Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Accusations of State Terrorism by Israel?

 Done I'm in danger of being involved in an edit war on the opposite side to usual over at State terrorism. My edit [1] is my second revert of an anonymous editor who claims that Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have accused Israel of state terrorism. However, Neither of the pages linked by that editor substantiate the claim by using the term by including the term or its equivalent. WP:Original Research would be needed to conclude that their accusations amount to such an accusation.

Does anyone have sources that demonstrate the claim that this anonymous editor makes? If so could you provide them, please? If not, can people please join with me in keeping the article within Wikipedia policies? --Peter cohen (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt do an internet search of relevant terms. ;-)Carol Moore 20:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Well I suffer from a condition which means that I have been heavilly fatigued for several months. Therefore searching heavily to substantiate someone else's inadequately referenced claims isn't something a good use of what little energy I have. I have, however, looked on the first hundred results each for "human rights watch"+Israel+"state terrorism" and Amnesty+Israel+"state terrorism" and have seen nothing form reliable sources or pages relating to the organisations concerned to substantiate claims that either organisation has made such an accusation. Part of asking here was to see whether anyone actually new the claims to be true. There are members of this project who I regard as knowledgeable and who would not hold back on citing reliably sourced criticisms of Israel. At the moment I doubt their truth and the editor concerned has not provided any reliable sources that cite the claim. However, I suspect that they will have reverted my revert of the original research by the time I log on tomorrow.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Peter, greetings. As you'll see in the article Talk page, I reviewed the sources which, as you say, were problematic. Let's see if the anon editor discusses my concerns in Talk. Meanwhile, I invite you to join this WikiProject. Take care, HG | Talk 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am moderately familiar with Amnesty's position on Israel, and have never seen the use of the term "state terrorism" used in reference to Israel. A search of Amnesty's website - which includes all of its press releases and position papers - finds no use of that term ever, confirming my belief that it is not the kind of phrase Amnesty would use.

Here is a statement of Amnesty's position on the Israel-Lebanon conflict: "The total lack of political will to hold to account those responsible for the indiscriminate killing of civilians, more than one thousand of whom lost their lives, is both a gross betrayal of the victims and a recipe for possible further civilian bloodshed with impunity." (statement by Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa programme, in press release "Israel/Lebanon: War crimes without accountability" (12 July 2007), ref MDE 02/001/2007).

In any case, the reference to Israel as a potentially terrorist state should not be in the lead of the article if it is not supported elsewhere in the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ravpapa and HG for your responses.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember similar discussion here [2] starting Dec'07; do a ctrl-f with 'war crimes'. You might also check the second ref noted here [3], which happens to be my first post at Wiki. Its a sticky wicket, as the Brits say. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks CasualObserver. I've not spotted any reference to "stte terrorism" on the HRW page. I think that both they and Amnesty have plenty of complaints about Israel, but I've seen no evidence that either of them have accused Israel of state terrorism. This means that, as far as the State Terrorism article is concerned, their comments on Israel are of no interest.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Disruption at Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Resolved

Here is a concrete exemple of disruptive behaviour that is highly time-consuming : [4]
ArbCom gave the tools to deal with this. Is there an uninvolved administrator to solve the problem. Ceedjee (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One place to start is with User talk:Durova, the mentor of your interlocutor. In general, I suppose we could put it on the list of items that would benefit from an umbrella recommendation. thanks HG | Talk 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've weighed in at the thread. It would help if some project members here who know the content side of things in depth kept an eye on that discussion. It looks like they've requested mediation. DurovaCharge! 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Durova, hi. Your idea of project members keeping an eye on this dispute is good. Please note that the requested mediation actually isn't for that dispute nor even that article alone. That said, I'm wondering if we might want to go ahead and choose this article, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for our Collaboration on a (higher tension) article? Granted, there hasn't been much response to the poll, but maybe people are willing to cooperate with whatever we choose. The people involved would include (at least) me and you, Tiamut, plus Jaakobou and his interlocutors. I can also send specific msgs to some of the uninvolved parties on our list. What do you think? If it sounds plausible, maybe we should also talk here a bit about how the IPCOLL project would introduce itself into this kind of a setting. Thanks, HG | Talk 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys. I you play the game that way, that will be without me.
Good luck. Ceedjee (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explaining your comment (on my Talk). Yes, I can that you may be fed up and do not want to approach this as a content dispute. Nonetheless, some of us may need a chance to reach our own conclusion, right? We need to see whether the situation is undergoing a reasoned dispute or just obstructionism (or in between). It's my suggestion that, as a few of us work to figure out how to gauge the dispute, we all pitch in to improve the article. Do folks see why I would go about it this way? Of course, we can deal with this is a more ad hoc manner, too. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Update. The situation at Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems calmer. We're now discussing a second proposal on a disputed sentence. Some broader issues of editor relationships could be addressed, too. Advice welcome. Thanks, HG | Talk 03:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The specific dispute at Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which involved the use of 'occupied' terminology, seems to have been resolved with a consensus agreement among disputing parties. I've also asked them to join IPCOLL. (Of course, the article has other disputed matters.) The specific agreement and my understanding of the underlying principles is recorded on the article Talk page and a new subpage. This may help us develop an area-wide agreement on this terminology. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Title issue : 1948 Palestine War

There have been opposition concerning the use of this expression. I would like this issue is solved to be able to work on some articles related to the topic.
NB: before forging your mind, I would kindly ask you to read the following and to document yourself :

  • The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, as indicated by its name, is the war that involved Israel and several Arab states. Israel is born on May 14, 1948. For this reason, Israel also name this war, the(ir) Independence War
  • Struggles between Jewish community of Palestine (Yishuv) and Palestinian Arab community of Palestine backed by Arab volunteers started on November 30, 47 just after the UN resolution 181 vote. The events are detailled in this article : 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
  • When referring to the 1948 War (from November 47 to January 49), historians talk about the 1948 Palestine War. This is not a pro-Palestinian pov from them. This is simply due to the fact that there was no Israel before May 14, 1948 and that events must be analysed over this whole period to be understood (eg, the 1948 Palestinian exodus but also all the preparation of the Yishuv and the Arab states to the war).

As a proof, here are books from different scholars (representing the whole panel of pov and/or bias) using the expression :

  • references to scholars book where the term to talk about the 1948 War :
    • Karsh, Efraim (virulent anti-new historian), The Arab-Israeli Conflit - The Palestine War 1948, Osprey Publishing, 2002, ISBN 1841763721
    • Gelber, Yoav (virulent adversary of Ilan Pappé), Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, ISBN 1845190750
    • David Tal (a tradionnal historian), War in Palestine, 1948 : Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge
    • Rogan, Eugène et Shlaim Avi (controversed new historian), The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge University Press' 2001.
    • Pappé, Ilan (highly controversed new historian), La guerre de 1948 en Palestine, La fabrique éditions, 2000, ISBN 226404036X
  • google.books reasearch on the term : [5]

This denomination is not new but has been used before by pro-Israeli historians :

  • Hurewitz, The struggle for Palestine, New York, 1950.
  • Jon and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill : Britain and the Palestine War, London, 1960.

I met here the opposition of JayJg, CasualObserver48 (and less of Tiamut) but could not succeed in generating a real discussion. I brought the issue on wp:fr [6] where the discussion (in which I voluntary didn't take part) concluded that if historians use a expression for clear reasons even if it is not what is usually used or heard, wikipedia must chose the expression of the knowledge (because this is an encyclopaedia).
The questions to answer, are :

Thank you ! :-) Ceedjee (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Prepositions make a big difference here: War for Palestine is quite different in meaning from War in Palestine, for example. We can either try to find the most commonly used term by going through sources both contemporary of the events and of today; or we can settle on a neutral term as the main title with lots of redirects. I think the latter would be simpler, but I may be proven wrong. Off the top of my head, 1948 Arab-Israeli war is descriptive and unambiguous, reasonable short hand for War between the newly formed State of Israel and surrounding Arab states as well as Palestinian Arab irregulars and militia. I think we should steer clear of what was at stake in the title for the sake of everyone's sanity (viz The War of Northern Aggression vs The War between the States vs American Civil War. --Leifern (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Leifern,
There are for and in in all titles used by historians. Gelber uses Palestine War. 1948 Palestine War answers to the issues you point out.
1948 Arab-Israel War is not neutral. What about Yishuv and the Palestinians ? What about the events before May 1948 where there were not 5 Arab armies ? What about Palestinians ? What about the sentence : "The 1948 exodus took part during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War" when 60% of refugees were such before May 14 ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It was a suggestion - before May there was no State of Israel, though there were of course acts of violence not just between Jews and Arabs, but also between each of these and the British Army. I'm sure there's lots to argue about here, but a state of war - as it's commonly defined - could not exist before and until two or more states had engaged in hostilities toward each other. And there can be no question that May 14, 1948 was a dividing line in time for all parties. --Leifern (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Leifern,
Thank you once more for your analysis.
I agree with what you say but I am not sure to conclude the same as you do (?)
1. You point out a war between Jews/Palestinians Arabs/British and then Arabs armies
2. You point out 14 May is no pertinent transition Thinking about that, I don't agree. The transition is in the books here above mentionned and the days around May 14 were days of intense tensions all over the country.
So you say the same as historians do : there was a Palestine War (in and/or for) from Dec'47 to '49.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent: my own views) It seems like a complicated issue. On the one hand, there are two separate articles for the war from November 1947-May 1948 and the war after, and there is no need for an article which duplicates the two of them in detail. On the other hand, there is a common problem whereby one POV (the Israeli side) wants to ignore all that happened prior to 15 May 1948, so that it can be presented as a vicious unprovoked attack by the Arab hordes against Israel, rather than an intervention in an already brutal situation, wherein the Arab states (excepting a few early and unsuccessful raids) took up defensive positions in Palestinian Arab areas. One even sees, in the "pro-Israel" literature, claims like "such-and-such bombing attack by the Arabs occurred months before the war even started," as if there was no war prior to the British evacuation.

I'm not saying POV forks are a good idea, I'm saying that one doesn't get to declare another article as a "POV fork" simply because one has already "occupied the high ground" by creating an article on the subject. There is a real problem of WP:OWNership of Isr-Pal articles which drives this type of forking. It is very difficult to make any substantial change to existing articles as they tend to be dominated by small cliques, who often revert while saying that a particular issue has already been decided in the past.

I do not think the solution is to delete any articles, they all need to be merged in a careful and thoughtful way. Personally, I think it makes sense to have a summary article of about 6-7 paragraphs called 1947-49 Palestine war, and it will have a brief treatment of the major phases of the war, probably two other articles 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Both articles would link prominently to the other, to avoid the impression that these are totally distinct events as opposed to two phases of the same conflict.

Ultimately we need to make sure that all editors who are interested in Isr-Pal issues are aware of, and have time to take part in, important discussions on these edits. Some type of semi-formal mediation process might be advisable. <eleland/talkedits> 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "pro-Israeli" sources you read, but none that I've come across make believe that nothing happened before the mandate was physically abandoned in May 1948. So you're constructing a bit of a strawman argument here, to put it kindly. As with all conflicts, it's hard to draw the line between one event and the other, which is why nearly all historical articles are prefaced with a context and links to relevant articles that fill in the historical background. But I'm a little confused here: are we talking about how to divide up the articles, or what to title whatever we end up with? --Leifern (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I asked two questions at the end of my introduction of the issue... I think we could discuss both.
We are not discussing the cut of an article : (I assume you think about 1948 Arab-Israeli War) : it starts on May 14. All events that arose before are in the background... Ceedjee (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think what Eleland write~s is good.
In fact, I added material in 1948 Palestine War only because OC'48 asked for this. Before it was very short. It could refer to both former articles. (I just think 1948 and not 1947-1949 is better... This is most common and simplest term among historians : we don't talk about 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War...).
I point out also that without a consensus among all editors of the I/P related articles, that will generate problems... Ceedjee (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. What I hear is that you both see that there's a POV fork concern (you think there are ameliorating circumstances but also opposing views). In terms of my question -- Where to discuss the name? -- Eleland suggests a semi-formal mediation process. That sounds plausible. Still, there's usually other WP:DR steps taken, via an article Talk, beforehand. HG | Talk 21:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Oups. No, from my point of view, no pov-fork but I can understand people thinks there is one.
There are historians and WP:RS.
I don't mind where it is discussed, I will follow the discussion. Ceedjee (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Compliment to everybody on this constructive and respectful discussion! Just an idea: How about moving this into a subpage like /Title issue: 1948 Palestine War or short /1948? — Sebastian 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree on the compliment. Your idea of an IPCOLL subpage could be good, if that is preferred to an article page. Perhaps somebody could politely ask Zeq, Jayjg, Tiamut, (or others as need be) to reply here about the venue question? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
No problem for me to proceed to the transfer to the appropriated subpage.
I suggest an uninvolved mediator invite other parties in the discussion.
Maybe a message could be left on the Palestine and Israel project discussion page too.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for a discussion on the very interesting proposals being aired here. Sebastian's suggested page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Title issue: 1948 Palestine War sounds good. Tiamuttalk 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it all events starting on Nov 29, 1947 are part of the same war. Zeq (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is really not about how you or I or any other editor here sees it. Wikipedia needs to rely on reliable souces. Can you please back up your statement with such sources? Please excuse my ignorance; I know less than anyone here about the I-P conflict. So I would like to request that you write your statements so that even an ignorant like me can understand where you're coming from. Thank you! — Sebastian 07:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the recent changes that have taken place on the page, and I see them as somewhat positive. Ceedjee, I think you have made some positive improvements to the article. Initially, I was skeptical of the term, first because I was unaware of it and secondly, because I was skeptical of its provenance. The current page, which describes two distinct periods in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war makes it easier to understand what you were driving at in our discussions. Initially, I called it a neologism, but some sources do indicate that a term similar to that have been used in the past. In addition, it can also be seen as a refined understanding of previous history, rather than all events being rolled into one. It can be seen somewhat as a new concept, which is what I termed it before. In its more recent incarnation, I believe it comes from the New Historians, along with the acquisition of new data for which they are now (in)famous, these new data may also have caused a re evaluation of how events transpired and their results. It also can be seen as Historical Revisionism, which has both good and bad connotations, please read it.

I tend to agree with eleland that a several-paragraph introductory page could be developed, somewhat like it is now, which divides the pre-May civil war and post-May 48 events with several other countries. I think that kind of short format introduction might be a positive step. I think it would be a positive step to discuss it. I don't particularly care, which form is used to discuss it just as long as it's easy to find. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Ceedjee's point a valid one conceptually, and, reviewing comments, believe User:Eleland has cut the Gordian Knot and provided us with a sensible solution. We should not be precipitate in eliding articles, given the problem Ceedjee raises, but rather clarify the sequence, coordinate three pages, and merge where necessity. I need hardly remind those who push for erasing the article, that a huge volume of clumsy reduplication with considerable overlap and infratextual dissonances, exist all over the Wikipedia articles on events in Palestine-Israel, since the 20s. Merging, while retaining distinct foci in the existing pages, is the solution, not wiping out one page of several.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really all one war, in different phases, so separating it into even two articles makes little sense to me. The Six-Day War article, for example, discussing events leading up to the war in some detail, stretching back as far as 1956, continuing up to the actual hostilities of June 5 to June 11, 1967, and continuing even after the war was over. In fact, the "preamble" to the war takes up perhaps 50% of the whole article - yet it would make little sense to have an article titled Pre Six-Day War hostilities for everything up to June 4, then a second Six-Day War article restricted solely to events occurring from June 5 to June 11. Similarly, the Yom Kippur War article has a lengthy "Background" section leading up to the war itself. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody disputes that it was really all one war. However I'm having trouble with this analogy, since neither of those "preamble" cases involved any fighting nearly as extensive as that from Winter 1947 to May 1948. One of the combatant groups - the Palestinians - were decisively defeated, half a million were made refugees, their senior military leader was killed in action. An appreciable fraction of the entire population of the area was killed - something like 2 percent?
Not to mention that we already have at least 6 articles which, per the Six-Day War analogy, would all need to be merged - take 1948 Palestinian exodus, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, 1949 Armistice Agreements, etc. Nobody really wants a >500k monster article, or to thow away a lot of quality information. Also, as I said above, I'm concerned that focussing our article around 15 May 1948 has serious NPOV implications. The Israeli POV has traditionally been that their brand new nation was attacked almost out of the blue, while the Arabs have always maintained that they intervened in a civil war, trying to halt the Zionists's destruction of Palestinian society. If you cover both the civil war and the foreign-Arab involvement in an article called 1948 Arab-Israeli war you're effectively favouring one narriative over the other - labelling the foreign intervention as crucial, while relegating the civil war to a "preamble."
Anyway, I see 1948 Palestine war as a WP:SUMMARY article for all the others - two or three paragraphs on the civil war phase, two or three on the post-May phase, one each on the refugee flight and the causes of the flight, one on the armistice terms, etc. <eleland/talkedits> 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg : "It's really all one war, in different phases, so separating it into even two articles makes little sense to me"
On the pertinence : Howard Sachar, A History of Israel, starts his chapter XIII : The independence War on May 14, 1948 while he refers several times in this chapter to the "Palestine War" (for info : he is rather partisan of the "old historian")
On the interest : I share Eleland comments. We are not going to merge both articles about the Civil War period and about the after may 48 period in one unique article ! And just for information, there is a 3rd article that I would like to translate one day or the other about the protagonists of that war, mainly their objectives and strengths.
1948 Palestine War could refer to all factual articles related to the topic, summarizind each of them in 2-3 paragraphs and developing other issues.
Ceedjee (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarify disagreements

Let's try to clarify the exact points of dis/agreement. Please let me know if this looks right:

  1. It's all one war. Jayjg and Eleland (and Leifern and Ceedjee ?) agree that it's all one war.
  2. Summary style article for the one war. You all seem to agree that one overview article can cover the period and, summary style, link to various subset articles as needed.
  3. Use of 1948 Palestine War as a term. Ceedjee raises the question of whether the term can be used, regardless of whether there's an article by this name. I see that the term appears already in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. So, does this mean the term is already accepted in part, or are you all debating this, too? Maybe the parties need to elucidate what the term covers, if it has synonyms, and when it may be used.
  4. Disagree on summary style/overview title. Currently, 1948 Arab-Israeli War serves the overview/summary purpose and Eleland proposes that 1948 Palestine war should serve that purpose (instead?). Let's call the the Title disagreement, ok? Leifern's comment is apt, that we keep our sanity w/the title. Still, Eleland is frustrated that the Arab-Israeli War title is not sufficiently neutral because it downplays the Palestinian aspect (my paraphrase). So, first question, I'd like to know if Jayjg and Leifern (et al.) would be open to the possibility of renaming 1948 Arab-Israeli War, if a more mutually-agreeable name can be found? Second question, esp for eleland, talk et al., if the title doesn't change, would you consider a section in the overview that, w/reliable sources, describes the scholarly/political disagreement over the naming and periodization of the conflict?
If I've omitted or mischaracterized pts, please clarify, too. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi HG, thank you very much for this synthesis that appears complete to me.
1. I agree that 1948 Palestine War is all one war but some historians (eg Sachar starts this on May 14, 1948).
2. Yes.
3. I think we should refer to 1948 Palestine War when the full period (1947-49) is covered and 1948 Arab-Israeli War when it clearly only concerns events after May 14.
4. I don't agree to rename 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I would rather suggest to transfer comments and analysis from there to 1948 Palestine War and let this article only deal with facts.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, can we consider we found an agreement except concerning point 4 ?
HG, what do you think ?
Ceedjee (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, #4 it is. So, shouldn't your idea be floated at 1948 Arab-Israeli War as a spin-out (transfer of comments/analysis) from there? I'd recommend proposing something on that article's Talk, describing (but not making) specific edits, and see how the conversation develops. You may want to apprise your interlocutors above (Jayjg, Leifern, Zeq, Eleland, Tiamut, Nishidani, CO'48) and invite them to help you think about it your approach. How does that sound? Let us know what happens. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well. You know, I have already done this on both these talk pages : 1948 Palestinian exodus and List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war...
But there is no hurry.
I will proceed the way you suggest. Ceedjee (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Dear community of editors striving to maintain neutrality and collegiality. I need your help and advice. After months of discussion on whether to people or nation the Palestinian people and agreement on the exact sentence we would use, I noticed that User:Zeq changed the last part of the sentence without garnering feedback for that change. I tried to restore the previous version that had been the subject of consensus and he reverted those changes. I opened discussion on the page, but I would appreciate your feedback there as well. Tiamuttalk 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

<snip previous reply>... Tiamut, one thing we might try is NVC, which I've signed up for in IPCOLL, and I'd like to explore how to use it. I'm going to share some of my thinking with Sebastian (see his link below) and get his recommendations on how to use NVC in a wiki situation. Meanwhile, besides dealing with the specific edit dispute at Palestinian people, let's figure out how to use these incidents to tackle the overall battleground here. Thank you. HG | Talk 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. it is good to see this discussion. errr, one suggestion; are you sure it's a good idea to discuss or to guess at people's motives? just wanted to mention that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Sebastian? Maybe NVC would distinguish between assuming bad motives, so as to blame, and honest self-expression of how unmet feelings, so as to try to meet another's needs. NVC articles says: "Offering a feeling (uncontaminated by interpretation and blame) tends to increase connection." Also, I tried not to lay a heavy feeling on any given individual. Good q. HG | Talk 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
To "guess at people's motives" (compassionately) is actually an important policy of Wikipedia: WP:Assume good faith. HG bravely took on a very hard case here. It is really not easy to assume good faith when you face a revertion against consensus. To be honest, even though I pledged NVC, too, I don't always use it; and this is a case where I would have just politely warned the reverting user, as I did here. NVC has been developed for oral communication, and it is not always easy to transfer it to Wikipedia. For that reason, I started User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC a year ago in the hope to gather some feedback on how I could improve my nonviolent communication at Wikipedia. Let's revive that page and discuss the rest there! — Sebastian 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this approach is good. However, i don't think that Palestinian people is necessarily the best place to start using it. the whole point of your approach is to try an even-handedness on matters on importance to both sides. the problem is that this article by definition relates only to one side. so maybe we should not ask Tiamut to necessarily lay out so many points and concepts on this article. A different article, one which relates more to the actual conflict, might be fine as a subject for this process. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've modified my initial reply (so Steve's and Sebastian's may seem out of context). I'll move the original to Sebastian's NVC subpage and discuss, edit or delete it there. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A few of us have gotten involved since this thread started. Does the editing/Talk seem calmer? HG | Talk 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking the article. It seems so. Ceedjee (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The discussion at Palestinian people is quite active and mostly reasoned/civil, and I don't get a sense that there is edit warring or similar problems, so perhaps this thread can be closed. If issues arise that have broader implications, perhaps folks could add the issues to the list to be tackled hopefully by an IPCOLL Content task force. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

anti-Israeli behavior

Recently, a new User Coda Stage (talk · contribs) created a number of controversial articles and categories that are profoundly POV. Some attention and input, as well as some discussion, would be welcome regarding: Zionist hunter (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionist hunter); Category:The Nakba (deletion discussion); Category:Israeli war crimes (deletion discussion); and his creation of Daniel Machover and contributions to Doron Almog; Sabra and Shatila massacre‎ and Qibya massacre‎. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I permit myself to modify the title : this was not Palestinian pov pushing.
Most of these seem obvious except maybe the one concerning Nakba.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure Ceedjee, suit yourself, it's still "six of these and half a dozen of the other" either way you slice it. IZAK (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As an editorial aside, I agree with Ceedjee's distinction. Most of the editors and people in real life who are virulently anti-Israeli don't give a hoot about Palestinians. --Leifern (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the POV categorizations and deleted the re-insertion of the "suspected war criminal" in the Doron Almog article. I am not sure how much more there is to discuss about this on this page. I think we have to wait and see whether this editor shows up again and tries to defend these edits before we know whether any further action is required. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Trouble at Jewish lobby

Jayjg has reverted a well researched and placed edit here[7], after being missing for several days and uninvolved in the discussions. Please see my most recent post [8] concerning discussion, especially my last para. This kind of behavoir just inflames things. This is where I will use my 1RR. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi CasualObserver1948,
From what I understand, Jayjg has reverted some material you added, which is not good and not acceptable. I think he did so because this is controversed material (it makes a parallelism between the jewish lobby that is/would have become agressively pro-Israeli) while on the other side, just below, the controversy that alleges critics of Jewish lobbies are antisemite is developed.
I think for wikipedia, that is an easy issue : WP:NPOV implies this pov can be introduced and I don't see how somebody could argue this is wp:undue.
Here is a suggestion :
I think controversy matters should not be discussed in the core of the articles (so that they only gather all the material on which all WP:RS agree) and that controversed issues or important disagreement between WP:RS be discussed in another section labelled controversies.
With such a structure, I have the feeling the whole article could sound more neutral and satisfy more people. In a controversy, it is expected to read : A thinks that... but B thinks that... In the core of an article, it is harder to make this sounds more like a fact than like a controversy. (I don't know if I am clear).
Good luck and hope this help.
NB: to all : I think if we want IPCOOL projets gets credibility and respect we must involve in all these issues and try to solve them in the name of the project.
Ceedjee (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
To what extent would this issue fall within the scope of the ongoing mediation? Given my own preference for consensus prior to bold editing in high tension situations, I would think that it's not helpful to try adding material (absent consensus) that falls within the mediation purview. Have you talked to Jayjg, either in article or user Talk, to discuss if your proposed edit can be placed within the mediation? (Also "drive-by shooting" is uncivil, esp since Jayjg is clearly involved there, eh? Pls strikeout.) I would like to see IPCOLL watching these mediations and maybe providing some helpful info and analysis, esp since the results may have broader relevance to the area-wide battleground. Thanks for keeping us abreast of these developments, HG | Talk 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption at Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Resolved
  • The specific dispute at Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which involved the use of 'occupied' terminology, has been resolved with a consensus among disputing parties. (Of course, the article has other disputed matters.) Consensus recorded on [[[Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict/Records|a new subpage]]. HG | Talk 10:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Difficulties at MedCab:Gilad Shalit

This case may be closed soon, but it's probably worth mentioning. I highly doubt compromise, much less harmonious consensus, will be reached. The case page is right over here. This is mostly between two editors over the use of terminology. Advice and analysis is appreciated, and uninvolved editors can provide info/analysis on the case's talk page (best if kept to a minimum, though; maybe here at IPCOLL?). I recommend folks do not become actively involved in this dispute. It might be worth checking out, though. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From the case page I understand that you can't just simply go by WP:RS because all preferred terms occur in reliable sources, and since no reliable source disputes any of them. Maybe a Talk:Buddhahood/renaming § table of options could help? — Sebastian 00:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Title issue : 1948 Palestine War

This thread has been archived. It was about a month old. Our discussion and suggestions may have been useful, though I doubt the issue is fully resolved. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Palestinian people

Discussion of this request stopped about a month ago, so the thread has been archived. See the article for current status of the dispute. (Or restart new thread as needed.) Thanks. HG | Talk 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully helpful

While checking through the refs for Jewish lobby, I ran into this and checked it here [9]. Having already been aware of this page, I considered it likely helpful to the members’ task at hand. I also found it to be very informative about the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict, as well as other related topics, such as New anti-Semitism, Jewish lobby and Islamophobia, to name a few. My mind’s images of several Wikipedia editors on both sides and instances of Wikipedia itself flashed before me, while I read it. I believe that it is insightful and adaptable to other conflicts as well. May the force be with you, good luck.

This was posted at here first. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. It is interesting to put oneself in the mind of Israelis and better understanding their point of view (as the litteral sense).
I think a palestinian pov on these issues, and certainly a muslim answer would have been important here.
The conclusion is not optimistic either : Robert Wistrich doesn't seem to have heard what was told him.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right Ceedjee, and not a hopeful sign, more like in one ear and out the other; but it tries to bring one to understanding, which I am after, even if that understanding is a failure to see, it is learning. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

anti-Israeli behavior

Resolved

Jerusalem Neighborhoods versus Settlements -- Facilitation Needed

Perhaps it's my imagination, but lately I've gotten the sense that editors are focusing more on article Talk discussions w/sensitive edits. (With fewer disputes carried out through non-consensus edits and merely edit-summary "discussion.") If so, you all deserve to be commended. Of course, there's still some editing skirmishes, sanctions, etc., going on, and you are encouraged to help the WikiProject track these on the Project page or WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE.

Meanwhile, a dispute brought to WP:AE has been moved to a centralized discussion or Jerusalem "neighborhoods" versus "settlements." FYI. Plus, it looks like they could use help with a moderator/facilitator. Would anybody like to help out there? HG | Talk 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I way off base here?

There seems to be an emerging consensus to delete the redirect Israeli Occupation Forces -> Israel Defense Forces; see WP:RFD#February_16. I can't for the life of me figure out why the delete !voters think policy is against this redirect. It really seems like an open-and-shut case to me; the term Israeli Occupation Forces or IOF is commonly used by Palestinian and other sources, and it's been specifically discussed by reliable scholars of the Isr-Pal conflict, and debated by pro-Palestinian activists. Sure, it's a definitely POV term, but Wikipedia has all sorts of articles and redirects based on POV names. It's "neutral point of view," not "no points of view." Maybe I'm just missing something obvious. Can someone take a look and help me to understand this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleland (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone and voted article. Could you explain more why you are voting keep rather than for its being an article as you originally created it?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't considered it. I still think it should be an article, but I wasn't really willing to get in a fight with the admin User:Number 57 over it. He unilaterally merged and redirected it, and was already talking discreetly with other admins about protecting the redirect. <eleland/talkedits> 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hummus and Institute for Middle East Understanding

The metaphorical chickpea-paste has been flying over at Hummus and Talk:Hummus, with various anon editors claiming that a previous version of the article was "Zionist propaganda". Over the weekend there has been an exchange over how the IDF cookbook is a propaganda source [10] and denouncing the inclusion of a recipe spourced from the Institute for Middle East Understanding as using an extremist source [11]. Now one of the people who added info on how the dish is used in Israel has seen fit to nominate Institute for Middle East Understanding for deletion. Any one want to put on their metaphorical overalls and try to stop the food fight? --Peter cohen (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Need good lead for Israel_lobby_in_the_United_Kingdom

There are a number of reliably sourced paragraphs about this topic in the article but one editor keeps rejecting any summary as a lead sentence to the article, alleging WP:OR. Any one want to see if the can come up with a lead sentence from those sources that will past muster? Thanks. Carol Moore 15:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

RfC at Second Intifada

Please take a look. The discussion over one sentence in the lead has dragged on for three months now. Your thoughts and comments are appreciated. Tiamuttalk 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Seeking IPCOLL views

In an honest effort at collaboration, I present the following reference and excerpts to build understanding, as well to highlight basic, core issues directly related to the I-P conflict, which are widely noted in Wiki, but seldom discussed coherently. The (draft copy, but accessable) paper, later published elsewhere, was written (2002) in relation to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP), launched at their Barcelona Conference in November 1995. I admit it fits with my personal experience, knowledge, and also found it to be one of the most insightful (documented, and RS’d) articles that I have run across since I started to Wiki. I believe it will be appreciated more by those who would rather be ‘left’ with peace, than ‘right’ with Eretz Yisrael. I also understand that my use of this reference soon (amongst others) will cause considerable heated debate on IPCOLL issues. That debate will be generally between ‘us’ and those editors who are deeply involved and generally outside IPCOLL. Basically, I am asking the IPCOLL members to look at it, give it your own ‘sniff test’ for reliability and accuracy (I did), and please, tell me what you think, in a timely manner. The amount and tenor, of your replies will determine, in part, how I proceed.

The reference is entitled, Israel’s Contested Identity and the Mediterranean [12], by Raffaella A. Del Sarto[13]. I make specific reference to Section II. Israel’s Contested identity: The Domestic Scene, starting on p.6 (but please read it all). Briefly summarized (discussed and ref’d in the article), it says:

The identity of the State of Israel evolves around five main themes, most of which are linked to each other: Zionism, the Holocaust, the ‘Jewish State’, the principle of self-reliance, and the identification with the US.

The questions of what Israel shall be, where it should be founded, and which territory it shall comprise prompted discussions within the Zionist movement from the outset. However, in view of the almost simultaneous tasks of building a state and building a ‘nation’, Israel’s core integrating elements were left ambiguous – such as ‘Jewishness’, and ‘the Jewish State’. Over the years, however, and often triggered by specific developments, these ambiguities gave rise to partly incompatible concepts of Israel’s identity. At present, Israeli society and politics are characterised by four main fault lines, which cut across each other.

These fault lines, discussed and documented, are:

  • The territorial-political axis: Eretz Israel versus Medinat Israel
  • The religious-secular divide
  • The Zionist - non-Zionist divide
  • Cultural patterns and cognitive regions: The ‘Middle East’ versus the ‘West’

As a result of Israel’s domestic polarisation, Israel faces serious obstacles in pursuing a coherent policy course if question of Israel’s identity and its different implications in terms of territory, relations to its traditional ‘enemies’, and the favoured regional order are involved. Yet the EMP’s attempts to manipulate Israel’s identity towards a Mediterranean identity undoubtedly involve these questions.

  • Israel’s relations to its ‘significant other’
  • Israel’s ‘place in the region’
  • Israel’s relations to the EU
  • The Mediterranean theme and Israel’s quest for unity

Also discussed are:

  • Section III, The second Intifada, September 11, and the Mediterranean
  • Conclusions

I am still looking for an article of similar insight into the P-side. With the highest regard to all, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A fascinating read. The only potential problem I see with its being used is the disclaimer at the top which notes that it is a draft paper and should not be quoted. I don't know if that means that it can in fact be referenced, but that passages from it should not be taken as blockquotes, or if it means that it cannot be references at all. In any case, much of the material in it references other sources which have no such disclaimer pertaining to their use. So, thanks for providing it and I wish you luck in making use of its information in whichever way is appropriate. Tiamuttalk 14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I had similar concerns, and emailed the author immediately before I posted it. When I know more, I will let people know. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi CO'48. Interesting article. Indeed, there are multiple divides in Israeli society, and on important issues. The writer thinks Labor Zionism is on the 'Medinat Israel' side. I'm not so sure of that. At least I'm sure Ben-Gurion was on the 'Eretz Israel' side. This article might interest you: The Founding Myths of Israel. The writer of the book, Zeev Sternhell emphasises the continuity of Zionism's goals. A book that might interest you is "Palestine, one country, two peoples" by Ilan Pappe. It also discusses the Mizrahi/Askenazi divide.
A thing which strikes me about Israeli politics is that they have these 'single issue' parties. Religious parties joining the government and supporting a bigger party on all issues in return for e.g. a lot of money for their religious students so that they don't have to work. As she writes that almost all Jews in Israel are on the Zionist side, it seems to be normal in Israel to support 'particularistic' instead of 'universal' interests. In 'normal' countries most political parties have a sense of being there for all the citizens.
FYI: there was a definite article published later (2003, ‘Israel’s Contested Identity and the Mediterranean’, Mediterranean Politics 8(1): 27-58.) I can donwload it for you if you want.
If you want to add content from this article to Wikipedia then the question is: where can you add it?. My suggestion would be to make a new article about it and put a summary (and link) in other articles, like the 'Israel' article.
Good luck! --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Apology to Members and HG, JaapBoBo knew of this post, because I mentioned it in an unrelated post. Since, he was not a member, I had never expected him to post a reply. I was not solicitating, although it could look that way.
I had hoped to have members comment. What I am asking is: Is this a reasonable statement of the political situation in Israel? Is it absolute bunk? What are other things not stated? Is the Medinat/Eretz split as significant as the author says. Really, I am looking for the NPOV version, I already know what my POV is. Hopefully, I am asking collaborative editors. If this is too uncollaborative or off-topic, then please post it to my page. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi CO'48,
I am not sure to understand properly your questions but I try to give some thoughts. Please, feel free to comment or ask for clarifications.
  • "Is this a reasonable statement of the political situation in Israel?"
From what I know, there is an important identity crisis in Israel. Israel's identity built itself around the different axes described in this article but in which a modern nation has more and more difficulties to recognize herself. This identity crisis is too complex to summarize here but it is heavily discussed in Israel (at the academic level, in political circles, in newspapers...)...
  • "Is it absolute bunk?". No. On the contrary but maybe it is just too short :-)
  • "What are other things not stated?"... I would think about : the reasons of the identity crisis, the relation with Galout (diaspora), the paradoxal relation with Judaism/Mordernism (Is Israel the Jews's state or the Israelis' state - all Israeli I know personnally are fed up to be seen behind the arab-Israeli conflit and their historical roots : they want Israel to be a state like all the others western states), the anachronism of the myths on which were built the Israeli nation; paranoia and besieged feeling, Muslim world agressivity, ...
  • Is the Medinat/Eretz split as significant as the author says. It is part of the matter. I think the problem is that scholars do not have the answer to all questions.
Concerning the introduction on these issues to wp, I think you should need to find books or other articles related to this topic.
You can start from here : [14].
I hope I understood properly your question(s). Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
NB: if your question was : "what is the palestinian pov on Israeli identity", I think there is none. If it was : "what about the palestinian identity", I think it is a completely different topic with of completely different issues and matters (they need a state and ask for an international recognition of their existence, their nation, their rights, their sufferings, the injustices they were victims, ...). If it was "what is the part of the I-P conflict in the topic of Israeli identity", I would say it is a proof of the original sin and give some parts of the israeli society a feeling of culpability. Ceedjee (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ceedjee, you do understand my questions properly and I appreciate your effort. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlap between WP:Israel and WP:PPalestine

Your collective thoughts would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Overlap of WikiProject Palestine and Wikiproject Israel. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Trouble at Jewish lobby

Discussion of this request stopped about a month ago, so the thread has been archived. See the article or mediation/DR effforts for current status of the dispute. (Or restart new thread as needed.) Thanks. HG | Talk 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI Mediation which started March 14 is still going on and on with the article locked because of constant reverting and re-editing by two sides of issue (one side - mostly one editor and people who come in to support his reversions - wanting to stress antisemitic uses of term; other side of 5-7 independent editors who want to include more of NON-antisemitic uses to make article more accurate and NPOV -obviously sie I'm on). But it's just over and over the same ground with mediator sometimes helping and sometimes not. Fact that article locked makes it difficult to put in and keep edits we agree on. So I guess will have to bring that up. I just wish there was a way of really dealing with editors who are almost peofessionals at WP:Gaming the system. They teach others of us bad habits, too. Just frustrated. Carol Moore 03:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Recent links to antisemitism article inserted into Anti-Zionism

Yesterday User:Telaviv1 inserted a load of see also links into Anti-Zionism connecting to articles on antisemitism. I reversed one of them (not noticing at the time that he/she had added the others). User:Zeq has now reversed my reversion. My view is that inserting such links is POV through equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. What do other people think?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,
Equating antizionism to antisemitism is of course not acceptable.
But I am not sure that adding a see also : Anti-globalization and antisemitism at the top of the article has this meaning.
Personnally, I see this as meaning there is a link between both. No more, no less
...
Ceedjee (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your changes. I don't mind so much material in the see also section at the end of the article. It was the insertion of the antismitism see alsos in the antizionism sections that got me.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I more or less agree with Ceedjee. They are linked topics, if only because antisemites have realized that fake "anti-Zionism" is a good way to softpedal their views (cf Stalin, David Duke, et al.) <eleland/talkedits> 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Peter,
In fact, I didn't realize immediately what you was referring to.
From my point of view (as you have seen in my last edits in the article) it is not acceptable to add at the top of each section, a link to "antisemitism". So, I try to "neutralize" this. I hope this will not produce difficult discussions.
@Eleland. I share your mind too. Ceedjee (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks again. I wanted to bring things here for more neutral comment rather than make a second revert at once and risk becoming a major antogonist on one side of an edit war. And yes the anti-Zionism as a cover and trigger of antisemitism is something I'm well aware of. The link has kept me away from from various activities of the Stop the War Coalition.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread is over a month old and ready to be archived IMO. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA emails brouhaha

In case anyone missed it, there was a brouhaha over CAMERA emails trying to secretly organize pro-Israel and anti-Palestine editing here and sanctions put on some editors, including at least one mentioned above. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign for details. Now to figure out how to deal with certain aggressive partisan editors who manage to dance just within the rules while keeping article POV pro-Israel. Carol Moore 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

This is the right place to talk about it.  :) Please bring up any incidents that you notice. --Elonka 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent some idea and approach all around. it's great how you called attention to anyone who keeps an article "pro-Israel" while dancing within the rules.
I assume you feel you did not say anything offensive, since your comment was entirely within the bounds of the rules here. So how about if we in turn do our part to keep an eye out for "aggressive partisan editors who manage to dance just within the rules while keeping article POV anti-Israel." --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you.  :) --Elonka 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your positive response; however, as you can see though, I have changed my answer slightly. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Like anything else it's all a mater of degree. i.e., one editor who constantly pulls every trick in the book to keep out reliably sourced negative info about Israel by 10 editors is a lot worse than one editor who tries to put in a less than reliable negative allegation that no editor bothers to defend when others delete it. I've seen far more of the former than the latter. And there are many negative facts about Israel that should be reported, just like there are lots about the US and South African (then and now) and Zimbabwe. Defending people's favorite nation states from reliably sourced allegations is not wikipedia's job. Carol Moore 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Carol and Steve, I think we all agree that any off-Wiki canvassing — whether anti-Israel or pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian or pro-Palestinian — is inappropriate. Evidence recently came to light about an effort to create an "army" of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian editors. The existence of another group of editors looking to "combat" anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel bias was also discovered.
The nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such that it attracts editors with deeply-held views. If they don't share your POV, they're "aggressive partisan editors who manage to dance just within the rules while keeping article POV". If you agree with their POV, they're upholding Wikipedia's core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.
Instead of looking under every rock and behind every tree for "aggressive partisan editors", let's all try to avoid appearing to others — especially those with the "wrong" POV — as "aggressive partisan editors". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Malik Shabazz. Not appearing to others as "agressive partisan editors" is a first good step in the process of developing these difficult articles in wikipedia where there are numerous contributors with different cultures, different sensitivities and different pov's. Ceedjee (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
We must keep our wits about us - it's not just that this CAMERA business was a serious, blatant attempt to cheat. It came to light because one or more editors were coming to believe they were untouchable. No matter how blatantly they cheated in their editing (most infuriatingly for good editors, removing good information), it seemed that the project was incapable of dealing with them and wouldn't pull them up for anything. User:Zeq was being actively encouraged in this conduct, as many of us recognised. PRtalk 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Massacres

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/About the use of the word massacre per HG request.
Ceedjee (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources charges of antisemitism

Sometimes I clean up biographies of people critical of Israel, deleting obviously POV, unsourced or dubiously sourced statements per WP:BLP, of which there often are many. I now have a case where small time lefty publications -- and an article by an editor of the page -- are used to charge antisemitism against someone who does defend their reputation and probably has threatened law suits to get mainstream editorial access to defend his reputation. Thinking WP:BLP calls for caution in these cases, I brought these examples to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Where the offending editor defended them and another editor gave a reply inferring but not stating they might be deleted. I guess I'll finally bring it to the talk page, but would like a more expedient way of dealing with issue - besides just reverting away per WP:BLP rules. Anyway, I wonder if people in general have found it more of a problem to get such accusations removed as unreliable on antisemitism charges than on other charges. Thanks. Carol Moore 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Is this linked to the I-P conflict ?
Whatever, if there is a source, and if the statement is "according to *a precise name*, Mr X is antisemite because *arguments* ", then it should be ok for wikipedia.
Everything less cautious should be forbiden.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I don't want to export the discussion to this page too, I want to note that, although there are indeed allegations of antisemitism on the page in question, most of these are in sources which Carolmooredc does not propose to delete (including The Guardian and The Times), and none are in the "small time lefty publications" she mentions above. Unfortunately, misuse of the serious charge of antisemitism against opponents of Israeli policy has served to delegitimise and discredit the term even when it might be appropriately used. RolandR (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Firt, glad to see you are a reader of this page. :-)
Second, are you saying that if a reliable source says something negative and potentially libelous, then you can pile on less reliable sources - including your own writings? Actually I think a couple of them should be deleted on the grounds of piling on! WP:UNDUE and all that. For one thing, reliable sources usually cover their butts by publishing replies from the person attacked, as The Guardian did twice. But I guess it's just time to bring it to the talk page since definitive answers not coming up else wheres. Carol Moore 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
There is a related discussion here:
Talk:Little Green Footballs#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material --Timeshifter (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • this older thread can be archived, thanks!


Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

(Hi again. It might be wise if folks could turn now to the question of where to put this discussion/thread. While Jerusalem is obviously a key sticking point in RL and WP, I don't think we want it taking over this Talk page. The purpose of the Talk page, beyond some limited content discussions, is to figure out how to help resolve disputes and lower the tensions among editors. Our goal is not to settle content disputes on this page itself. Would you all like this continued as a subpage of IPCOLL here? Or move it to an existing talk page? Or a new centralized discussion, as is done for some content disputes? Jerusalem is an issue cuts across various articles and template(s), perhaps it would be fruitful to focus less on the debate itself right now, and think about how/where the question can be tackled. Where to move the discussion and help it be constructive there? Thanks.)

Move it wherever you like, and leave a note to that effect. I'm sure no one will object.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You can do the same as was done for "Massacres", the discussion was moved to a sub page. Imad marie (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel per HG request. Imad marie (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

LIST OF SUGGESTIONS OVER THE YEARS, POSTED HERE FOR 'POSTERITY.' (Please do not note your opinions on the matter here as this is just a list summarizing the suggestions/examples thusfar):

  • "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"
  • "Jerusalem is Israel's official capital, although Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem is not widely recognised by the international community (see Positions on Jerusalem)."
  • "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Jerusalem has not been internationally recognized as Israel's capital, and no embassies are located in Jerusalem-proper."
  • "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; it is the seat of Israel's government, but not of diplomacy."
  • "Jerusalem is Israel's seat of government and its proclaimed capital. Israel's sovereignty over the city is disputed, particularly by Palestinians who view its eastern portion as occupied."
  • "Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Israel"
  • "Jerusalem is the disputed capital of Israel"
  • "Israel regards Jerusalem as its capital, although hardly any other country recognizes it as such."
  • "It is the official capital of Israel, although the status of the city under international law is unsettled."
Other approaches to the issue:
  • English:"Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎ (audio) (help·info), Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس (audio) (help·info), al-Quds) is an ancient city of great significance to the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Following the Six-Day War of 1967, the whole city has been united under Israeli control, functions as Israel's capital, and has been expanded to be her largest city both in terms of populaton and area. However, the status of the city is internationally disputed."
  • "From 1948 until 1967, the Western part of Jerusalem was administered by Israel as its capital, while East Jerusalem was administered by Jordan. The city was reunited by the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War, although its status remains disputed. An Israeli law of 1980 declared Jerusalem to be the 'eternal, undivided' capital of Israel, while East Jerusalem is being claimed as the intended capital of a future Palestinian state. The status of the city's holy places is also disputed."
  • "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is the capital and largest city of Israel. Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes back five thousand years, over the course of which it changed hands repeatedly. In recent times, the annexation of the eastern part of the city by Israel has been a major source of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians, along with the United Nations, do not recognize the annexation and see East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state."
  • "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (help·info), Yerushaláyim or Yerushalaim; Arabic: القُدس (help·info), al-Quds)[ii] is Israel's seat of government, capital,[iii] and largest city both in population and area, with a population of approximately 724,000 (as of 2006) in an area totaling 126 square kilometers (49 sq mi). Located in the Judean Mountains between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, Jerusalem has a storied history that goes as far back as the 4th millennium BCE. Since then, its inhabitants have included Jebusites, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Israelis. Today the city is governed by Israel but remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future Palestinian state."
  • French: Jerusalem... is a middle-eastern city which has a dominant place in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions, and in Israeli and Palestinian national sentiment. The state of Israel has declared unified Jerusalem as its "eternal capital". This designation is not accepted by the international community. East Jerusalem is also claimed as capital of a potential future Palestinian state.
  • Swedish: Jerusalem... is since 1949 the de facto capital of Israel, a status that has met weak international recognition. Most countries keep their embassies in Tel Aviv.
  • German: Jerusalem... is the capital of the state of Israel. The presidency and... are located there. East Jerusalem was conquered during the six-day war and annexed in 1980 by a constitutinal amendment. The annexation is condemned as illegal by the international community and is therefore not recognized. There are thus international reservations about the extensions of Israeli rights to the eastern parts of the city and the expansion of the city boundary (and thereby the status as capital) to the east. The Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city as capital of a future Palestinian state.
  • Italian: Jerusalem... is located...enormous historical and geopolitical importance... symbolic place for... Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The international governance originally called for by the UN for the city of Jerusalem (corpus separatum) was never realized. Actually, the international community considers East Jerusalem to be occupied territory, in the sense of the IV Geneva Convention, while the state of Israel considers East Jerusalem an integral part of its own territory, although it does not recognize citizenship rights of its inhabitants. The state of Israel has declared Jerusalem as its capital since 1950 and introduced legislation to this effect in 1980, but no other UN member state recognizes this, and most countries maintain their diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv, the economic and financial center of the country.
  • BRITANNICA © :Jerusalem Hebrew Jerushalayim, Arabic Bayt al-Muqaddas or Al-Quds ancient city of the Middle East that since 1967 has been wholly in the possession of Israel. In 1949 the city was proclaimed its capital by Israel. Jerusalem plays a central role in the spiritual and emotional perspective of the three major monotheistic religions. For Jews throughout the world, it is the focus of age-old yearnings, a living proof ofancient grandeur and independence and a centre of national renaissance;for Christians, it is the scene of their Saviour's agony and triumph; for Muslims, it is the goal of the Prophet Muhammad's mystic night journey and the site of one ofIslam's most sacred shrines. For all three faiths it is a centre of pilgrimage—the Holy City, the earthly prototype of the heavenly Jerusalem.
  • ENCARTA © :Jerusalem (Hebrew Yerushalayim; Arabic Al Quds), city lying at the intersection of Israel and the West Bank, located between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Jerusalem is composed of two distinct sections: West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem, which is inhabited almost entirely by Jews, has been part of Israel since Israel was established in 1948. East Jerusalem, which has a large Palestinian Arab population and recently constructed Jewish areas, was held by Jordan between 1949 and the Six-Day War of 1967. During the war, East Jerusalem was captured by Israel, which has administered it since. Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such. Jews, Christians, and Muslims consider Jerusalem a holy city, and it contains sites sacred to all three religions.

PLEASE DO NOT POST RESPONSES TO THE ABOVE, HERE. GO TO THE APPROPRIATE TALK PAGE, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, IF YOU WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION. THANKS.

Tali Hatuel‎

I came across this page by pressing the "Random Article" button. I saw from the talk page that its guardian angel had got fed up of trying to keep it NPOV. I thought I might be able to take over, but I immediately found that I'm too inexperience and WAY too impatient to cope with the editors who can't abide simple hard facts. So: firstly, this page needs looking out for by someone cares; secondly, it needs smartening up with the refs cited properly etc. I've made a start. I hope someone in this WP Project would like to take it under their wing. My (underinformed) guess is that some kind of protection might be needed once you've got it looking good. Good luck! almost-instinct 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Since there has been no further discussion, perhaps this item should be archived, too. HG | Talk 04:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Green Line (Israel)

I was originally planning to post the following on WP:Israel (as I do not participate in either IPCOLL or WP:Palestine), but don't want accusations of POV or anything, and hope that the comment is visible to everyone. A certain user, Lapsed_Pacifict, has been trying to enter the word 'colony' for Israeli settlements repeatedly in the article Green Line (Israel). I am currently trying to calmly explain why this is wrong, but may have to resport to WP:ANI reports and such. For now, I'd like external input from the entire political spectrum, and hopefully we can settle this quickly. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that Israeli colonies redirects to "Israeli settlement" (which is the commonly used term), it seems to me like he's just being contentious. -- Nudve (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

presumably this thread can be archived, thanks!

Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict

Hi, everyone. I would like to invite everyone who is interested in writing neutrally, objectively, and accurately (that should be everyone here, I hope) to help complete the article Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Aside from a lack of illustrations, there are only a few sections which still require completion. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael -- Thanks and kudos to you. Good luck with it. HG | Talk 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a hugely problematical article, a vehicle for (amongst other things) intimidating journalists who dare to report negatively on Israel. For instance, it is apparently known that Israel lied about the use of White Phosphorus weapons in Lebanon (WP is a borderline chemical weapon, but that's a different and lesser issue in this regard).
Israel is also suspected of using DU weapons (ie the same thing that the UK and the US do a lot, so it's not illegal and perhaps not particularly bad). But again, Israel denies using this particular "controversial" weapon.
Along comes a highly credible (though I'm persuaded, possibly flawed) report reference Lebanon 2006, claiming that samples contained uranium from weapons was present (not regular DU, it's allegedly something nastier, but again, we can ignore those details).
An Australian journalist (but long term Lebanon resident), Robert Fisk, reported these mysterious results, which are claimed to come from two different MOD qualified labs.
Whatever is going on here (and I accept there may be something dodgy about the sample collection, and/or the lab results), this business is plainly not a "Media issue", and it's inexcusable to target the journalist who has reported that "there's a mystery", because there plainly is a mystery.
It would be possible to treat this as a genuine Media issue - it would run something like "Brave Journos force Israel into admitting the use of one weapon that they'd denied, and think they're on the trail of another lie". But to treat the journalists themselves as liars is an atrocious thing to be doing, and borderline BLP, a totally uncalled for smear.
This kind of thing goes on quite a bit in articles - and this particular incident smacks of propaganda aimed at silencing the press. PRtalk 22:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

this thread can be archived, thanks! (cont. discussion at article) HG | Talk 04:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Input needed from uninvolved folks at the Battle of Jenin

There's a dispute among editors at Talk:Battle of Jenin. Would some editors/admins who are not involved help facilitate or resolve the disagreement(s)? (The dispute concerns the use of the term 'massacre' as well as other aspects. Some arguments have discussed previously either on that Talk page, see archives, or elsewhere.) Thanks and good luck! HG | Talk 21:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, HG, there is no dispute about the use of the word massacre, since most people feel the same as Derek Holley and Amnesty, it's not a particularly useful word. (Amnesty was even excoriated by the ADL for saying that "massacre" has no precise legal definition and it wasn't Amnesty's place to say whether there had been a massacre!).
There are the makings of a dispute whether the alternative title of "Jenin Massacre" belongs in the article (it always used to be there). There seems good evidence that it's far and away the most popular name for this incident. However, I've never suggested the name of the article be changed to "Jenin Massacre", and I don't believe that, in the 100s of 1000s of words already expended, anyone else has done so either.
What I have done is point out the chorus of whines in the blogosphere, angrily shouting out that the RSs never retracted or corrected the impression they gave at the time, that this was an immense atrocity. The article needs to reflect that, and not be an exercise in perverse, and easily disprovable, denial. PRtalk 09:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks PR. Please use the Talk:Battle of Jenin to discuss/clarify the dispute among editors. Take care, HG | Talk 10:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your involvement, HG. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories

Human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories. Are there any separate articles covering this topic as it pertains to Israeli responsibilities and abuses, and not just the responsibilities and abuses of the Palestinian National Authority?

Please see:

As far as I can tell there is still no single page describing Israeli human rights responsibilities and abuses in the Israeli-occupied territories since I first compiled this long ago from various related discussions:

I would like to see a page started. Is there a mutually acceptable title for such an article? Should there be an article for each of the occupied territories? I would like there to be a link for each in the template: {{Human rights in the Middle East}}. Or maybe instead of having the template link for "Palestinian territories" linking to Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority we could link to a disambiguation page that directs people to the various pages. Here are some suggestions for the various pages:
Israel's human rights record in the Palestinian territories.
Israel's human rights record in the West Bank.
Israel's human rights record in the Gaza Strip.
Palestinian National Authority's human rights record in the Palestinian territories.
I don't see the point in starting pages that will immediately have edit wars, or be put up for deletion, all because of starting off with bad titles. So let us collaborate here to come up with some acceptable, non-biased article titles.
There also needs to be a human rights page for the Golan Heights. How about this:
Israel's human rights record in the Golan Heights.
There are a large number of notable organizations categorized in
Category:Non-governmental organizations involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
So those organizations must have put out plenty of material concerning Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories. Many of those organizations are considered to be reliable sources, or at least reliable enough to be used as a source in the form of X says Y. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fantastic Has anyone tried to start this one before?:Palestinian National Authority's human rights record in the Palestinian territories - such an article would be really interesting. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you have seen this report from Human Rights Watch?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been very busy. Here is a quick reply. I haven't had time to read but a few paragraphs of the recent HRW report. Maybe Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority can be renamed to "Palestinian National Authority's human rights record in the Palestinian territories." Maybe another article can be created called Hamas human rights record in the Gaza Strip. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to point to the same page, which needs a lot of work. Both suggestions sound great to me, except that there's just as much of a need for an article entitled Fateh human rights record in the Palestinian Authority LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and a shorter name for the PA article might help: Palestinian Authority's human rights record in the Palestinian territories.
It may be possible to cut out the relevant parts of Human rights in Israel#Human rights record in Occupied territories and create the previously-discussed article "Israel's human rights record in the Palestinian territories." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive_2&oldid=1137378810"