Talk:Land Day/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NPOV tag

Its been up now for almost a year, defacing this page. I'd to like to remove it. Any objections? Tiamut^talk 16:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Check the section above. Thanks.

p.s. its been "defacing" the page because a few editors have been holding the page up, rejecting non-Palestinian narratives.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific and clearly list and itemize your issues with the article, providing them numbers so we can deal with them one by one and strike them off when they have been dealt with. Try to avoid soapboxing and be precise about what it is that you would like to see changed. Tiamut^talk 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tiamut,

So of all people, you (a) refuse to write for the enemy (read: try to adhere to WP:NPOV), and (b) accuse me of soapboxing after you compare a (right wing) Israeli news-source with Al-Hayat Al-Jadeedah !!! (a paper that has crosswords puzzles with the reply "Treacherousness" for the question "The Jewish trait"). The entire article, much of which you are responsible for, is filled with "embellishments". I keep listing things but you and Nableezy side-track the concerns with legalities and near-blind reverts. e.g. the comment above about the Arab-Israeli clashes revert. To put it bluntly, my notes should be treated with dignity rather than indignation and things would go far smoother and we may even get rid of the "defacing" tag if the article comes close to reasonable levels.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be a happy camper if we start by noting the usage of Hamas/Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad flags and violent poetry in the Land Day commemorations every year. I'd be interested in the addition of the Arabic name for the (always inspiring) little girl who reads out in these commemoration days. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a very simple request Jaakobou, and I'd appreciate a simple response without soapboxing and denigration of my people. I'll restate: Could you please be specific and clearly and concisely list your issues with the article, providing them numbers so we can deal with them one by one and strike them off when they have been dealt with? Tiamut^talk

There's really too many of them to list down on a single go and you've shown little to no interest in resolving article issues up to now so you'll excuse me if I prefer to list small issues rather than make a comprehensive list that will become outdated faster than I write it. I've made a clear request above in regards to content that is needed into the article - the way the commemorations are played out. There's also the issue of adding content mentioned in the two sources I provided earlier (INN and JPOST) that is missing from the article.

p.s. my apologies that you take nationalistic offense by any mention of the way people commemorate Land Day. Perhaps you have too much of a conflict of interests to edit this article to neutral levels if you pick and choose the content of this subject and take offense by mention of Palestinian actions, which occur on a yearly basis, that you disagree with. I have no intention of holding these actions against you but they certainly belong in the article.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This source cites the usage of Syrian flags.[1] Nice. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you at all. Comment on content, not contributors.

Four editors here have said the INN source is not reliable, so I'm not going to go against consensus and include information from it in the article.

About the Jpost article, what specifically would like to see added?

About the Haaretz article you just provided a link to (its in Hebrew which I don't read), is it that you want to add a sentence about people carrying Syrian flags in the demonstrations? That's the only specific recommendation I can garner from your comments. Tiamut^talk 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add content about the way the "commemorations" are used to issue yearly anti-Israeli/Jewish challenges. Clear enough? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Which source say that? Because that sounds like someone's interpretation which should be attributed to its author. Tiamut^talk 09:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Just like the "unarmed" bit should be attributed? Let's start by clarifying if Haaretz is wiki-reliable for Israeli-Palestinian issues (heck, some people call it anti-Zinoist but Zero doesn't seem to care). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to attribute it to all six sources I provided you using that terminology? Tiamut^talk 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, some people "commemorate". But what about those who riot? And as for "commemorations".. What about the ceremonies with little girls that read poetry? You've yet to tell me the name of that role in ceremonies, I would be interested in having it in the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Riots are mentioned in the article. About the rest of your comment, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop trying to mock the commemorations of the dead of Land Day. It's not nice. Tiamut^talk 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's improvement with (very) recent edits but there's several issues that still need resolution before the article comes close to true neutral and encyclopedic tone. I apologize that you take offense with mentions of the non-peaceful activities made during these days (such as the usage of Syrian/other flags and chanting of inflammatory sloganeering) but the mere mention of them is hardly mockery towards anyone. I would not be making note of them being amiss from the article if they were included. That you find their mention offensive is not remotely as offensive as their existance is to a person who hears these slogans (like "in blood and spirit we will redeem thee Filasteen") on a yearly basis. Sticking to the article, I think it is important to add folklore from these commemorations and I'd be interested in the Arabic term for the little girl that reads poetry in public ceremonies. I gather that you don't know Arabic well enough to give me this information? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop it Jaakobou. You're being a WP:DICK. Not a single thing in your comment above has to do with article improvement. Tiamut^talk 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It would improve the article to have some reference to all notable aspects of how Palestinian commemorations are conducted. Apparently, mention of this makes me an ass in your eyes. Perhaps its an issue of sensitiveity by both of us as I'm still quite offended, though I haven't made a huge deal out of it, with the earlier comparison between Israelnationalnews and the antisemitic Al-Hayat. Perhaps I should have responded with wiki-love to the suggestion that Haaretz is a propaganda news-source, but it feels as though I am raising important issues in a very hostile environment that places a blind eye on common knowledge occurrences as well as basic neutrality. e.g. I'd be happy to not mention commemorations anymore if the article content reflects the full nature of the annual commemoration days (paraphrasing has been over-used btw). As a side note, I'd like to add that mention of tanks in the lead seems to suggest civilians were attacked by artillery fire or at the very least run over. This usage is suggestive to a fault and is non encyclopedic. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice: I'd like to start fresh, Tiamut, and try to discuss issues on a less "loaded" atmosphere. Let's stop making comments on this sub-section and create a new one where we deal with issues in a more collegiate manner. Agreed? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please open a new sub-section clearly outlining your issues with your article, as per my earlier request to you at the top of this section. Tiamut^talk 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen several claims that people carried Syrian flags at Land Day demonstrations, but all of them fail to mention Palestinian flags. You can look at hundreds of photos of Land Day demonstrations at images.google.com and see that Palestinian flags are everywhere (and I couldn't find any Syrian flags, can you?). Example [2]. This doesn't make the sources look good; actually it suggests they are propagandising. On the other hand, there is a place where I would expect to see some Syrian flags: on the Golan. Most of the Arab residents there are Syrian citizens and for them to wave Syrian flags at Land Day demonstrations would be no surprise at all. So what I suspect (this is OR, don't bother pointing it out) is that reports from the Golan were relayed without identifying the location. Another place to expect Syrian flags would be at Palestinian refugee camps in Syria. Zero^talk 10:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your pick and choose attitude towards content doesn't look good. Haaretz does not do pro-Israeli propaganda, quite to the contrary. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, its quite priceless for you to accuse Zero of a "pick and choose attitude". I managed to get someone else to translate wht the Haaretz article says: it mentions that the demonstrators were carrying Palestinian and Syrian flags. Strangely, you did not mention the Palestinian flags, even ater Zero said it was strange that they would not be mentioned. Tiamut^talk 11:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: Let's get over ourselves here. Instead of picking and choosing at the likes/dislikes of sources (I wouldn't want Haaretz to be compared with the PLO Al-Ayat as well), I give you a free hand in finding sources that clarify what happens in "commemorations" held by Hamas and in PLO schools. You find the sources you like... I'd prefer Arabic actually. Tiamut, you don't know Hebrew, but how is your Arabic? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No one is comparing Haaretz to the PLO Al-Ayat but you. It's very strange for you to claim Arab media sources are unreliable and then ask me to go digging around for information from them on how Land Day is commemorated "by Hamas and in PLO schools". I don't see why I should look for information in Arabic when we have a tonne of English language sources already cited in the article that provide information on how it is commemorated. Tiamut^talk 11:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The mainstream Israeli press like Haaretz, Yediot and Maariv are Reliable Sources by Wikipedia standards. Incidentally here is a Palestinian-press report of a demonstration in Jerusalem with both Palestinian and Syrian flags in evidence. It isn't Land Day but there is no reason the same thing couldn't happen in a Land Day demonstration. The explanation is given right in the headline: "Syrians from occupied Golan join nonviolent protest at Al Aqsa...". So I am quite prepared to believe the Haaretz report about Syrian flags, but we should try to get the context correct. That is more likely to be available in Arabic sources. Zero^talk 12:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Arabic newspapers are unlikely to provide context for the waving of Syrian flags alongside Palestinian ones because their readership doesn't need those explanations. Often its done to show solidarity with those under occupation in the Golan Heights, and could also be due to pan-Arabist or Greater Syria loyalties. It could also be because Syria is one of the few Arab countries left that defends the Palestinian cause.

For the purposes of this article, we could add a sentence about how at one demonstration in 2001, people waved Palestinian and Syrian flags, without any additional commentary. Do you want to do it? I don't see why its particularly relevant, but whatever. Tiamut^talk 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well then,

I'm glad Haaretz is no longer accused of anti-Palestinian propaganda. This is certainly a step back from TE/IDONTLIKEIT behavior exhibited here thus far. The next step would be to allow wiki-reliable Israeli sources that are right-wing as well as anti-Zionist ones without rejecting the information on bogus propaganda charges - what matters is the reliability of the information and not ridiculous comparisons between a legitimate news source and an antisemitic publication (did you hear the story they published about Jewish enhanced rats?). Also, the current section on "Israeli media" is basically a criticism article made about Israeli media - this should be retitled as "criticism of Israeli media" with a clear note on who conducted the study and on who's behalf did they conduct it. Also, I find it odd that the only place that mentions riots and stone throwing is the criticism section.

Tiamut, make me proud and fix it while we work on the "single (yet yearly) event" of raising Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/etc. flags. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a quote from Arutz Sheva expressing that author's opinion that riots began the night before and intensified the next day. Anyone editing here is free to revert it or add some kind of qualifying statement after Arutz Sheva (like "voice of the settlers" or something like that). They really do represent a WP:Fringe opinion in this debate. But since Jaakobou won't remove the tags unless he gets his way on this, I've gone ahead and compromised WP:RS in an attempt to forge a new WP:CONSENSUS (if you will all agree).

I've also attributed the information in the two separate studies to their authors more explicitly. Tiamut^talk 17:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice: I'd like to start fresh, Tiamut, and try to discuss issues on a less "loaded" atmosphere. Let's stop making comments on this sub-section and create a new one where we deal with issues in a more collegiate manner. Agreed? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, at the top of the section, I asked: "Could you please be more specific and clearly list and itemize your issues with the article, providing them numbers so we can deal with them one by one and strike them off when they have been dealt with." You did not do that. Instead, you have jumped from subject to subject, offering your opinions about various issues that have little to do with the article's improvement. If you are in fact serious about discussing these issues in a collegiate manner, you would begin by honouring my request. Please open a new sub-section and draft a numbered list of the items you feel are POV with specific sugggestions on how to change them (citing useful sources) so that they accord with NPOV. This is the only way we can actually make progress and not end up waiting another year before the NPOV tag is removed. Tiamut^talk 10:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made mention of a few very valid points that should be addressed. Your collaborative spirit (per "little to do with the article's improvement") is seriously lacking. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A collaborative spirit encourages other to collaborate with you, not to get them to find something else wrong with your comments. You have asked to start fresh, and were asked to itemize your issues.

The alternative at this point is for this to go around in circles. Collaboration involves helping someone by doing what they asked, and assuming in good faith that what is being asked is not used to stall the issue. Work from there; you're focusing on behavior. Doesn't work. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Xavexgoem,

A while back I've taken a long time out and itemized numerous issues. Sadly, though, they were ignored on the large scale and treated on a micro scale with lack of respect. This is why I'm not inclined to make another long list. I've raised a few points now and I will try to make a shift in the interaction style of everyone, starting with myself. Content-wise, it seems like a simple issue to deal/discuss and (hopefully) resolve the lead-soapboxing "tanks" usage. I'm hoping 2 examples of possible counter embellishments (enemy flags/mutilations) were enough to clarify the problem so I've avoided, in the attempt to scale things down, a mention of more examples.

You are right (off course) that I'm still a little over-focused on behavior, so I appreciate the mention and will try (in upcoming comments) to ignore the drama and direct the discussion to focus on the actual issues of the article content.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)