![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period Sept 2008 to December 2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
For further discussion, see our subpage about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled upon these, while looking for something and then spent more time trying to improve my general knowledge of that time period. I thought I'd make them available for your perusal. I couldn't find the source on a Wiki search, as having been used/found, but I don't know how to search Wiki too well. They look pretty RS to me. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and, [7]. I found them enlightening and interesting, but didn't look at all of them completely. I tend to feel that they can be helpful for many articles within our sphere. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Thread ready to archive, thanks! HG | Talk 04:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to edit the article on Shmuel Yerushalmi, an anti-Zionist poet and activist in Israel, to add details about his arrest and interrogation yesterday over the content of one of his poems; I was surprised to discover that the article had been deleted earlier yesterday. Apparently there had been a deletion review, which ran for five days and attracted just five contributors. An earlier proposed deletion, which had not reached a consensus, ran for twelve days and attracted more than 30 contributors. The proposal had been notified on the list of Israel-related deletion discussions, but not on the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions, where the article also has relevance. Could we establish some sort of procedure for cross-notification of any such proposals, to ensure that more possibly-interested editors are aware and can take part in discussions? RolandR ( talk) 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to proposed deletion of the entry Unrecognized villages, which refers to the status of 80,000 Arab citizens of Israel in the Negev. See the talk page, where I had been discussing NPOV issues with User:Ynhockey until the label was pinned yesterday. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just noticed that User:Guy0307 has also proposed deletion of Negev Bedouins, which refers to the 160,000 Bedouin in the Negev, for the same reason. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) This older thread can be archived, thanks. HG | Talk 04:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Could I bring this article to people's attention? I seem to be in danger of getting dragged into a fight after being accused of "poisoning the well" and having an edit reverted. Could some people interested in maintaining impartiality have a look, please?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Seems quite bizarre. Not sure I comprehend what is going on over there? Some orientation? LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. It's good that folks post, like Peter above, requests for help in dealing with tensions over an article. However, at this juncture, further discussion of the article content should continue on the article Talk page. Right? Thanks. Meanwhile, I've submitted page protection request at
WP:RPP to try to get editors into a more productive discussion. Ah, I see that an editor has been blocked, and discussion seems to be moving along.
HG |
Talk
04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This IP user [9] strikes me as an obvious sock puppet operated by someone on one side of the Istael/Palestine conflict. However, I haven't a clue who is operating it. About 70% of the edits are blatant trouble-making. Even legitimate edits such as [10] are captioned in ways that do not WP:Assume good faith. If I knew who was operating the puppet I could report it to the page. But I don't, so can't. So what to do?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If I had time I'd make up a few articles like these: Protests against the invasion of Iraq, Opposition to the Iraq War and American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq and Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq war and Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq. Maybe someone else has time and would like to take it on. ;-) Carol Moore 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}
I get the impression of a muddying of the matter at hand. As is often the case on I-P articles, someone uses language that offends us and then we stop listening to the substance of their argument. I think the issue Carol raised is probably a bit different from that discussed by Timeshifter, and I would like to hear more from her(him?) about this, if possible. Also, although I understand what was written above, I'm unclear about the essence of Timeshifter's proposal, as well as Sm and Okedem's opposition. Timeshifter, could you state your proposal in a sentence, and Sm and Okedem, could you state your reasons for your opposition? Best, LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 16:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there already an article on this topic? Second Intifada, perhaps? ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a good start in organizing the material on human rights in the Palestinian territories would be to catalog the existing articles in the categories that have already been defined. For example, the article on Muhammad al-Durrah certainly belongs in the category Category:Human rights in the Gaza Strip, as do the articles on First Intifada and Second Intifada. The article Human rights in Israel should be included in the categories defined, as well.
Once we have identified all the existing articles on human rights in the Palestinian territories, we will be in a better position to determine whether the information should be reorganized and expanded to make it more accessible.
I certainly agree with Timeshifter that the way the information is currently organized makes it hard for a reader to get a clear or comprehensive understanding of the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is an editing dispute on Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict regarding this diff. Outside input would be greatly appreciated. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 05:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Quote1: "Is the military operation tab in the infobox necessary? Can't the relevant operation be put down as one of the causes of depopulation? -- Nudve (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Quote2: "I agree, but in the end this isn't so important because the entire template is redundant. The current one is much better"
Answer to both gentlemen: I dont know you, but I can put it fairly short: It is none of your business. I am here to help the palestinian side getting their Catastrophe (Nakba) portrayed more fairly. They are the underdog, so I take it that Mr. "Ynhockey" is not from England, or any places influenced by English civilisation, as i can convey to him, that we take pride in being on the side of the underdog. Israel is the most powerful country in the Mideast and the worlds fourth biggest nuclear weapons stockpile, while we here are dealing with a people, which have been forcefully thrown out of their ancestal home, and whose descendents are often stateless. If these one million people - today more then 2,5 million - had not been thrown out, they would have altered the whole political outfit of the entity that today are refferred to under the term 'Israel'.- and that was ultimately the reason why they were expelled.
As a matter of course the name of the military operations should be mentioned, as well as the brigades. And I chose the blue colour because it is the lovely israeli blue colour that Mr. "Ynhockey" loves so much, so arent you happy Mr "Ynhockey"? How the template looked before, and whether "you" think it was better, is no business to you, but first and foremost to the palestinians, who like what I have made. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 12:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: I have listed the infobox for deletion here. Comments are welcome on the TfD page. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 14:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to bring up comparisons like these, It shows a selfcentredness to the extreme; the palestinians are the wounded part, who have had their land taken away from them. Think about them : They have to read about 'Shoah and Holocaust' in discussions about Nakba, and some even question the extend and seriousness of it!! Shame on you! Nudwe should have refused to discuss any further once the world 'Shoah' was mentioned. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 13:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This is based in its entirety of a list of the similar name that exist in an article, that you can find, if you search for it. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 13:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
So you have supporters in higher places ready to support you? We will see. If they really do support you, we will have wikipedias bias laid our bare. They will present the israeli view, as very many of the (administrator)editors are honorary descendants of the distingiushed israelites. In a context like the israeli-palestinians one has to apply a meassure of largesse. Israel is the most powerful country in the mideast and number 4 in the world when it comes to possesion of nuclear weapons. What is more, it - and especially its powerful lobby in The United States - are able to steer the worlds only superpower into wars, that is not in its national interest, and that it has to provide the soldiers to as well as foot the bill! So we aggree we are talkinmg about a very powerful country? OKAY. Now if this country and its supporters start to use its influence in editing the history of the palestinians - a poor people that have had their countrey taken awaqy from it wuithout any compensation whatsoever,- that will be the day!!! In that case, I it will be my pleasure, if I cannot venture any further into the realms of this online encyclopedia. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 13:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Nick, this is the wrong page to get into this type of discussion. We are trying to "collaborate" (not in the Hebrew or Arabic sense) with one another here. I have not looked into the details of the above discussion, but through a quick scan, I can see that you are approaching this issue from a regular talk page perspective. This is not a 'regular talk page', in that at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration we all agree not to violate WP:CIVIL for more than an instant. It's important not to set a precedent for incivility here. Please take this discussion to the talk page YNHockney set up for discussion of the templates. Only come here to make constructive arguments about resolving the issue with community-wide input. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
He mixes the two templates that I have made, together, to an extend so taht it is impossible to figure out, which one he refers to, and wamts deleted. He need very clearly to state which one he means should be deleted (?) and why, so that we are able to adress the concerns, he have. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, there is currently a discussion about whether the organization HonestReporting meets the notability requirements to have a Wikipedia article. Whether you agree with HonestReporting or disagree with HonestReporting, isn't it quite obviously notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Certainly it's more notable than, for example, the Tara Foundation. In any event, whether you think that we should keep HonestReporting or whether you think that the article should be deleted for somehow not being notable enough, the vote is taking place here. Your feedback at that page would be greatly appreciated. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 04:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
(cross-posted at AN/I)
The CU result found out Saxophonemn and Einsteindonut editing from different locations but using the same user agent. Saxophonemn identified himself later on. I then unblocked him with a "I trust[ed] user's e-mails to prove innocence" rationale.
I hope that would stop the never-ending mutual accusations and provocations. I amazed by all those cartoons and incivility (Eleland), Mark Twain's irrelevant quote (Saxophonemn) video (Einsteindonut) and Jaakobou (comments directed at Tiamut a few weeks earlier), etc... Do we still block for wp:POINT, unnecessary and inflammatory acts?
Admins, please sort out the mess with objectivity and profesionalism and please stop arguing about WP:UNINVOLVED. This message is directed mainly to ChrisO and Elonka. I urge both of these admins to stop it or let others deal with the sitaution(s).
Partisans, please don't flood threads with repetitive wikilawyering.
To everyone, there's one important thing to all of us... Dignity. To understand racism we must first understand dignity. Let's start with this... Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them. (Aristotle)
P.S. By the way Erik, CU on oneself to prove innocence "are rarely accepted, please do not ask." And the issue of Saxophonemn/Einsteindonut has already been clarified. As I said above, accusations of sockpuppetry should stop. Any further accusation would be faced by a block. And any further provocative comments from any side would be faced with harsh blocks. -- fayssal - wiki up® 03:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
My last concerns about this template have been buried under a mile of rubble, so I'm re-starting the discussion, with a related issue: on the template {{ Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War}}, two completely irrelevant images exist, but because only 2 editors (Timeshifter and myself) are participating in the discussion, and neither side accepts the other's viewpoint, there is no way to gain consensus. I request that the editors of IPCOLL review the arguments from both sides, and insert their 2 cents about whether these images are relevant, should be removed, or perhaps another idea neither of us has thought of. Thanks, Ynhockey ( Talk) 10:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
While looking around at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CAIR_Watch I noticed at CAIR Watch this template which links to this article Controversies_related_to_Islam_and_Muslims which of course is quite biased. Can you imagine if anyone tried to start "Controversies related to Jews and Israel?" However, maybe a factual "Controversies related to Israel" article would be warranted, if someone else wants to start it. Carol Moore 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc
Here are my two cents on the topic:
I think a controversies article on Israel is perfectly reasonable, since there are legitimate controversies with regard to the political decisions made by the Israeli government. I am more than a little concerned about a "Judaism-related controversies" article, though, since I could see such an article easily going into anti-Semitic content. Perhaps a "Controversies within Judaism" rather "Controversies related to Judaism" article would be more appropriate.
←
Michael Safyan (
talk)
08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Question: in this "controversies" context, which country would be listed down for the killing of Mughniyeh? Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Qatar... ? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 11:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has been pretty quiet for a while but a couple of POV, insulting editors have come along and started making POV edits and reverting changes, and making no or questionable excuses on talk page. Thus my "Incident Report" - October 26: Serious BLP violations on Gilad Atzmon described here. Yet an administrator threatens WP:3RR (3 revert rule] - ignoring Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions - while refusing to detail his specific concern on the articles talk page! If this keeps up, what options should I pursue of those listed on the main page of this article? Thanks. Carolmooredc 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about two new templates that have been created/heavily modified by User:Nick Finnsbury: {{ Villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict}} and {{ Infobox Arab villages depopulated}}. I have started a discussion about the first in its own talk page. The second one - I just think it's inferior to the previous template, with which there's really nothing wrong. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have been away on vacation, followed by a frustration-induced wiki-break upon return, but have been back on wiki for a while now, editing and commenting along. This week, I learned that I have been classified as one of the “heavily biased anti-Israel” editors [12] at Wikipedia. I checked the IPCOLL archives for the period during my absence and found this subject has not been raised, so I am raising it, because I feel it significant for this page. I have yet to fully digest the implications of such a classification or my response to it, but I will state the following, simply. I am not anti-Israel, but understand that my life, learning and biases might seem that way to some (and I was overly up-front about that). I am pro-Peace and understand that that bias alone provokes JIDF and their ilk, particularly the post-’67, post-Begin Eretz Israel Zionist zealots. So be it. My noted biases are much different than my commitment to NPOV on Wikipedia where the proof is in one’s article edits, not one’s biases. I can not and will not speak for others; they may or may not do it for themselves.
I want to point out that nine of the 19 listed ‘anti-Israel’ editors (47%) are members of IPCOLL and constitute about a quarter of IPCOLL’s membership. A further 4 listed editors (no overlap) are either named or participated in the RfA that birthed IPCOLL, although many members here can claim that distinction. What does all this mean or foretell; frankly I don’t know. I will surmise that they are suspicious of a) about half the people who ended up being cited in the RfA, b) about half the people who where not cited but defended similar positions, and c) many people who are oppositely POV’d but are particularly willing to collaborate. To me, it indicates an aversion to arbitration, collaboration, WP:AGF and NPOV on JIDF’s part, all basic wiki tenents. It may indicate that other editors with similar alternative knowledge, WP:RSs, bias, and wiki-skills, many of whom are here, will likely end up on the list as it is updated.
I’d be interested to hear and learn what some of the non-listed IPCOLL members think, collaboratively. Happy editing. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 09:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Category:Palestinian terrorists is a subcategory of Category:Terrorists by nationality.
Category:Islamist terrorists is a subcategory of Category:Religious terrorism.
Why is there no Category:Jewish terrorists?
And why is there no Category:Israeli terrorists?
I just heard on National Public Radio here in the USA today of yet another attack by Israeli Jewish fundamentalist settlers rampaging in a Palestinian village. NPR reported that some are calling it a terrorist attack. They have killed many Palestinian civilians in various attacks over decades. They are frequently called terrorists by many reliable sources.
Also, many of the founding militant organizations of Israel have been called terrorists by Western governments and mainstream media. That means some of the members of these organizations should be categorized under Category:Israeli terrorists. They killed many Palestinian civilians before, during, and after the founding of Israel.
For many examples of terrorism by Israelis, and by Jewish militants before and during the founding of Israel see:
The lack of this category Category:Israeli terrorists is another example of Western systemic bias. Please see WP:Countering systemic bias. Wikipedia must honor WP:NPOV more systematically. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) From Irgun (emphasis added):
See also: History of terrorism#Irgun (1936-1948). -- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) NoCal100 has been blocked. Here is his block log: [13] - 19:18, 31 October 2008 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ( Edit warring: Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and Reactions to the September 11 attacks.) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Other editors have discussed this issue of inclusion in Category:Jewish terrorism at Talk:Lehi (group). There will probably have to be a CFD discussion concerning Category:Religious terrorism and its subcategories. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
For now I will go along with what has been said by Peter Cohen, RolandR, NoCal100, etc.. Category:Zionist terrorism is a better category according to them to add to Irgun, Lehi (group) etc.. Versus Category:Jewish terrorism. I think both categories apply, though.
Otherwise, why isn't the Taliban categorized under some name like Category:Afghani nationalist terrorism? Instead of its current categorization under Category:Islamic terrorism? Both the Taliban and the Zionist groups were oriented towards territory and religion.
I could see why the PLO and Fatah might be categorized in the past under some form of nationalist terrorism category such as Category:Palestinian terrorists. Versus Hamas which is much more focussed on religion. Hamas is currently categorized under Category:Islamic terrorism. Why is Hamas classified under different rules than the Irgun? It is a systemic bias. Especially when you consider that both fought for the same territory, and both are religiously and ethnically oriented. It seems like a double standard to me.
Also, back to my original question at the beginning of this talk section (see #Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists above this subsection). Where do many of the Israeli settlers fit in? From Israeli settlement:
How do we classify some of the terrorist attacks, killings, and bombings by the more religiously-oriented settlers? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple current CFD discussions that people might be interested in. Please see these 2 discussions linked below. One is above the other on the same page.
Note: The following discussion started at Category talk:Zionist terrorism.
See [14]. Jayjg removed the "See also" section with this edit summary:
"See also" sections are common in categories. For example; see Template:Cat see also
There is more info at: meta:Help:Category#"See also" for categories
{{ Catmain}} created a link to Zionist terrorism in the form of
Zionist terrorism redirects to Zionist political violence. Click Zionist terrorism to see what I mean. So I moved the Zionist political violence link to the "see also" section.-- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) They are very common. And the fact that you removed all the "see also" links speaks volumes. Here is the list of links you removed:
See also:
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists and its talk subsection on Category:Zionist terrorism. All the above links were discussed there. "See also" links are supposed to go to clarifying and related articles and categories. They help readers figure out category inclusion rules, and the meaning of category names. They help readers find what they are looking for.
I guess I will have to take this to an admin notice board since we have wildly different experiences in the uses of "see also" lists in categories. I have thousands of edits in categories. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) According to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits you have over 65,000 edits. I am listed there with around 15,000 edits. At Category talk:Zionist terrorism you said concerning 'see also' links "I don't recall ever seeing any, in over four years of editing Wikipedia." Maybe this is because you see and remember only what you want to see and remember? Click the "what links here" links for Template:Cat see also, Template:CatRel, and Template:See also cat. Also see the over 23,000 results from this Google category search for "see also":
Template:Cat see also is for multiple "see also" links.
The above line of "see also" links is produced by this:
Most people do not use the template.
See also:
See also: Category:Zionist terrorism, Category:Nationalist terrorism, Category:Terrorism by genre
See also these categories: Zionist terrorism, Nationalist terrorism, Terrorism by genre -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The use of see also templates for category pages ({{ Cat see also}} or {{ CatRel}}) should be judicious. If there are specific categories that are related and are not sub-categories, then a few links to other categories may be useful., but only of directly related (i.e. not parent or child categories, but obvious ones that can be useful). Also important is to avoid guilt by association. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) You are the one initiating most of the further discussion on other talk pages. I am the one linking to here. Stop talking on the other talk pages, and I will not reply to you there. Reliable sources are not required for "see also" links in articles or categories. Please stop making up your own set of personal guidelines, and instead quote some Wikipedia guidelines. See
and you will see many examples of "see also" links in horizontal and vertical form. I can't do all your work. I have thousands of edits in categories. So I know what I am talking about. By the way, I don't answer to you. I answer to the Wikipedia guidelines. Please stop the uncivil ordering tone. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a better Google search for finding "See also" lists in vertical format on category pages: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also+category%22
Most of the results have "see also" lists in various vertical formats. There are over 7000 results. Some also have article links in the vertical lists. Many have article links in explanatory sentences and paragraphs.
As I have said previously I have the experience of thousands of edits on category pages, and have seen "see also" links in many formats. You might try assuming good faith, and respecting my experience, Jayjg and Jossi, instead of making up Wikipedia guidelines on your own, and uncivilly telling people they have to use certain templates. You don't have the authority to tell people what to do. You can only point to Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
There is no Wikipedia guideline that requires "see also" links in any particular format. Even the words "see also" are not required. People use all kinds of introductory words before related category links. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There is Category:Palestinian terrorists. There needs to be Category:Israeli terrorists.
Peter Cohen wrote: "The leaders of the military wings of these groups when they were attacking trains etc. could certainly be labelled as terrorists, as can the perpertrators. The assassin of Yitzhak Rabin would certainly count as another example of an Israeli terrorist."
Who else could be listed? I am making a list.
Further Israeli terrorists:
There are many other candidates for this proposed category. RolandR ( talk) 22:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had reached a consensus that the new categories Category:Zionist terrorism and Category:Palestinian terrorism are acceptable, and can be used to tag organizations which are or were involved in terrorism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. See the discussion above, when Timeshifter introduced these categories, as well as the CFD discussion here. Accordingly, while organizations like Irgun were added to the categories Category:Zionist terrorism, organizations like the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine were added to Category:Palestinian terrorism. Today, however, a couple of editors who did not participate in the previous discussions about the new categories have started removing the Palestinian organizations from the category Category:Palestinian terrorism (see [18] [19]), claiming alternatively that it is a violation of WP:WTA, or that there is no consensus for the new categories. The result is obviously unacceptably POV. I am ok with removing both new categories, but if one is to be used, so must the other. NoCal100 ( talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
So, until such time as we either rename all terrorism and terrorist categories, or delete them all, can we agree that while they exits in their current format, we do not depopulate certain categories in a non-neutral way? NoCal100 ( talk) 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Recently I've been trying to add some context to articles on Palestinian attacks on Israelis, much in the same way that we have it in the articles on Israeli military interventions. Things are getting a bit sticky on
and I was wondering if some more experienced editors could get involved to keep things balanced.
Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 30.10.2008 14:41
Both posters in this thread are now blocked, partially for activities on the page concerned here. Anyone care to discuss over at the talk page?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
2-3 years ago I added some information to the history-section in Karmiel, information sourced in a book by Sabri Jiryis (which in turn was largely based on research done by Uri Davis) AFAIK, nobody has questioned the accuracy/truth of the information given by Jiryis.
Earlier this month most of that information was removed, and now it is argued that Sabri Jiryis and Uri Davis are not WP:RS. Please see the discussion on Talk:Karmiel.
More eyes are needed here, IMO. Please voice your opinion. Thank you. Regards, Huldra ( talk) 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I pretty much would concur with most of Nishidani's observations above about double standards when it comes to sources. I recall for example various pages where any attempt to source anything, even when clearly attributed, to Ilan Pappe for example is met with a chorus of disapproval and on one occasion a request to "prove" that he is an academic and published expert in the area. Same goes for sourcing in the media world to The Guardian, CNN and Haaretz (especially Gideon Levy); and, in the NGO/Human Rights field, to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I have lost count of the number of times these have been castigated as being "anti-Israel" or whatever, with editors asking for corroboration even for factual material being sourced to their reports. I'm not going to dig around for diffs since I'm sure most of us have seen this at one point or another on talk pages. Of course all of these individuals, outlets and organisations have their bias to a greater or lesser extent, but all of them clearly fall within the reach of WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and other policies and guidelines. Sources which are - fairly - seen as being actively "pro-Palestinian", such as Electronic Intifada, or the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights are usually tossed out altogether, even when what they are saying is being clearly attributed and even though they are by no means fringe groups.
By contrast for example recently I have seen incendiary and polemical comments from Alan Dershowitz, culled from an op-ed piece, being repeatedly reinserted into an article about a US politician on the basis that he is a "noted authority" [on whether someone is an anti-Semite or not]. Virtually every NGO which has incurred their wrath has acquired a standalone paragraph detailing, with a full blockquote, the criticism being levelled at them by NGO Monitor - eg here, here and here. As for media sources, I lose track of how much information and comment is sourced to Arutz Sheva, FrontPage Magazine etc and even Debka.com. Comment and analysis from CAMERA, HonestReporting and Palestinian Media Watch is trotted out as if they are straight-up, non-partisan groups. And I haven't even got to the academic sources, other than Pappe above. The Chomsky issue is a little more complex than "historian or not a historian?" No he is not a professional academic historian, but he is of course one of the most prolific and respected - given his POV - commentators on political and historical issues - in that respect I suppose he has an equivalence of sorts with Dershowitz, but it's clear which of the two gets an easier ride here on Wikipedia both as a subject matter and as a source in other pages (for example Chomsky has a whole "Criticisms of .." page all to himself - Dershowitz merely gets a short "Controversies" sub-section on his main page). The imbalance is pretty glaring to anyone who comes across these pages who doesn't actually have a stake in the conflict or strong views one way or the other. Obviously the above is not a comprehensive list, and it's not always the same editors who are pushing for FrontPage material while trying to exclude reports from CNN. Nonetheless it's a real problem. The practical solution might be some form of agreed source list, defining them by type (media, human rights group, partisan activist, specialist academic, whatever), whether they are seen as "preferring" one side or another, whether they should be used as sources for fact or only, with attribution, for comment/interpretation, whether we would expect to see what they say being corroborated and/or balanced etc. However I can see endless difficulties with "ranking" sources or putting them into boxes in this way - and even if it were possible in principle, I can never see editors here agreeing on how to do it. -- Nickhh ( talk) 23:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Just noticed this reference tool linked to above, which I guess attempts to cover the general problem, albeit in a different way. -- Nickhh ( talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
'Noam Chomsky reported that some streets were named after units of the Irgun and Palmach forces that conquered the village.', which has been proven to be false,
(outdenting) the objection is to the fact that their writings on the I-P conflict are merely an extension of their politics
And Laqueur's are not? Come on, everyone has a political POV, even historians, no-one is completely objective.
I'm not sure exactly what this discussion is about, but if it's whether or not Chomsky qualifies as a WP:RS on the Is-Pal conflict, I believe he did write a book called The Fateful Triangle that is widely cited by other scholars, and that is all that is required to qualify as a wp:rs on this project. Whether Chomsky is necessarily the best source to use is another issue, but in some circumstances at least his views are probably worth citing. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
'No, actually, the objection is to the fact that their writings on the I-P conflict are merely an extension of their politics.' Jayjg
‘The views I hold were called ‘Zionism’ in the past within the Zionist movement, and still are by many today.’ Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrin Otero, Radical Priorities, AK Press, 2003 p.13
‘a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades’(Noam Chomsky, Middle East Illusions, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004 p.53
![]() | → Talk:Second Intifada#RfC: Are sources used an example of WP:SYNTH or not? |
guys, please stop editing the title, this is childish. just leave it < eleland/ talk edits> 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg is removing referenced text based on those reliable resources. See this diff: [20]
His edit summary says: remove original research based on primary sources. It's not up to you to decide when it started, but up to reliable secondary sources. See talk.
From: WP:Reliable sources#News organizations: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press."
The referenced text strictly concerns events and not opinions:
See Talk:Second Intifada#Start of the Second Intifada for quotes from those articles. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Are BBC, CNN, New York Times reliable sources? This was my original title for this talk section. My question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration is about reliable sources for narratives of events.
My point is that the current narrative of the events is off by a day: "the first major clashes occurred on September 29, 2000, the day after a controversial visit by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount"
Talk:Second Intifada#Start of the Second Intifada is mainly about sourced opinions concerning a different topic from what I am discussing. So I will not reply there further since it is a different topic.
I don't want to get dragged into a discussion about the meanings or beginnings or global perspectives concerning the Second Intifada. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Additional input is requested at Template talk:Terrorism category definition. The discussion there concerns these 2 category templates:
It has been more than a week, though a momentous one, since any discussion. This is an important topic; in light of change we need, so to speak.
I originally wrote that for a talk edit here, then thought about it, and after considering innumerable possibilities of how best to proceed, decided to bring it here for a sniff test, transparently. I would appreciate your indulgence, on the consideration that some members might want to take a more pro-active approach toward NPOV. Equally, it is in the purview all members, hopefully, collaboratively. I did not pick this fight, it dropped in my lap [24], from an infamous former editor; I could link it, but won’t. Wiki fought off that attack. I do not want to fight that again, but with a commitment to NPOV, I believe this may present the time to end it neutrally. I want to approach it as collaboratively as possible. Please, take a look for yourselves and let me know. You will likely be watching anyway, however I decide to proceed. Also, let me know what wiki-toes I might be starting to step on. It is very difficult to state the obvious about sticky subjects on Wikipedia. Extraordinary whatevers require extraordinary sources and we have come across one with wide, specific and collaborative potential, or not. I fully understand it will not please all, but assume good faith. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 07:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In order to get additional comments Category:Nationalist terrorism was relisted. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 15#Category:Nationalist terrorism
My view has changed. I now think the category should be renamed to Category:Ethnic terrorism or Category:Ethnic terrorism allegations. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The interestingly named User:DontbeaPOVPUSHER has appeared at the JIDF talk and article pages today. (S)he has reverted two edits I made today which refer to recent articles in Haaretz and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. In the latter case, I have provided a literal translation of the key criticism with the original German in the footnote. On the talk page I have linked an unofficial (and less lieral) translation which supports my interpretation. In the Haaretz case (s)he claimed that the Haaretz information was inaccurate without providing a WP:RS that substantiates the claim. I've re-reverted both edits, but other contributors are invited to comment.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The JIDF has contacted me with questions and I have provided them with answers, as I do for other organisations.
The JIDF has posted a complaint about the update to the article by John and myself. If anyone wants to check for any validity in these complaints then they can be found in the first article here [27].-- Peter cohen ( talk) 19:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Nishidani, I don't believe you need to activate your e-mail to mail someone through wikipedia. I may be wrong about this though. I don't believe mailing soemone to alter them to a discussion about them risks anything. On he contrary it is just polite when you see they are on a break. On the rest of what you've said, I don't believe I was ever listed on the JIDF website as you claim. I certainly never saw it and I have google alters set up so I should have if it was there. I think what you mean is their Facebook group. I've explained this on the JIDF article talk page: "I was invited to the Facebook group of the JIDF, which I accepted as I do wish to be notified on what they are doing. The administrator made me an officer, I wrote to them and said I wasn't willing to be an officer of their Facebook group unless it was made clear that I was not a JIDF official. The solution hit upon was to make the position "external consultant". I was not an admin of the group, nor was I an office holder (or indeed member) of the JIDF itself. I am not aware of having ever been listed on the JIDF website in any capasity other than as an author of work they have reproduced." I don't believe I have a close enough relationship to the JIDF to have a COI writing about them. If I did almost no researcher would ever be able to write about their field of expertise. Oboler ( talk) 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there enough material out there to justify an article on this theme? I know that User:Oboler has had research published on the subject and that some of the Zionist groups have picked up the concept gaining some press coverage. Has there been any critique published or is the coverage largely from one side?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
RfC intro reads: There is a dispute among a number of editors about keeping out of the (Obama new Chief of Staff) Rahm Emanuel article the following brief and abundantly WP:RS referenced notable and explanative information (in bold; refs in italics). The information is embarrassing to Emanuel, but that is not an excuse to delete it per Wiki Policy on Well Known Public Figures. Doing so creates an article that is confusing to people unfamiliar with Israeli history and suspiciously sanitized to those who have seen the many various mainstream and blog references to these facts, which doubtless will continue relating to Israel-Palestine and terrorism issues during the time Emanuel holds his Chief of Staff position. (Read specifics there of very limited additions I'm proposing.) Carol Moore 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc
I am not sure anybody will notice my request higher up on this talk page.
Additional input is sought at Talk:Irgun#Category:Zionist terrorism. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have made what I believe to be is a fair, accurate, well sourced description of both sides of the controversy here Rashid Khalidi#Controversy regarding relationships with militant organizations. I would appreciate your input here Talk:Rashid Khalidi#New section on militant organizations. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 20:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Category:Israel articles missing geocoordinate data, Category:West Bank articles missing geocoordinate data and Category:Gaza Strip articles missing geocoordinate data contain lists of articles about places that curently lack geographic coordinates.
Adding coordinates to these articles will allow users of Google Maps and other location-aware services to find these articles on maps, as well as putting them into Wikipedia's own internal atlas.
The articles are all marked with {{ coord missing}} tags, which need replacing with {{ coord}} tags that contain their latitude/longitude coordinates -- alternatively, you might want to enter the coordinates into an infobox, before removing the {{ coord missing}} tag. You can find out how to do this at Wikipedia:How to add geocodes to articles. Please let me know if this is useful! -- The Anome ( talk) 14:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking Category:Arab-Israeli conflict could use a Critics subcategory. Options would be:
Unless I missed a category, it seems there are a lot of people with articles who are well known for criticism on either side and it's helpful to organize them for wiki readers, as well as for wiki editors, including to be able to check their articles systematically for BLP violations. Thoughts? Carol Moore 15:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
backdent<---
Despite the fact that several of us have produced WP:RSs that describe Irgun as terrorist, there are people trying to remove categories etc from this article. There seems to be a wierd interpretation of WP:SYN going on whereby even if we can reference that they were Zionist and terrorist, we need to find someone actually saying "Zionist terrorist" before we can put the article in that category.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
<---Backdent Wikipedia:Categories#How_to_categorize_an_article is not that specific on needing a specific WP:RS. It says: When assigning an article into categories, try to be thorough in a "horizontal" sense. The topic may be associated with a geographic area, a historical period, an academic subfield, a certain type of thing (like a food or an ornament), and/or a special interest topic (like Roman Empire or LGBT). You might need to poke around the category hierarchy a bit to find the right place. Try searching for articles similar to the article you are categorizing to get ideas or to find the most appropriate place. There may be a debate on which of several categories is best, using various WP:RS. But saying it can't be in a category unless exact terminology is used is a misinterpretation of policy, IM(notvery)HO. Carol Moore 15:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
An {expand} template has been added here, with references on the talkpage to spur discussion. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 11:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated after reviewing the evidence here: Talk:Rashid Khalidi. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone has tried to link the JIDF attack page on Wikipedia editors from the article. I hope people here agree it is inappropriate to do so. (I am listed on that page but am on record as objecting to its beign linked before I was added to it.)-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Israel has already been informed by another editor [33], and I'm about to post this at WikiProject Palestine too, since it's relevant there as well.
There's a problem at Hummus, as some of may know. Two main issues: 1) Whether or not the word Palestine can be used in the article 2) How much space should be accorded to the controversy over how Hummus became a part of Israeli cuisine, and the way to phrase it etc.
Anyway, thought you should all know that discussion at
Talk:Hummus is actively underway to find solutions to these issues before the page is unprotected. I should caution any who wish to be involved that an admin has threatened to unilaterally block anyone who edits outside of consensus after article protection is lifted. Welcome to the wonderful world of Israel-Palestine collaboration!
Tiamut
talk
20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The food fight has spread. Should an admin find a wrong version to protect there too?== Peter cohen ( talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There's currently a BLP concern regarding reports about Rashid Khalidi being affiliated with the PLO. Personally, I couldn't care if he was or wasn't, but a recent report by Ehud Yeari on prime time television made me feel that the BLP concern is incorrect. Since my perspective on this has not been accepted, I believe there is room for wider opinions/review. Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Benjamin M. Emanuel. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:
Your feedback is appreciated. rootology ( C)( T) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC) :Copy posted by CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriella_Ambrosio#Gabriella_Ambrosio regarding the author of Before We Say Goodbye,a book about the Israel-Palestine conflict which got a good review in ynet here. — Sebastian 04:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions for the period Sept 2008 to December 2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
For further discussion, see our subpage about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled upon these, while looking for something and then spent more time trying to improve my general knowledge of that time period. I thought I'd make them available for your perusal. I couldn't find the source on a Wiki search, as having been used/found, but I don't know how to search Wiki too well. They look pretty RS to me. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and, [7]. I found them enlightening and interesting, but didn't look at all of them completely. I tend to feel that they can be helpful for many articles within our sphere. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Thread ready to archive, thanks! HG | Talk 04:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to edit the article on Shmuel Yerushalmi, an anti-Zionist poet and activist in Israel, to add details about his arrest and interrogation yesterday over the content of one of his poems; I was surprised to discover that the article had been deleted earlier yesterday. Apparently there had been a deletion review, which ran for five days and attracted just five contributors. An earlier proposed deletion, which had not reached a consensus, ran for twelve days and attracted more than 30 contributors. The proposal had been notified on the list of Israel-related deletion discussions, but not on the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions, where the article also has relevance. Could we establish some sort of procedure for cross-notification of any such proposals, to ensure that more possibly-interested editors are aware and can take part in discussions? RolandR ( talk) 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to proposed deletion of the entry Unrecognized villages, which refers to the status of 80,000 Arab citizens of Israel in the Negev. See the talk page, where I had been discussing NPOV issues with User:Ynhockey until the label was pinned yesterday. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just noticed that User:Guy0307 has also proposed deletion of Negev Bedouins, which refers to the 160,000 Bedouin in the Negev, for the same reason. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) This older thread can be archived, thanks. HG | Talk 04:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Could I bring this article to people's attention? I seem to be in danger of getting dragged into a fight after being accused of "poisoning the well" and having an edit reverted. Could some people interested in maintaining impartiality have a look, please?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Seems quite bizarre. Not sure I comprehend what is going on over there? Some orientation? LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. It's good that folks post, like Peter above, requests for help in dealing with tensions over an article. However, at this juncture, further discussion of the article content should continue on the article Talk page. Right? Thanks. Meanwhile, I've submitted page protection request at
WP:RPP to try to get editors into a more productive discussion. Ah, I see that an editor has been blocked, and discussion seems to be moving along.
HG |
Talk
04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This IP user [9] strikes me as an obvious sock puppet operated by someone on one side of the Istael/Palestine conflict. However, I haven't a clue who is operating it. About 70% of the edits are blatant trouble-making. Even legitimate edits such as [10] are captioned in ways that do not WP:Assume good faith. If I knew who was operating the puppet I could report it to the page. But I don't, so can't. So what to do?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
If I had time I'd make up a few articles like these: Protests against the invasion of Iraq, Opposition to the Iraq War and American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq and Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq war and Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq. Maybe someone else has time and would like to take it on. ;-) Carol Moore 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}
I get the impression of a muddying of the matter at hand. As is often the case on I-P articles, someone uses language that offends us and then we stop listening to the substance of their argument. I think the issue Carol raised is probably a bit different from that discussed by Timeshifter, and I would like to hear more from her(him?) about this, if possible. Also, although I understand what was written above, I'm unclear about the essence of Timeshifter's proposal, as well as Sm and Okedem's opposition. Timeshifter, could you state your proposal in a sentence, and Sm and Okedem, could you state your reasons for your opposition? Best, LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 16:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there already an article on this topic? Second Intifada, perhaps? ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a good start in organizing the material on human rights in the Palestinian territories would be to catalog the existing articles in the categories that have already been defined. For example, the article on Muhammad al-Durrah certainly belongs in the category Category:Human rights in the Gaza Strip, as do the articles on First Intifada and Second Intifada. The article Human rights in Israel should be included in the categories defined, as well.
Once we have identified all the existing articles on human rights in the Palestinian territories, we will be in a better position to determine whether the information should be reorganized and expanded to make it more accessible.
I certainly agree with Timeshifter that the way the information is currently organized makes it hard for a reader to get a clear or comprehensive understanding of the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is an editing dispute on Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict regarding this diff. Outside input would be greatly appreciated. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 05:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Quote1: "Is the military operation tab in the infobox necessary? Can't the relevant operation be put down as one of the causes of depopulation? -- Nudve (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Quote2: "I agree, but in the end this isn't so important because the entire template is redundant. The current one is much better"
Answer to both gentlemen: I dont know you, but I can put it fairly short: It is none of your business. I am here to help the palestinian side getting their Catastrophe (Nakba) portrayed more fairly. They are the underdog, so I take it that Mr. "Ynhockey" is not from England, or any places influenced by English civilisation, as i can convey to him, that we take pride in being on the side of the underdog. Israel is the most powerful country in the Mideast and the worlds fourth biggest nuclear weapons stockpile, while we here are dealing with a people, which have been forcefully thrown out of their ancestal home, and whose descendents are often stateless. If these one million people - today more then 2,5 million - had not been thrown out, they would have altered the whole political outfit of the entity that today are refferred to under the term 'Israel'.- and that was ultimately the reason why they were expelled.
As a matter of course the name of the military operations should be mentioned, as well as the brigades. And I chose the blue colour because it is the lovely israeli blue colour that Mr. "Ynhockey" loves so much, so arent you happy Mr "Ynhockey"? How the template looked before, and whether "you" think it was better, is no business to you, but first and foremost to the palestinians, who like what I have made. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 12:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: I have listed the infobox for deletion here. Comments are welcome on the TfD page. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 14:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to bring up comparisons like these, It shows a selfcentredness to the extreme; the palestinians are the wounded part, who have had their land taken away from them. Think about them : They have to read about 'Shoah and Holocaust' in discussions about Nakba, and some even question the extend and seriousness of it!! Shame on you! Nudwe should have refused to discuss any further once the world 'Shoah' was mentioned. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 13:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This is based in its entirety of a list of the similar name that exist in an article, that you can find, if you search for it. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 13:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
So you have supporters in higher places ready to support you? We will see. If they really do support you, we will have wikipedias bias laid our bare. They will present the israeli view, as very many of the (administrator)editors are honorary descendants of the distingiushed israelites. In a context like the israeli-palestinians one has to apply a meassure of largesse. Israel is the most powerful country in the mideast and number 4 in the world when it comes to possesion of nuclear weapons. What is more, it - and especially its powerful lobby in The United States - are able to steer the worlds only superpower into wars, that is not in its national interest, and that it has to provide the soldiers to as well as foot the bill! So we aggree we are talkinmg about a very powerful country? OKAY. Now if this country and its supporters start to use its influence in editing the history of the palestinians - a poor people that have had their countrey taken awaqy from it wuithout any compensation whatsoever,- that will be the day!!! In that case, I it will be my pleasure, if I cannot venture any further into the realms of this online encyclopedia. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 13:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Nick, this is the wrong page to get into this type of discussion. We are trying to "collaborate" (not in the Hebrew or Arabic sense) with one another here. I have not looked into the details of the above discussion, but through a quick scan, I can see that you are approaching this issue from a regular talk page perspective. This is not a 'regular talk page', in that at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration we all agree not to violate WP:CIVIL for more than an instant. It's important not to set a precedent for incivility here. Please take this discussion to the talk page YNHockney set up for discussion of the templates. Only come here to make constructive arguments about resolving the issue with community-wide input. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
He mixes the two templates that I have made, together, to an extend so taht it is impossible to figure out, which one he refers to, and wamts deleted. He need very clearly to state which one he means should be deleted (?) and why, so that we are able to adress the concerns, he have. Nick Finnsbury ( talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, there is currently a discussion about whether the organization HonestReporting meets the notability requirements to have a Wikipedia article. Whether you agree with HonestReporting or disagree with HonestReporting, isn't it quite obviously notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Certainly it's more notable than, for example, the Tara Foundation. In any event, whether you think that we should keep HonestReporting or whether you think that the article should be deleted for somehow not being notable enough, the vote is taking place here. Your feedback at that page would be greatly appreciated. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 04:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
(cross-posted at AN/I)
The CU result found out Saxophonemn and Einsteindonut editing from different locations but using the same user agent. Saxophonemn identified himself later on. I then unblocked him with a "I trust[ed] user's e-mails to prove innocence" rationale.
I hope that would stop the never-ending mutual accusations and provocations. I amazed by all those cartoons and incivility (Eleland), Mark Twain's irrelevant quote (Saxophonemn) video (Einsteindonut) and Jaakobou (comments directed at Tiamut a few weeks earlier), etc... Do we still block for wp:POINT, unnecessary and inflammatory acts?
Admins, please sort out the mess with objectivity and profesionalism and please stop arguing about WP:UNINVOLVED. This message is directed mainly to ChrisO and Elonka. I urge both of these admins to stop it or let others deal with the sitaution(s).
Partisans, please don't flood threads with repetitive wikilawyering.
To everyone, there's one important thing to all of us... Dignity. To understand racism we must first understand dignity. Let's start with this... Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them. (Aristotle)
P.S. By the way Erik, CU on oneself to prove innocence "are rarely accepted, please do not ask." And the issue of Saxophonemn/Einsteindonut has already been clarified. As I said above, accusations of sockpuppetry should stop. Any further accusation would be faced by a block. And any further provocative comments from any side would be faced with harsh blocks. -- fayssal - wiki up® 03:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
My last concerns about this template have been buried under a mile of rubble, so I'm re-starting the discussion, with a related issue: on the template {{ Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War}}, two completely irrelevant images exist, but because only 2 editors (Timeshifter and myself) are participating in the discussion, and neither side accepts the other's viewpoint, there is no way to gain consensus. I request that the editors of IPCOLL review the arguments from both sides, and insert their 2 cents about whether these images are relevant, should be removed, or perhaps another idea neither of us has thought of. Thanks, Ynhockey ( Talk) 10:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
While looking around at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CAIR_Watch I noticed at CAIR Watch this template which links to this article Controversies_related_to_Islam_and_Muslims which of course is quite biased. Can you imagine if anyone tried to start "Controversies related to Jews and Israel?" However, maybe a factual "Controversies related to Israel" article would be warranted, if someone else wants to start it. Carol Moore 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc
Here are my two cents on the topic:
I think a controversies article on Israel is perfectly reasonable, since there are legitimate controversies with regard to the political decisions made by the Israeli government. I am more than a little concerned about a "Judaism-related controversies" article, though, since I could see such an article easily going into anti-Semitic content. Perhaps a "Controversies within Judaism" rather "Controversies related to Judaism" article would be more appropriate.
←
Michael Safyan (
talk)
08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Question: in this "controversies" context, which country would be listed down for the killing of Mughniyeh? Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Qatar... ? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 11:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has been pretty quiet for a while but a couple of POV, insulting editors have come along and started making POV edits and reverting changes, and making no or questionable excuses on talk page. Thus my "Incident Report" - October 26: Serious BLP violations on Gilad Atzmon described here. Yet an administrator threatens WP:3RR (3 revert rule] - ignoring Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions - while refusing to detail his specific concern on the articles talk page! If this keeps up, what options should I pursue of those listed on the main page of this article? Thanks. Carolmooredc 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about two new templates that have been created/heavily modified by User:Nick Finnsbury: {{ Villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict}} and {{ Infobox Arab villages depopulated}}. I have started a discussion about the first in its own talk page. The second one - I just think it's inferior to the previous template, with which there's really nothing wrong. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have been away on vacation, followed by a frustration-induced wiki-break upon return, but have been back on wiki for a while now, editing and commenting along. This week, I learned that I have been classified as one of the “heavily biased anti-Israel” editors [12] at Wikipedia. I checked the IPCOLL archives for the period during my absence and found this subject has not been raised, so I am raising it, because I feel it significant for this page. I have yet to fully digest the implications of such a classification or my response to it, but I will state the following, simply. I am not anti-Israel, but understand that my life, learning and biases might seem that way to some (and I was overly up-front about that). I am pro-Peace and understand that that bias alone provokes JIDF and their ilk, particularly the post-’67, post-Begin Eretz Israel Zionist zealots. So be it. My noted biases are much different than my commitment to NPOV on Wikipedia where the proof is in one’s article edits, not one’s biases. I can not and will not speak for others; they may or may not do it for themselves.
I want to point out that nine of the 19 listed ‘anti-Israel’ editors (47%) are members of IPCOLL and constitute about a quarter of IPCOLL’s membership. A further 4 listed editors (no overlap) are either named or participated in the RfA that birthed IPCOLL, although many members here can claim that distinction. What does all this mean or foretell; frankly I don’t know. I will surmise that they are suspicious of a) about half the people who ended up being cited in the RfA, b) about half the people who where not cited but defended similar positions, and c) many people who are oppositely POV’d but are particularly willing to collaborate. To me, it indicates an aversion to arbitration, collaboration, WP:AGF and NPOV on JIDF’s part, all basic wiki tenents. It may indicate that other editors with similar alternative knowledge, WP:RSs, bias, and wiki-skills, many of whom are here, will likely end up on the list as it is updated.
I’d be interested to hear and learn what some of the non-listed IPCOLL members think, collaboratively. Happy editing. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 09:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Category:Palestinian terrorists is a subcategory of Category:Terrorists by nationality.
Category:Islamist terrorists is a subcategory of Category:Religious terrorism.
Why is there no Category:Jewish terrorists?
And why is there no Category:Israeli terrorists?
I just heard on National Public Radio here in the USA today of yet another attack by Israeli Jewish fundamentalist settlers rampaging in a Palestinian village. NPR reported that some are calling it a terrorist attack. They have killed many Palestinian civilians in various attacks over decades. They are frequently called terrorists by many reliable sources.
Also, many of the founding militant organizations of Israel have been called terrorists by Western governments and mainstream media. That means some of the members of these organizations should be categorized under Category:Israeli terrorists. They killed many Palestinian civilians before, during, and after the founding of Israel.
For many examples of terrorism by Israelis, and by Jewish militants before and during the founding of Israel see:
The lack of this category Category:Israeli terrorists is another example of Western systemic bias. Please see WP:Countering systemic bias. Wikipedia must honor WP:NPOV more systematically. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) From Irgun (emphasis added):
See also: History of terrorism#Irgun (1936-1948). -- Timeshifter ( talk) 10:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) NoCal100 has been blocked. Here is his block log: [13] - 19:18, 31 October 2008 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ( Edit warring: Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and Reactions to the September 11 attacks.) -- Timeshifter ( talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Other editors have discussed this issue of inclusion in Category:Jewish terrorism at Talk:Lehi (group). There will probably have to be a CFD discussion concerning Category:Religious terrorism and its subcategories. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
For now I will go along with what has been said by Peter Cohen, RolandR, NoCal100, etc.. Category:Zionist terrorism is a better category according to them to add to Irgun, Lehi (group) etc.. Versus Category:Jewish terrorism. I think both categories apply, though.
Otherwise, why isn't the Taliban categorized under some name like Category:Afghani nationalist terrorism? Instead of its current categorization under Category:Islamic terrorism? Both the Taliban and the Zionist groups were oriented towards territory and religion.
I could see why the PLO and Fatah might be categorized in the past under some form of nationalist terrorism category such as Category:Palestinian terrorists. Versus Hamas which is much more focussed on religion. Hamas is currently categorized under Category:Islamic terrorism. Why is Hamas classified under different rules than the Irgun? It is a systemic bias. Especially when you consider that both fought for the same territory, and both are religiously and ethnically oriented. It seems like a double standard to me.
Also, back to my original question at the beginning of this talk section (see #Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists above this subsection). Where do many of the Israeli settlers fit in? From Israeli settlement:
How do we classify some of the terrorist attacks, killings, and bombings by the more religiously-oriented settlers? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple current CFD discussions that people might be interested in. Please see these 2 discussions linked below. One is above the other on the same page.
Note: The following discussion started at Category talk:Zionist terrorism.
See [14]. Jayjg removed the "See also" section with this edit summary:
"See also" sections are common in categories. For example; see Template:Cat see also
There is more info at: meta:Help:Category#"See also" for categories
{{ Catmain}} created a link to Zionist terrorism in the form of
Zionist terrorism redirects to Zionist political violence. Click Zionist terrorism to see what I mean. So I moved the Zionist political violence link to the "see also" section.-- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) They are very common. And the fact that you removed all the "see also" links speaks volumes. Here is the list of links you removed:
See also:
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists and its talk subsection on Category:Zionist terrorism. All the above links were discussed there. "See also" links are supposed to go to clarifying and related articles and categories. They help readers figure out category inclusion rules, and the meaning of category names. They help readers find what they are looking for.
I guess I will have to take this to an admin notice board since we have wildly different experiences in the uses of "see also" lists in categories. I have thousands of edits in categories. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) According to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits you have over 65,000 edits. I am listed there with around 15,000 edits. At Category talk:Zionist terrorism you said concerning 'see also' links "I don't recall ever seeing any, in over four years of editing Wikipedia." Maybe this is because you see and remember only what you want to see and remember? Click the "what links here" links for Template:Cat see also, Template:CatRel, and Template:See also cat. Also see the over 23,000 results from this Google category search for "see also":
Template:Cat see also is for multiple "see also" links.
The above line of "see also" links is produced by this:
Most people do not use the template.
See also:
See also: Category:Zionist terrorism, Category:Nationalist terrorism, Category:Terrorism by genre
See also these categories: Zionist terrorism, Nationalist terrorism, Terrorism by genre -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The use of see also templates for category pages ({{ Cat see also}} or {{ CatRel}}) should be judicious. If there are specific categories that are related and are not sub-categories, then a few links to other categories may be useful., but only of directly related (i.e. not parent or child categories, but obvious ones that can be useful). Also important is to avoid guilt by association. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) You are the one initiating most of the further discussion on other talk pages. I am the one linking to here. Stop talking on the other talk pages, and I will not reply to you there. Reliable sources are not required for "see also" links in articles or categories. Please stop making up your own set of personal guidelines, and instead quote some Wikipedia guidelines. See
and you will see many examples of "see also" links in horizontal and vertical form. I can't do all your work. I have thousands of edits in categories. So I know what I am talking about. By the way, I don't answer to you. I answer to the Wikipedia guidelines. Please stop the uncivil ordering tone. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is a better Google search for finding "See also" lists in vertical format on category pages: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also+category%22
Most of the results have "see also" lists in various vertical formats. There are over 7000 results. Some also have article links in the vertical lists. Many have article links in explanatory sentences and paragraphs.
As I have said previously I have the experience of thousands of edits on category pages, and have seen "see also" links in many formats. You might try assuming good faith, and respecting my experience, Jayjg and Jossi, instead of making up Wikipedia guidelines on your own, and uncivilly telling people they have to use certain templates. You don't have the authority to tell people what to do. You can only point to Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
There is no Wikipedia guideline that requires "see also" links in any particular format. Even the words "see also" are not required. People use all kinds of introductory words before related category links. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
There is Category:Palestinian terrorists. There needs to be Category:Israeli terrorists.
Peter Cohen wrote: "The leaders of the military wings of these groups when they were attacking trains etc. could certainly be labelled as terrorists, as can the perpertrators. The assassin of Yitzhak Rabin would certainly count as another example of an Israeli terrorist."
Who else could be listed? I am making a list.
Further Israeli terrorists:
There are many other candidates for this proposed category. RolandR ( talk) 22:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had reached a consensus that the new categories Category:Zionist terrorism and Category:Palestinian terrorism are acceptable, and can be used to tag organizations which are or were involved in terrorism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. See the discussion above, when Timeshifter introduced these categories, as well as the CFD discussion here. Accordingly, while organizations like Irgun were added to the categories Category:Zionist terrorism, organizations like the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine were added to Category:Palestinian terrorism. Today, however, a couple of editors who did not participate in the previous discussions about the new categories have started removing the Palestinian organizations from the category Category:Palestinian terrorism (see [18] [19]), claiming alternatively that it is a violation of WP:WTA, or that there is no consensus for the new categories. The result is obviously unacceptably POV. I am ok with removing both new categories, but if one is to be used, so must the other. NoCal100 ( talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
So, until such time as we either rename all terrorism and terrorist categories, or delete them all, can we agree that while they exits in their current format, we do not depopulate certain categories in a non-neutral way? NoCal100 ( talk) 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Recently I've been trying to add some context to articles on Palestinian attacks on Israelis, much in the same way that we have it in the articles on Israeli military interventions. Things are getting a bit sticky on
and I was wondering if some more experienced editors could get involved to keep things balanced.
Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 30.10.2008 14:41
Both posters in this thread are now blocked, partially for activities on the page concerned here. Anyone care to discuss over at the talk page?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
2-3 years ago I added some information to the history-section in Karmiel, information sourced in a book by Sabri Jiryis (which in turn was largely based on research done by Uri Davis) AFAIK, nobody has questioned the accuracy/truth of the information given by Jiryis.
Earlier this month most of that information was removed, and now it is argued that Sabri Jiryis and Uri Davis are not WP:RS. Please see the discussion on Talk:Karmiel.
More eyes are needed here, IMO. Please voice your opinion. Thank you. Regards, Huldra ( talk) 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I pretty much would concur with most of Nishidani's observations above about double standards when it comes to sources. I recall for example various pages where any attempt to source anything, even when clearly attributed, to Ilan Pappe for example is met with a chorus of disapproval and on one occasion a request to "prove" that he is an academic and published expert in the area. Same goes for sourcing in the media world to The Guardian, CNN and Haaretz (especially Gideon Levy); and, in the NGO/Human Rights field, to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I have lost count of the number of times these have been castigated as being "anti-Israel" or whatever, with editors asking for corroboration even for factual material being sourced to their reports. I'm not going to dig around for diffs since I'm sure most of us have seen this at one point or another on talk pages. Of course all of these individuals, outlets and organisations have their bias to a greater or lesser extent, but all of them clearly fall within the reach of WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and other policies and guidelines. Sources which are - fairly - seen as being actively "pro-Palestinian", such as Electronic Intifada, or the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights are usually tossed out altogether, even when what they are saying is being clearly attributed and even though they are by no means fringe groups.
By contrast for example recently I have seen incendiary and polemical comments from Alan Dershowitz, culled from an op-ed piece, being repeatedly reinserted into an article about a US politician on the basis that he is a "noted authority" [on whether someone is an anti-Semite or not]. Virtually every NGO which has incurred their wrath has acquired a standalone paragraph detailing, with a full blockquote, the criticism being levelled at them by NGO Monitor - eg here, here and here. As for media sources, I lose track of how much information and comment is sourced to Arutz Sheva, FrontPage Magazine etc and even Debka.com. Comment and analysis from CAMERA, HonestReporting and Palestinian Media Watch is trotted out as if they are straight-up, non-partisan groups. And I haven't even got to the academic sources, other than Pappe above. The Chomsky issue is a little more complex than "historian or not a historian?" No he is not a professional academic historian, but he is of course one of the most prolific and respected - given his POV - commentators on political and historical issues - in that respect I suppose he has an equivalence of sorts with Dershowitz, but it's clear which of the two gets an easier ride here on Wikipedia both as a subject matter and as a source in other pages (for example Chomsky has a whole "Criticisms of .." page all to himself - Dershowitz merely gets a short "Controversies" sub-section on his main page). The imbalance is pretty glaring to anyone who comes across these pages who doesn't actually have a stake in the conflict or strong views one way or the other. Obviously the above is not a comprehensive list, and it's not always the same editors who are pushing for FrontPage material while trying to exclude reports from CNN. Nonetheless it's a real problem. The practical solution might be some form of agreed source list, defining them by type (media, human rights group, partisan activist, specialist academic, whatever), whether they are seen as "preferring" one side or another, whether they should be used as sources for fact or only, with attribution, for comment/interpretation, whether we would expect to see what they say being corroborated and/or balanced etc. However I can see endless difficulties with "ranking" sources or putting them into boxes in this way - and even if it were possible in principle, I can never see editors here agreeing on how to do it. -- Nickhh ( talk) 23:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Just noticed this reference tool linked to above, which I guess attempts to cover the general problem, albeit in a different way. -- Nickhh ( talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
'Noam Chomsky reported that some streets were named after units of the Irgun and Palmach forces that conquered the village.', which has been proven to be false,
(outdenting) the objection is to the fact that their writings on the I-P conflict are merely an extension of their politics
And Laqueur's are not? Come on, everyone has a political POV, even historians, no-one is completely objective.
I'm not sure exactly what this discussion is about, but if it's whether or not Chomsky qualifies as a WP:RS on the Is-Pal conflict, I believe he did write a book called The Fateful Triangle that is widely cited by other scholars, and that is all that is required to qualify as a wp:rs on this project. Whether Chomsky is necessarily the best source to use is another issue, but in some circumstances at least his views are probably worth citing. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
'No, actually, the objection is to the fact that their writings on the I-P conflict are merely an extension of their politics.' Jayjg
‘The views I hold were called ‘Zionism’ in the past within the Zionist movement, and still are by many today.’ Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrin Otero, Radical Priorities, AK Press, 2003 p.13
‘a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades’(Noam Chomsky, Middle East Illusions, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004 p.53
![]() | → Talk:Second Intifada#RfC: Are sources used an example of WP:SYNTH or not? |
guys, please stop editing the title, this is childish. just leave it < eleland/ talk edits> 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg is removing referenced text based on those reliable resources. See this diff: [20]
His edit summary says: remove original research based on primary sources. It's not up to you to decide when it started, but up to reliable secondary sources. See talk.
From: WP:Reliable sources#News organizations: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press."
The referenced text strictly concerns events and not opinions:
See Talk:Second Intifada#Start of the Second Intifada for quotes from those articles. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Are BBC, CNN, New York Times reliable sources? This was my original title for this talk section. My question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration is about reliable sources for narratives of events.
My point is that the current narrative of the events is off by a day: "the first major clashes occurred on September 29, 2000, the day after a controversial visit by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount"
Talk:Second Intifada#Start of the Second Intifada is mainly about sourced opinions concerning a different topic from what I am discussing. So I will not reply there further since it is a different topic.
I don't want to get dragged into a discussion about the meanings or beginnings or global perspectives concerning the Second Intifada. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 07:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Additional input is requested at Template talk:Terrorism category definition. The discussion there concerns these 2 category templates:
It has been more than a week, though a momentous one, since any discussion. This is an important topic; in light of change we need, so to speak.
I originally wrote that for a talk edit here, then thought about it, and after considering innumerable possibilities of how best to proceed, decided to bring it here for a sniff test, transparently. I would appreciate your indulgence, on the consideration that some members might want to take a more pro-active approach toward NPOV. Equally, it is in the purview all members, hopefully, collaboratively. I did not pick this fight, it dropped in my lap [24], from an infamous former editor; I could link it, but won’t. Wiki fought off that attack. I do not want to fight that again, but with a commitment to NPOV, I believe this may present the time to end it neutrally. I want to approach it as collaboratively as possible. Please, take a look for yourselves and let me know. You will likely be watching anyway, however I decide to proceed. Also, let me know what wiki-toes I might be starting to step on. It is very difficult to state the obvious about sticky subjects on Wikipedia. Extraordinary whatevers require extraordinary sources and we have come across one with wide, specific and collaborative potential, or not. I fully understand it will not please all, but assume good faith. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 07:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In order to get additional comments Category:Nationalist terrorism was relisted. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 15#Category:Nationalist terrorism
My view has changed. I now think the category should be renamed to Category:Ethnic terrorism or Category:Ethnic terrorism allegations. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The interestingly named User:DontbeaPOVPUSHER has appeared at the JIDF talk and article pages today. (S)he has reverted two edits I made today which refer to recent articles in Haaretz and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. In the latter case, I have provided a literal translation of the key criticism with the original German in the footnote. On the talk page I have linked an unofficial (and less lieral) translation which supports my interpretation. In the Haaretz case (s)he claimed that the Haaretz information was inaccurate without providing a WP:RS that substantiates the claim. I've re-reverted both edits, but other contributors are invited to comment.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The JIDF has contacted me with questions and I have provided them with answers, as I do for other organisations.
The JIDF has posted a complaint about the update to the article by John and myself. If anyone wants to check for any validity in these complaints then they can be found in the first article here [27].-- Peter cohen ( talk) 19:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Nishidani, I don't believe you need to activate your e-mail to mail someone through wikipedia. I may be wrong about this though. I don't believe mailing soemone to alter them to a discussion about them risks anything. On he contrary it is just polite when you see they are on a break. On the rest of what you've said, I don't believe I was ever listed on the JIDF website as you claim. I certainly never saw it and I have google alters set up so I should have if it was there. I think what you mean is their Facebook group. I've explained this on the JIDF article talk page: "I was invited to the Facebook group of the JIDF, which I accepted as I do wish to be notified on what they are doing. The administrator made me an officer, I wrote to them and said I wasn't willing to be an officer of their Facebook group unless it was made clear that I was not a JIDF official. The solution hit upon was to make the position "external consultant". I was not an admin of the group, nor was I an office holder (or indeed member) of the JIDF itself. I am not aware of having ever been listed on the JIDF website in any capasity other than as an author of work they have reproduced." I don't believe I have a close enough relationship to the JIDF to have a COI writing about them. If I did almost no researcher would ever be able to write about their field of expertise. Oboler ( talk) 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there enough material out there to justify an article on this theme? I know that User:Oboler has had research published on the subject and that some of the Zionist groups have picked up the concept gaining some press coverage. Has there been any critique published or is the coverage largely from one side?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
RfC intro reads: There is a dispute among a number of editors about keeping out of the (Obama new Chief of Staff) Rahm Emanuel article the following brief and abundantly WP:RS referenced notable and explanative information (in bold; refs in italics). The information is embarrassing to Emanuel, but that is not an excuse to delete it per Wiki Policy on Well Known Public Figures. Doing so creates an article that is confusing to people unfamiliar with Israeli history and suspiciously sanitized to those who have seen the many various mainstream and blog references to these facts, which doubtless will continue relating to Israel-Palestine and terrorism issues during the time Emanuel holds his Chief of Staff position. (Read specifics there of very limited additions I'm proposing.) Carol Moore 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc
I am not sure anybody will notice my request higher up on this talk page.
Additional input is sought at Talk:Irgun#Category:Zionist terrorism. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I have made what I believe to be is a fair, accurate, well sourced description of both sides of the controversy here Rashid Khalidi#Controversy regarding relationships with militant organizations. I would appreciate your input here Talk:Rashid Khalidi#New section on militant organizations. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 20:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Category:Israel articles missing geocoordinate data, Category:West Bank articles missing geocoordinate data and Category:Gaza Strip articles missing geocoordinate data contain lists of articles about places that curently lack geographic coordinates.
Adding coordinates to these articles will allow users of Google Maps and other location-aware services to find these articles on maps, as well as putting them into Wikipedia's own internal atlas.
The articles are all marked with {{ coord missing}} tags, which need replacing with {{ coord}} tags that contain their latitude/longitude coordinates -- alternatively, you might want to enter the coordinates into an infobox, before removing the {{ coord missing}} tag. You can find out how to do this at Wikipedia:How to add geocodes to articles. Please let me know if this is useful! -- The Anome ( talk) 14:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking Category:Arab-Israeli conflict could use a Critics subcategory. Options would be:
Unless I missed a category, it seems there are a lot of people with articles who are well known for criticism on either side and it's helpful to organize them for wiki readers, as well as for wiki editors, including to be able to check their articles systematically for BLP violations. Thoughts? Carol Moore 15:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
backdent<---
Despite the fact that several of us have produced WP:RSs that describe Irgun as terrorist, there are people trying to remove categories etc from this article. There seems to be a wierd interpretation of WP:SYN going on whereby even if we can reference that they were Zionist and terrorist, we need to find someone actually saying "Zionist terrorist" before we can put the article in that category.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
<---Backdent Wikipedia:Categories#How_to_categorize_an_article is not that specific on needing a specific WP:RS. It says: When assigning an article into categories, try to be thorough in a "horizontal" sense. The topic may be associated with a geographic area, a historical period, an academic subfield, a certain type of thing (like a food or an ornament), and/or a special interest topic (like Roman Empire or LGBT). You might need to poke around the category hierarchy a bit to find the right place. Try searching for articles similar to the article you are categorizing to get ideas or to find the most appropriate place. There may be a debate on which of several categories is best, using various WP:RS. But saying it can't be in a category unless exact terminology is used is a misinterpretation of policy, IM(notvery)HO. Carol Moore 15:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
An {expand} template has been added here, with references on the talkpage to spur discussion. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 11:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated after reviewing the evidence here: Talk:Rashid Khalidi. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone has tried to link the JIDF attack page on Wikipedia editors from the article. I hope people here agree it is inappropriate to do so. (I am listed on that page but am on record as objecting to its beign linked before I was added to it.)-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Israel has already been informed by another editor [33], and I'm about to post this at WikiProject Palestine too, since it's relevant there as well.
There's a problem at Hummus, as some of may know. Two main issues: 1) Whether or not the word Palestine can be used in the article 2) How much space should be accorded to the controversy over how Hummus became a part of Israeli cuisine, and the way to phrase it etc.
Anyway, thought you should all know that discussion at
Talk:Hummus is actively underway to find solutions to these issues before the page is unprotected. I should caution any who wish to be involved that an admin has threatened to unilaterally block anyone who edits outside of consensus after article protection is lifted. Welcome to the wonderful world of Israel-Palestine collaboration!
Tiamut
talk
20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The food fight has spread. Should an admin find a wrong version to protect there too?== Peter cohen ( talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There's currently a BLP concern regarding reports about Rashid Khalidi being affiliated with the PLO. Personally, I couldn't care if he was or wasn't, but a recent report by Ehud Yeari on prime time television made me feel that the BLP concern is incorrect. Since my perspective on this has not been accepted, I believe there is room for wider opinions/review. Cheers, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Benjamin M. Emanuel. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:
Your feedback is appreciated. rootology ( C)( T) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC) :Copy posted by CarolMooreDC ( talk) 19:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriella_Ambrosio#Gabriella_Ambrosio regarding the author of Before We Say Goodbye,a book about the Israel-Palestine conflict which got a good review in ynet here. — Sebastian 04:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)