning to attack Germany in the summer of 1941, would deter me from reading the whole of "Icebreaker". On the other hand, although I particularly liked the section towards the end of Uldricks's article dealing with Stalin's appeasement of Hitler, I'm not fully persuaded of the claim that Stalin had no plans to attack Germany at all or that Hitler, though not expecting an attak in the summer of 1941, might not have expected an attack eventually. In fact, Uldricks's article is a bit contradictory: he mentions Stalin's consideration of joining the allied war effort later on. Also, having criticised Suvorov for considering the idea that the Soviet Union's preparations couldn't have been both offensive and defensive, Uldricks then appears to fail to do the same with Germany's attack. In one of the JSTOR articles, I noticed that Antony Beevor, a generally uncontroversial popular historian I should think, was reported to have written that, although it's highly unlikely that Stalin was planning to attack Germany in the summer of 1941, it's not unlikely that he was planning an attack later, perhaps as early as the following winter.     ←   ZScarpia   02:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I must admit that reading the Icebreaker and a couple of follow-up books by Suvorov changed completely my perspective on WWII (yeh, one could say I was brainwashed before by the Soviet propaganda). That was so interesting and provocative. Same feeling of discovering something really new and important as when I heard on a lecture about the The proton-motive force, a concept that unifies photosynthesis, the oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria and a lot of other things. It does not mean that I blindly agree with everything Suvorov tells. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you could look at the relevant pages and fix them. Importantly, Suvorov publicized a lot of different ideas in his books, and most of them are actually accepted; others are debatable. (1) The overall political strategy by Stalin to expand his "empire" - this is accepted. (2) Stalin knew that the war was coming and made extensive preparations - this is accepted. (3) The significance and consequences of the "Pact" - this is just a common place. (4) Was Red army well prepared for the offensive operations? Not according to the old Soviet "school" (and some people on the West bought it), but Suvorov and some others (like Meltukhov) provide a lot of facts in their books which show it was either already well prepared for the offensive war in Europe, or would be prepare in a matter of months. (5) Stalin wanted to use Hitler as a "proxy"? There is no proof, but the extensive Soviet-Nazi collaboration is a matter of fact, and the "Pact" is an indisputable proof by itself (two sides secretly coordinated their future war). (6) Red Army was prepared to strike in the summer of 1941? Well, this is only a hypothesis. One simply needs to provide all sourced "pro" and "contra" on the page, as we always do. None of that has anything to do with "supporting Hitler" of course. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments MVBW. I will respond to them. Just to make sure you're aware, in the current Sir Joseph AI case, a Twitter account where you are being attacked has been mentioned. No prizes for guessing who the author is. (You're mentioned on Wikipediocracy in a more approving way)     ←   ZScarpia   12:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, some guys are crazy about Wikipedia. I am not. If I stop editing here today, this will be good for my scientific work. I do care though because this is the most important information/educational resource on the internet. Speaking about the outing issue, yes, this is definitely could be a reason to either change an account (but that could create a number of problems), or at least significantly reduce my activity in politically "hot" subject areas. I stopped my participation in "high-profile" pages that I edited in the past (Putin, FSB, GRU, etc.), and it ...helped. OK, I followed these off-wiki links, and should say: they look to me as harmless guys, unlike those a number of years ago. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I checked your comments on talk of Two Hundred Years Together. They sound reasonable, but personally, I would never use this book for sourcing anything on the history of Jews in Russia. Using it for sourcing something about Gulag and NKVD repressions (where author is a recognized expert) would be fine. I do have a pro-Jewish bias though, as one could conclude from my editing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

When Solzhenitsyn was expelled from the USSR, I was in my second last year in primary/junior school, an impressionable age. The expulsion was a huge news story and Solzhenitsyn, as a dissident, was seen as having huge moral force. He had, for me, the image of being one of the most important writers. The 1970 film version of "A Day in the Life" must have been shown on television shortly afterwards and my father thought it important enough to allow me to stay up way beyond my normal bedtime to watch it with him (the only other time that had happened was to watch the Moon landing in 1969). As well as "Ivan Denisovich", he bought copies of "August 1914" and "Cancer Ward", which I read while I was in secondary school. Later, I bought other books myself, reading the various parts of "Gulag Archipelago", which I think are some of the most important works of the last century, while I was a university student. Later, after it became clear that Solzhenitsyn wasn't totally enamoured of the West, crticisms started appearing which queried to what extent he was a Russian nationalist. I read articles about the disagreements between Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov (eg. [31][32]), some of which speculated on whether and to what degree the former was antisemitic. So, I grew up with a heroic image of Solzhenitsyn, later seeking to find out to what extent the idol had clay feet, hence my interest in the various Wikipedia articles about his life and work. There was some fairly questionable editing on the article about "200 Years Together", which I made an effort to highlight. I'm not interested in the book as a source or for its subject matter, only for what light it casts on the author.     ←   ZScarpia   22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I read the The Gulag Archipelago in the old time Soviet Union when the book was forbidden, and one could be arrested merely for reading the book. Before reading it I had absolutely no idea about this subject. The book did completely change my mind about the entire country and my future. The reading beg many questions. What kind of country is that? Can/should I live in this country? Does such country may have any kind of good future? And the answer is obviously "no", although this would take more time to explain (I guess one who understood this best and expressed in his poetry was Maximilian Voloshin). It was only later that I found a much stronger book on the subject of Gulag, Kolyma Tales by Shalamov. Also, "Travel to the land of Zeka" by Julius Margolin is great. My very best wishes (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

And Solzhenitsyn was satirized in Moscow 2042. He is not the first of the people who became famous, highly influential and received Nobel Prize for something where he was neither the first (Margolin published his book decades earlier) nor the best (I am certain that Shalamov is a better writer). Thank you for commenting on AE! My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now got hold of a copy of "Moscow 1940". I noticed in the bibliography of the article on Vladimir Voinovich that he wrote about Vasily Grossman (whom I've had a great interest in since reading "Life and Fate") for the Index on Censorship. I've downloaded that article. Hopefully "Journey to the Land of the Ze-Ka" will be published in English sometime.

Anne Applebaum, in "Gulag Voices, An Anthology", mentions "Kolyma Tales" and "Journey into the Whirlwind" by Eugenia Ginzburg. While reading the former I got myself copies of both of the latter, the edition of "Kolyma Tales" being the Penguin Twentieth-Century Classics one, which includes the collection of stories from "Graphite". In the foreword by John Glad it says that Solzhenitsyn "asked Shalamov to co-author his 'Gulag Archipelago with him, but Shalamov, already old and sick, declined." "Nevertheless, Solzhenitsyn writes: 'Shalamov's experience in the camps was longer and more bitter than my own, and I respectfully confess that to him and not me was it given to touch those depths of bestiality and despair toward which life in the camps dragged us all."

I have various other books on the Gulag. An interesting one is "Under Two Dictators" (1949) by Margarete Buber-Neumann, a German Communist who was imprisoned in both the Soviet labour camps and the German concentrion camp Ravensbrück.

A few months ago I read "Over Fields of Fire, Flying the Sturmovik in Action on the Eastern Front 1942-45" (2010) by Anna Timofeeva-Egorova, a pilot who was taken prisoner by the Germans after being shot down and badly injured. After being liberated, she went through the normal ex-Soviet POW experience of being treated as a traitor. It's an interesting illustration of the benign and malign in the Soviet system.

Since discussing "Icebreaker", I've been reading "Hitler's Decision to Invade Russia, 1941" (1975) by Robert Cecil. One of the curiosities is that, in 1940 Jodl presented a plan whereby the USSR would join in the fight against the UK. Hitler's original intention had been to attack Russia first and the UK later (I'm not sure about France), but circumstances changed the order. When the seaborne invasion of the UK, Operation Sealion, looked to be too risky, he switched back to attacking the Soviet Union. In fact, preparations for Operation Barbarossa were carried on under the guise of continuing Operation Sealion. Hitler, a man in a hurry, wanted to attack the USSR in the latter half of 1940, but he was persuaded to delay until the following year. It becomes apparent in the book why Stalin was taken by surprise. Hitler, taking his usual huge gamble and viewing the Slavs as a lesser race, expected to have beaten the Soviet Union in five months. I've read elsewhere that the Germans didn't have the resources to fight a long war, so had to win the campaign quickly, the reason for the lack of preparation for fighting during the winter. I've yet to figure out how much territory Hitler expected to seize within five months, but presumably not the whole of the USSR, his peace terms being that he kept what he had wanted in return for not invading the rest.

Judging by Sandstein's comment, my intervention at the AE case, and those of other non-involved parties, likely had minimal impact.

Regards.     ←   ZScarpia   01:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC) (extended: 10:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC))

Obviously, both Hitler and Stalin planned and made extensive preparations to attack each other after signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. That is what many sources say, including one that you cited and Suvorov. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you see the quotation from Military History Monthly?     ←   ZScarpia   01:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This just a common place, something that appear in almost every textbook. Stalin knew that Hitler was going to attack. Stalin was preparing for the war. Stalin knew that attacking first would give him a significant advantage. The only question is when? My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That's correct, but it's a commonplace which forms part of the "Icebreaker" case, whether Hitler was pre-emptively attacking the Soviet Union before it attacked Germany. And the commonplace, in the case of the quotation, is a report of what Stalin himself said.     ←   ZScarpia   12:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"The coalition of #Corbyn supporters, anti-Zionists, #Iranian regime shrills, and Polish #AntiSemitic editors have been picking off #Jewish editors one by one in @Wikipedia. Open hunting season on Jews in Wikipedia." Perhaps a case of trying to fight on too many fronts, pushing one viewpoint too hard and annoying too many other editors. And using 'dubious' methods while making his identity too obvious.     ←   ZScarpia   15:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Is that a joke? My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The quotation? No, just a rather ideological editor strutting his stuff.     ←   ZScarpia   18:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Alleged allegations.     ←   ZScarpia   21:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Everyone going through an Arbitration-type process deserves to have somebody to advocate for them, though in this case I think that the advocate is just harming his own reputation. His submission for the current edition of The Signpost was interesting. The sentences which stand out for me are: "Racism isn't only about Jim Crow laws and institutional discrimination, it's also about ordinary people going about their daily lives without being aware of how their own perceptions and behaviors are influenced by internalized biases. Put differently: it's not about whether one "is" or "isn't" prejudiced, it's about how much." Very true, and how you identify and deal with your own prejudices would be a fascinating topic area in its own right. It would be interesting to know what struggles the author has gone through with his own prejudices.     ←   ZScarpia   23:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

• The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
• Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
• You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
• For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
• If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

You made an excellent point: this discussion (if any) should continue on article talk page. If you have any further questions, please ask me there. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To generate any helpful input at the NPOV noticeboard, the discussion would have to attract somebody so fascinated by the subject of gas vans that they would be prepared to do a lot of reading. I've spent hours reading back through the discussions, but still feel pretty lost. And not being able to read most of the sources is a big handicap. For me to help, probably what would be useful is to have a conversation about what each of the Russian sources says and to come up with a list of facts derived from each. It would also be useful to know the history of how the story about the Soviet van unfolded in the literature.     ←   ZScarpia   02:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous and unimportant subject. I am really surprised why you and Assayer are participating in this. The page is fine as it is right now. I fixed it already and would like to do something else. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the source detail at the Noticeboard. I probably could have figured out the answers to some of my questions by doing more reading, but, at the time I wrote, I wanted to take a break from doing that and write down my thoughts. The reason why I mentioned a 1990 article by Zhirnov in the Komsomolskaya Pravda is because that is the source cited by Solzhenitsyn [E. Zhirnov. “Protsedura kazni nosila omerzitelniy kharakter” [A Horrible Execution] Komsomolskaya Pravda, October 28, 1990, p. 2.] and because that article seemed to be constantly raised in the discussions.     ←   ZScarpia   09:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

So, it was another article by the same author published later (in 2009) in Kommersant. I did not read this article in Komsomolskaya Pravda and I do not think it is needed for sourcing on the page. But if someone else read it and wants to include, along with other RS, I do not mind. Clearly one should cite books by experts like Albats per WP:RS as more reliable sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've now got hold of a copy of Robert Gellately's "Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, The Age of Social Catastrophe" (2007) and will look to see what it says about gas vans.     ←   ZScarpia   15:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Great. I already included quotation from this book to the page (per Assayer), however please check the page number in the book. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just copy-edited the section on Soviet gas vans in the gas van article. I hope that you like what I've done, but change anything back that you don't. Since my last comment I've also got hold of some of Catherine Merridale and Timothy Colton's books on the Soviet Union.     ←   ZScarpia   01:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Great! Could you please also include to the page last thing about Nazi vans we talked about at NPOVNB? You can do it better because you have the sources handy. The part about Nazi Germany should be expanded to provide proper balance. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I tend to be a better talkpage lurker than a content contributor. You may have noticed that, typically, I'm always suggesting that other editors make the actual changes. If nobody else volunteers, I'll have a go.

I'm still trying to make sense of the use of gas vans by the Germans. It's curious: it looks as though they "invented" gas vans twice, once during implementation of the Euthanasia Programme in the Warthegau, when bottled CO was used, and later while carrying out the Final Solution, when the vans used engine exhaust gases.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! It's hard to tell if Nazi knew about the Soviet experience. Of course, there were Gestapo–NKVD conferences and other collaboration, such as one involving Nikolai Skoblin. Some people claimed in their memoirs that torture methods by Gestapo and NKVD (earlier) were exactly the same. My very best wishes (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

PZ/JLM

Hi, I've changed it - hope it is OK for you. Jontel (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good.     ←   ZScarpia   11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It is perhaps that in 2004 the Left Zionists in the UK wanted to distance themselves from Zionism/ Israel following the Second Intifada, which caused enormous outrage in the UK, and so presented a name change to JLM ( and so no mention of zionism) as a new and different organisation.

Today, when they do not wish a focus on how JLM was fashioned into a weapon against the left in 2016 or on any questioning of JLM's right to stay in the party given their continual attacks on its leadership and other members, they instead stress their heritage and continuity. Jontel (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(A lot of waffling follows:)

It looks as though Paole Zion had become pretty dormant and so an attempt was made at producing a revivified organisation for rallying Labour Zionists. That again went through a shakeup about a decade later in order to combat the threat posed by Jeremy Corbyn. I think that the JLM is being portrayed as having a more continuous history and record of activity than it actually has. Also, in the news, its Zionist orientation is being played down.

Presumably it should be possible to access the registration information of the JLM somewhere. An organisation that simply went through a name change will still have its original date of foundation recorded. It's likely that the creation date of the JLM will be given as 2004, the date on which the JLM was founded according to the Times, which, I'm guessing, probably looked up the records rather than the JLM website. If Paole Zion is mentioned, I expect, as the old JLM literature says, it will have been recorded as being incorporated into the JLM.

The JLM's history is both continuous and discontinuous and the problem is how to accurately represent that. At the moment we have contradictory sources. The solution is to try to find the most detailed and reliable information.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as the JVL goes, a Companies House record for 'Jewish Voice for Labour Ltd.' is here. I'm still looking for registration information for the JLM. Unfortunately, its website doesn't seem to give any information about where its registered or its registration number.

It's interesting to see how far back the name Jewish Labour Movement was coined: "The Jewish Labour Movement in Palestine" (1928):

(p7-8: "Poale-Zion parties as they arose found already in existence the bourgeois Zionist Movement, whose ideas were mostly based on wrong analogies drawn from European Nationalists movements, with the yearning for Palestine as their lost home, which had animated the Jewish Nation for two thousand years, and who, besides, would have nothing to do with the Jewish revolutionary Labour Movement. On the other side there was the Bund movement amongst Jewish Workers who had no use for a revolutionary solution of the Jewish question. They diagnosed the present condition of Jewry as the last phase of its historical development and, after the fall of Czarism, thought that the Jewish question could be solved by securing equality of rights coupled with certain national and cultural guarantees. It remained for the Poale-Zion policy by the use of Marxist methods to get at the root of the Jewish Question and to define a new system of characteristically Jewish Economics. We have analysed the peculiar economic strata and social divisions of Jews in those countries where they live in large masses, and have referred them to fundamental facts which had apparently been overlooked owing to their very obviousness. The result was a picture of a Nation living in economic isolation having no roots inagriculture, no share in modern industry, concentrated in commerce and trade and trade and restricted to certain declining branches of production. During this present age of Capitalism, this economic isolation resulted in a collapse of the middle-classes which had been overtaken by the march of progress. Uprooted and thrown out of their class, they became proletarians without, however, securing an entry into the new trades and occupations. The disintegration of Jewish economic life brought about a very powerful reaction; there began the modern Jewish Emigration Movement which, within a few decades, cast out millions of Jews into other countries where they went to seek work and a new livelihood. Thus we see two powerful influences working on the life of the Jewish masses in Europe at the end of the last and the beginning of the present century; the impuls towards placing the economic structure on a new productive basis - in other words to render the de-classed masses productive, and, subsequently, the impulse to create new Jewish ventres, by the migration of those whose economic basis had been undermined. ... The new Jewish liberation movement was a kind of reaction against the centrifugal forces inherent in Jewish life which were destroying its economical and political coherence. It corresponded to two basic tendencies in Jewish Realism - the struggle for a new economic life allied with territorial concentration and national self-determination. Thus arose the Palestine Movement which came to be known later on as Zionism - the Jewish National Colonisation Movement.")

(p9: "The work confronting a Socialist Party in the process of national colonisation is admittedly not simple. First of all, there was not available any fund of experience or leadership by other parties. International Socialism has a standpoint towards all oppressed nations who are striving for emancipation, who are settled on their own soil and are fighting against the political domination or economic exploitation of foreign landowners and capitalists. But a national emancipation movement which takes the form of colonising a country and setting up a new economic and cultural community is quite a new thing and as peculiar as the whole of the Jewish problem. Nor must it be forgotten that the International Labour Movement is still without a colonisation programme. Today people already know the difference between colonial exploitation and the settlement of new lands. So far the notion has mostly been that colonisation is an elementary process in which Labour can take no part. Not until recently, after the overthrow of Europe's economic life by the War, interest has been aroused for migration and settlement in organisations like the British Labour Party. People are slowly beginning to realise the importance of colonising and opening up new countries by means of Labour and bot by Imperialist exploitation. They are beginning to feel that the settlement of backward and underdeveloped countries is also an integral part of the upbuilding of a Socialist Commonwealth.")

    ←   ZScarpia  

While hunting for information on the JLM, I came across a JVL petition which describes how the creation of that organisation was given impetus by Jeremy Newmark's leadership of the JLM (unfortunately, WP won't accept links to the change.org site):

change.org - John Bernard - Petition: Disaffiliate the Jewish Labour Movement from the Labour Party, 2017: The manner of its ending aside, Mr Newmark's leadership of JLM has seen the creation of a rival forum for Jewish members of the Labour Party, namely Jewish Voice for Labour which brings into question JLMs claim to be the authentic voice of Jewish members of the Labour Party, including the appropriateness of its right to deliver training about anti-semitism and by extension it's right to be affiliated. This is an important point because there have been well publicised disagreement between JLM and JVL about the use of the AHCR definition of anti-semitism. Like JLM, JVL is also a self declared non anti-zionist organisation but nevertheless cleary states that it is not anti-semitic to criticise Israel. It is also notable that it was during Mr Newmark's leadership of JLM that allegations of anti-semitism surfaced within a Labour Party with no history of such racist attitudes. Indeed Mr Newmark threatened legal action against the party for not dealing promptly with some historical cases apparently, because, some would argue, finding members guilty of anti-semitism was more important than due process. The issue of anti-semitism and how to deal it was of course addressed by the Chakrabahti Report. In addition to apparently creating divisions within his own community, some would argue that Mr Newmark’s leadership of the JLM has been characterised by a needless ratcheting up of tension within the Labour Party vis a vis the Israel Palestine debate not least in terms of how members of JLM have conducted themselves on social media – this would include Ella Rose a Director of JLM and former employee of the Israeli Embassy who was caught on film threatening violence against a Labour Party member she didn’t agree with.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Re Douma

The fact that you are coming back weeks later to complain here is just demonstrating an inability on your part to learn. This wasn't a close call - it was wildly inappropriate for you to voice that speculation on the article talk page and the underlying concern was never, never going to result in AE. Move on. VQuakr (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard DS alert reminder

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- BullRangifer (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

See the Awareness requirements, specifically the bit saying that an editor is considered aware if "in the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement." Before placing a DS notice, you're supposed to check whether any of the awareness conditions were met. Out of interest, did you look through my contributions at the Arbitration noticeboards? If so, what did you find?     ←   ZScarpia   16:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I looked through this talk page's history and didn't notice it. Now you know, and if you had already received such a notice, I apologize. No harm done.

I hadn't noticed the newer addtion of "in the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement." That's new to me. I'll keep that in mind. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

When you try to post a DS alert, unless the system has changed very recently, a reminder of the policy on awareness is displayed and links to tools for searching various noticeboards, which you're supposed to use, are given. The impression I have is that the posting of unwarranted alerts may be seen as a form of harassment.     ←   ZScarpia   17:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

That was obviously not my intent. When I tried to post the alert, a huge notification, with links, appeared, and I thought I used them properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok.     ←   ZScarpia   18:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not push views found in unreliable sources

The following is a followup to my comment at AN/I.

You seem to be pushing the false narrative that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 United States elections. This is disruptive and not a valid use of the article talk page. Please take this friendly warning to heart. Also, keep in mind the AP2 DS sanction reminder above.

We waste a whole lot of time in discussions with editors who do not agree with the narrative of our articles based on RS. By doing so, they are striking directly at the primacy of RS as the arbiters of proper POV and narrative on the subjects in question. Private political POV based on unreliable sources are none of our concern, but when they negatively affect editor's discussions and editing, they become a concern for Wikipedia.

This is especially relevant in talk page discussions, as such discussions must have the goal of article improvement, and pushing ideas that are not based on RS cannot lead to article improvement, and are therefore violations of our talk page guidelines and a misuse of the talk page as a forum. When editors state speculations from unreliable sources, they are starting down a path that is tendentious and cannot lead to any good.

Discussion cannot substitute for creating reliably-sourced content, and since such editors do not have RS they can use to build the content and narrative they'd rather see here, they resort to disruptive discussions. Please do not misuse talk pages with claims that are not backed by RS.

I suggest you read these articles and their sources:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal#Adoption by Trump

Editors should be familiar with the reliably-sourced narratives in those sources, as well as why the narratives pushed by Russia, Trump, and unreliable sources are considered false. We document them, and we label them appropriately. The correct narrative from RS is documented here, and editors should back that narrative. If an editor doesn't agree with that narrative, they can still edit here, as long as they don't publicly (on talk pages and/or edit summaries) advocate the fringe ("wrong") narrative and oppose the information from our RS. What editors believe in their own heads, but don't voice, is none of our business. We don't sanction editors for privately held beliefs, no matter how bizarre or counterfactual.

We/Wikipedia don't "take sides" in the usual sense, but we do side with RS, so we publicly side with the narrative of those RS. We also side with RS when the narrative changes, even when the narrative changes completely. Anything less would mean we abandon dependence on RS now (thus betraying our duty as editors) in favor of a hoped for, and later, confirmation of currently held "fringe beliefs." ("Fringe beliefs" here means "POV contrary to RS", IOW beliefs based on unreliable sources.)

Editors who hold such fringe beliefs and depend on unreliable sources should modify their behavior and/or find other topics to edit, topics where they can comfortably depend on the RS we use here at the English Wikipedia for those topics. Otherwise, they would probably feel more comfortable editing these AP2 subjects at the Russian Wikipedia where Russian propaganda sources are likely considered RS. If they do not voluntarily choose to modify their behavior and/or choose other subjects to edit and/or discuss, they risk being topic banned from the AP2 area. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Your second sentence: "You seem to be pushing the false narrative that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 United States elections." If you think that I've been claiming that the Russian state, as a fact, did not interfere in the 2016 election, your're mistaken. As a matter of fact, I do think that Russia 'interfered' in the 2016 election ... just not to the extent and in all the ways being posited by American political figures and, by and large, by the American mainstream media.

I think that there are a variety of flaws in your approach to source reliability. As I've pointed out, the maintream media are the bottom feeders of the reliable source world. I think that you should treat them with a bit more 'nuance'. Along with most others, the American press hardly have a reputation for irreproachable standards.

I did actually read the articles indicated. I'm pretty sure that, as soon as someone writes a decent book about the topics, they're going to have to be largely re-written. As it is, as with most articles, parts should be re-written to remove original research, correct misrepresentation of sources, address lack of citations and address neutrality.

As far as modifying my behavious goes, I've managed to edit in some fairly contentious areas on Wikipedia without sanction for over 14 years, so perhaps it's time I "dipped my toe in the water."

    ←   ZScarpia   17:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC) (amended: 17:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC))

So your disagreement is more about the "degree of interference"? Okay, but it's still a view at variance with what RS tell us, and whether we like them or not, that's what we are stuck with. What specific points in those articles do you feel are inaccurate? I'd like to take a second look at them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Seek improvement

According to this edit, you mention some specific concerns, and some of them are the type that are worth pursuing:

• "Along with most others, the American press hardly have a reputation for irreproachable standards."

True, enough, but there are plenty of English language sources we use, and some are not American. Unless there are other RS which disagree with them, we have no recourse but to use them, and we have no justification to believe they are in error just because unreliable sources disagree with them. Unreliable sources have no weight at Wikipedia or in our lives.

• "As it is, as with most articles, parts should be re-written to remove original research, correct misrepresentation of sources, address lack of citations and address neutrality."

Those are all specific things that can be addressed using RS.

If there are RS on those subjects, seek to improve the article(s). Because they are contentious topics, and often under DS sanctions, it would be wise to use the talk pages to propose exactly worded improvements and the RS you would use. We created our accounts at about the same time (!) and you know how to do this. You're no newbie and you have plenty of skills. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

My comments made towards you about the spelling of The Grayzone were, in retrospect, incredibly rude and very uncivil, for which I would like to wholeheartedly apologise for my behaviour. I've been somewhat sleep deprived recently, which contributed to this, but it's no excuse for the incivillity. No hard feelings. I do agree that in retrospect my comments about the The Grayzone were ill-informed and rather dumb, though upon closer reading all of the stuff that the website covers is really contentious and should be covered by much more reputable sources before being included in Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. I was sorry to hear about your migraines. The sleep deprivation, I can very much empathise with as I suffer from that too. It really plays havoc with the way my brain works (or doesn't work), particularly my memory.

The Wikipedia areas that I mostly edit in suffer from belligerence. Nobody could last there unless they can ignore high levels of hostility. In fact, the rudeness of others can be useful as it undermines their arguments. (What is more annoying is dishonesty, particularly when editors let their prejudices, biases, hatreds, idolisations, obsessions and fanaticisms rip, but still kid on to themselves that they are editing neutrally.)

    ←   ZScarpia   20:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Lobby content

Hi, Thanks for the Jane Jackson source, which I've added in a new academics section. Now we have that, editors can add other relevant material from academic subject experts e.g. David Miller. Jontel (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to express my gratitude for the work you do on Wikipedia. It's very much appreciated. I feel that I should have given you more support. Quite often I spend so long thinking about how to take action that the moment passes and I end up not doing anything. An instance that I feel particularly bad about is not saying anything when Jimmy Wales took a pop at you.

I still haven't opened up any books for information on the role of the CAA in the UK Israel lobby, though I have been hunting around the Web. There's quite a detailed article on the CAA here which I think is worth reading. With regard to anti-BDS activities, the CAA wrote on their Facebook page that they "are not a counter-BDS group", though this may be seen to be contradicted by one of the groups first protests, the 2014 demonstration against the Tricycle Theatre for refusing to host the Jewish Film Festival unless they rejected a £1400 sponsorship from the Israeli embassy, and by the number of articles they publish slating boycott campaigns. Sites such as Powerbase detail the background of various CAA figures in advocacy for Israel. According to the CAA's website, Gideon Falter is still a board member of the Jewish National Fund.

I've just read through a couple of recent articles on the CAA's website ([33][34]). If those are representative, it's hard too see how the CAA still has charitable status (it claims that complaints made to the Charity Commission mostly come from antisemites) and, given the degree of misrepresentation, how anyone can take it seriously.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Craig Murray

This is not the first time you have attempted to delete Murray's writings blaming Israel for Skripal.

Why is that?

I will continue to revert any attempt to change sourced and pertinent information.

Tanila001 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Your "pertinent information" is not sourced if it misrepresents or is not contained in the source you cite.     ←   ZScarpia   01:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my queries about the use of blogs as a source and for doing so without snark and condescension - thank you! DSQ (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks DSQ, much appreciated!     ←   ZScarpia  

WP:HOUND

Please review WP:HOUND, thanks in advance. Unless of course you'd like me to take an equivalent interest in your edits.Inf-in MD (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, our interaction consists of the following:

1. - Participation in a discussion on the talkpage of the "Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners" article, where you've opposed the use of Ronen Bergman's "Rise and Kill First" as a reliable source on grounds such as that it is "non-academic" (or, alternatively, that it's author, who has a PhD in history from Cambridge University, is "non-academic"), that its publisher (Penguin Random House) is part of the "popular press", that it uses "anonymous sources" and that "we don't know who [Bergman] spoke to" (about a thousand interviews were carried out, of which about two-thirds are named, including the Meir Dagan and Avigdor Ben-Gal, who putatively ran the FLLF, and a third referred to by codes), that the publisher doesn't carry out peer-reviewing or fact-checking (those involved in producing the book are listed at the beginning, including two people who did fact-checking), and that the book makes "extraordinary claims" (a subjective opinion, but as far as I can see, much of what is stated follows the pattern of what has been written elsewhere).

2. - I made a series of edits to the "Yedioth Ahronoth" article (which Ronen Bergman writes for), whose main purpose was to replace the contrived term "British Mandate of Palestine" with the more common "Mandatory Palestine", which is the name of the article on that topic. Rather than re-writing or selectively reverting my changes, you reverted them completely.

3. - At the "Tira, Israel" article I rewrote one of your edits to more accurately reflecty the source.

WP:HOUND: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. ... The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

Are you really trying to suggest that, rather than editing constructively, I've been deliberately trying to impair your enjoyment of editing by causing "irritation, annoyance, or distress" (as far as "personal attacks" go, a review of the "Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners" talkpage would not show your own contributions in a good light)?

How, exactly, did you end up at the "Yedioth Ahronoth" article? As far as I can see, you hadn't edited there before I did.

How, exactly, did you end up at the "Tira, Israel" article? As far as I can see, you hadn't edited there before Nishidani did.

Given the close attention you've paid to Zero's edits, do you not think that it's beyond cheeky for you to start making hounding accusations against others, particularly when, as in my case, they've only changed one of your own edits.

I suggest that you think very hard before you do anything which gives the appearance of following through on the implicit threat to "take an equivalent interest" in my edits.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Tira has been recently in the news and I read this BBC article drawing my attention to it- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58183954. That Nishidani happened to edit this article 3 and a half month s ago is really not relevant to the question of how did YOU happen to arrive at this article, which you had never edited before, a few hours after I first edited it, to undo my edits? I don't intend to argue the point, but if you would not like me to return the favor kindly stop. Inf-in MD (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as "undoing [your] edits" is concerned, I changed the wording of one of a series of edits you made to one article. In the edit I re-wrote, you misrepresented the source. Are you, perhaps, trying to make out that I rewrote one of your edits as revenge for you reverting a series of my edits? Against your 45 days registered on Wikipedia, I've been registered for coming up for 16 years. If I was going to harass other editors, the tendency would have shown up by now. Do you see any evidence of it?

I think that to leave what amounts to a threat on a user talkpage, then to repeat it, is pretty foolish.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

How did YOU happen to arrive at this article, which you had never edited before, a few hours after I first edited it, to undo my edits? I see a tendency, and I am nipping it in the bud. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

- You're complaining that I amended one of your edits "a few hours" after you first edited it; you reverted my edits on the "Yedioth Ahronoth" article about 58 minutes after I finished.

- Contrary to your claim that Nishidani last edited the "Tira, Israel" article "3 and a half months ago", there was less than a 2 hour gap between Nishidani finishing and you posting your first edit.

- Read what I previously wrote about your claim about me "undoing [your] edits". And try answering a few of my questions, before demanding an answer to one of your own.

    ←   ZScarpia   15:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to such misrepresentations. I edited that article at 21:20, 29 August 2021, Nishidani last edited it before that on 22:02, 19 May 2021. Please strike out your false claim. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The edits of Nishidani's that I was referring to were the ones on 29 August 2021. I had not noticed the edit you made just beforehand on 29 August. Are you planning on "nipping it in the bud" every time somebody makes a change not to your liking to one of your edits, by the way?     ←   ZScarpia   16:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

so you were careless , made a mistake, and now have a gross misrepresentation about me on your page. Own up to it, apologize , and strike it out. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

[EC] You say you "don't take kindly to misrepresentations", yet you've twice made false claims about me "undoing [your] edits" (... and you misrepresented a source).     ←   ZScarpia   16:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I quoted the source verbatim, and you undid my edit there. Now you, OTOH, were careless and made a mistake, and now have a gross misrepresentation about me on your page. Own up to it, apologize , and strike it out. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is my edit of content you added. Here is the cited source.

Your content didn't conform to my idea of "quoting verbatim"; nor my edit to that of "undoing". Before you start complaining about "gross misrepresentations" by other people, address your own.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Own up to your careless mistake and strike it out, then we'll talk. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

See above where I admitted to not noticing an earlier edit of yours. Since this is my talkpage we're on, I'm going to make my own decisions about whether to strike anything out (... or, in the case of what you've written, to make an exception and just delete it). "Then we'll talk." How about you just get off my user talkpage?     ←   ZScarpia   16:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Accusing someone of hounding with no basis in fact is obviously harassment. Threatening (twice) to hound someone back is a blockable offence. It's about time to petition for a topic ban. ZS, your time is your own but in my opinion you are giving too much of it to answer this disruption. Zero^talk 14:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you think that 'Threatening (twice) to hound someone back is a blockable offence' when your fellow traveler did it on my page [35]? Inf-in MD (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's the second time this editor has used 'fellow traveler' against I/P editors. It means a member of a subversive organization that acts under cover. It is insulting, and one more reason why this chappie should have his behavior examined at AE. In any case, ZScarpia, I would suggest ignoring replying to this editor. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't it means ": a person who sympathizes with and often furthers the ideals and program of an organized group (such as the Communist party) without membership in the group or regular participation in its activities broadly : a sympathetic supporter of another's cause "[36] Fits your group like a glove. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Before you go:

- "Fits your group like a glove." Who exactly are the members of "your group"?

- What exactly is the cause or organisation which we are supposed to be non-member supporters of?

- What term would you use for the group of people with whom you agree?

Here's Wikipedia's "Fellow Traveller" article.

    ←   ZScarpia   18:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Inf-in MD was blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100 on 10 December 2021.     ←   ZScarpia   17:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on your use of Tony Greenstein blog posts to smear a living person

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia --Hippeus (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this. You're the last person I would ever imagine as someone - whose editing, mostly talkpage focused, is invariably well-researched, and very cautious even in adding to articles themselves - at risk of being snapped at and hauled over the coals at AE. Best regards. These things can be very stressful. I hope all goes well. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks N. I am, you may be sure, expecting you to run up some verse to celebrate the occasion: "The Ballad of ZScarpy and AE."     ←   ZScarpia   08:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Having delved into the background, I don't think any verse epic I scrabbled up would end up in anything but a further report to AE, this time agin' me! Ah well, stiff upper lip, old chap. Correct me if I'm wrong (I can't access logs) but you're the only longterm editor of standing in the I/P area who has never been tarred with the obligatory brush of infamy, so, that anomaly demanded an adjustment to 'normalize' you to the culture's insistence on baptisms of fire, even for old troopers who've come through unscathed for over 15 years. Think of it as a badge of merit. Loife's full of challenges, if I may allow myself to lapse into clichés. Whatever drama board one finds oneself on, cultivating a wry sense of humour and detachment helps, especially when farce is the genre. Perhaps a cappuccino abroad will put me back in the right mood rhythm to sketch a few lines.Nishidani (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I was tempted to make a joke about getting some artistically-gifted editor to run up a purple-heart-type barnstar for "those wounded or killed (blocked) while serving", but realised that it might give the impression of having a too flippant or unserious attitude.     ←   ZScarpia   11:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Hippeus was blocked as sockpuppet of Icewhiz on 19 October 2021.     ←   ZScarpia   15:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Purple Star Awarded to ZScarpia for 15 years of quiet, sedulous yet unobtrusive service
		Jemand mußte Josef K. verleumdet haben, denn ohne daß er etwas Böses getan hätte, wurde er eines Morgens verhaftet (Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested.) Der Proceß.ch.1. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That brought a much more classy look to my talkpage. I wonder where my copy of "The Trial" went to and how good my German might have been if I'd kept up the evening classes. Thanks N.     ←   ZScarpia   07:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's about time I also added my appreciation for your longstanding, careful work. Thank you, Scarpy. – BTW, I can't help wondering whether, in a generation or two's time (if the planet survives that long), the term "Assange" might replace "Kafka"? --NSH001 (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Kafka's story is the shortest description you'll ever get of the nature of the pathological side of 20th century history. The case of Assange is somewhat different. It in part illustrates Kafka, but the difference is, unlike Josef K. who has no idea why he is swept up from his daily world into the intricate machinery of punishment for an insinuated but unknown misdemeanour, Assange as a whistleblower challenged the powers that be and was aware (though no one could foresee the extraordinary Guantanamo like methods used by Britain to destroy him) he'd be pursued. Perhaps he relied on both the solidity of law's defence of individual rights and public outrage, expecting they would assist his immunity from persecution. if so, that was a radical misreading of the post-2001 securitization (i.e. making every last one of us feel existentially insecure) world order. His case is more like Auden's Icarus poem, heroic defiance leading to a fall when (as Marlowe has in in Dr Faustus) 'melting heavens conspired his overthrow', and, as Auden construed it, most people will pass by, disattentive and blamelessly unaware of a tragedy at hand, distracted by their daily round, as Assange is battered into a scarecrow of his former self. It's Guantanamo on British soil, astounding to an older world, but, these days, you can get away with anything as the world moves on (i.e. gets closer to midnight).Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Neil, I'm being pulled along in everyone else's slipstream, so it's me who should be saying thank you. I feel a huge debt of gratitude to whistleblowers such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Hopefully it won't be too long until Craig Murray is released. I know people involved in his Justice Campaign. Misuse of the Crown Office and the police north of the border is extremely worrying. Assange's extradition hearing was shocking.     ←   ZScarpia   14:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's possible they might release him (Murray) early on health grounds. They would lose too much face if they admitted their legal case was baseless, but health does give them a (err) "get-out-of-jail-free" card. There is precedent, namely Megrahi, who I am certain wasn't responsible for Lockerbie. But there are still a lot of powerful people who hate him for making them look stupid, or for exposing their misdeeds, so I can't predict what will happen. --NSH001 (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks as though the whole, extended Salmond affair has a lot of legs. If I remember correctly, complaints have been submitted about the conduct of the police and the head of the Scottish civil service. One aspect, which touches on Craig Murray's contempt of court convictions, was the publication by David Clegg in August of a book, serialised in The Times, which, supposedly, does far more in the way of jigsaw identification of the court case complainants than Murray's blog ever did. Then there's the appeal to the ECHR, which is in the pipeline.     ←   ZScarpia   09:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: your comment at ACN

Neither of the pages you referred to are pages I watch or edit. It doesn't make sense to criticize me for not speaking up about things on pages I don't edit. Levivich 14:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, Nishidani had reason to think that you watched the first page. The second page is one you commented on at the AE request, giving the strong impression that you did have an interest in it (and, by the way, if you look at the list of pages linked to the David Miller article and do a Google search on the terms "ZScarpia"+"David Miller"+"Wikipedia", you should see, that, contrary to picture you presented at the request, there are rather a lot of links between my account and the article's subject matter). The question still stands though, are you really as disinterested in which side violations of the rules favour as you think you are?     ←   ZScarpia   16:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? Obviously, Nishidani is wrong about whether I watchlist the page. You can ask him why he thinks I do. I question how anyone could even know what I watchlist? It's very easy to verify that I never edit those articles (or any articles like them, even). I don't understand your question, "are you really as disinterested in which side violations of the rules favour as you think you are?" I have no interest in which "side" violates what. When I see BLP vios, I typically do/say something about them. I don't think you'll find an example of me defending any BLP vios (as several editors did at your AE case). I think you're trying to catch me being hypocritical: to make the case, you're going to have to find an actual example of it, though. If you want to know why I got involved in this particular AE case, it's because I saw a genuine problem (ongoing BLP vios) but it was described poorly (by a likely sock), and two admins expressed confusion about it, so for them, and for the principle of BLP, I summarized/refactored the complaint. That doesn't mean I'm involved in those articles or that topic area. I have no idea who David Miller is or what Gnasherjew is and I've never heard of Stand With Us before, and I don't care about any of it. I do care that admin are able to understand a meritorious BLP vio complaint at AE; that's my interest here. Levivich 17:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"I summarized/refactored the complaint." Are YOU serious?     ←   ZScarpia   17:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't a clue about what all of this is about, and don't care, for the record. There are better things to do with one's time that running down trivia.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"to figure out who the powerful are, find out who you can't criticise"

Hi ZScarpia. Regarding this comment you made to Jontel, I assume you're not aware of who first said "to figure out who the powerful are, find out who you can't criticise", and about whom. See Kevin Alfred Strom#"True_Rulers" quotation. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg. Good to hear from you. I hope everything's going well for you.

By the by, I read an interesting piece by Mike Caulfield recently about fact-checking.

Like many people, I believed that the "find out who you can't criticise" quotation was of Voltaire.

The Guardian article cited in the Kevin Alfred Strom article quotes Dr Paul Gibbard, "one of the world’s leading experts in Voltaire", to the effect that statement isn't actually taken from Voltaire: "There are lots of quotations that are attributed to Voltaire that aren’t actually by him, and that’s one of them. Voltaire has been copied and imitated and pastiched ever since he produced his first writings ... If you put Voltaire’s name to it, it certainly has much more authority than if it was just your own quotation.” This Guardian article tends to confirm the frequency of misattribution to Voltaire.

Your comment above implies that it's factually true that Strom was actually the originator of the statement.

The Guardian article doesn't go as far as that. It says that: "several Twitter users pointed out ... the quote is most often attributed to Kevin Strom, an American white nationalist, neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier." Well, I should think that, actually, the quote is most often attributed to Voltaire, unless what they mean is that Strom is the most often attributed alternative source. The article goes on to describe Strom's 1993 essay as the "suspected source."

Poorly, the Wikipedia article says: "However, the phrase is believed to originate from an essay by Strom first published in 1993." It's desirable that a statement such as that should be, if possible, attributed: that is, who believes that the phrase originates from Strom.

One person who attributes the statement to Strom is, according to USA Today, Barry Popik. The article goes on to report Strom himself claiming credit: 'Strom, one of the founders of the National Vanguard organization, confirmed in 2017 that the quote is indeed his. "So it’s pretty clear, even to my critics, that I came up with the idea and the quote — and Voltaire never did," said Strom in the online post. Strom said it was "kind of flattering" that his words would be paired with "the name of the man who said such witty things."'

A problem with the latter is that, if what Strom wrote is checked, it can be seen that he went on to say: "By the way, I do not think that I am the first or only person to come up with the central idea of the quote: Any thoughtful person, looking at history, would come to the same conclusion. I believe I’ve read other writers (including George Lincoln Rockwell) expressing words to the same general effect, and at substantially greater length. But I do deserve credit for whatever pithiness or quotability or gestalt effect my quote has on the reader, and that’s about all I can hope for." So, what Strom wrote doesn't actually closely match the wording nomally quoted, "To find out who rules over you, find out who you can't criticize," and Strom himself says he doesn't think that he's the first or only person to say something similar.

Strom was writing in 1993. Obviously, if an occurence of text which follows the statement "to find out who rules over you, find out who you can't criticize", or its foreign-language equivalent, more closely is found in something written prior to 1993, that would rule Strom out as the originator. Personally, I'd be very surprised if the origin of quotation isn't prior to 1993.

I do hope that nobody believes that I would knowingly quote approvingly anybody sharing Strom's strain of beliefs. I certainly won't be quoting his wording; nor will I be quoting any form of wording that can be traced back to him with any reasonable degree of likelihood (as far as I can see, nobody has shown a route by which what Strom wrote may have morphed into the form popularly, but apparently falsely, attributed to Voltaire). Perhaps I should state for the record that I find any form of 'race', 'ethnic' or 'national' supremacist ideology despicable. Hopefully that's a widely shared sentiment. Having said that, I'm aware that the brain is a pretty tricky beast when it comes to hoodwinking its owners. I do hope that my own set of beliefs is reasonably well thought through, logically coherent, balanced and ethical. But then, perhaps I'm the deluded one.

Jontel was writing in defence, on a talkpage, of Gilad Atzmon, an anti-Zionist who is attacked by fellow anti-Zionists, let alone Zionists. Atzmon is a living person and therefore policy dictates that his article should, as well as the normal neutrality requirement, be written conservatively. Obviously, application of the rule shouldn't depend on whether, subjectively, the topic of the article is "a bad person" or not. Anybody who does not agree with that is probably operating a double standard, expecting articles on, subjectively, "good people" to be treated differently.

When I was writing about "imposition of moral compasses", an incident that was uppermost in my mind was an editor who most likely held traditional Catholic views, being told to remove a userbox containing text stating something to the effect: "I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman." Although, on the one hand, I find it possible to conceive of messages which are pretty much indefensible (... according to my own moral compass that is), I think that it would have been better to have banned all images commenting on personal beliefs or those which contravened policies such as BLP in some way, rather than to pick on some which may offend the sensibilities or beliefs of some, but be acceptable to large numbers of others. I suspect, given the passage of time, the banners would eventually find some of their own cherished values being attacked otherwise.

    ←   ZScarpia   21:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi ZScarpia. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that it's unclear where the exact phrase comes from, though it's also clear that Strom stated essentially the same idea in that 1993 essay, and that that's the earliest "close approximation" we are aware of. I think it's also clear that Voltaire didn't write it, in those words or others; otherwise a Voltaire scholar would have found it and attributed it by now.

Voltaire's own writings regarding Jews are, in my view, troubling at best; to learn more about that, I would recommend Arthur Hertzberg's somewhat dated but still relevant, The French Enlightenment and the Jews. Voltaire said many hard-to-defend things about Jews, and those who do try usually resort to one of three defenses: "He said terrible things about lots of peoples", "He was a man of his times and/or had bad experiences with some Jews", and "He was only doing it to criticize Christianity". In today's age, I don't think we accept those kinds of defenses for anyone who wrote in this way about any persecuted minority. That said, I certainly do not think you support Strom! The reason I brought it to your attention was because I assumed that you (like many people) thought Voltaire (not Strom) had said it, and that had you realized the more likely source, you would not have said/"quoted" it.

Regarding banning certain kinds of messages/userboxes, I too understand the tension between, on the one hand, wanting to ban things that are so offensive that they should not be found anywhere on Wikipedia, and on the other hand, being concerned about the "slippery slope" or perhaps "unintended consequences" of banning things that are not quite as offensive.

Wishing all the best for you in the New Year. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. All the best to you too!

Although I have access to Arthur Herzberg's first book, "The Zionist Idea, a Historical Analysis and Reader", and several which he contributed to, unfortunately I don't to "The French Enlightenment and the Jews", though I'll look out for it.

I followed links from the Wikipdia Arthur Hertzberg article to The New York Review's collection of his writing for it and to The New York Times' obituary. Regarding Voltaire, the obituary states: in '"The French Enlightenment and the Jews: The Origins of Modern Anti-Semitism" (1968), he argued that the works of Voltaire and other 18th-century philosophers betrayed a pervasive antagonism to Jews and to their existence as a distinct people.' The Review's collection includes a response to a critique of "The French Enlightenment and the Jews" by Hugh Trevor-Roper.

I have a copy of Maurice Samuels' "The Right to Difference: French Universalism and the Jews", which deals with the position of Jews in France from the late Enlightenment onwards, when emancipation was given with the expectation that assimilation would be carried out in return. Unfortunately, that only refers to Volataire in a brief footnote, which refers readers onwards to Herzberg's work.

The Wikipedia Voltaire article has a section which outlines what has been written about Voltaire's attitude to Jews and Judaism.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: ADL/Khazars

Your comment about the ADL and BDS, etc., bumping a week-old dead thread on another user's talk which he has asked me to leave alone so I am responding here, isn't relevant to the question about the Khazar hypothesis. The Khazar hypothesis is a discredited theory about Ashkenazi Jewish origins that is currently being used by Russian anti-Semites on the Ukraine war or by groups such as the Black Hebrew Israelites. The ADL is reliable enough to describe such things as anti-Semitic, and it really doesn't have to do with Zionism or Israel per se - other than that some claim a political or Zionist/anti-Zionist influence on opinions on the Khazar veracity. Reliable scientific studies have rejected the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are in any meaningful way Khazar. Current consensus is that AJ are Middle Eastern and European. "Generally reliable" means exactly what it sounds like, but the RSP guidance for ADL is to attribute when necessary. activist organisations are not usually regarded as reliable and websites opposing Zionism have been found to be unreliable on grounds of "bias" I have no idea what this refers to, but no I do not think a double standard is at play, and I reject the premise of your question. Reliability is not about bias. Many opinionated outlets are still reliable and just must be attributed in the appropriate situation. Regardless, the user whose talk page you posted on has already said he does not have concerns about the ADL's reliability but instead he thinks it's just a question of context and weight. Andre🚐 20:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

We have monographs going back almost 30 years on the antisemitic use of Khazars in Russia. The article cites some of it. The most recent coverage by the ADL adds nothing to the article.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That should be discussed at Talk:Khazars. I was responding here to respond to the message from ZScarpia. Andre🚐 21:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)