Talk:Yanun

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Yanun. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Yanun at the Reference desk.

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

FMEP

Is not an RS. I am sure Arutz Sheva also has plenty to say on this matter.Ankh.Morpork 12:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tracking me here. Argue your opinion, don't state obiter dicta, at the appropriate WP:RS forum, and notify me when you do.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in your view as to why you consider this an RS and have used it to make contentious claims; I ask this as I have similar style sources that I would like to include to provide an interesting perspective.Ankh.Morpork 13:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You expressed a personal view on a source praised for its work by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Admiral William J. Crowe, which publishes views by Geoffrey Aronson, Yuval Diskin, George W. Ball, Philip Klutznick, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Sari Nusseibeh, Helena Cobban and dozens of other top-ranking authorities on US foreign policy and the Middle East. If you can't see at first sight that a Washington think tank/NGO with these interests and credentials and support is not suitable as per WP:RS, either visit an optometrist or refer the question to your new mentor, who will illuminate you. The question you raise is a non-question, since it implies that my use of this source is based on subjective, personal, rather than objective, wiki critieria.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Praise by wiki linked people for its work does not meet the standards required for the publications of this partisan NGO to considered an RS. Ankh.Morpork 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)As I said, go to WP:RSN if you wish to challenge this source. You haven't done your legwork. No one appears to be complaining of it as a source on several I/P wiki pages. You trailed me here, made no case for your idiosyncratic dismissal of an eminently good source whose work is admired certainly by distinguished scholars and diplomats, people who have no record for partisan enmity. Do not adopt the habit of reverting what you dislike on spurious grounds. IR is not a right, it is a measure employed to stop egregious abuses or edit-warring, and neither existed on this page before you followed me here.Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging that my edits are "unmotivated" and are simply borne from a desire to improve the article. Ankh.Morpork 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I'm quite happy to mentor you, (certainly not on my page where your presence is unwelcome, because I do not think you have the slightest interest in encyclopedic work. But miracles do occur.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to proffer this ) for your use. What would your mentorship entail; I am fearful that it may be a little too classical for my liking. Ankh.Morpork 18:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but that is the second time you have raised the innuendo that an interlocutor (User:Sean.hoyland was the other) has paedophilic tendencies? On a matter of classical philology, there is no known etymological connection between the Greek Μέντωρ and the Latin mentula (if you had that in mind, which, apropos, is not quite the place to put it). Admit it. You only reverted me to get back on my talk page from which you were banned, and trapped me into inadvertently reinstating your presence there? Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am mistaken but is this the second time that I have to wag my admonishing finger at your delusional discernment of some Machiavellian scheme of which you claim has adversely effected you? I seem to recall that you spotted some latent Antisemitism exploitation in some benign text, were the victim to an elaborate good cop-bad cop routine on your talk page, and have now triumphantly exposed my revert subterfuge. I note that your editing surged after the closure of the News of the World. No I am not Moriarty incarnate and this was not a last throw of the dice attempt to grace your talk pages for which my enthusiasm has considerably dampened ever since Luke's untimely demise. Ankh.Morpork 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the recent edits turned article to POV nightmare and piece of propaganda usage of one sided sources is goes against WP:NPOV moreover some of the sources can't be used at all in wikipeda as they not reliable.Per WP:ONUS provide justification for sources that you want to use.Also please follow WP:BRD.--Shrike (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, I'll give you a couple of hours to reconsider and revert. If you don't, I'll report this incident. I don't think there is anything in policy that will allow an experienced editor to blanket 16 edits of substantial work on historical, cultural and eventual matters. All I can see, honestly is that you dislike its content, when all of that work is sourced to academic or mainstream publishers, absolutely mainstream policy research institutes or the BBC. Taking that to RSN would get an automatic nod on all of these sources. Using your skewed WP:NPOV logic AnkhMorpork's page on body transfers should be blanked because its reportage is basically Israeli coverage of assassins, murderers etc. I don't do that, neither should you or anyone else. Nishidani (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of vandalism when they actually not is violation of WP:NPA.I have reverted your edit per WP:BRD.Please answer my concerns on talk.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please go source by source and explain why they WP:RS on the facts and why their opinion should be included at all?.--Shrike (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Shrike. Nishidani did an enormous amount of work adding that information to the article. The least you can do if you plan on preventing him from adding any of it is rxplain, sentence by sentence, source by source, why his edits are unacceptable. He doesn't need to anticipate your unstated objections. Please state what your specific objections to each item he added is and then we can work to address your concerns if they are policy basd. Tiamut^talk}

Per WP:ONUS he should explain it and you too as you added the material.Also you deleted the dubious tag.Please explain why?--Shrike (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was an oversight I have now fixed. Let's begin by discussing that tag, which is the only specific problem you have elucidated to date. If the material is explicitly attributed to Hussein Khalidi and his role as an ISM activist is noted, why is it unreliable or dubious? What would help alleviate your concerns? Aother source stating the same thing? Tiamut^talk 10:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because we can't use word of the activist for historical claims.If you have doubts go to WP:RSN--Shrike (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedic article should not contain material based on an insignificant activist or self published sources from a partisan NGO's. Ankh.Morpork 22:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, putting aside this one sentence, which Shrike has now deleted here, what other sources or information added to the article are unacceptable? Shrike, you keep citing WP:ONUS. That's a shortcut to WP:V. Everything Nishidani added has an RS cited to it as far as I can see. He has met the sourcing burden. You need to explain, source by source, or example by example where he hasn't. I'm not wedded to using Hussein Khalidi for historical info, but he can be used to attest to How people in the village make his living. You deleted all info sourced to him. No matter. Let's put him aside for now and discuss your ther concerns. 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem removing Khalidi, though one could well argue the point. A generic objection, i.e, none or most of the sources used by Nishidani are valid, or it is up to Nishidani to prove that they are valid, is not how wiki works. For it would translate operatively into: Any edit with academic or major publishing house imprint, if challenged by anyone, has to be proven to be RS. Only someone who hasn't read WP:RS specifications on what are optimal sources for articles could push this antic, and rather quaintly curious, innovative interpretation.

In any case, thanks to several editors in the meantime, the article's historical background has been thickened out. A certain historical continuity of the village, going back to Ottoman land registers, dispenses with the need to show, if the need ever existed, that the people of Yanun have been there for longer than Khalidi's 300 years.That's reason enough to remove the POV tag, which, under any reasonable reading of RS, can only really be raised with regard to the source, Khalidi, Shrike removed. AnkhMorpork queried FMEP. I answered the objection comprehensively, and obtained no significant follow-up. If that is not enough, take it to RSN, where it will be accepted almost ineludibly, because it is a Washington think tank that is highly regarded for the quality of its work.

As to the POV objections, a list of objections must be forthcoming, so that editors who have built the page can systematically address these 'concerns'. If one isn't forthcoming, just tagging the page has no functional value. Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone

with an IQ higher than mine, i.e. an average competency in how these thingamijigs work, fix the link to the Mandal source, please? If you pump in 'Mandal+Living with Settlers' the booklet pops up as easily as a poop in bed. If I use the link, it doesn't. But then I am quite stupid, and have stuffed up somewhere. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got a little confused myself, but got it finally. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

This article is replete with the views of activists and partisan organisations that are unreliable sources. They include among others:

Unattributed contentious claims by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a partisan self-published NGO,
Non-expert views of peace activist, David Shulman
Unattributed non-expert views of Palestinian human rights activist, Anna Baltzer.
Unattributed non-expert views of political activist "considered extreme in her political views even by many left-wing activists", Tanya Reinhart. Ankh.Morpork 13:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attribute those "claims".
Those "views" appear in a book published by University of Chicago Press and are attributed to him
Attribute that too if you like
ditto

I've also restored the material you deleted because it was mis-cited to a blog. I've corrected the citation as all the blog was doing was reproducing a news piece published, and available from, the Ma'an News Agency. I've also restored, and attributed, the material from the EAPPI. nableezy - 18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating that all views are worthy of inclusion in this article with attribution? Ankh.Morpork 18:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no? nableezy - 18:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying the anus that extruded the lump of shit doesn't alter its malodorous nature. Even with attribution, self-published sources are not considered reliable sources to make controversial third party claims. If you claim otherwise, where do you draw the line between one SPS and another? Ankh.Morpork 18:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to question whether any of these sources is unsuitable to be used with attribution, then by all means, please take each to WP:RS/N. Thank you. nableezy - 18:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat: which wiki policy are you using to decide between one SPS and another? Ankh.Morpork 18:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat: If you want to question whether any of these sources is unsuitable to be used with attribution, then by all means, please take each to WP:RS/N. Thank you. nableezy - 19:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit and reinserted a source; I would like to understand the rationale for your edit. Ankh.Morpork 19:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isnt what you are doing. If you would like to question the reliability of a given source for an attributed statement then please start a discussion at WP:RS/N. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. That was amply and adequately justified above.
2. David Shulman. I've used his book and articles several times, in 'controversial' articles. No one who has challenged him has accepted my request they take it to RSN. He's a world-class academic, fluent in the languages of the territories, a weekly visitor to the area for the last decade, and accepted by the NYRB and many other journals for his even-handed reportage there.
3 I'm afraid you appear not to be reading the page other than for evidence to challenge it. Anna Baltzer's book publishes her experiences throughout the West Bank, and she is cited for a detail of the landscape. You're effectively arguing that someone's notes on a landscape while travelling to a place have to be attributed wherever they're activists?
4.Tanya Reinhart. 'Extremist?' and citing one entry on her wiki article?

What she is quoted for is a fact, not her opinion

'The village was re-occupied with the aid of peace activists from Ta'ayush and the International Solidarity Movement, who came and held a round-the-clock presence there for two weeks when the villagers started moving out in response to harassment.'

which can be independently confirmed by several sources and eyewitnesses, including the UN OCHA report, which I shall presently do.

Look, I hope you don't mind a word of advice. I really don't know why from page to page you keep mechanically challenging sources, instead of, as constructive wikipedians try to do with what they dislike, researching the subject itself. We are here to build articles, not obstruct their composition. The highest bar imaginable in wikipedia is required on anything to do with Palestinians and Palestine? fine, but your repetition of dubious challenges from page to page is not helpful, encyclopedically. There's a lot of work to be done here, and it is taking ages to get one line written, as these nonsensical challenges pop up on every page one touches. It just drags one into endless repetitive rehearsals of policy and background which informed students of the area should be familiar with.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Belen Vicens and I edited the volume that is cited in the section "Critical judgments." I corrected the attribution of the footnote to its author, Ferran Izquierd Brichs, who contributed a chapter to my book.Belenvicens (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Zero^talk 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I stuffed that up, because I couldn't at the time, but can now, see the whole essay and the author's list. Google must have changed its viewing mode.I have adjusted two other mentions of the book. By the way, rereading Brichs' remarks on Yanun, I note he refers to the fact that, at least in 2002, the Itamar settlers had set up a searchlight system on the mountain-top overlooking Yanun, which they switched on at night to cover the whole of the village so that it was under perpetual surveillance, and the phenomenon of nighttime itself had been denied Yanun's people. Brichs mentions that the eerie light pouring over the place gave the impression that Yanun was a concentration camp. I read that in some other sources. I don't know if this surveillance harassment persists, and am wondering whether the datum might be added or not.Nishidani (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalan text reads:'La nit, a Yanun, és única al món. Al poblet no es fa mai fosc. Des dels turons que l'envolten els colons dirigeixen focus cap al poble, com en un camp de concentraciò. A Yanun, fins i tot la nit més tancada sembla de lluna plena.'Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French-speakers, please

@Nishidani: or any other French-speaker: I have added the link to Guerin, but the article now looks a bit silly "In 1870, Victor Guérin visited," ...could someone who understands the language please "flesh" it out? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Yanun. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kirkensnodhjelp.no/Documents/Kirkens%20Nødhjelp/Geografiske%20filer/Midtøsten/Living%20with%20settlers.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]