This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Free Palestine Movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Free Palestine Movement, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This article is unbalanced, contains unsubstantiated statements and does not comply with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. I have been threatened 3 times with being blocked from editing by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vif12vf for alleged vandalism and disruptive editing when all I did was edit this article to make it more consistent with a more dominant, widespread, and commonly understood meaning of the term ‘free Palestine movement.’ I call on other editors to intervene and allow the article I proposed to be published along with a disambiguation page if the current article is to be maintained. Jgraham1956 ( talk) 19:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vif12vf:
Your edits are unbalanced and you are clearly not following Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy in deleting my edits to this article. Ask most people in the world what ‘free Palestine movement’ means and most people will say Palestinian resistance or words to that effect, NOT mention a Syrian-Palestinian group founded 16 years ago. You are misleading the public, spreading misinformation and damaging Wikipedia’s credibility as an online information source. Jgraham1956 ( talk) 19:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Free Palestine Movement NPOV dispute. Disagreement over whether current article complies with NPOV Policy and whether article proposed at this link: Special:Diff/906040376 should be permitted to stand alongside existing article and a disambiguation page. Jgraham1956 ( talk) 17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Complaint about the bias in Wikipedia’s apparent insistence to portray the ‘Free Palestine Movement’ as a 16 year old Syrian-Palestinian armed group no one has heard of, rather than the Palestinian struggle against colonialism (a long-standing resistance movement which crosses political lines and ideologies, not limited to a single armed group of dubious standing) which goes back 100+ years and is the most accurate, dominant and internationally recognised understanding of the term ‘Free Palestine Movement.’ The current article is misleading the general public, non-compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy and undermining Wikipedia’s credibility. The factual accuracy, neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy of the current Free Palestine Movement article are all disputed but instead of letting those tags stand until the dispute is resolved as required by Wikipedia guidelines, the tags I have added to the article noting these concerns are simply deleted repeatedly by User:Vif12vf (who has threatened me with being blocked from editing three times based on accusations of ‘disruptive’ editing and ‘vandalism’). I have tried to resolve this matter through this talk page, to no avail. I therefore call on other Wikipedia editors and subject matter experts to intervene. The solution is in my view simple: instead of gagging dissent and undermining objectivity, allow both the thoroughly researched and professionally written article I have proposed (and which has been published on Wikipedia but which User:Vif12vf has repeatedly taken down) for ‘Free Palestine Movement’ (available here: Special:Diff/906040376) and the existing ‘Free Palestine Movement’ page (WITH disputed accuracy, neutrality and POV tags) to stand, and introduce a disambiguation page. The solution is not to silence the truth, however uncomfortable it is, but to encourage and harness multi-dimensional contributions and allow them to flourish. The NPOV Policy is clear. It can’t be one rule for some and another rule for others.17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraham1956 ( talk • contribs)
@ Applodion: thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback. The objective was not to ‘destroy’ the existing article, as you put it. The objective was to ensure that Wikipedia readers are informed that the term ‘free Palestine movement’ refers most commonly and most dominantly based on a global litmus test to a political resistance movement composed of multiple parties and has been around for over a century. The 16 year old armed group that currently features being the only ‘Free Palestine Movement’ Wikipedia page that exists risks misleading the general public into thinking that a long standing, broad-based political movement is limited to a 16 year old armed group of dubious standing. The first paragraph of the current article contains a number of unsubstantiated statements lacking citations (hence questions about its accuracy.) The sources it does refer to appear to be very one-sided and come across as having an ulterior motive (presenting a Zionist narrative as gospel) - hence the non-compliance with Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy and questions about neutrality. The NPOV Policy is very clear - it cannot be one rule for some and another rule for others (which is the vibe I’m getting at the moment.) I have already tried to publish the article I am proposing at Special:Diff/906040376 as a separate article and look forward to receiving Wikipedia’s response. I am not proposing to ‘destroy’ the existing article, but have both the existing article and my proposed article exist along with a disambiguation page distinguishing between resistance movement (my proposed article) and armed group (existing article). I appreciate your contention that there are already pages referring to some limited aspects of Palestinian resistance (Palestinian nationalism, Greater Palestine, History of the State of Palestine), but the article I am proposing covers ground that those articles do not (please read it and you will see how.) The effect of Wikipedia having only one ‘Free Palestine Movement’ page (the little-known armed group), even if not the intention, is to divert attention away from the Palestinian struggle for liberation from colonialism (the most dominant meaning of the expression) and mislead the public by omitting its history from public view. I suggest my article (see link above) is allowed to be published, that the current page remains as it is and a disambiguation page is introduced. Please confirm whether or not you agree with this request and, if not, why not. Jgraham1956 ( talk) 20:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:GS/SCW&ISIL notification}}
and it accepts up to three parameters, read the documentation carefully before using it. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)@ Adoring nanny: thank you for recognising that my intentions are to improve Wikipedia and not to vandalise it. If there is indeed a rule requiring editors to have made 500 edits before they can publish material on the Arab-Israeli conflict, then I have to take issue with it. How does this make anyone more qualified to comment on the issue? This could simply mean that the editor is savvier in the ways of Wikipedia or has a lot more time to devote to editing Wikipedia, not necessarily that they are better qualified to comment. Let me quote from the WP:NPOV policy: “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it...
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.”
The current ‘Free Palestine Movement’ article is in effect (whether it is intended to be or not and for reasons already exhaustively explained above) in flagrant breach of this requirement, as would be a decision by Wikipedia not to publish my article. So Wikipedia can use the excuse that the current FPM article is about the specific armed movement and not the political resistance movement, that editors on the Arab-Israeli conflict must have a minimum of 500 edits, that I am disruptive or a vandal - the effect is the same: gagging dissent, uncomfortable truths and silencing people who fall on the ‘wrong side’ of WP:NPOV. On whether or not my article ( available here) is itself compliant with WP:NPOV, I reiterate that the article is extensively researched from a number of reliable sources, supported by facts and figures, professionally written and adds value to Wikipedia by providing content which is not currently covered on Wikipedia. If there is content that people view as biased or lacking in neutrality, then let’s have that article published and have a healthy debate about it (exactly as is happening with the current FPM article) or have people propose edits to it (exactly as is not being allowed to happen with the current FPM article.) As User:Applodion begrudgingly admits, ‘free Palestine movement’ is a term used to describe the broader Palestinian resistance movement. My central argument is that it is the most dominant and widely recognised understanding of the term. So Wikipedia appears to be digging its heels in with a view to maintaining a situation that is misleading its readership and deliberately concealing a historical injustice. The taking of a human life is regrettable whoever the victim and the intention in my article was not to place a higher value on Palestinian life than Israeli civilian or Jewish life, the intention was to provide a history of Palestinian resistance against colonialism in the face of a vast imbalance of power and wave upon wave of injustice, the effects of which continue to be felt, both online and in the physical world. Jgraham195612:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Jgraham1956 ( talk) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No matter what you may believe about any movement to free Palestine, the fact is clear that "Free Palestine Movement" is a proper name and this page referring to only that specific organization is not a WP:NPOV violation. If you have specific neutrality complaints regarding this specific article regarding this specific organization, you should address that on this talk page in a new section. As for a new article to address to overall movement to free Palestine, you have submitted your article and it has been responded to. If you have problems with that decision, it can be addressed on that page. Or you may propose edits to the Palestinian nationalism page to cover what you claim it is currently lacking. A disambiguation page seems largely unnecessary unless you get a "Free Palestine movement" (lowercase m) article approved. The 500-edit-history requirement is, in part, to prevent confusion such as this, not as an effort to oppress dissent. (Regarding your proposed article, please visit WP:MOSLINK and consider reducing the use of wikilinks to only the first instance of a term.) Tchouppy ( talk) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Jgraham1956 response 21 July 2019:
1. One-sided threats: I have been threatened with being blocked from editing for reversions made to the Free Palestine Movement page a total of 4 times by User:Vif12vf. These threats are available for all to see here (if you cannot see them there, let me know and I will pass them on). I received a welcome message from Wikipedia after receiving the threats - which is a bit like joining a club, being threatened with being thrown out and then being offered a cup of tea (a frosty and far from genuine welcome to say the least.) I note the point about more than one reversion within 24 hours being banned as edit-warring, but I challenge Wikipedia to demonstrate that it adopts a similar approach to reversions that serve a Zionist agenda or are favourable to a Zionist narrative (for example, was User:Vif12vf threatened with being blocked for his reversions? Of course not.) This is a breach of the WP:NPOV.
2. Article rejection, hollow alternative offered and discriminatory policies: User:Bkissin in his rejection of my article and User:Tchouppy in subsequent comments suggest that I edit the current Palestinian nationalism page to incorporate content from my article that is not currently covered instead of creating a new 'Free Palestine movement' page ( User:C.Fred and User:Applodion seem to think that decapitalising the 'm' in movement is going to make a difference to my article's chances of success (or at least distinguishing it from the 'proper name' used in the current article) - I do not share their pedantic optimism because I used a small 'm' in my article and it was still rejected ( User:Bkissin doesn't seem to care if it's a small 'm' or capital 'M', he or she just doesn't want it there.) Just as importantly, I do not have the option of editing the current Palestinian nationalism page to include content from my article as suggested by User:Bkissin and User:Tchouppy because of WP:A/I/PIA, which requires Wikipedia editors to have 500 edits to their name before they can publish material on the Arab-Israeli conflict. So I am being directed to a door which is closed. The intent is clear - 'go away, User:Jgraham1956'. WP:A/I/PIA is discriminatory because it favours editors with lots of time to spare to edit Wikipedia or who may be more tech savvy than others (such as Wikipedia editors funded by Israel to maintain pro-Israel, pro-Zionist narratives in mainstream online content), but may not necessarily be qualified to comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and excludes people with fewer than 500 edits. WP:A/I/PIA favours 'institutional' editors who are funded and resourced to spend large amounts of time editing Wikipedia and excludes your average Wikipedia editor, who may nevertheless know a lot about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would go as far as to say that WP:A/I/PIA, even if this was not the intent, is in this case effectively in direct conflict with WP:NPOV. Again, this 'set up' is a breach of WP:NPOV. User:Tchouppy says that "The 500-edit-history requirement is, in part, to prevent confusion such as this, not as an effort to oppress dissent" - please elaborate on how this objective is achieved. My contention is that the effect of this requirement is to gag dissent and exclude the participation of potentially very qualified editors, on grounds which are irrelevant to their level of suitability to comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please enlighten me on how this is not the case.
3. Systematic discrimination and selective publication: Wikipedia not only exclusively has one page called Free Palestine Movement (that little-known 16 year old Syrian armed group), which has the effect of misleading the general public and obscuring uncomfortable truths about injustices committed at Palestinians' expense (and their attempts to resist them) from public view, but it also has another page called Palestinian Freedom Movement which relates to an equally little-known 12 year old Palestinian armed group. Both articles contain unsubstantiated statements, lack citations (in breach of WP:V) and demonstrate inherent bias (in breach of WP:NPOV). There is a pattern here. Wikipedia editors are making a concerted effort to reduce Palestinian efforts to seek liberation from colonial oppression to a couple of terrorist groups, are permissive in the requirements they apply to editors putting forward such articles and do not want anyone to edit them at all costs - this is serving and protecting a Zionist narrative. Wikipedia's approach is in breach of its own WP:NPOV.
4. A note to the pedants, Wikipedia prioritising red herrings over elephants in the room: A note to User:Applodion, User:C.Fred and User:Tchouppy who are very keen to point out that the current Free Palestine Movement page is a proper name, and that my article should therefore be 'movement' with a small 'm' (which is how it was submitted and rejected.) The term 'Free Palestine movement' is publicly and widely understood to mean Palestinian efforts to seek liberation from occupation - it is BOTH a description/expression AND a proper name. The position Wikipedia is maintaining by insisting on having only one Free Palestine Movement page (and not another one with a small 'm' for 'movement,' or including this as a searchable term linking to the existing Palestinian nationalism page), as well as rejecting having a disambiguation page in place distinguishing specific armed group from wider political movement (or Palestinian nationalism page, as I have requested), which would add value to Wikipedia: (a) has the potential to cause confusion; (b) is indicative of innate pro-Zionist bias; (c) demonstrates that Wikipedia does not want to fix the issue; and (d) is in breach of the WP:NPOV. It is like saying that ' Free Nelson Mandela' is purely a song by The Specials while ignoring the wider political movement advocated by the African National Congress and other supporters of Nelson Mandela seeking an end to his incarceration and the discriminatory practices of Apartheid, which was the inspiration for the song in the first place. It is like saying that Macdonalds is a furniture and appliances store in Ontario, Canada (which it is) while refusing to distinguish it from the much larger and more widely known fast food chain by introducing a disambiguation page. In short: Wikipedia is in denial, seizing upon a red herring, ignoring the Elephant in the room in a concerted effort to mislead and maintain a pro-Zionist narrative, reduce Palestinian efforts seeking freedom from occupation (which have historically been expressed through a variety of non-violent means, such as civil disobedience and efforts to get Wikipedia to comply with its WP:NPOV) to some terrorist groups - 'listen, general public, these are just a bunch of guys with guns and bombs' is in effect what Wikipedia is saying - never mind that a majority of world states have recognised their state or a majority of people around the world according to a number of opinion polls support ending Israel's occupation of the Israeli-occupied territories and the injustices Israel continues to carry out at Palestinians' expense (see my article for sources backing up these statements).
5. Reasonable, value-adding compromise rejected: WP:DR requires Wikipedia editors to be open to compromise in their approach to resolving disputes or considering Requests for Comments (see 'Tips'). When my article was rejected, I offered the compromise of a disambiguation page at least between Free Palestine Movement and Palestinian nationalism (which User:Bkissin referred to in his/her rejection message as Palestinian liberation), but this idea has not yet been accepted by Wikipedia. The current Free Palestine Movement lists Palestinian nationalism among the armed group's ideologies. The intent is clear: Wikipedia wants us to believe that a bona fide movement seeking an end to colonial oppression (which has used civil disobedience and other non-violent means to do so) is nothing but a few guys with guns and bombs, basically terrorists - Wikipedia not only sees a link between the two but wants us to believe that they are one and the same. This heightens the risk of confusion and the need for disambiguation, so I reiterate my request that Wikipedia introduces a disambiguation page distinguishing Free Palestine Movement and Palestinian nationalism, with Palestinian liberation being a search term that links to the Palestinian nationalism page if it is not already. For the reasons outlined in this message, I am skeptical of the likelihood that Wikipedia will look upon my request favourably, but I would welcome being proven wrong.
6. Why you cannot easily find the 'Free Palestine movement' (small m) on Google: User:Applodion says s/he can only find the current Free Palestine Movement page and the California-based Human Rights organisation of the same name on a Google search and challenges me to provide proof that the term 'free Palestine movement' refers to Palestinian efforts to seek an end to colonial oppression in their occupied territories. Let me explain: (a) Wikipedia want you to think that the term ' Free Palestine movement' (small 'm'!) is just that armed group and nothing else because they are engaging in concerted efforts to erase the injustices propagated against Palestinians (and their efforts to resist them) from their online content. In short, they want the young and future generations both now and with the passage of time (when Wikipedia eventually acquires a monopoly on public thought - it is already a widely used reference tool) to know nothing of Palestinian efforts to oppose the injustices they have suffered; (b) the Palestinian resistance to occupation and injustice are over 100 years old - they predate both Wikipedia and the internet by quite some distance in time. In those days, particularly as many Palestinians were farming folk, not as much was documented about their resistance efforts. However, to demonstrate to you that 'Free Palestine' is a movement and not just an armed group, here are some examples: (1) Palestinian resistance in the early 20th Century (note that the article refers to 'the withholding of their freedom and the continuance of Mandatory rule'; 'Palestinian demands for independence' and their 'attainment of national independence'); (2) History.com article (indicating that 'the people of Palestine have a strong desire to create a free and independent state'); (3) This JSTOR article (referring to Palestinian 'freedom from colonial occupation'); (4) Twitter example; (5) This Stanford University academic paper (referring to 'THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT'); (6) This JSTOR article (referring to 'the Palestine Liberation Movement'); (7) This JSTOR article (referring to a Palestinian 'national liberation movement'); (8) This BBC article (referencing UK labour party politicians chanting 'Free Palestine'); (9) This JSTOR article (referring to Palestinian folk songs themed around liberation from occupation and colonial oppression); (c) Israel has a propaganda, sorry diplomacy (let's use the language Wikipedia uses) machine called Hasbara which is doing its best to ensure that pro-Israel and pro-Zionist narratives dominate in mainstream online sources such as Wikipedia and Google - they seem to be doing pretty well!
7. Wikipedia took down (and kept taking down) my dispute tags: Not only is Wikipedia not comfortable with edits to current Free Palestine Movement article content, it will also not tolerate any suggestion that the article's content is disputed, lacking in neutrality or unbalanced (the 'Disputed,' 'POV' and 'Unbalanced' tags I added to the article on multiple occasions to note this at the top of the article on grounds that there are a number of unsubstantiated statements in the article lacking citations, that the sources are very one-sided, deliberately obstructive of the wider Palestinian resistance narrative and unbalanced were taken down repeatedly by User:Vif12vf and Wikipedia seems to have settled on accepting User:Vif12vf's position. Again, a clear breach of WP:NPOV and a clear demonstration that Wikipedia is gagging dissent while maintaining the facade of balanced content.
Conclusion: So, to briefly summarise: Wikipedia suffers from innate pro-Zionist bias. This manifests itself in the threats, official response to article proposal, comments and RfC intervention I have received from Wikipedia editors (which as a result I have no confidence in and do not view as a truly impartial process). It also manifests itself in Wikipedia's discriminatory policies ( WP:A/I/PIA), which also conflict with other policies WP:NPOV, as well as Wikipedia's selective application of its WP:DR, WP:V and WP:NPOV policies, and systematic removal of 'disputed,' 'POV' and 'unbalanced' tags I added to the current Free Palestine Movement page.
PS: User:Tchouppy: Thank you for enlightening me about WP:MOSLINK. I have also put this response in my sandbox as you have suggested, so the editors reviewing my article request can receive it. Depending on how the rest of the discussion goes, I may also publish this entire discussion further afield. To quote Nelson Mandela, 'We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.' Jgraham1956 ( talk) 21:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
i want to publish an article about Mofeq, so I want to [[' em. 89.15.237.108 ( talk) 01:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
A play called 'A flag is born' presents the first incident of the slogan 'Free Palestine', cheering for a jewishstate. /info/en/?search=A_Flag_Is_Born
I believe this article is inaccurate, and biased without discussing this piece of history. I am calling for a consensus to change the article. 95.86.64.127 ( talk) 23:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that 'A Flag is Born' be the first piece of flyering for 'a Free Palestine' /info/en/?search=A_Flag_Is_Born Raconcilio ( talk) 23:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
First of all, you claimed on the page that Palestine wants "Israel" not to exist, which is completely wrong! If you study the religion of a country before writing the text, you will find that it is mentioned in "Islam" and the writings of people that you should not destroy the people of Bani Israel, but guide them to the right path.
Why are the Palestinian people protesting? Suppose a killer is in your house for several years and puts a knife under your throat, won't you defend yourself?!!! Yes, you defend! Palestine has been surrounded by Israel for 70 years, and because of this, Palestine defended itself for the first time, and what was the world's reaction? that Palestine did something bad? not at all
Palestine is not against Israel or Judaism, please don't spread such nonsense.
Rather, the Palestinian people are suffering from a lack of food due to the siege by Israel, and Israel is genocidating their generation!
Do you disagree with me? Don't you want to accept the truth? So shame on you! Shame on your upbringing! Shame on your humanity!!! 2.190.225.223 ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is full of mistakes, are you sure this is a free encyclopedia and you claim it has the most reliable information?! It's more like a book full of lies! My little girl lies less than here! 0 2.190.225.223 ( talk) 18:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
[text removed]
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Free Palstine is Fraze used by the pro Plastinen Movment aginst Isrea's/Amircan Occupation of Arab Countery(Palstine) TellTheTruthOrDieTrying ( talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Free Palestine Movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Free Palestine Movement, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
This article is unbalanced, contains unsubstantiated statements and does not comply with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. I have been threatened 3 times with being blocked from editing by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vif12vf for alleged vandalism and disruptive editing when all I did was edit this article to make it more consistent with a more dominant, widespread, and commonly understood meaning of the term ‘free Palestine movement.’ I call on other editors to intervene and allow the article I proposed to be published along with a disambiguation page if the current article is to be maintained. Jgraham1956 ( talk) 19:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vif12vf:
Your edits are unbalanced and you are clearly not following Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy in deleting my edits to this article. Ask most people in the world what ‘free Palestine movement’ means and most people will say Palestinian resistance or words to that effect, NOT mention a Syrian-Palestinian group founded 16 years ago. You are misleading the public, spreading misinformation and damaging Wikipedia’s credibility as an online information source. Jgraham1956 ( talk) 19:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Free Palestine Movement NPOV dispute. Disagreement over whether current article complies with NPOV Policy and whether article proposed at this link: Special:Diff/906040376 should be permitted to stand alongside existing article and a disambiguation page. Jgraham1956 ( talk) 17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Complaint about the bias in Wikipedia’s apparent insistence to portray the ‘Free Palestine Movement’ as a 16 year old Syrian-Palestinian armed group no one has heard of, rather than the Palestinian struggle against colonialism (a long-standing resistance movement which crosses political lines and ideologies, not limited to a single armed group of dubious standing) which goes back 100+ years and is the most accurate, dominant and internationally recognised understanding of the term ‘Free Palestine Movement.’ The current article is misleading the general public, non-compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy and undermining Wikipedia’s credibility. The factual accuracy, neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy of the current Free Palestine Movement article are all disputed but instead of letting those tags stand until the dispute is resolved as required by Wikipedia guidelines, the tags I have added to the article noting these concerns are simply deleted repeatedly by User:Vif12vf (who has threatened me with being blocked from editing three times based on accusations of ‘disruptive’ editing and ‘vandalism’). I have tried to resolve this matter through this talk page, to no avail. I therefore call on other Wikipedia editors and subject matter experts to intervene. The solution is in my view simple: instead of gagging dissent and undermining objectivity, allow both the thoroughly researched and professionally written article I have proposed (and which has been published on Wikipedia but which User:Vif12vf has repeatedly taken down) for ‘Free Palestine Movement’ (available here: Special:Diff/906040376) and the existing ‘Free Palestine Movement’ page (WITH disputed accuracy, neutrality and POV tags) to stand, and introduce a disambiguation page. The solution is not to silence the truth, however uncomfortable it is, but to encourage and harness multi-dimensional contributions and allow them to flourish. The NPOV Policy is clear. It can’t be one rule for some and another rule for others.17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraham1956 ( talk • contribs)
@ Applodion: thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback. The objective was not to ‘destroy’ the existing article, as you put it. The objective was to ensure that Wikipedia readers are informed that the term ‘free Palestine movement’ refers most commonly and most dominantly based on a global litmus test to a political resistance movement composed of multiple parties and has been around for over a century. The 16 year old armed group that currently features being the only ‘Free Palestine Movement’ Wikipedia page that exists risks misleading the general public into thinking that a long standing, broad-based political movement is limited to a 16 year old armed group of dubious standing. The first paragraph of the current article contains a number of unsubstantiated statements lacking citations (hence questions about its accuracy.) The sources it does refer to appear to be very one-sided and come across as having an ulterior motive (presenting a Zionist narrative as gospel) - hence the non-compliance with Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy and questions about neutrality. The NPOV Policy is very clear - it cannot be one rule for some and another rule for others (which is the vibe I’m getting at the moment.) I have already tried to publish the article I am proposing at Special:Diff/906040376 as a separate article and look forward to receiving Wikipedia’s response. I am not proposing to ‘destroy’ the existing article, but have both the existing article and my proposed article exist along with a disambiguation page distinguishing between resistance movement (my proposed article) and armed group (existing article). I appreciate your contention that there are already pages referring to some limited aspects of Palestinian resistance (Palestinian nationalism, Greater Palestine, History of the State of Palestine), but the article I am proposing covers ground that those articles do not (please read it and you will see how.) The effect of Wikipedia having only one ‘Free Palestine Movement’ page (the little-known armed group), even if not the intention, is to divert attention away from the Palestinian struggle for liberation from colonialism (the most dominant meaning of the expression) and mislead the public by omitting its history from public view. I suggest my article (see link above) is allowed to be published, that the current page remains as it is and a disambiguation page is introduced. Please confirm whether or not you agree with this request and, if not, why not. Jgraham1956 ( talk) 20:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
subst:GS/SCW&ISIL notification}}
and it accepts up to three parameters, read the documentation carefully before using it. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 10:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)@ Adoring nanny: thank you for recognising that my intentions are to improve Wikipedia and not to vandalise it. If there is indeed a rule requiring editors to have made 500 edits before they can publish material on the Arab-Israeli conflict, then I have to take issue with it. How does this make anyone more qualified to comment on the issue? This could simply mean that the editor is savvier in the ways of Wikipedia or has a lot more time to devote to editing Wikipedia, not necessarily that they are better qualified to comment. Let me quote from the WP:NPOV policy: “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it...
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.”
The current ‘Free Palestine Movement’ article is in effect (whether it is intended to be or not and for reasons already exhaustively explained above) in flagrant breach of this requirement, as would be a decision by Wikipedia not to publish my article. So Wikipedia can use the excuse that the current FPM article is about the specific armed movement and not the political resistance movement, that editors on the Arab-Israeli conflict must have a minimum of 500 edits, that I am disruptive or a vandal - the effect is the same: gagging dissent, uncomfortable truths and silencing people who fall on the ‘wrong side’ of WP:NPOV. On whether or not my article ( available here) is itself compliant with WP:NPOV, I reiterate that the article is extensively researched from a number of reliable sources, supported by facts and figures, professionally written and adds value to Wikipedia by providing content which is not currently covered on Wikipedia. If there is content that people view as biased or lacking in neutrality, then let’s have that article published and have a healthy debate about it (exactly as is happening with the current FPM article) or have people propose edits to it (exactly as is not being allowed to happen with the current FPM article.) As User:Applodion begrudgingly admits, ‘free Palestine movement’ is a term used to describe the broader Palestinian resistance movement. My central argument is that it is the most dominant and widely recognised understanding of the term. So Wikipedia appears to be digging its heels in with a view to maintaining a situation that is misleading its readership and deliberately concealing a historical injustice. The taking of a human life is regrettable whoever the victim and the intention in my article was not to place a higher value on Palestinian life than Israeli civilian or Jewish life, the intention was to provide a history of Palestinian resistance against colonialism in the face of a vast imbalance of power and wave upon wave of injustice, the effects of which continue to be felt, both online and in the physical world. Jgraham195612:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Jgraham1956 ( talk) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
No matter what you may believe about any movement to free Palestine, the fact is clear that "Free Palestine Movement" is a proper name and this page referring to only that specific organization is not a WP:NPOV violation. If you have specific neutrality complaints regarding this specific article regarding this specific organization, you should address that on this talk page in a new section. As for a new article to address to overall movement to free Palestine, you have submitted your article and it has been responded to. If you have problems with that decision, it can be addressed on that page. Or you may propose edits to the Palestinian nationalism page to cover what you claim it is currently lacking. A disambiguation page seems largely unnecessary unless you get a "Free Palestine movement" (lowercase m) article approved. The 500-edit-history requirement is, in part, to prevent confusion such as this, not as an effort to oppress dissent. (Regarding your proposed article, please visit WP:MOSLINK and consider reducing the use of wikilinks to only the first instance of a term.) Tchouppy ( talk) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Jgraham1956 response 21 July 2019:
1. One-sided threats: I have been threatened with being blocked from editing for reversions made to the Free Palestine Movement page a total of 4 times by User:Vif12vf. These threats are available for all to see here (if you cannot see them there, let me know and I will pass them on). I received a welcome message from Wikipedia after receiving the threats - which is a bit like joining a club, being threatened with being thrown out and then being offered a cup of tea (a frosty and far from genuine welcome to say the least.) I note the point about more than one reversion within 24 hours being banned as edit-warring, but I challenge Wikipedia to demonstrate that it adopts a similar approach to reversions that serve a Zionist agenda or are favourable to a Zionist narrative (for example, was User:Vif12vf threatened with being blocked for his reversions? Of course not.) This is a breach of the WP:NPOV.
2. Article rejection, hollow alternative offered and discriminatory policies: User:Bkissin in his rejection of my article and User:Tchouppy in subsequent comments suggest that I edit the current Palestinian nationalism page to incorporate content from my article that is not currently covered instead of creating a new 'Free Palestine movement' page ( User:C.Fred and User:Applodion seem to think that decapitalising the 'm' in movement is going to make a difference to my article's chances of success (or at least distinguishing it from the 'proper name' used in the current article) - I do not share their pedantic optimism because I used a small 'm' in my article and it was still rejected ( User:Bkissin doesn't seem to care if it's a small 'm' or capital 'M', he or she just doesn't want it there.) Just as importantly, I do not have the option of editing the current Palestinian nationalism page to include content from my article as suggested by User:Bkissin and User:Tchouppy because of WP:A/I/PIA, which requires Wikipedia editors to have 500 edits to their name before they can publish material on the Arab-Israeli conflict. So I am being directed to a door which is closed. The intent is clear - 'go away, User:Jgraham1956'. WP:A/I/PIA is discriminatory because it favours editors with lots of time to spare to edit Wikipedia or who may be more tech savvy than others (such as Wikipedia editors funded by Israel to maintain pro-Israel, pro-Zionist narratives in mainstream online content), but may not necessarily be qualified to comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and excludes people with fewer than 500 edits. WP:A/I/PIA favours 'institutional' editors who are funded and resourced to spend large amounts of time editing Wikipedia and excludes your average Wikipedia editor, who may nevertheless know a lot about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would go as far as to say that WP:A/I/PIA, even if this was not the intent, is in this case effectively in direct conflict with WP:NPOV. Again, this 'set up' is a breach of WP:NPOV. User:Tchouppy says that "The 500-edit-history requirement is, in part, to prevent confusion such as this, not as an effort to oppress dissent" - please elaborate on how this objective is achieved. My contention is that the effect of this requirement is to gag dissent and exclude the participation of potentially very qualified editors, on grounds which are irrelevant to their level of suitability to comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please enlighten me on how this is not the case.
3. Systematic discrimination and selective publication: Wikipedia not only exclusively has one page called Free Palestine Movement (that little-known 16 year old Syrian armed group), which has the effect of misleading the general public and obscuring uncomfortable truths about injustices committed at Palestinians' expense (and their attempts to resist them) from public view, but it also has another page called Palestinian Freedom Movement which relates to an equally little-known 12 year old Palestinian armed group. Both articles contain unsubstantiated statements, lack citations (in breach of WP:V) and demonstrate inherent bias (in breach of WP:NPOV). There is a pattern here. Wikipedia editors are making a concerted effort to reduce Palestinian efforts to seek liberation from colonial oppression to a couple of terrorist groups, are permissive in the requirements they apply to editors putting forward such articles and do not want anyone to edit them at all costs - this is serving and protecting a Zionist narrative. Wikipedia's approach is in breach of its own WP:NPOV.
4. A note to the pedants, Wikipedia prioritising red herrings over elephants in the room: A note to User:Applodion, User:C.Fred and User:Tchouppy who are very keen to point out that the current Free Palestine Movement page is a proper name, and that my article should therefore be 'movement' with a small 'm' (which is how it was submitted and rejected.) The term 'Free Palestine movement' is publicly and widely understood to mean Palestinian efforts to seek liberation from occupation - it is BOTH a description/expression AND a proper name. The position Wikipedia is maintaining by insisting on having only one Free Palestine Movement page (and not another one with a small 'm' for 'movement,' or including this as a searchable term linking to the existing Palestinian nationalism page), as well as rejecting having a disambiguation page in place distinguishing specific armed group from wider political movement (or Palestinian nationalism page, as I have requested), which would add value to Wikipedia: (a) has the potential to cause confusion; (b) is indicative of innate pro-Zionist bias; (c) demonstrates that Wikipedia does not want to fix the issue; and (d) is in breach of the WP:NPOV. It is like saying that ' Free Nelson Mandela' is purely a song by The Specials while ignoring the wider political movement advocated by the African National Congress and other supporters of Nelson Mandela seeking an end to his incarceration and the discriminatory practices of Apartheid, which was the inspiration for the song in the first place. It is like saying that Macdonalds is a furniture and appliances store in Ontario, Canada (which it is) while refusing to distinguish it from the much larger and more widely known fast food chain by introducing a disambiguation page. In short: Wikipedia is in denial, seizing upon a red herring, ignoring the Elephant in the room in a concerted effort to mislead and maintain a pro-Zionist narrative, reduce Palestinian efforts seeking freedom from occupation (which have historically been expressed through a variety of non-violent means, such as civil disobedience and efforts to get Wikipedia to comply with its WP:NPOV) to some terrorist groups - 'listen, general public, these are just a bunch of guys with guns and bombs' is in effect what Wikipedia is saying - never mind that a majority of world states have recognised their state or a majority of people around the world according to a number of opinion polls support ending Israel's occupation of the Israeli-occupied territories and the injustices Israel continues to carry out at Palestinians' expense (see my article for sources backing up these statements).
5. Reasonable, value-adding compromise rejected: WP:DR requires Wikipedia editors to be open to compromise in their approach to resolving disputes or considering Requests for Comments (see 'Tips'). When my article was rejected, I offered the compromise of a disambiguation page at least between Free Palestine Movement and Palestinian nationalism (which User:Bkissin referred to in his/her rejection message as Palestinian liberation), but this idea has not yet been accepted by Wikipedia. The current Free Palestine Movement lists Palestinian nationalism among the armed group's ideologies. The intent is clear: Wikipedia wants us to believe that a bona fide movement seeking an end to colonial oppression (which has used civil disobedience and other non-violent means to do so) is nothing but a few guys with guns and bombs, basically terrorists - Wikipedia not only sees a link between the two but wants us to believe that they are one and the same. This heightens the risk of confusion and the need for disambiguation, so I reiterate my request that Wikipedia introduces a disambiguation page distinguishing Free Palestine Movement and Palestinian nationalism, with Palestinian liberation being a search term that links to the Palestinian nationalism page if it is not already. For the reasons outlined in this message, I am skeptical of the likelihood that Wikipedia will look upon my request favourably, but I would welcome being proven wrong.
6. Why you cannot easily find the 'Free Palestine movement' (small m) on Google: User:Applodion says s/he can only find the current Free Palestine Movement page and the California-based Human Rights organisation of the same name on a Google search and challenges me to provide proof that the term 'free Palestine movement' refers to Palestinian efforts to seek an end to colonial oppression in their occupied territories. Let me explain: (a) Wikipedia want you to think that the term ' Free Palestine movement' (small 'm'!) is just that armed group and nothing else because they are engaging in concerted efforts to erase the injustices propagated against Palestinians (and their efforts to resist them) from their online content. In short, they want the young and future generations both now and with the passage of time (when Wikipedia eventually acquires a monopoly on public thought - it is already a widely used reference tool) to know nothing of Palestinian efforts to oppose the injustices they have suffered; (b) the Palestinian resistance to occupation and injustice are over 100 years old - they predate both Wikipedia and the internet by quite some distance in time. In those days, particularly as many Palestinians were farming folk, not as much was documented about their resistance efforts. However, to demonstrate to you that 'Free Palestine' is a movement and not just an armed group, here are some examples: (1) Palestinian resistance in the early 20th Century (note that the article refers to 'the withholding of their freedom and the continuance of Mandatory rule'; 'Palestinian demands for independence' and their 'attainment of national independence'); (2) History.com article (indicating that 'the people of Palestine have a strong desire to create a free and independent state'); (3) This JSTOR article (referring to Palestinian 'freedom from colonial occupation'); (4) Twitter example; (5) This Stanford University academic paper (referring to 'THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT'); (6) This JSTOR article (referring to 'the Palestine Liberation Movement'); (7) This JSTOR article (referring to a Palestinian 'national liberation movement'); (8) This BBC article (referencing UK labour party politicians chanting 'Free Palestine'); (9) This JSTOR article (referring to Palestinian folk songs themed around liberation from occupation and colonial oppression); (c) Israel has a propaganda, sorry diplomacy (let's use the language Wikipedia uses) machine called Hasbara which is doing its best to ensure that pro-Israel and pro-Zionist narratives dominate in mainstream online sources such as Wikipedia and Google - they seem to be doing pretty well!
7. Wikipedia took down (and kept taking down) my dispute tags: Not only is Wikipedia not comfortable with edits to current Free Palestine Movement article content, it will also not tolerate any suggestion that the article's content is disputed, lacking in neutrality or unbalanced (the 'Disputed,' 'POV' and 'Unbalanced' tags I added to the article on multiple occasions to note this at the top of the article on grounds that there are a number of unsubstantiated statements in the article lacking citations, that the sources are very one-sided, deliberately obstructive of the wider Palestinian resistance narrative and unbalanced were taken down repeatedly by User:Vif12vf and Wikipedia seems to have settled on accepting User:Vif12vf's position. Again, a clear breach of WP:NPOV and a clear demonstration that Wikipedia is gagging dissent while maintaining the facade of balanced content.
Conclusion: So, to briefly summarise: Wikipedia suffers from innate pro-Zionist bias. This manifests itself in the threats, official response to article proposal, comments and RfC intervention I have received from Wikipedia editors (which as a result I have no confidence in and do not view as a truly impartial process). It also manifests itself in Wikipedia's discriminatory policies ( WP:A/I/PIA), which also conflict with other policies WP:NPOV, as well as Wikipedia's selective application of its WP:DR, WP:V and WP:NPOV policies, and systematic removal of 'disputed,' 'POV' and 'unbalanced' tags I added to the current Free Palestine Movement page.
PS: User:Tchouppy: Thank you for enlightening me about WP:MOSLINK. I have also put this response in my sandbox as you have suggested, so the editors reviewing my article request can receive it. Depending on how the rest of the discussion goes, I may also publish this entire discussion further afield. To quote Nelson Mandela, 'We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.' Jgraham1956 ( talk) 21:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
i want to publish an article about Mofeq, so I want to [[' em. 89.15.237.108 ( talk) 01:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
A play called 'A flag is born' presents the first incident of the slogan 'Free Palestine', cheering for a jewishstate. /info/en/?search=A_Flag_Is_Born
I believe this article is inaccurate, and biased without discussing this piece of history. I am calling for a consensus to change the article. 95.86.64.127 ( talk) 23:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that 'A Flag is Born' be the first piece of flyering for 'a Free Palestine' /info/en/?search=A_Flag_Is_Born Raconcilio ( talk) 23:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
First of all, you claimed on the page that Palestine wants "Israel" not to exist, which is completely wrong! If you study the religion of a country before writing the text, you will find that it is mentioned in "Islam" and the writings of people that you should not destroy the people of Bani Israel, but guide them to the right path.
Why are the Palestinian people protesting? Suppose a killer is in your house for several years and puts a knife under your throat, won't you defend yourself?!!! Yes, you defend! Palestine has been surrounded by Israel for 70 years, and because of this, Palestine defended itself for the first time, and what was the world's reaction? that Palestine did something bad? not at all
Palestine is not against Israel or Judaism, please don't spread such nonsense.
Rather, the Palestinian people are suffering from a lack of food due to the siege by Israel, and Israel is genocidating their generation!
Do you disagree with me? Don't you want to accept the truth? So shame on you! Shame on your upbringing! Shame on your humanity!!! 2.190.225.223 ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is full of mistakes, are you sure this is a free encyclopedia and you claim it has the most reliable information?! It's more like a book full of lies! My little girl lies less than here! 0 2.190.225.223 ( talk) 18:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
[text removed]
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Free Palstine is Fraze used by the pro Plastinen Movment aginst Isrea's/Amircan Occupation of Arab Countery(Palstine) TellTheTruthOrDieTrying ( talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)