Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Jerusalem Post. Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia

"Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia". May 16, 2010 article. Jerusalem Post:.

When I have looked at Israeli-Palestinian (IP) articles I notice an overall pro-Israeli POV instead of an NPOV expressed. Same as in the mainstream U.S. media overall. And then there is this Wikipedia IP history:

Israeli Foreign Ministry's organized campaign on Wikipedia.

Please see:

Related administrator arbitration, actions, incidents, etc.:

DMI Comparison between Anonymous Palestinian and Israeli Wikipedia Edits.

Using WikiScanner the Digital Methods Initiative (DMI) site has an analysis called:

Israeli anonymous edits outnumbered Palestinian anonymous edits several times over.

And then there is the unresolved problem of sockpuppets everywhere. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The comments after this article include an appeal for readers to emulate the Runtshit vandal (and one comment purportedly by me, but actually by the same stalker). This is likely to lead to a spate of vandalism; keep alert! RolandR (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The article should have been published a few months ago, but is a bit 'out dated'. I-P has actually calmed down in the past two months with many editors being sanctioned. Let's keep the collaboration going and not the useless warring. --Shuki (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations‎ article discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

This article has a systematic bias that advocates the views of one party, Israel, to the near exclusion of the other listed parties - the United Nations and Palestine. The article has been tagged for POV by more than one editor, but the application of the template has been reverted on each occasion. Very well sourced information contained in a neutral narrative that reflects customary law; the official policies of the United Nations; the official policies of the League of Nations; and the views of Palestine have been deleted.

See the discussion at [1] harlan (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Businesses believed to be owned by Hamas

See Category talk:Businesses believed to be owned by Hamas Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yavne/Yibna

There is a discussion going on, on the Yavne talk page about the desirability of merging the pages of Yavne and Yibna. I would welcome your opinions. --Sreifa (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

New Haaretz article: "The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia"

[2]

Many new anti-neutral editors may be showing up here soon (or already has) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the article to everybody's attention. This venture isn't likely to succeed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Last year the government of Israel unveiled plans to pay volunteers to post pro-Israel talkbacks on websites, e.g. [3]. harlan (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We may have a live one. Unomi (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Guardian - Rachel Shabi - Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups, 18 August 2010:

And on Wikipedia, they believe that there is much work to do.
Take the page on Israel, for a start: "The map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria," said Bennett, referring to the annexed Syrian territory and the West Bank area occupied by Israel in 1967.

Another point of contention is the reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – a status that is constantly altered on Wikipedia.

Other pages subject to constant re-editing include one titled Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza – which is now being considered for deletion – and a page on the Palestinian territories.

Then there is the problem of what to call certain neighbourhoods. "Is Ariel a city or a settlement?" asks Shaked of the area currently described by Wikipedia as "an Israeli settlement and a city in the central West Bank." That question is the subject of several thousand words of heated debate on a Wikipedia discussion thread.

The idea, says Shaked and her colleauges, is not to storm in, cause havoc and get booted out – the Wikipedia editing community is sensitive, consensus-based and it takes time to build trust.

"We learned what not to do: don't jump into deep waters immediately, don't be argumentative, realise that there is a semi-democratic community out there, realise how not to get yourself banned," says Yisrael Medad, one of the course participants, from Shiloh.

Is that Shiloh in the occupied West Bank? "No," he sighs, patiently. "That's Shiloh in the Binyamin region across the Green Line, or in territories described as disputed."
One Jerusalem-based Wikipedia editor, who doesn't want to be named, said that publicising the initiative might not be such a good idea. "Going public in the past has had a bad effect," she says. "There is a war going on and unfortunately the way to fight it has to be underground."

    ←   ZScarpia   23:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Something must be done about this. These are giant organized meatpuppet groups. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Another article here: [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"The goal is to take part in public relations [for Israel] in English." ... hmmmmmm.     ←   ZScarpia   09:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is some kind of guide released here: "Wikipedia Course Booklet" [5] can someone who knows hebrew please translate it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have downloaded it and had a brief look; but it is 18 pages long, so I don't propose to translate it all. I have read the half-page about English Wikipedia, which is remarkably anodyne, just pointing out the rules, and the differences from Hebrew Wikipedia. I'll try to read the whole thing tomorrow, and see if there is anything worth noting; but my first impression is that they haven't put anything damaging down on paper. Really, we need on of the 100-plus people who attended their seminar to spill the beans about what was actually said there. RolandR (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
As I wrote on the main collaboration talk page, if the CAMERA article can note their organizing people to edit wikipedia (see here), why not a note in the Israeli settlement or some other as/more relevant article?? (Even the CAMERA article?) Of course, now that we have two examples from WP:RS sources maybe there needs to be a new section in the Wikipedia article itself. Have any other groups tried this sort of thing to the extent it was noticed by WP:RS?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed: The Guardian has an article on this now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
See Zionist editing on Wikipedia and and related deletion discussion. This campaign is also noted in Yesha Council. RolandR (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: The battle for Wikipedia: Palestinians counter Israeli editing group

[6] and Palestinians prepare to battle 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia [7] harlan (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

New IRC Channel

Hi, just a heads up that an irc channel has been created, you can read more here. Feel free to contact me if you have questions, Best un☯mi 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD "Zionist editing on Wikipedia"

[8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive war

Hi, a discussion on the presentation of the Six-Day War at Preemptive war has been started in the talk page to the latter article. Please join in and comment. Thanks! Shoplifter (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories dealing with bigotry

This is a particular problem with Category:Antisemitism but also other bigotry-related categories where individuals' names are listed despite indications in BLP policy they shouldn't be. (And disclaimers on category pages themselves may be vs. policy.) Full policy details and proposal here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Inconsistencies.2Fambiguities_in_categories_about_various_forms_of_bigotry.

Something I did not cover explicitly there is discussion of things like why it's ok to have a Category:Anti-Islam activists and Category:Islam critical scholars but such categories for other religions might be AfD'd immediately. I just don't have energy to figure out how to AfD either, in case someone else does. Other thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

The JIDF have noticed that someone has tagged the page as an advert. They have been sending IPs over to remove the tag. I've reverted twice. Is someone able to semi-protect the page or at least watch it so that they can join in the reverting when the people on their alert list wake up?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is derived entirely from reliable sources. It's not an advertisement. This is just another stunt being pulled by anti-Israel/anti-JIDF activists, like yourself. There's also no evidence to support that the JIDF has been doing as you allege. --Miamiville (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Please comment on content, not on your views of other editors. I suggest that you strike out your personal remarks above. RolandR (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice use of the Liar paradox there.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Category:Anti-Islam Activists

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_25#Category:Anti-Islam_activists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Notification

I'd appreciate comments from anyone who wants to offer an opinion here. NickCT (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop the Islamization of America needs own article?

Currently only redirects to Stop Islamisation of Europe and given Park51 controversy has hundreds of WP:RS refs. Not to mention more attention to the founders' views on Israel - Palestine issues, probably into the future. Most information is at Pamela_Geller#Stop_Islamization_of_America. Just a thought in case anyone wants to way into that fray! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Current incivility & strong anti-Hamas POV movement at its entry

I've dealt with these problems civilly on the Talk:Hamas page, but that has been entirely ineffective, and may have attracted 'allies' of Wikifan12345 to the page. I would appreciate any outsiders taking a look in at the very recent changes there by Markovitz and Wikifan12345 and help restore what IMHO was gradually becoming an NPOV Wikipedia entry.Haberstr (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Third Intifada

The Third_Intifada#Incidents section needs looking at and probably deleting. There doesn't appear to be anything in the sources linking the incidents to a thing called the Third Intifada. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does that article exist? nableezy - 18:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
So people can stuff more I/P articles into WP. :P Looks like it could be deletion time.Sol (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion about CAMERA and Alex Safian

There is a discussion about CAMERA and Alex Safian at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. [9] harlan (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology and toponomy of Golan heights

I have opened discussion here [10] other peoples opinions are appreciated. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK. Generally couple of weeks ago, etymology was lacking refs and based totally on WP:CK. The article is under 1RR Probation Reminder. This specific change is discussed here, I guess this discussion was opened to continue stone walling, however I might be totally wrong ;) BTW, there is additional discussion also here. Is it shopping for more opinion? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That is not appropriate, Supreme Deliciousness.Cptnono (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Golan

A supposedly "new" user has been making a large number of contentious edits to articles on Israeli settlements in the Golan, removing that they are "Israeli settlements" and that they are in occupied territories. See the contribs of Kàkhvelokákh (talk · contribs). Could somebody besides me deal with this please? nableezy - 13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

More (suspected) Drork-related antics!     ←   ZScarpia   23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
. . .and problem solved with much irony. Gotta hand it to him, the guy is tenacious. Sol (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the line between tenacity and something much darker was crossed a long while back.     ←   ZScarpia   08:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


JCPA editing

Special:Contributions/Thejerusalemcenter's edits could do with some eyes on them. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be just one of a series of accounts editing mainly or exclusively on Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, or on its members. See also Special:Contributions/Awg9988, Special:Contributions/EinGedi, Special:Contributions/Marissyb29, Special:Contributions/SSA87, Special:Contributions/Jcenter1, Special:Contributions/93.172.4.41. Looks like a severe case of conflict of interest. RolandR (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Type into various searches its name and name of publications/individuals critical of its kind of work and get some WP:RS info/criticism. Or name of group and things like "Israel lobby." I noticed in a quick search it allegedly started "NGO Monitor" which isn't in article. Something of interest. (Also see if any such material has been deleted.) Then if they go bonkers and try to delete it there's a case to claim it. Also, ala WP:COI you can always go to their talk pages and ask if they work there or otherwise are closely allied. Of course, one wonders if it is some naive person who thinks having three names will somehow hide the fact that it is the same person. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Also Special:Contributions/Globallawforum, which started editing immediately after Thejerusalemcenter was blocked. RolandR (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the Old City of Jerusalem and the Walls of Jerusalem be included in this template

Please share your knowledge on this matter here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


”Zionist editing” article links

Since this remains an ongoing issue, linking to the two most recent threads on the issue as FYI for rest of this year.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Carolmooredc. It was a hot issue among the involved editors for about a week when the news were published, but the tsunami of organized meatpuppets newer arrived, false alarm. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you may be wrong. Allegedly things are getting worse and drastic action is being considered. See comments at: below here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement.2FIsrael-Palestine_articles_rather_drastic_proposals. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Carol, I'm sorry but your analysis IMHO is not even a close miss. The "recent deterioration" has nothing to do with the suggested massive meatpuppeteering. It's all about a limited number of the well known battlegroundish users. Please take a look on this discussion. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The intro of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles and options do not specify that only old users an issue. Some people opine so on the talk page; others mention meat puppet and off-wiki organizing. And don't forget this month's newbie meat puppet may be next January's hardcore experienced user and battle grounder. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That's right, but even the sock puppets are coming from the same known banned puppeteers. There is a lot of problems in I-P area, but the one you are talking about is not among them. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent). I compiled this talk archive:

Here's one for the archive that was missed. Comments on a New York Times web page about a Times article on such pro-Israel organizing on wikipedia. Shows how normal readers get a bad impression of wikipedia on these articles and no doubt in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

1RR now applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict articles

See and engage in discussion at the main page where this was posted. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#1RR_for_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict_articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

See also:

New POV article "Jewish control of the media"

Edited so far by just one editor. I've initiated discussion since article seems to be used as vehicle to squelch any discussion of topic at all, which is vs. Wikipedia policy, especially since NPOV sources and ways of addressing the issue do exist. (Obviously this is related to how the I-P issue is covered in media.) Talk:Jewish_control_of_the_media#How_to_make_article_less_POV. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this also: Media_coverage_of_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood, and the deletion review (second one down). It was deleted, as this article should be.
I think this type of article is hopelessly POV. There are already articles on the Israeli lobby, and other lobbies from all sides. Media influence and systemic bias should not be conflated with ethnic and religious bigotry. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see a way that it could be done correctly, if responses to accusations and criticism of partisan uses of the accusation were included (like in New Antisemitism.) However, the revert of this edit which clearly shows WP:RS (including Abe Foxman) call it a myth and a conspiracy theory, as well as a canard, shows that editors who created/defended it are so POV that they won't even allow their allies to define the concept differently than they do! (Note also that the editor who did it started his account the same day User:Historicist was banned and edits same area with similar modus operandi/POV; but he's passed a check user test, which of course is easy enough to do.) So I'm not quite ready initiate WP:AfD, but considering the circumstances I might support others who do AfD it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Carolmooredc still does not seem to understand the essential topic of the entry in question, judging by her statement here. There is a world of difference between "Jewish control of the media" and "Jewish influence in the media." The existing article is the former; she wants it to be the latter, over the objections of every other editor there.
Here is why that distinction is so important. There is a very specific, long, and well-documented thread of antisemitic rhetoric claiming that the press (and now "the media") is in the hand of The Jew. Not that there are some Jewish editors somewhere or some Jewish writers, but that on a universal level the press is owned absolutely by Jews and run absolutely by Jews in a way to criminally benefit the Jewish conspiracy to run the world and defraud the gentiles. You'll see this "The Jew runs the press" claim spelled out in Protocols of the Elders of Zion, you'll see this in Mein Kampf, you'll see this in The International Jew. (You'll also hear it as one of the things Henry Gibson, as the Illinois Nazi, says through his megaphone in The Blues Brothers.)
The article Carolmooredc mentions was split off not from any article about the press or the media, or Zionism or Israel, but from an article on Antisemitic canards, which is entirely appropriate given that "The Jew runs the press" is an antisemitic canard, and one with significant enough history and thorough enough documentation to deserve its own entry. It's really up there with the Blood libel in terms of both its antisemitic power and its broad reach. It is also, and this is important to understand, only at best tangentially related to Israel/Palestine.
Let me repeat that: because it's about the history of an antisemitic myth, only at best tangentially related to Israel/Palestine. Many attempts to explain this to her have failed. Carolmooredc feels emphatically the article should actually be about another topic, the one she discusses here: an article not on the historical antisemitic myth, but on a discussion of contemporary Jewish influence on the press and how it affects coverage of the Mideast.
Maybe there is an interesting article to be written on what it means when you have Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan face off on a cable news show, since one is Jewish and the other isn't. No one has any objection if Carolmooredc wants to write an article on Jewish influence in the press, the degree to which Jewish voices battle it out with the voices of other groups, institutions, demographics, corporations, etc. in the media. Really. Several editors have encouraged her to do this. Really. I do too. People do have a problem with her changing the topic of an existing article on a notable historical topic (the myth that "The Jew runs the press"), gutting it, and trying to steer it into what everyone but her agrees should be a separate article because it is a separate topic.
And wouldn't Wikipedia be a better place without what was proven to be utterly bogus accusations of sock puppetry just because an talk page discussion isn't going your way? Spaceclerk (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As usual User:Spaceclerk misrepresents my intention, which I think I clearly state above. But I do find it interesting he calls it a "myth" here when he reverted the fact that it is described as such (as well as as a conspiracy theory) from the lead sentence. Four refs to that fact are from Gerald Krefetzp 71, Aviva Cantor, p 25, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and J. J. Goldberg. He responds facetiously in a noncooperative manner to discussion of this on the talk page. This incivility, plus the fact his account was created the same day User:Historicist was deleted, can't help but make people wonder if he's gotten a new service/IP to survive a check user and keep on editing. If others who see his behavior also begin to wonder if he's a previously banned user, I'm sure they'll do something about it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
For the record, no, I wasn't expecting Carolmooredc to apologize for having falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet, so I am not disappointed that the apology was not forthcoming and was instead replaced by additional evidence-free insinuations. But enough of that. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Jew-controlled broadcast. ;) Spaceclerk (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
You insulted people who asked about your editing history, rather than merely explaining how you are so familiar with wikipedia policies and editing strategies after having an account for only 6 weeks. So given all the sockpuppetry that has occurred in this subject area, you should not be surprised people might think you are sockpuppet of some banned user, especially given a strong POV and rather uncivil behavior. It could have been a coincidence you signed up for an account a few hours after that particular sockpuppett was banned. But continuing WP:Incivility, including like your last comment above, and refusal to edit cooperatively, can present its own problems, even if no relation to a banned user is proved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Carol, I don't think I've been uncivil to you or noncooperative with you. But Spaceclerk is right about the distinction between canard/myth/conspiracy theory and analysis of Jewish influence. Trying to edit your way from the former to the latter in this page is not helpful, and makes the "critique of Israel is antisemitic" argument (which I think is offensive, as you seem to feel as well) seem more rather than less plausible. As I understand this collaboration, the idea is to deal with each other in a way that avoids individual recriminations. So, if you need to have this debate with someone, have it with me and thereby avoid side issues like sockpuppetry.--Carwil (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
First, Carwill, it helps to keep comments in order. Second, I barely referenced what I thought should be done until User:Spaceclerk engage in 3-4 paragraphs of misrepresentation of it and in sharing his views. Even then I only share a sentence or two. (But do note that at this diff I prove that Conspiracy and Myth are used far more than canard to describe the phrase.) Someone else asked User:Spaceclerk about his account before I did on his talk page. Sock puppetry is an ongoing issue of interest here, not a side issue, as is civility. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
This is such an inflammatory topic that I fear any misunderstanding will bloom into a conflict. I'm having a really hard time understanding what each side wants and the talk page conversation shifts and wanders so how about this: Carolmoore, could you give us a brief summary of what POV issue you are trying to combat in the article and how? Sol (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Carol, I suspect that neither Spaceclerk nor anyone else has a position like this: "canard" good, "myth" bad; or "canard" good, "conspiracy theory" bad. What they apparently, and I for sure, find troublesome is wording like "has been described as." Also troublesome is the idea that neutrality requires us to be vague. To extend Sol's question, do you think "canard" is inaccurate for some reason, or that "canard" does not imply myth?
What do "conspiracy theory" or "myth" add that is not, for example, in this definition of canard: a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report; a groundless rumor or belief?--Carwil (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's keep the issue narrow to Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Content forking. Someone has changed the name of the article to Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) to get around the fact that is the least used phrase describing it. So they think that there should be another separate one for myth and a separate one for conspiracy? (And that all information not directly calling something a "canard" should be removed?) That sounds like something someone who didn't want the issue explored would do. OK, where do I go to deal with this absurd behavior?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, maybe it's simply time for you to step back from the article a bit. You came in, guns a-blazin', full of demands based on a basic misunderstanding of what the article represented; when that didn't go your way, you constructed from whole cloth the allegation that I'm a sock; when that didn't go your way, you dragged your conflict with me into this page; when that didn't go your way, and it was recognized that a page about a canard is a page about a canard, you started looking for some other venue in which to escalate the conflict yet further. Really, Carolmooredc, take a breath. Spaceclerk (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone else reported you as a Sock puppet, not me, so your accusation is not even accurate. See: Sock notice on your user page which you deleted and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Historicist/Archive#28_November_2010. I only commented on the latter. Note WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues is for collaborative efforts, not personal accusation after personal accusation by involved editors, forcing others to defend themselves. That's for the article talk page, to whatever extent WP:Civility allows it. As you'll note the only comment by an uninvolved editor here is that the article should be WP:AFD. (USer:SolGolstone asked about POV question, but I think this narrow issue really shows that people are so obsessed with using their one and only definition - "canard" - that they even refuse to use other definitions by Abraham Foxman, J.J. Goldberg and other such WP:RS.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually just trying to get a handle on what the point of contention is. You brought up the issue so I figured you;d be a the best person to ask. Something to do with scope and NPOV, non-bigoted criticism of media, the minuscule differences between canards, myths and conspiracy theories. The constant accusations, regardless of if they are right or wrong, muddies the issue even further. Sol (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Sol, I believe the central issue under the various side disputes is this.
An article has been forked from 'Antisemitic Canards'; it's about the 'The Jews run the press' canard. Everyone's agreed -- major topic, historical impact, well documented, deserves its own entry.
A concern has been raised that this canard is used as a way to 'stifle' any investigation of contemporary Jewish influence on the contemporary press with the charge that it's simply a rehash of 'The Jews run the press'.
Where should this concern be discussed? Nobody says it shouldn't be discussed, the question is where. There is a pretty strong consensus among editors that this concern is not about the canard as such, and therefore that any but the briefest discussion of it properly belongs elsewhere. The analogy I gave is that the article on the monarch butterfly briefly acknowledges that the viceroy mimics it, but that does not mean a full discussion of the viceroy belongs in the monarch entry.
There are three main dichotomies determining this division:
  • Absoluteness: 'The Jew does/does not control all media content by fiat';
  • Temporality: 'This discussion is primarily about/not about historical antisemitism, not contemporary media';
  • Mideast: 'This discussion is largely about/not about media coverage of the Mideast'.
IMO all the editors who have expressed an opinion are on one side of this dispute except one, but that one is carrying a very big drum. Therefore from this little acorn many side disputes flew (article renaming, use of the word 'canard', sockpuppetry, etc).
—— Spaceclerk (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Many e-blessings upon you, Spaceclerk, that helps a great deal. To the talk page! Sol (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Now, of course, the one editor on the other side of the dispute will come by and tell you I've got it all wrong. But at least you'll know the basics of what I'm allegedly all wrong about, so you can decide for yourself. Spaceclerk (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
CarolMooreDC, you're coming across as someone who is not understanding what the people you are arguing with are saying. This makes conversation difficult.
You said: So they think that there should be another separate one for myth and a separate one for conspiracy? (And that all information not directly calling something a "canard" should be removed?) Obviously not. Those of us happy with the canard term think that canard includes both myth and conspiracy theory. I don't even object to your sentence above except for the weasel-ly phrase "has been described as".
The point of the parenthetical phrase (Antisemitic canard) in the title is not to differentiate the article from conspiracy theory or myth. Those are the same thing. It's to differentiate it from "Jewish influence in the press" or whatever such a topic might be called. Please, please, before mentioning sock puppetry or other issues, try to understand what others are saying.--Carwil (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
These discussions among involved editors belong at the article talk page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Requested Move back to original title

An editor changed changed the name to Jewish control of the media (Antisemitic canard) without discussion. The original editor should have requested an admin change it back but did a requested moved instead. (A more NPOV suggestion that could be a separate request is Accusations of Jewish control of media.)

Collaborative NPOV editors feel free to opine Talk:Jewish_control_of_the_media_(Antisemitic_canard)#Requested_move  :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Additions to Golan Height pages

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Settlement illegality text for centralized ongoing discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SD has been adding "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this" to many GH pages citing a "consensus to have the sentence" was reached at a "long discussion at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues". I have not been following that discussion and do not have the patience to read through it, but as I have learnt, this sentence is slanted as it does not give enough credence to Israel's position. Meaning, that while it states a positive reason why the IC is views them as "illegal" (due to IL) but does not give a positive reason why Israel does not hold this view. Saying just that "Israel disputes this" does not present Israel with an equal weight to balance the IC claim of violation of IL. We need to be told the reasoning of why Israel disputes the IC position. As far as I know, Israel may very well agree that the GH are in violation of IL! Chesdovi (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You have learnt wrong, it actually gives to much credence to Israel since Israel is 1/200 of IC voices, while it has more space then 1/200 of the sentence. What you are saying has already been discussed at the main discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly advise against trying read that discussion (maybe the first quarter or so), it's tedious enough to be a punishment in the mythological Greek afterlife and causes intense headaches. Just scroll down to Proposal 2 which seems to be the consensus choice and applies only to specific settlement articles. Sol (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Two general comments about your concerns:
  1. You wrote that "it states a positive reason why the IC is views them as 'illegal' (due to IL) but does not give a positive reason why Israel does not hold this view." I think you're misinterpreting the "under international law" as being a "positive reason" when it is not. The only reason "under international law" was added was because there was a dispute about which law the international community thought they were illegal under - whether the IC was saying that they were illegal under international law, or if the IC was saying they were illegal under Israeli law. This was added only to make it clear that the IC was not making its judgement under Israeli law; it is not a "reason" that they deemed them illegal.
  2. Saying that "Israel disputes this" indeed does not present Israeli with equal weight, because giving it equal weight would violate WP:UNDUE. Israel's view, that the settlements are legal, is a minority viewpoint (held by only Israel). The international community view, that the settlements are illegal, is the majority viewpoint (held by most countries on Earth). Per WP:UNDUE, we should not be giving the majority and minority viewpoints equal weight. That's just a general reason that the Israeli viewpoint isn't laid out in more detail (because we would have to also expand upon the international viewpoint, mentioning the Geneva Conventions, United Nations resolutions, etc.). However, I do think there is some wiggle room on the exact wording to use for the Israeli perspective. Someone suggested something like "Israeli strenuously denies this", which wasn't agreed upon for other reasons, but some stronger phrasing like that might work.
I'm totally open to discussing a better phrasing to reflect Israel's perspective. Maybe something like "Israel condemns..." or "Israel rejects..." this? ← George talk 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I like disputes since "rejects" could be read as "does not care". I also feel that we do not need the words "under international law". It does drag the sentence out and is repetitive. If removing those three words would get those opposing onboard it should e considered. Cptnono (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
This has already been discussed at the main discussion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we started without the "under international law", but I think it was Jaakobou or Shuki who thought the sentence was saying the international community considers them illegal under Israeli law, which is what led to including the clarification wording. Shrug. ← George talk 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that USA seems to vote against UN resolutions. Also, why do we need to genralise in a specific page. The BBc quote fits in a page about "Israeli settlemnts". But would it not be more in line to say something like "Had Nes is not recognised as being part of Israel by the IC". Chesdovi (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Has already been discussed at the main discussion, USA considers them illegal. Just because a country votes against a resolution consisting of several different points doesn't mean that they oppose everything in that resolution, if they oppose one point is enough to vote against. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a whole discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues. Maybe it's best for you all to move this ongoing discussion over there where people who have been participating in it can do so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving

(Moved from another section)

I got lost a long time ago, but as a moderator I think I will put this whole discussion on its own archive page in case you all want to refer back to it sometime. And sooner rather than later cause it takes up so much space. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't a bot do that already?Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
We never had a bot. Even if we did I think I'd put this topic on one archive page, unless there were strong objections. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with removing this current section and its subs but all of the closed out stuff should be good to go. User:MiszaBot I might be an option for the future.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Carol for taking the initiative to archive. I suggest that everything above ”Zionist editing” article links or 1RR now applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict articles be archived. Since we have a hybrid archiving system already, I suggest we create a topic archive for "legality of settlements" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements. The current discussion should remain on this page.

And while we're house cleaning, maybe we could put the 1RR information on the Project's main page.

Tiny subproposal: Can we move the "archiving" chatter in "Centralized discussion of changes to the text" above down to this section? Carol and Cptnono, can you live with that?--Carwil (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have unarchived the recent conversation since comments were made just a couple days ago.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Could do with some eyes on the Palestinian people article and the IP 76.88.158.88's edit's. They are a little bit problematic. I'm not sure why he is so determined to remove sourced info. See the recent page history and the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oren Ben-Dor AfD

Because the individual who AfD him admits he's a new editor and did it on his second day ever editing, I have to wonder about his motivation. Two others agree based purely on his academic credentials, ignoring notability as a writer and activist on these issues. AfD deletion discussion here. CarolMooreDC (talk)

It was re-listed because of lack of consensus. It's fully ref'd; got a lot more refs than articles about academics of similar stature but other viewpoints on these issues. Notability is main issue, even though refs show he's far more notable worldwide than others as well. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI. It survived. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

(Moved from another section)

I got lost a long time ago, but as a moderator I think I will put this whole discussion on its own archive page in case you all want to refer back to it sometime. And sooner rather than later cause it takes up so much space. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't a bot do that already?Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
We never had a bot. Even if we did I think I'd put this topic on one archive page, unless there were strong objections. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with removing this current section and its subs but all of the closed out stuff should be good to go. User:MiszaBot I might be an option for the future.Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Carol for taking the initiative to archive. I suggest that everything above ”Zionist editing” article links or 1RR now applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict articles be archived. Since we have a hybrid archiving system already, I suggest we create a topic archive for "legality of settlements" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements. The current discussion should remain on this page.

And while we're house cleaning, maybe we could put the 1RR information on the Project's main page.

Tiny subproposal: Can we move the "archiving" chatter in "Centralized discussion of changes to the text" above down to this section? Carol and Cptnono, can you live with that?--Carwil (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I put the 1rr in italics in the purpose section of the main page when it first happened. Does it need to be in bold? Or its own section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have unarchived the recent conversation since comments were made just a couple days ago.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You have been informed twice now that this is a problem Do not archive something that has a comment with in a couple minutes or as recently as the 9th.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I missed any such notes and didn't note last date edited. Sorry. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a big deal. Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Regional naming

Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Iron I Canaan and Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Use of the term Palestine have not resulted in consensus about when the historic region should be named "Canaan", when "southern Levant", and when "Palestine" (among other options). Has there been any sort of discussion on this? We're working on the second and first millennia BC. It seems to me that in line with Gdansk and other discussions, due to POV we should not be using the word "Palestine" anachronistically, even if some sources do. We may need to set a site date cutoff to create a compromise, but at any rate a first step seems to be whether there has been any prior discussion of the same issue from a more communal standpoint.

I was involved in the (I thought) straightforward question of whether there existed any "Palestine" prior to 1000 BC (which I believe there didn't, considering one source reference to be a simple unconscious anachronism, or else a misread reference to digs in 20th-century Palestine). It has now become an article-wide discussion and does have potential to affect other articles. Please provide any guidance. JJB 19:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

JJB is being a little disingenuous here. he says "we", meaning the editors on that article, haven't reached a consensus on the use of the term "Palestine" to describe a geographic area in the 1st millenium BC. What he means is that he doesn't like it.We have over 50 books by reputable scholars in the bibliography of the article, and every one of them uses the term. "All" is rather more than "some" sources. PiCo (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, first let me give my understanding of the history of the region:
  • Several city states along the coast of what is today Lebanon (along with a bit of northern Israel and southern Syria) forms together, becoming Canaan. Canaan would later be called Phoenicia by the Greeks (though the coastal people who lived there called themselves Canaanites).
  • At some point, Canaan expands a bit inland and southward, covering much of the area that is today modern Lebanon, Israel, and the Palestinian territories.
  • Following the exodus, the Israelites conquer southern Canaan, establishing the Kingdom of Israel (close to the borders of modern day northern Israel), leaving the northern Canaan that is synonymous with Phoenicia (close to the borders of modern day Lebanon).
  • Southwest of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah exists the Kingdom of the Philistines, later known as the Palestinians.
That's my understanding of the timeline. Terms like "southern Levant" and "Palestine" are later, geographic terms, and are pretty much synonymous with each other. The term "Canaan" is pretty much synonymous with "Phoenicia" (though when the Greeks coined the term "Phoenicia", Canaan's borders had shrunk significantly, so Phoenicia is used more often when referring to the later periods of Canaan's history).
Roughly speaking, there are two historic uses of "Palestine". First, there was an ancient Kingdom of Philistine (close to the area that is currently the Gaza Strip), which existed at the same time as the Kingdom of Israel and whose people would later be known as Palestinians. Second, the term "Palestine" has been used in more recent centuries to refer to the Levant, especially the southern Levant (such as the British Mandate of Palestine). Many sources likely use the term Palestine when referring to the geographic region, though some might use it when referencing the Kingdom of Philistine. Would have to review the sources. ← George talk 23:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
George: yes, "Palestine" and "Levant" are modern terms. They're the terms used by modern scholars writing about the region and its history, and have a geographical scope, opposed to the political usage of "Israel" and "Judah". That's all we need to base ourselves on - we follow scholarly usage (universal usage in fact). To review the sources, look at the bibliography to the article History of ancient Israel and Judah - the books are all available on google-books, and you just do a search in each for the term "Palestine."PiCo (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
(Just a note on the history of the region - you're close, but not quite on the money. There are some good books on the subject in the bibliography). PiCo (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Rather than waste space contradicting PiCo every time I believe I see a misrepresentation, I will merely ask editors to consider the general possibility that evidence may indicate PiCo's descriptions of reality represent a POV, with the first example being that PiCo sees me as disingenuous when I have evidence that this is projection.
At Palestine#Origin of name I find that the first of these two "Palestine"s was known as Pelesheth (translated Philistia) and was the southern coast west of Judah (may I also call it the modern Gaza Strip?). This subregion was not called Palestine until the Romans adopted the Greek transliterations we translate as Palestine, nor was the term applied to the whole region until 135 AD (according to that article). When speaking of ancient Judah or Israel I believe it is thoroughly misleading and anachronistic to use "Palestine" to refer to the whole region of Canaan when it referred to a small section of that region and was only expanded much later. Further, the name was applied for the very POV-pushing reason (we state) of "dissociation with Judea", which is usually a decisive factor in temporal naming disputes that indicates propriety of a name only in some eras and not in others.
The second "Palestine" thus may perhaps properly refer to the whole (rough) region formerly called Canaan within a certain period (offhand, I would not see prior to 135 AD or after 1948). It makes sense when referring to early–20th–century archaeology to mention "digs in Palestine", the modern region, not Philistia, if it is clear this is not an anachronistic back-reference. Oddly, of all the manifold sources PiCo alleges on this point, I have not been presented with any, and of the dozen or more I've reviewed, I've come across only one use of "Palestine" and it was this modern archaeological (ambiguous) sense.
The issue is, of course, the inherent bias injected deliberately by the Roman Empire into the naming issue. Since this is a collaborative WikiProject, I don't think blanket statements like "all sources agree" are called for. And even if there were some unambiguous source support for the use of the POV term in the ancient era, the question is whether we should perpetuate the bias or have a consistent multilateral agreement. Southern Levant and Canaan do not have POV baggage (except for the latter becoming less applicable as you approach the Roman period). I rather anticipated there would be an archived discussion. I would hope editors at this project would be able to agree on the primary issue, that use of "Palestine" for regions prior to 1000 BC is clearly contraindicated, even if the succession for the later dates is not immediately obvious. JJB 17:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
JJB is missing the point: we need to follow the conventions of modern scholarship. Modern scholarly books universally speak of the region as "Palestine." PiCo (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
A little later: It just occurred to me that maybe JJB doesn't understand why scholarly books use the term "Palestine". It's because there's a need for a name for the geographic region - Judah and Israel were kingdoms, not regions, and they shared the area between Egypt and Syria with other kingdoms (Edom, Moab, the Philistines). So when historians and suchlike want to talk about events that affected the whole group of kingdoms, they need a word, and they use the term Palestine. It doesn't carry any modern political implications. PiCo (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of fact Palestine region is Western Palestine area of the British Mandate 1921-1947. It seems quiet an interesting coincindence that British Palestine is exactly the Geographic region of Palestine. Simply because of the fact that much research was performed in the beginning of 20th century, or right after the formation of Israel, when the administrative area was still named Palestine in English maps, doesn't yet make it a common term to substitude Levant. If you go to paleo-anthropology the term for the region is strictly Levant. In addition, Palestine naming is originated in 3 periods as Syria-Palaestina in Roman Period, Province Palestine in Byzantine period and Palestine Mandate in 1921-1947, so it is political definition as much as Judah and Israel. Not a geographic name like Mesopotamia. Of course if we use quotes, then the term Palestine should be kept, but it is currently an anachronistic problem - if someone spoke of archaeological digs in Palestine during 1935, it doesn't mean kingdom of Judah was located in Palestine, because this is nonsense.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The borders of the geographic region are a bit vague, as all geographic regions tend to be. The modern use of Palestine goes back before the British Mandate days - the British didn't dream the name up out of thin air, and it's used frequently in the 18th and 19th centuries for that region of the Ottoman Empire. Anyway, this is all irrelevant: the main point is that modern scholarly publications routinely use the term Palestine, and so should we. PiCo (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, Palestine goes back before Britain's mandate - it was used by the Romans and the Byzantines. Those who later brought back the name were Jews and Europeans, who didn't like the Ottoman province system of wilyets and sanjaks. The main point of yours is that term Palestine can be used for geographic description according to the citated sources in addition to Southern Levant, Canaan, etc. Thus, we can use Palestine according to WP:NPOV, until there is a credible Geographic and Historical overview which makes order in description. I would not say it was interesting discussing the issue (though i did some extra reading due to it), but rather weird. It was the strangest conversation i had in wiki.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Article When We Die As Martyrs for DYK

The article When We Die As Martyrs has been nominated for DYK at T:TDYK#When We Die As Martyrs. Having had a quick look at this recently created article, it is evident that the topic will generate controversy. Consequently, neutrality and breadth of reliably sourced coverage seems particularly important. Without making any comment on the nomination, I invite comment on the nomination and article from any and all interested editots. I have no objection to this post being reproduced at any other appropriate on-wiki locations. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here, I should have done so when I first noticed the article. I have some concerns about the claims made in the hook and the article, they do not seem adequately sourced. Further, I am not sure that it has more claims to an article than for example 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair. un☯mi 12:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive_7&oldid=1079451514"