AI's threat to Wikipedia Late Night Live 8 October 2024. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Levivich. I don't understand why you would write this. You said there - " Not a lot of people will say with a straight face variations of "God gave the land to us." That's an outlier view."

I never said something like that and I don't know why you seem to hold this opinion about me. I'm asking you to please retract your comments. I don't know where your ideas come from but I am really really suggesting that you allow us to just coexist. I think it might do some good to you too. I don't know how this conflict met or meets you so I prefer to give your this chance. PeleYoetz (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, statements like There were always Jews who returned to the Land of Israel and yearned to do so. Starting from the Book of Lamentations through ancient, mideaval and modern sources, this has always been a central theme in Jewish religion, history, and liturgy. It was not yet a political movement, but this fact provides vital context and is absolutely DUE. [1] are among the kinds of statements I had in mind when I wrote variations of "God gave the land to us."; in this example quote, you argue it's true and Wikipedia should say it's true because, in part, the Bible (Book of Lamentations) said so.

Although, when I wrote that sentence, I specifically had in mind this article complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of Zionism, which at the end quotes somebody as saying the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was the fulfillment of God’s promise to gather His people back to Zion.

Bringing the Bible to a Wikipedia talk page as if it were a history book is a tell-tale sign of POV pushing of a very specific and uncommon POV: biblical literalism. This view, though almost unheard of in any intellectual discussion in the real world and certainly in academia, finds surprising popularity on the talk page of Wikipedia's articles about Israel, e.g. here and here, where other editors also claim that because it's in the Bible, it's true. Levivich (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your response is simply no less insulting and disappointing than your original comments. I'm going to repeat myself - I haven't said at any point "God gave the land to us", and I've never mentioned God.

Psalm 137 is an ancient Jewish text, it described the remembrance and the yearning for Jerusalem from the point of view of Babylonian captivity. It is clearly ancient, probably from the Babylonian or Persian periods. That the centrality of the Land of Israel, and the yearning for a return continued throughout the generations is a historical fact, this theme is indeed recurring in Jewish history since antiquity. In the 2nd century BCE, Simon Thassi, when told by the Seleucids he was occupying Jaffa, replied: "We have never taken land away from other nations or confiscated anything that belonged to other people. On the contrary, we have simply taken back property that we inherited from our ancestors, land that had been unjustly taken away from us by our enemies at one time or another." In the 12th century, Judah HaLevi wrote: "My heart is in the east, and the rest of me at the edge of the west. ... / ... While Zion remains in the Cross's reign¹, and I in Arab chains?" When the Jews of the diaspora revolted against Rome, one of the purposes, was a return to Judea and defend it. Levivich, really just try and read more about the history of Jewish identity. I really think you need to do some self reflection.

I'm now asking you once more, apologize and retract your inappropriate comments. PeleYoetz (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I intervene here?

"Not a lot of people will say with a straight face variations of "God gave the land to us."

Since you are taking an extreme literalist view of part of this, let me construe the sentence and style of that type of remark.

The quote refers obviously to a theme, not to what you said, but to Levivich's subsuming the various remarks you made as reflective of a general theme. This is called stylistically 'variations on a theme' broadly, a musical term which has been adopted in general prose. Technically, these variations are what are called topoi, literary embroideries of some standard image, idea, or argument in a literary canon masterfully surveyed by Ernst Robert Curtius in his European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (1948, esp.pp79ff.) When you read anything in literature depicting a pleasant landscape or garden, nilly willy, it will be categorized as an example of the tradition of a Locus amoenus.

So when Levivich states that in his reading your statements are 'variations' on a generic premise that 'God gave the land to us', he is not putting the latter phrase into your mouth. He is saying that he reads your remarks as 'topical variations' on that powerful biblical theme that Palestine was given to Jews as a promised land, and which underlies all alternative echoes of that notion.

In layman's language, you are asking him to recant the reasonable impression he drew from your mode of arguing, in the way your terms evoke to the common reader an omnipresent theme in the Bible and in Judaism. There is no room for ambiguity here: 'variations' means that the quotation in inverted commas does not literally refer to any statement you made. It means, not only in Levivich's view, that your remarks are redolent, as thematic variations, of the topos of the promised land. This is quite innocuous, a fair assessment. It may not reflect what you take your remarks to mean, but it is the inevitable outcome of the language you use.

The attribution to the whole of the Jewish people of a desire to return to the land of their forefathers cannot be grounded on quoting passages from Simon Thassi or Judah Halevi on the topos of Libi baMizrach (my heart is in the east), any more than would be the case for quoting the far more realistic thinking of an 'average' Jew in the diaspora captured by Bloom's thoughts after he ducks into the butcher shop for a pork kidney for his breakfast from his fellow Jew, the Hungarian Dlugacz,- this violation of a kosher prohibition grounded in Deuteronomy 14:8.,- means that he feels he must, when the opportunity presents itself, up stakes and perform aliyah, along the lines of a pamphlet by Agendath Netaim he picks up to browse, a company offering land for prospective buyers with citrus groves by Lake Tiberias. 'Nothing doing. Still an idea behind it.'(James Joyce, Ulysses The Bodley Head 1960 p.72)I often sing to myself the songs of my childhood like Molly Malone and It's a Long Way to Tipperary but anyone who took those as evidence of my desire to return there would be mistaken. They reflect a long and intense cultural attachment. Arguments to the contrary simply reflect a Zionist topos which retroactively attributes to all Jews historically the idea proffered by their very recent ideological justification for that movement, one that was dismissed as heretical by the majority of rabbinical scholars when it was first articulated.

In 2600 years of life outside of the Biblical land, many Jews the world over may well have taken to heart the stirring passages of poetic nostalgia in the classics of their literary tradition. Percentually, despite no obstacles, very few ever acted on it, any more than Greeks in the oikoumene beyond, when recalling the nostos of Odysseus, dropped their copy of Homer and left the Ukraine, Egypt or Africa broadly, to return to the ancient roots of some of their forefathers in Chios or Samothrace. When Eastern European Jews were offered the prospect of going to the United States or Palestine in the 1880s onwards, the overwhelming majority went West (to the 'new Zion'), not South.

There is nothing to apologize here, except for the commonplace misprisions you make about a putative universal perennial longing among Jews, which is a literary and rabbinical construction of 'Jewishness'. And using an ultimatum for such a trivial misreading of your interloctor's words looks highly 'instrumental'.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... @Levivich, you should clearly redact your comments, you have put words in the mouth of PeleYoetz, who clearly did not say anything about God, just talked about history. Inventing words and attributing them to others to promote sanctions against them is... not right. The time to apologize is now. ABHammad (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the thread, which evidently you haven't because nowhere did Levivich put words into the other chap's mouth.Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PeleYoetz: the yearning for a return continued throughout the generations is a historical fact No, it's not. Levivich, really just try and read more about the history of Jewish identity. I really think you need to do some self reflection. OK. This website is about educating people with reliable sources, so let's read some RS about the history of Jewish identity, and self-reflect, together:

Slater gets really interesting, though, when he asks the question: well, what if the myths were true? Would it make a difference? From pp. 35-37:

Babylonian captivity lasted for maybe 50 years. Israel's exile of Palestinians has lasted longer. I'm not the first to say that Israel is the modern Babylon--conquering Jerusalem and exiling its inhabitants--while Palestinians have become the modern Jews--exiled, stateless, and discriminated against by almost everyone. And those who draw on the Book of Lamentations or the Psalms to justify Zionist claims to Palestine are, indeed, arguing variations of "God gave the land to us," variations of "because the Bible says so." It's a weak argument, unpopular outside Israel, and that makes it easy to spot.

Yesterday, a non-XC account said to me:

The key similarity is “foreign”, ie do Jews/Zionists constitute a “foreign” presence in Israel / did they in 1948. Again, to use an imperfect example, displaced Ukrainians returning to the Crimea in the event of Russian withdrawal would not be considered “foreigners”, and therefore definitionally incapable of being colonisers or colonialists of Crimea (given the distinction you make).

Let's contemplate this Crimean analogy for a moment. Let's suppose instead of 2024 it's 4024, two thousand years into the future. First, think about that period of time: can you imagine what life will be like in 2,000 years? You'd probably agree with me that by 4024, humans will almost certainly have been living on Mars for over 1,000 years, probably also the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, and quite likely have figured out how to travel to other star systems and probably colonized those, too. Imagine, then, that in 4024, people who identify themselves as the descendants of Ukrainians -- and who maintained Ukranian customs and religion -- but who lived in a place far away from Crimea, like, say, China, or maybe Mars, claimed that they were the rightful owners of Crimea, because it was taken from their ancestors two millennia prior. How fucking crazy does that sound to you?

And suppose the world government (or interstellar government, in 4024) decided to give half of Crimea to these Martian Ukrainians, but the Martian Ukrainians took three-quarters of it by force and expelled almost everyone who was living there, prevented them by force from returning, put those who stayed behind under military government, and, twenty years later, occupied the remaining quarter and subjugated the local population there as well. And they justified it all by saying, "the history books clearly establish that in 2014 we were expelled from Crimea, our ancient homeland!" Yeah, right. We would think they were absolutely out of their minds. And anyone who showed up arguing that the land belongs to them because of an exile 2,000 years ago would be instantly recognizable as a Martian Ukrainian, simply because of the manifest irrationality of their arguments.

Zionism is fundamentally irrational: as soon as you lay it out and look at it, you realize it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. That's what the reliable sources about Zionism explain, and that's what Wikipedia's summary of those sources will say, regardless of how many accounts the modern-day "Martian Ukrainians" make. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you share your opinions on Zionism, but the scholars you chose (mostly) don't deny the lasting importance of the Land of Israel for Jewish identity, including the belief in returning to Zion someday. The scholars you mention seem to not be experts in ancient or medieval Jewish history, they are scholars of the modern time with quite specific views (and it seems like you haven't read Jewish identity). I would question choosing Ilan Pappe as a neutral source in the first place, and when Slater says 'there is no evidence that the Jews had political control over ancient Palestine,' it really shows the value of this source when talking about ancient Jewish history (he's 100% wrong).

Anyway, the reason I contacted you here is a much simpler matter. You started an SPI on me, which one SPI checker rejected, and then another closed it as unrelated. Before that, you made more accusations about tag-teaming at AE, which were also unproven. Now, after all of these were closed, you are putting words into my mouth that I have never said.

These are uniquely crazy suggestions, they are the best behavioral indicator of sock/meatpuppetry. Not a lot of people will say with a straight face variations of "God gave the land to us." At no time did I say 'God gave the land to us.' Never. Under any variation of it. Saying that the Hebrew Bible features the theme of longing for Zion, even if you don't agree it does, is not the same as making the claim that 'God gave us the land'. Another thing I never said, but you put in my mouth anyway, is that the Golan Heights belongs to Israel. This just never happened.

For the third time, I ask you to strike your inappropriate comments that put words into my mouth. Please do it. PeleYoetz (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one putting words into Levivich's mouth. As my grammatical analysis showed, it is not he who asserted that you said 'God gave the land to us', but you asserting he claimed you said that. I gather this is all just a preliminary to reporting Levivich at AE, but you should consider carefully that your whole premise here is that (a) the Jewish people 'yearned' for the Land of Israel for 2,500 years but that (b) this has nothing to do with the core Biblical assertion that the area in question is the Promised Land, a land promised by God to the Jews, a core idea that underwrites Judaism.

To maintain those two propositions simultaneously is, to a neutral eye, a remarkable example of counter-historical errancy, a failure to connect the dots.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, as always, I quote sources, and you say those sources aren't qualified. Like Derek Penslar, former Chair of Israel Studies at Oxford, and current Director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Harvard... what the hell does he know about the history of the Jews, amirite? Nobody ever claimed Pappe was neutral, including Pappe; Pappe cites archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein, but hey, what the hell do they know about ancient Israel? Slater was a Fulbright Lecturer at Haifa University, but I'm sure you know better than he does about evidence of Jewish dominion over ancient Palestine.

Claiming RS is not RS is another tell-tale sign of POV pushing, so predictable that I said it in the full quote that brought you here:

You know that recently-created account that rushed to XC then immediately started arguing the moon is made of cheese? Yeah, almost certainly the same person/group as that other new account that rushed to XC and immediately started arguing the moon is made of cheese. There just aren't that many people who really want Wikipedia to say the moon is made of cheese. There aren't that many people who would claim the Masada myth isn't a myth, or Golan Heights belongs to Israel, or Palestinians aren't from Palestine, or mainstream historians are fringe, etc. These are uniquely crazy suggestions, they are the best behavioral indicator of sock/meatpuppetry. Not a lot of people will say with a straight face variations of "God gave the land to us." That's an outlier view.

Now you're not quite saying these mainstream historians are fringe, but you are saying they're not experts in the right field, which is only slightly less wrong.

Back to this post of mine that brought you here: as you can see from the context, I did not put any words in your mouth, and I did not claim that you said "God gave the land to us," because of I wrote "variations of," which is how the reader knows that "God gave the land to us" is not a direct quote. And when you try to use the Bible as a source of historical fact, you are making a claim that is a variation of "God gave us the land." You don't have to agree with that, but I'm not going to strike it because you disagree with my characterization.

Not only that, but I didn't even say that you, specifically, said all those things on that list. My accusations against you have been specific and backed by diffs, at AE and at SPI. But you reinforce it by arguing that Psalms is correct but Slater is wrong. When you suggest that Pappe and Finkelstein don't know Jewish history, the right kind of Jewish history, but you link to a Wikipedia article instead. These are, as I said, outlier opinions. Levivich (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a private note, no need to reply.

Zionism is fundamentally irrational: as soon as you lay it out and look at it, you realize it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

All ideologies are 'irrational' in one sense, in that they seal themselves off, by their assumptions, from empirical correction. No amount of evidence can substantially undermine the faith of true believers, of any description. Of these, Zionism is, nonetheless, highly 'rational' in the sense that it has historically excelled in the meticulous deployment of everything in the toolkit of instrumental rationality (what Weber called Zweckrationalität) to achieve the goals it sets itself. It is fascinating for the extreme efficiency of its planning and purposing, aided by a steely insouciance to any trammels of scruple that might get in the way of those goals. Not 'immoral' but 'a-moral', and in this it is not alone. We don't like to admit, particularly anyone of us who greew up in the bright postwar era within a liberal world, how much of what goes on in the real world of geopolitics observes the same (un)principles. It is, however, and this is how I take your remark, profoundly, pathologically I would prefer to say, 'irrational' in the yawning gap its successful modus operandi has opened between the civilisation of Judaism and Israel. And there lies the danger, to Jews of any description, everywhere. Build to serve the Jewish people, it has arguably succeeded in a disservice of historic magnitude to the very people it claimed it was redeeming. With my apologies and best regards.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about secular humanism? I'd call that a rational ideology. I am, however, hard-pressed to think of a second example, which I think might prove your point :-) Nationalism, certainly, is always irrational, and that's a good point, it's not just Zionism. I love that quote, "A nation is a group of people united by a mistaken view of their past and hostility toward their neighbors." As to the gap between Jews and Israel, well, we all know the conflict will not end until Israel engages in some kind of "truth and reconciliation" process a la South Africa and other states that have gone through similar developments. And that won't happen until the diaspora demands it. If Bibi's legacy ends up being that he was the one who got the diaspora to turn its back on Israel, or to force Israel to own up to its history and reform its future, well, then perhaps he will have done world Jewry a service, after all. I just wish we could get from here to there with fewer dead babies. A lot fewer. Levivich (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think secular humanism is an ideology, anymore than the dazzling arc of the haskalah could be called ideological by anyone other than its religious critics, or the usual antisemitic trash, figures like Édouard Drumont, Charles Maurras et al. To the contrary, secular humanism emphasizes dissonance as the leavening of its democratic aims, embraces a self-corrective rationality, It is ameliorative, not recursive (nationalism), and 'humanism' is diametrically opposed to Einstein's measles of mankind. In any case, secular humanism looks more and more like a dead letter in a world that is historically analphabetic. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

You and I tend to see eye to eye on a lot of things, but on the ANI thread I think you have missed what I was saying. Someone has closed the thread, but for the record, the unsubstantiated claim I was referring to was the repeated insinuation that I had deliberately targeted that page for deletion because I am in league with off-wiki trolls. If there are off-wiki comments or not is one matter (and in that discussion, it was clearly stated there had been no off-wiki discussion of the merge). But there is no doubt that many WP:ASPERSIONS were made against participants in the merge. Against me personally merely because (a) I voted merge in an AfD in which I did due diligence, and (b) I started a merge discussion per the AFD close comments when the page lit up in my watchlist from a brief edit war months later. That was done to diffuse tensions. But still I have been repeatedly accused of targeting that page to get it off-wiki. I haven't. I have been doing what I do. Commenting on AfD cases and retaining an interest in articles I have researched at AfD.

Moreover the uninvolved closer has been singled out and repeatedly been called inexperienced, despite being a very good, thoughtful, careful and intelligent editor from everything I have seen. Again, aspersions and invective against someone. I left them a barnstar because I felt bad that they had been attacked for a close request I raised. I carefully avoided naming pages or editors in that talk page comment. It was meant merely as encouragement; but still I am accused of gravedancing on my page, and the closer is again accused of being inexperienced. Unsubstantiated, the lot of it. Not a single apology from those doing it. Colour me unimpressed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: I thought when you asked "What am I being accused of?" and someone answered "Not you," that cleared up that the accusations regarding WPO weren't directed at you? Or maybe there was something else I missed? Anyway, and maybe I should have been clearer about this on my part, in no way were any of my comments directed at you or even at the issues you raised. I also think that LB went too hard at the closer, but I also understand why he overreacted, which isn't the closer's fault, but I'd feel ganged-up-on, too. After all, let's be real: he was gone for like two months or something after the AFD, and AFAICT, nobody did anything about those articles. He comes back and removes some tags and within days, a merger proposal is started. And the WPO's on his ass all the time, and a bunch of WPO people were involved at every step of the process, like maybe a majority of the participants, I'm not sure exactly how many. I do feel back for the closer and I'm glad you left them a barnstar, that was a nice thing to do. I hope LB takes a break and cools off and regains his sense of perspective, but frankly I'd bet that he'll take a break, come back later, and apologize to the closer. Levivich (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That attack (by a different editor) was not directed at me, as they said. There were plenty of comments that were flung my way after that though. But hey, I've been called worse and often. I'll live with that. But what did annoy me was the repeated attack on the closer's competence, even after they had been called out on that at AN. And it got doubled down on here, on this page too. Still, you will probably have seen by now that I was able to make my point, as LB managed to get taken to AN/I again. Hopefully things will settle down, but perhaps LB will not take the warning from me. You may be better placed here in seeking to ensure calmer heads prevail going forward, with a quiet word in the right place. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Parking this in the same section although there's not much overlap.) Levivich, I am often impressed with the level of clue and the integrity you demonstrate at noticeboards. Then you make an intervention like this, and I'm left scratching my head. Before the thread was closed, ATG pointed out your serious misreading of the context of the "smear attempts" remark, and you apologized. But I agree with Sirfurboy, Licks-Rocks has been treated deplorably, first, foremost, and most recently (this thoroughly nasty comment at their talk page) by Lightburst and at least one other editor—for a well reasoned NAC that has been endorsed at AN. (And I am generally leery of NACs, and was in the opposition in that merger discussion.) And the section was closed before I—or many people really—had a chance to "stand up on-wiki" and own up to being a WPO participant as you come close to demanding, with a dash of gasoline on the fire in suggesting Lightburst contact ArbCom with a list of who they think is who at WPO. Well, over my late breakfast, here I am. I am who I say I am at Wikipediocracy. I argued against merging the Bent's Camp Resort article. I referred in my post to Carrite, who makes no secret of the identity under which he posts at WPO, working his ass off finding references to try to save that article at AfD. I don't appreciate the smear that those of us who participate at WPO as well as on-wiki are complicit in malfeasance, or the implication that we should be reading AN/I every hour and should jump to with confessions of guilt and if necessary self-outing when someone raises the specter of BADSITES. I don't know whether you yourself have an account, or how often you read there, and I don't care, except that in addition to the serious misattribution of the comment at AN/I itself, your research for that AN/I post was lacking. You missed that ATG had first posted in 'crap articles', not in a dedicated thread on Lightburst; you cast aspersions about the membership at WPO. I think you let yourself be carried away by your own rhetorical flow. That's bad. It's bad whether or not it arose from the urge to defend someone, friend or not. (Whether or not you intended to "take sides.") It's another instance where you've lost respect from me, and more importantly, where your involvement at the noticeboards has done more harm than good. Now I will finish my coffee. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: I appreciated Levivich's honesty. Sorry you were caught in the wake, but I think you know what Levivich is saying and it ain't really about you. It is a testament to Levivich's good character that they articulated the issue. Lev and I have been at odds and came to appreciate each other recently. Yngvadottir, i appreciate that you did not assist the trolls when you voted to keep the article. I think deep down you know this article was scrubbed because of off-wiki banter and action. I think that you cannot cavort with bullies and trolls and than say you are not one of them. I just said the same to JSS on my talk page. WPO is not accomplishing not much more than trolling and other hurtful behavior. And, I certainly do not think my message to Licks-Rocks was a PA. I have long been of the opinion that complicated discussions are not for inexperienced editors to close. Licks Rocks only started one article and was involved in 20 deletion discussions. This was not a discussion they should have closed but now I am stuck with their supervote. Sirfboy, I have no idea of their motivation but this is the project. We build, expand, cooperate. We do not snipe and destroy. Lightburst (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: One of our admins who happens to be blind has recently become the subject of criticism at WPO over some blocks he made. And one of his fiercest critics called this admin a "blind hog," writing "Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then." And when another person tactfully pointed out that this was very crass and gave the critic the benefit of the doubt that it was inadvertent, the critic responded by saying that it was not inadvertent. The critic called the admin "like a crack addict," and at one point suggested the admin had a WP:CIR problem because of a typo. A typo, by someone using a screen reader. I don't know why you talk to that critic, I don't know why you hang out over there. Levivich (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly to know what's going on. Carrite and I both found out about Bent's Camp Resort over there and tried at different stages to save it. And partly to participate in the discussions as a pro-Wikipedia voice. I imagine you saw my posts in the the forum thread you just alluded to, and in the AN/I discussion. You don't do your argument any favors by being so absolutist; I'm sure I could find associations of yours that wig me out, and I came here to post not just because of your high-handed challenge to every member of that site to answer to your personally at AN/I, but because of what Sirfurboy mentioned: you've associated yourself with an attempted pile-on against Licks-Rocks. I see now that you've admitted Licks Rocks has been treated badly. But you haven't improved the situation by taking sides so strongly. You've associated yourself with undeserved abuse of Licks-Rocks, and are encouraging Lightburst to see themself as entirely and unfairly victimised, which is not going to help them deal with the inevitable disagreements on this project, such as a merger proposal being closed in a way they don't like. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll never find me chit-chatting with someone who intentionally calls a blind person a "blind hog," or anything even close to it. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Levivich. I'm wondering if you have any recommendations for best sources regarding the expulsions from Lydda and Ramla. Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: FYI the operation, Operation Dani, is sometimes spelled Danni or Danny, and the places are Lydda, Lydd, Ludd, or Lod, and Ramle, Ramleh, or Ramla, and probably other spellings as well; the mosque massacre is spelled Dahmash, Dahamsh, Dahamish, and others... so lots of search term variations.

Not to state the obvious but there are of course sources in Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle and Nakba and elsewhere on Wikipedia. The in-depth ones I know about are:

• Busailah 1981, "The Fall of Lydda, 1948: Impressions and Reminiscences" [2] (might be too old, pre-archives)
• Morris
  • "Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramle in 1948", 1986, [3]
  • Morris 2004, starting p. 423
  • Morris 2007, Making Israel, "The New Historiography: Israel Confronts Its Past," starting on p. 11; it's a reprint of a 1988 essay published in Tikkun (magazine)
  • Morris 2008, starting p. 286
• Masalha
  • Masalha 1988 [4] - discusses Lydda throughout (along with other expulsions)
  • Masalha 2003, starting p. 29 [5]; on WP:TWL: [6]
  • Masalha 2012, in various places in the book: pp. 76-79, 86, 170-171, and 179
  • Masalha 2018, various places, lots of history (not just the expulsion): 38, 46, 96, 165–7, 170, 178, 180–1, 186, 206, 303, 368, 383
• Munayyer 1998, "The Fall of Lydda" [7] (sometimes referenced as Walid Khalidi 1998, but Khalidi just wrote the intro)
• Kadish & Sela 2005, "Myths and Historiography of the 1948 Palestine War Revisited: The Case of Lydda" [8]
• Pappe 2006 (Ethnic Cleansing), starting p. 166
• Golan 2010, "Lydda and Ramle: from Palestinian-Arab to Israeli towns, 1948–67" [9] (PDF)
• Khoury 2012 - doesn't really get into the details so much, but does specifically talk about Morris 1987/2004 (Birth of...) and Pappe 2006, "We don’t need to prove what is now considered a historical fact ... No one will argue about names like Operation Dani or Operations Hiram and Dekel. Many stories of massacres, rape, and expulsion are known ..." [10]
• Hasian 2020, starting p. 82, he mentions it while talking about Israeli historiography, and specifically discusses Morris's 1988 essay in Tikkun (see also footnote 23 for that chapter)
• Manna 2022 (free), throughout the book; from the index: pp. 29, 42, 46, 48–49, 51–52, 91–92, 110, 126, 201–3, 212, 296nn72,73, 297n80, 307n56, 323n51

HTH! Levivich (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

did not know one could departy oneself. 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I departy all the time! I figured if editors can just add editors to the party list (without any evidence, without even a post on the RFAR page saying that they did that), then why can't editors just remove editors from the party list? Thinking about it, I wouldn't really mind having the power to add people to arbcom party lists... but of course that would be a recipe for chaos, so instead I sent my party list to arbcom by email along with links to on- and off-wiki discussions (before the RFAR party even started!). Levivich (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I've seen your name often recently, and it feels like it's always attached to a clear, well-reasoned comment. I'm always glad to see you participating in a discussion, thanks for doing so! —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, C727! Levivich (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but I believe inside of every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out, and I try to facilitate the nurturing and growth of that constructive editor. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mileage of others may vary -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say this is a point that either deserves an essay, or to be added to some existing essay or guideline. EEng 17:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we're all here to promote something, whether it's okra as in your case, holes in the head as in EEng's case, or, in my case, general strife and discord (the feeling, not the app, of course, as promoting the app would be against policy). Levivich (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. And here I thought I was the bleeding heart. -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are, but you be you. 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adr28382! Levivich (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we have pretty incongruent views on the current admin recall process, but I wanted to let you know I'm rather fond of you as an editor. Best wishes, Folly Mox (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Belated) Thanks, Folly Mox, likewise! Levivich (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

Motion 2b: Word limits

Motion 2c: Word limits

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

• BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
• Ïvana (talk · contribs)
• Levivich (talk · contribs)
• Nableezy (talk · contribs)
• Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
• האופה (talk · contribs)
• AndreJustAndre (talk · contribs)
• IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs)
• Alaexis (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Makeandtoss (talk · contribs)
• Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs)

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

@Selfstudier, Nableezy, and Zero0000: I'm curious what your thoughts are about Motion 2c, the 1,000-word blanket limit for two years? I think it will absolutely destroy any ability to discuss anything in this topic area, and I'm inclined to go to the community to overturn it. God, I can't imagine if RFCs and RMs are all decided based on sub-1,000-word sound bites. But I'm a verbose person, maybe it's just me? Levivich (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with it in principle but things like presentation of sources/quotes could quickly make a dent in that, I guess would have to do it elsewhere on the page and just link to it maybe. Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind it's 1,000 words per discussion, not per comment. So 3 people ask you a question, you have to be very concise in answering them. If they ask follow-ups, too bad, you're out of words, buddy! (And I think linking elsewhere may get you accused of "gaming the word limit.") Levivich (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather make a case and ignore questions. Gaming the word limit, I like that, a potential new offense, still I would stand on for that if it was a link to a source table. Someone sanction me for presenting sources, I hope not. Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dpndsnwhtsmntbythwrd'wrd' Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol we trn r whl lif 4 dis, we rdy Levivich (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not gaming :) Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no limit on the number of pictures that can be posted. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I raised these issues in my comments on the case request, and made my own suggestion to try to make a word limit workable in practice. But no one else commented on the practical difficulties of a word limit. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay the matter can be revisited as part of the case. Looking back I think the idea of the motions was based on a hope that a case might not be necessary but now that is going forward, then I would have thought potential remedies are once again up for discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a number of the arbitrators were at least somewhat familiar with the past cases, and felt it desirable to try something to reduce contention immediately, whether or not a case proceeded. Unless there's evidence of an issue while the case is ongoing, I imagine the arbitrators will give some time for the word limits to be tried out. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they actually in force as of now? Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as per the notice at the start of this section. isaacl (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same notice, just thought it was addressed only to the parties rather than the editor world at large. Selfstudier (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notice was posted on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. Notifications to those who commented is done as a courtesy. isaacl (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was silly to pass motions in addition to opening a case. If you’re going to open a case then actually give the proposals the consideration they deserve, have a workshop with a talk page so people can discuss the pros and cons of these things more fully before just slapping them down haphazardly. But yes I think it’s a bad idea. There lots of ways to deal with bludgeoning beyond some blanket word limit without understanding the particulars of any one discussion. nableezy - 19:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if this is the first time ArbCom acted to limit discussion. Next they will be telling us we don't discuss things enough. I begged them to at least exclude citations and quotations of sources from the word count, but was ignored. As for bludgeoning, 50 words each to provoke 20 other editors means one can bludgeon perfectly well in 1000 words. So this motion has no redeeming features whatever. Zero^talk 03:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ArbCom has had various limits on some types of contributions to ArbCom pages since at least 2007, and I believe several individuals have earned a "one edit per page per day" restriction over the years, but I don't recall seeing a general rule restricting everyone's contributions to RFCs or RMs before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your views everybody. I'm glad it's not just me. We'll see how it goes... Levivich (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for your well-constructed comments at RFA, especially your official !vote and analysis. You always have very persuasive arguments whenever I see you around. TheWikiToby (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TheWikiToby! Wish it could have been a well-constructed support instead of an oppose, but thank you for the kind words. Levivich (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am so sorry for the lateness. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies necessary, DaniloDaysOfOurLives--thank you! Levivich (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: unless there's some byplay between the two of you somewhere else to place it into context, to me, as an outside observer, your comment comes across as being somewhat confrontational and baiting. Would you consider removing it? isaacl (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what byplay is but I'm pretty sure we haven't engaged in it :-)

So no problem with him saying I don't know what I'm talking about? I would like it if he acknowledged otherwise. If you think that's baiting or confrontational, for me to stick up for myself, so be it. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You already responded, so everyone can see you stuck up for yourself. You're certainly aware that writing a mock hypothetical conversation is fairly likely to be badly received, which doesn't help achieve your goal. There are interesting questions about trying to automate identifying personas on the Internet, including ethical ones, which I think are worthy of a separate thread. I'd as soon not see it get derailed by meta-arguments about who knows more about the topic. All the same, I appreciate that you may have other views on the best course to pursue. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. isaacl (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: just curious, I can't recall any instances in the last five years of administrators pledging to follow any personal recall process and then not following through. To be fair, I don't track this; I can't even remember who has pledged to follow a personal recall process. Do you have specific examples in mind? isaacl (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I don't want to publicly name anybody so YGM. Levivich (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, by "not do it" I thought you meant not resign once the criteria set by their personal process have been met. I'm not quite as pessimistic as you regarding personal recall criteria, but I do think it's more equitable to have a standard process, so admin candidates are less likely to be pressured into increasingly stringent conditions. isaacl (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity could you please send this to me as well? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be a bit more pessimistic than isaacl. It's definitely an example for how voluntary recall is not taken seriously. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing but not surprising to hear. I was prepared to answer the "recall question" with something like "if Dark Asilvering has fucked up so bad they ought to be recalled, they're too far gone for voluntary recall to work anyway, so as a favour to my present self, please drag my future self's ass to ArbCom". I think in my ideal world we'd have some kind of admin actions review committee rather than the recall system we've got now, but in my ideal world I'd also have world peace and a pony. I'll take what we can get. -- asilvering (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there's always WP:XRV for a tune-up -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 23:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC), which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Dispute over the lead of the Zionism article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request for another arbitration case has now been declined. SilverLocust 💬 18:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by Worm That Turned's re-RfA where he noted administrators don't get a lot of feedback or suggestions for improvement, I have decided to solicit feedback. I'm reaching out to you as you are currently one of the users I've selected as part of my recall process. I hope you will consider taking a few moments to fill out my . Clicking on the link will load the questions and create a new section on my user talk. Thanks for your consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The drafters note that the scope of the case was somewhat unclear, and clarify that the scope is The interaction of named parties in the WP:PIA topic area and examination of the WP:AE process that led to two referrals to WP:ARCA. Because this was unclear, two changes are being made:

First, the Committee will accept submissions for new parties for the next three days, until 23:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC). Anyone who wishes to suggest a party to the case may do so by creating a new section on the evidence talk page, providing a reason with WP:DIFFS as to why the user should be added, and notifying the user. After the three-day period ends, no further submission of parties will be considered except in exceptional circumstances. Because the Committee only hears disputes that have failed to be resolved by the usual means, proposed parties should have been recently taken to AE/AN/ANI, and either not sanctioned, or incompletely sanctioned. If a proposed party has not been taken to AE/AN/ANI, evidence is needed as to why such an attempt would have been ineffective.

Second, the evidence phase has been extended by a week, and will now close at 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the ninth day of PIA, the committee gave to me:

Nine arb's a-votin',

Eight talk page threads,

Seven-day extension,

Six clerks a-clerkin',

FIVE CASE PAGES,

Four enacted motions,

Three new-party days,

Two inactive arbs,

And a thousand word limit for me! Levivich (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Selfstudier. Thank you. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you're probably incredibly busy right now, but I wanted to let you know that I finally incorporated some of your feedback for the lead of Jehovah's Witnesses and I think the article is much better for it. It was easier for me to write a better lead once the rest of the article was less of a mess. I still can't believe that it used to have 100+ citations to the group's magazines. I've also been pretty proactive in fleshing out content omissions and explaining what a lot of Witness jargon means. Good luck with all the stuff you're dealing with, and I hope you have a good holiday season. If you're a musical type of person, I really enjoyed seeing Wicked. Sometimes it's nice to escape reality for a little while. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always leave the lead for last. EEng 23:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was one of the last things. I'm mostly just trying to get the finishing touches done everywhere else at this point. I'm really proud of what I've done so far. The bulk of what's left is fleshing out the government interactions section out more and maybe creating additional spinoff articles. Then fixing the rest of the topic area's reliance on primary sources, which is going to take forever. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome, CM! The lead reads great now!

I'm weird, I like operas but hate musicals. Never seen Wicked but maybe I'll give it a try. Levivich (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an absolute sucker for musicals. I've never really watched opera, but if you have any suggestions, I'll consider listening to them. I do love listening to music, afterall. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My all-time favorite: [11], specifically the 1973 movie version. Levivich (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]