Talk:Mahmoud Abbas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Abbas' work for Palestinians

There isn't a single section on this article or on Abbas about his work head of Palestinian Authority for the Palestinians. The only sections about his work as Palestinian leader focus on relations with Israel and foreign relations. Abbas also has to manage a population - his job doesn't just deal with the peace process or foreign relations. I strongly believe we should work together on adding such a section, and otherwise creating articles for the information or adding to existing articles (many articles on these subjects haven't been created yet, which takes time, and some just don't seem to fit in another article or to create one). The section can include:

• Improvements he made for Palestinians
• Fatah-Hamas reconcilation (briefly, I believe there is another article on it)
• Support for Abbas vs Hamas vs Barghouti in the polls
• Criticism by Palestinians
• Handling of crises such as financial crisis, fuel crisis
• Corruption, threats against other Palestinians
• Prison sentences, law enforcement (such as a recent crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank)
• Recent anti-Oslo rallies which grew into anti-police brutality and anti-P.A. rallies

Let me know how others feel about this. --Activism1234 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing controversial about this, you should feel free to expand on the subject. Be BOLD! I don't have much interest in this article in particular as I've set my sights elsewhere for the time being, but I might lend a hand sometime in the future. Just to note, there should also be a bit about the recent proposal set in the Doha Agreement that Abbas head the proposed technocrat-based government in addition to the presidency until new parliamentary and presidential elections are held. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm going to give it some more time to give people a chance to respond, and then I'll start working on it gradually (and anyone else who wants to help). If anyone wants to add more info or items we should include, as Al Ameer did, feel free to do so. What I listed is just a general guideline of what such a section can include. --Activism1234 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation

Shrike, that last edit you made is a BLP violation as it distorts what Abbas actually said. The full interview is here (uploaded by the TV station, not a copyvio). The editing that MEMRI performed so blatantly takes what Abbas said out of context that I cannot believe that anybody can, in good faith, claim what was written faithfully represents what he said. Yes, he did say he will not recognize a "Jewish state". He also said "I recognize Israel", and he said that it isnt his business what Israel calls itself and that Netanyahu is free to say what he wishes. I translated the relevant portion of the interview (from around the 7 minute mark to 9:13), and I'll post it when I get home. But that edit should be reverted, and I may do so later tonight. nableezy - 17:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the translation, without the highly selective editing brought to us by MEMRI:

Mona: But what I know is that Netanyahu's speach at the UN, which came right after your speech, did not have any indication of any hope or even probability for any negotiotion. I also know that you have left right after you finished your speech, and you did not wait for his speech, and you even left New York a few hours after that.

Abbas: I heard the speach

Mona: The whole world has heard it, Abu Mazen [Abbas]. And everything in his speech did not indicate that Israel will fulfill any of its promises to you or to any international agreements that they signed. The man used one expression, and said it openly: "the Jewish state, and I emphasize the Jewish state". He said "we offer peace, and they reject it. 63 years", instead of occupation, he says "63 years of offering peace". He accused everyone, Palestinians and the rest of the world, as being the enemies of peace. And he said that Israel is the only one that seeks peace. This is a speech that does not indicate any hope or indication of negotations.

Abbas (8:10): First, to remove from the table, the story of the Jewish state. The Jewish state was proposed to me only two years ago. And they discussed this with me in every place and every occasion I go to. They ask me, are there Jews or not? They also asked me what is my opinion on the "Jewish state". And I said my opinion, and I am repeating here. I will not accept the idea of a Jewish state, or a state that is Jewish.

Mona: He [Netanyahu] said it twice.

Abbas: This is my opinion, but he can say what he wants to. But I will not accept it. I recognize the state of Israel, and this recognition is based on the mutual exchange between Arafat and Rabin, and God bless both their souls. Other than this, I have nothing to say. I will not accept more than recognizing the state of Israel. And they have to recognize the PLO, the only representative of the Palestinian people. And that is enough. And they say this on more than one occasion, the Palestinian state, and some times they deny it, and some times they acknowledge it.

nableezy - 05:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The interview was reported by WP:RS so it make it notable if there other translations that WP:RS report you welcome to add it to the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesnt, in any way, address the BLP violation of taking a phrase completely out of context to give it a more radical meaning that it actually has. This isnt a game of acronyms prepended by WP:. He said, immediately following the out of context quote you chose to highlight, I recognize the state of Israel. He later says, effectively, that Netanyahu can call it a Jewish state if he wants to, but that he recognizes Israel and that as far as is necessary. He has also said, on other occasions, that it isnt the issue of Israel calling itself a "Jewish state" has nothing to do with him. You cant take out of context quotes to distort a persons stated views. Thats what your edit did. nableezy - 07:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't distort anything I report only what WP:RS report with proper attribution according per WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I just gave you the translation of, and a link to, the actual interview. Are you really going to say that the snippet quoted adequately expresses his views on the subject? nableezy - 07:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about your version WP:TRUTH but about verifiability more over his refusal to recognize jewish nature of Israel is well documented [1]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think cases like this are interesting and probably worth taking to BLPN because they seem to be within scope of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4 "Refraining from Certain Activities" which sets out what is not allowed (see here). One of those things is "Engaging in False Statements" i.e. we are obliged to carefully avoid deceiving readers. It's not always clear how to do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But even in Nableezy translation he said that he will not recognize so I don't understand what the problem really?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is that while sources are free to use the half-truth propaganda technique, we are not because we are writing an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what is the half truth?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you see the difference between the following 2 pieces of information in terms of the extent of the facts, Abbas' truth, they both contain ?

• MEMRI - "I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a 'Jewish state.'"
• nableezy's transcript - "I will not accept the idea of a Jewish state, or a state that is Jewish." + "I recognize the state of Israel, and this recognition is based on the mutual exchange between Arafat and Rabin" + "I will not accept more than recognizing the state of Israel."

One in effect says, "I will not recognize X as an ethnoreligious based state", while the other says "I will not recognize X as an ethnoreligious based state but I do recognize X as a sovereign state as mutually agreed". They are quite different in terms of the information the convey about Abbas' view. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We can add this to the article and link youtube interview as user translation are allowed too.Then the problem could be solved?

Could you also translate the part about Gilad Shalit? Because the sections have two parts.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should I spend my time on that? That should be removed on the basis that it has nothing to do with his "relations with Israel". nableezy - 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kidnapping Israeli soldiers has nothing to do with "relations with Israel"?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Mahmoud Abbas "kidnapped" any soldiers. He said it was a good thing that Hamas captured the soldier, but that doesnt change that armed resistance will not liberate Palestine as the Palestinians do not have the capabilities to compete with Israel in strength of arms. In that section of the interview (and this is from memory, so not word-for-word) he is remarking about how the Palestinian cannot win their freedom with force. He said something like We are always with peaceful, popular resistance. But the armed resistance will not accomplish our goals. I can translate it later, I just dont see the point of spending the time necessary to do that when it shouldnt even be a part of the article. nableezy - 16:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be removed as a relatively straight forward distortion of what Abbas actually said. But there are so many problems with that section that I dont even know where to start. Half of it has nothing to do with his relations with Israel, and the other half is based on sources that dont actually discuss his relations with Israel. Using secondary sources to write an article doesnt just mean finding a newspaper that carried a quote, it means finding sources that discuss what you are writing about. The thought of fixing the problems honestly isnt all that appealing to me, given the rather obvious obstacles that will invariably be thrown up. nableezy - 04:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, not getting into the actual BLP stuff but the other aspects of "Relations with Israel," stuff like "On 16 January 2006, Abbas said that he would not run for office again at the end of his current term" definitely aren't relevant to the section, and should be moved (not deleted) to another section (either existing or a new one). I don't find those types of edits to be controversial and don't expect they will be (but other types of edits will definitely be controversial). --Activism1234 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Whether you want to do this or not is up to you, if I get a chance I'd do as much as I can, since stuff like that really is a mess and makes it tough to find what you need in the article. But I can see, just based on how so many edits get talk discussions and back-and-forth arguments, how other types of edits would be considered controversial and objected to. --Activism1234 05:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How on earth does adding links to places that copy MEMRI's claim make that claim more reliable? It is ridiculous. Nableezy's case that this is BLP violation is watertight. And this is yet another reason why MEMRI should not be treated as a reliable source. What Abbas said is exactly the same thing as he has been saying for several years, for example here. Deleting the clear distinction between "Jewish State" and "Israel" is the sort of trick MEMRI gets up to, but we have no excuse. Zero^talk 13:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The material was restored on the basis that MEMRI is an RS which misses the point. I removed it again. It can stay out until BLP concerns are addressed properly. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, editors are reminded of WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. nableezy - 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you accept in that he willing to "recognize Israel but not the its Jewish character" based on Haaretz source--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because that implies that Israel has a "Jewish character". nableezy - 20:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And he isnt "willing" to recognize Israel, he has recognized Israel. nableezy - 20:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

UN non-member state status for Palestine. Vote expected in November 2012

I don't see this 2012 United Nations info linked below discussed in the article. Nor do I see the 2011 efforts by Abbas at the UN to get full membership discussed in the article. See: Palestine 194.

See:

• Palestine to seek UN non-Member State status, Abbas tells General Assembly debate. United Nations News Centre. Sept. 27, 2012 article.
• Palestine seeks UN non-member status. September 27, 2012. By SAPA (South African Press Association). --Timeshifter (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2013

Since 27 april 2013 he has the honorary citizen by the city of Naples.^{http://www.ilmattino.it/napoli/cronaca/napoli_abu_mazen_cittadino_onorario/notizie/273618.shtml} 95.239.50.207 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I don't believe this recognition is notable enough to be included in the article. There are a great many famous people out there who have been made honorary members of organizations, honorary citizens of their hometowns or other cities, etc, etc. All such articles would be quickly overloaded. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2013

President of State of Palestine is not a real position as there is not currently a state of Palestine. I don't think Wiki represents (intentionally) the spread of misleading information. I have made the edit two times and someone has continuously tried to start a debate which is not what the article is for. Avi1231 (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Content isn't going to be changed based on what you personally believe is real/unreal/existent/nonexistent. Perhaps you should read the State of Palestine article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2013

Formatting "Relations with Israel" and "Relations with foreign leaders" should be their own sections and not a subsection of "Corruption allegations" 98.255.2.193 (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks for spotting that. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Improve "Relations with Israel" subheading

I am new to editing wikipedia, and up to now have limited myself to copy-editing, but I was wondering what the procedure is to actively add to articles. One thing I have noticed is that in the "Relations with Israel" sub-heading, there are several one-sentence paragraphs that do not seem to indicate why they are relevant to the overall narrative of Abbas's relationship with Israel. The sentence/paragraph, "On 25 May, Abbas gave Hamas a ten-day deadline to accept the 1967 ceasefire lines," is an especially good example of this. Since I'm not that knowledgable on the subject matter, I'm hesitant to add things myself, but I was wondering if anyone else felt like this needed some clarification and if they would be willing to make these changes. If people think it's a valid addition but don't want to do it themselves, I am happy to do some research and clarify a little. Michael.holper628 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusion with another Abbas

In May, Averroes1 removed a paragraph from here as it was about Muhammad Zaidan (Abu Abbas or Muhammad Abbas). Now Averysoda has restored a part about that. Don't you see it is about another person who was Palestinian and called Muhammad Abbas? What did you think was solved by keeping (though rewording one word) that Mahmoud Abbas "In 1985, he temporarily went into hiding in Yugoslavia upon avoiding international justice mechanisms in Rome, Italy" but removing "which arose from his alleged involvement with the Achille Lauro hijacking"? --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If the source was talking about Muhammad Zaidan, I made a mistake. I didn't know that. Some Arabic war names look alike.--Averysoda (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look in the article, it is clear who it is about. Why return sensitive text in a WP:BLP in a hotly disputed topic like Israel and Palestine when you are not sure? It is also remarkable that you didn't revert yourself now that you have gotten another answer that this is a confusion with another Abbas. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Manasra

The incident about Ahmed Manasra is a bit of historical trivia that fails WP:UNDUE by a large margin. Abbas had his facts wrong and Bibi scored a propaganda point from it. It had no lasting significance whatever and does not belong in this article. Zero^talk 00:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No archive?

This talk page needs cleaning up. --Qualitatis (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

West Bank

As the lead for the Ramallah article says, "Ramallah ... is a Palestinian city in the central West Bank." Wikipedia's voice should not say that it is in the State of Palestine in Abbas's infobox. I intend on restoring the words "West Bank" unless somebody comes up with a reasonable argument why I should not. --GHcool (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mahmoud Abbas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029003707/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg74960/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg74960.pdf to http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg74960/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg74960.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Abbas and Olmert

Compare the report of the disreputable Arutz 7 settler newspaper and the report of the reputable news organization Jewish Telegraphic News, and the report of the international news agency Associated Press. A7 does not even mention the explanation that Abbas gave for rejecting Olmert's offer. Abbas said that Olmert refused to give him a copy of the map, but A7 wrote "Olmert presented him with a map". This is yet one more proof that A7 is unreliable, to add to the dozens of previous proofs. Zero^talk 08:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So what? Both accounts (the JTA report is based on the AP one, no need to list it as if it was a separate story) agree on the basic news elements of the story - Olmert made an unprecedented offer, Abbas rejected it, and this is the first time Abbas admits it. The AP chose to highlight Abbas' excuse- that he wasn't given a copy of the map to keep, while A7 chose to emphasis the "out of hand" rejection (which exposes the excuse for what it was - an excuse). The stories do not contradict each other, and there's no reason not to include both sources, with both aspects that were ignored, respectively in each story. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not about what they chose to emphasize. Arutz Sheva didn't mention at all why Abbas rejected the offer. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw that and just by looking at Arutz Sheva's title, you know something is missing if you have read reports from other media sources about this. Reading the article makes it clear they are leaving out Abbas' explanation and his explanation has actually been known for years.

There is no understandable reason to use this source when there are several good sources writing about Ehud Olmert's and Mahmoud Abbas' interview. Of course, if you want to make it look like the Palestinians are not interested in peace, like this settler newspaper does, then the article is perfect. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You're funny. The AP report you cite so approvingly says this is the first time Abbas has said that - but you think it was supposedly " been known for years.". So either you don;t know what you are talking about, or the AP story is not quite as credible as you make it to be. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that unlike Arutz Sheva, good media sources like AP gives the very relevant explanation from Mahmoud Abbas. Yes, it has been known for years, though it is in the news once again after the recent interview with Olmert and Abbas about their peace negotiations. So yes, AP is very credible and in a whole other class than the settler newspaper, and what I said is true. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You think it's relevant, others (e.g A7) think it is an irrelevant excuse, since he admitted he rejected it "out of hand" (Something that the AP story omits). I don;t know if you are right or A7 is right, what's the problem with including the complete story? And no, it can't be both that you are right, and Abbas's story has been known for years, and at the same time the AP story which said this is the first time he's given that explanation is credible. It's one or the other. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not a choice between what I and Arutz Sheva think is relevant. They choose to ignore Abbas' explanation, which credible media organizations like AP don't. Combining one worthless source and one good source doesn't give the "complete story".

I really don't care about your personal opinions. AP is a serious organization unlike the settler newspaper Arutz Sheva and this is another clear example of that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your reasoning here is circular. There are two stories: AP and A7. They agree on the basic facts, but A7 omits one detail (Abbas' excuse for why he rejected the offer) and AP omits another detail (that before offering the excuse, Abbas admitted he rejected the offer "out of hand") . You use the difference as "proof" that AP is reliable and A7 is not, when the argument could be flipped around to show AP is not reliable. And none of this has "my opinion" in it. Three's no reason to use both sources to get the full picture. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You say so because Abbas' explanation is just an "excuse" for you, which is more clearly seen at your comment above about "which exposes the excuse for what it was - an excuse". --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)\

Here is the coverage of the story from Council on Foreign Relations- [2], which is essentially the same as the A7 story (emphasis on the rejection out of hand, no mention of the 'wasn't given the map' excuse) . So what now? Is CoFR also an unreliable source? Or maybe it's time to admit that no source is unbiased - including AP - and if we want to get the full picture, we need to use both? That's Wikipedia policy , by the way. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, it wasn't about what AP and Arutz Sheva chose to "emphasize" but rather that Abbas' explanation was omitted in A7's article. There are hundreds of articles about the interview and I'm not arguing about using other sources, just that A7 is unreliable and there is no reason to include them (especially when there are many other sources about the negotiations). By the way, several years ago Saeb Erekat said the Palestinians made a counter-offer to Olmert. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

and the AP story omitted Abbas' statement that he rejected the story out of hand. and both a7 and AP omitted his other explanations (that he is not an expert on maps, or that Olmert was going to be convicted of corruption) as given by this JC story (http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/149618/abbas-admits-rejecting-ehud-olmerts-peace-offer). The point is, you can't use a newspaper's omission of this detail or that detail as a measure of its reliability . When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva isnt a reliable source, all this other noise is irrelevant. nableezy - 04:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

well thank you for that assertion. Now, do you have something that actually backs it up with Wikipedia policy? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Arutz 7 seems to have quite a large staff. Where was it decided they are not a RS? Debresser (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mahmoud_Abbas. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM

This is a biography of somebody, it is not a repository for anything that is recently in the news. If and when this one speech becomes an important part of Mr Abbas' life then we should include it. Otherwise we should avoid adding the flavor of the day to the article. nableezy - 16:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you got the wrong idea here. Wikipedia isn't about what is important in Abbas' life, but what reliable sources say about him.

I agree that there is always the danger of recentism when writing about living people. However, as you can see at WP:RECENTISM, that is not a bad thing, and many interesting section and articles have come out of it.

Removing this paragraph is too extreme a measure IMHO. I think that one paragraph is fine for the moment. Perhaps in a few years it will turn out to be worth only one sentence, perhaps not, but removing it altogether is not the correct path of action, in my opinion. A {{Recentism}} tag can be added, if authors so like. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a biography, right? This isnt an article on Abbas' views on Rabbis, wells, poisoning, well-poisoning, or blood libel, right? You would have a single speech he gave in a political career spanning some 60 years now take up about 10% of this article? Every little thing that gets picked up in the news does not belong in a biography. If this turns out to be an important event then we can always include it. But as of now, it is a news coverage blip that doesnt merit any mention at all. nableezy - 21:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again. An article about a politician should definitely include a section on his views, a section on controversies, and the like. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the conversation which is, should every news article about a politician be added to their articles? The answer is no. Sepsis II (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. That is not the issue. That is not an issue at all, as a matter of fact. The issue is much more specific. Should the statement made by Abbas in front of the EU parliament be part of this article? I think it should, as being part of his views or as being a controversy related to him. I am not blind to recentism arguments, but think this is part of the process of writing a balanced article. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It should not be included because not every news article about a politician should be added to their articles. Don't call editors stupid or assholes, even indirectly. Sepsis II (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It might not be the issue to you, it very obviously is the issue to others. So, try not to be stupid and assume you know how others think. nableezy - 14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I will call stupid any editor who tries do deflect the conversation from the issue to try and made a point. The issue is not general, because there is no disagreement on the general issue. The only disagreement is regarding this specific case, and attempts to deflect from it are only disruptive, and will simply be archived as not pertaining to the discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly do you get off deciding to hide an editors response to you? Don't do that again, it's incredibly disrespectful to hide away somebody's response to you as unrelated. You don't set the terms of discussion here, sorry. You want to ignore something that's fine, calling them stupid and collapsing their comments is not however something you can do, or at least it's not something you can do without being reverted and if it is repeated reported. nableezy - 21:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It is equally disrespectful to try to move the discussion into unimportant directions, claiming the issue is what it isn't. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

In view of the block imposed by 2 editors, and the evasion of the underlying real issue, I have asked for dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas.23WP:RECENTISM. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw this listed at DRN and, though I work there I don't want to become involved in a drawn-out mediation of this issue. I will, however, give you what amounts to a neutral Third Opinion on the matter. Like many things here, I don't think that there's a black or white answer to this one. I do think that the length and detail at which this matter was treated in its most recent version gives it undue weight in an article about the entire life of Abbas, especially when set off in its own section and having a "further information" link. It also gives me some concern about original research by implication, i.e. being included to invite readers to draw conclusions about Abbas which aren't expressly stated in the sources, though that concern is somewhat cured by the inclusion of the blood libel statement. In short, if this was restricted to one or, at the most, two sentences and included at the foot of some other section (most likely the "Relations with Israel" section) with no further information link, I probably wouldn't have much objection to it. Here's a suggestion, "On June 26, 2016, Abbas retracted as unfounded a statement he had made on June 23 in a speech before the European Parliament that rabbis in Israel were calling on the Israeli government to poison the wells of Palestinians. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Abbas' statement spread a blood libel. ^{(Add one or two sources here.)}" Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not opposed to that. I dont think it merits coverage but thats fine by me. nableezy - 03:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me as well. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for the second sentence, the first is enough. Sepsis II (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the attempt at moderation failed, and since the information is well sourced, relevant, notable, etc., I have restored it. The claim that it is undue is incorrect, since it is only a rather short paragraph, not 10% of the article at all without the sources. The claim that it is recentism is not a sufficient reason to remove text, apart from the fact that I believe it to be incorrect. Rather the information sheds light on certain controversial opinions of this politician. Attempts to censor Wikipedia should not be condoned. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The one outside opinion offered agreed this was undue weight. But you get to just say thats incorrect and ignore it? Im reverting the revert that you know full well you dont have consensus for and what several editors have faulted as a policy violation. nableezy - 23:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You have reverted, and will be reverted again. The only outside opinion suggested that something a bit shorter might be appropriate. Your main objection is recentism, which opinion was not shared by that outside opinion, and in any case is not in itself a reason to remove information (especially well-sourced). You need more than the concurring opinions of two editors who want to censor this article about their beloved leader to remove sourced and relevant information. Feel free to tag is as undue and get consensus for the need to shorten it, or even shorten it yourself, but you are not allowed to remove it altogether. That is against guidelines, see WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not allowed? Funny. You dont make the rules here, and WP:ONUS is fairly clear on who is not allowed to revert to include disputed material. My beloved leader? Are you off your meds or something? I dont even like Abbas, Im not Palestinian, and I dont live in the Palestinian territories. He is not my, beloved, or leader. You are required to get consensus for disputed material, not the other way around. Revert again and to AE we go. 3-1 opposed to your massively undue separate section with 10% of an article dedicated to one speech, and everybody else is the problem. Get off it. nableezy - 17:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

When I offer a third opinion, I generally just walk away from any further discussion and absolutely do not edit the article so as to avoid being seen as partisan. But things here seem to have fallen apart after everyone agreed on a solution. I will, therefore, be happy to implement the solution I suggested above if it will end this. I'll have to go back to pick out the sources — one will be the New York Times source, but I will have to decide whether another and, if so, which one is needed — but I will only do this if you will both agree here to allow me to do so and stop the back and forth. No discussion, please, just an "I agree" or "I disagree" from each of you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. At least for the time being. With no promise that I won't add more information or details if sources will continue to discuss this information and its ramifications. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not with the above comment. Debresser has a habit of attempting to sneak an edit in and then claiming that it has consensus a day later. If Debresser agrees to leave it as you suggested Im fine, but with the above comment no from me. nableezy - 17:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that Nableezy is not willing to reach a compromise based on his own lies. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Lies? Exactly that happened here, where you claimed an edit you made two days past was consensus and any change to it violated consensus. You routinely do that, sneak an edit in and when it is objected to claim it has consensus. You can call that a lie if you want, I just call it the unpleasurable and mundane experience of working with you. Im fine with the compromise, but if you intend to just use that to restore your mess of undue section as your comment makes apparent then no I dont support it. None of that is a lie. Toodles, nableezy - 17:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to join this pissing contest, but I'll aim straight at TransporterMan's proposal and suggest a modification. To recall, it was: "On June 26, 2016, Abbas retracted as unfounded a statement he had made on June 23 in a speech before the European Parliament that rabbis in Israel were calling on the Israeli government to poison the wells of Palestinians. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Abbas' statement spread a blood libel." I comment: (1) The second sentence doesn't add anything, as everyone knows that Netanyahu will say that. (2) The first sentence leaves readers to infer that Abbas made up the claim himself, but actually he was repeating a false press report. There is no reason to doubt that Abbas retracted the statement as soon as he knew it was not true. (Note that a counterclaim that it wasn't true doesn't count as a disproof since such counterclaims would be made whether it was true or not.) So I propose text as follows, with one or two high-quality references: "On June 23, 2016, Abbas repeated to the European Parliament a false press report that rabbis in Israel were calling for Palestinian wells to be poisoned. Abbas retracted the statement three days later, acknowledging that the claim was not true and stating that he 'didn't intend to do harm to Judaism or to offend Jewish people around the world'." Zero^talk 04:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Zero0000's suggestion seems reasonable Drsmoo (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the text proposed by TransporterMan without change. 1. There is reason to assume Abbas will not retract the statement. Many reasons actually. 2. Netanyahu's reaction is notable. 3. I see no reason to suppose that "everyone knows that Netanyahu will say that". 4. Even if it were the reaction to expect, that is not an argument not to have the statement. Debresser (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Since Abbas did retract the statement quite soon, your second point makes no sense at all. Zero^talk 14:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How so? Perhaps you meant my first point? In any case, that leaves quite a few other points. :) Debresser (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How so? There is reason to think he wont (future tense) retract a statement he already has (past tense) retracted? You dont see how that doesnt make sense? Im fine with Zero's text. nableezy - 15:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It meant that there were valid reasons to think he wouldn't. That is quite simple.

Nableezy, please undo your implementation of Zero's proposal, which does not have consensus. I for one think TransporterMan's proposal is by far superior, for the reasons I stated above.

You must really stop trying to enforce your point of view on this article and in general. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Read that back to yourself. Your edit was opposed by every person in the section that commented. You restored it anyway. So your edit against consensus should be allowed, but mine, that has unanimous support, should not be. Try to be a bit more self-aware. nableezy - 15:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read my original statement. Let me reiterate: I think that in the abstract that the incident is too minor to mention (i.e. UNDUE) and creates original research by implication by implying that Abbas is a bad or, at the very least, incompetent person. (About which I neither express nor imply an opinion, pro or con.) The fact that someone else of note, even if a knee-jerk entirely-foreseeable reaction (though that analysis also seems OR to me), has drawn that conclusion cures that problem and elevates the importance of the incident enough to — barely, in my opinion, but enough — to also cure the undue weight issue. For me to participate further here weakens my position of neutrality. I've said what I have to say, take it or leave it, and I'm out of here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It cures the undue weight issue when it is given a couple of sentences and not an entire section. The edit I referred to Debresser restoring was the 10% of the article one. nableezy - 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you repeat that lie? Only with all the sources it is 9.4% in hypertext, but the text itself as you read it in the article is just a small paragraph of a few sentences, amounting to 3.3% of the text of this article by word and character count. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not a lie, and again, nobody else has supported your version. Nobody. nableezy - 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It was proposed by an independent editor, and you for one agreed to it yourself![3] Debresser (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That wasnt your version. The version that you asked me to to revert to. That isnt all that honest, now is it? nableezy - 19:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It is the present version, the one I too agreed with. What is not honest about that? Debresser (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasnt the version you had reverted to here and was what you asked me to undo my edit of here, which contained the gem You must really stop trying to enforce your point of view on this article and in general which is exactly and precisely what you were guilty of with this edit here. You complained about somebody editing without consensus, when that is exactly what you did, you complained about enforcing somebody supposedly enforcing their point of view, when that is exactly what you did except you did it with not one person supporting your edit and several opposing it. Which is why I said read that back to yourself and the edit I referenced, as it was your most recent at the time, when I wrote Your edit was opposed by every person in the section that commented. You restored it anyway. It is dishonest of you to now pretend that the sequence of events was different and that I was opposing an edit I agreed to, all while calling me a liar. I would say that you lied, but I feel that word is being bandied about too much here, and Id like to dial this back down and avoid you repeating those oh so false personal attacks against me. nableezy - 18:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The version by TransporterMan has the virtues of having been proposed by somebody who is completely neutral, includes all the important information, covers all sides, and was agreed upon by both of us. The only reason it was not implemented was because the attempt to reach a solution at WP:DRN was unsuccessful. Zero's version came much later, and has serious shortcomings as specified above. Also, I am not sure, read: I doubt, that Drsmoo's support means he supports Zero's version to the exclusion of TransporterMan's. The attempt to push it through over TransporterMan's smells of POV. Please also notice that either of these version is a compromise, since I think the original text should be kept, and you think nothing should be kept. I have shown my willingness to pursue my point of view at noticeboards, while you have torpedoed such discussion or simply not commented. If editors will try to undo the present version, I will resume my efforts to reinstate the original, longer version. So the question is really, do we want a compromise, or not? Debresser (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, this is what I mean with dishonesty. I did not implement Zero's suggestion to the exclusion of the compromise that you agreed to and then ignored and then again reverted to when you knew you had no consensus for it. I modified that version, not the compromise that you decided not to honor. So please, get off it with the POV and pretending that this was an issue of the version proposed by TransporterMan or by Zero. It was an issue with the material that you edit-warred in without anything resembling anybody agreeing with you. As it stands now, nobody has reverted your inclusion of Netanyahu's statement, even if several of us dont think it should be included (you reverted to include that without consensus also), so what exactly do you want now? I no longer care what efforts you undertake, but if you hypocritically accuse others of edit-warring against consensus to suit their POV when that is exactly and precisely what you have done and are now threatening to do again, well then we can take that up if and when it happens. nableezy - 22:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I will be just as happy as you to leave this subject be. I though my previous post made that clear. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Debresser, do you have any idea what Wikipedia's policy on living persons is? Why are you restoring sources such as an editorial in American Thinker or some random person on The Commentator (I dont even know what that site is supposed to be)? Are you even a little bit familiar with the quality of those sources? nableezy - 23:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

And if you will pay attention to the articles you are editing you can see that you for some mystical reason inserted disjointedly in the middle of the material that covers properly what youre trying to include. It says his thesis (1982 not 1983) said at most 800k or so Jews died. Why are inserting crap editorials in crap publications to say exactly the same thing except in a crappier way? nableezy - 23:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There were 3 sources: http://nationalinterest.org/, The American Thinker and thecommentator.com. The American Thinker seems to have an editorial board. The other two websites seem to be one or two-man initiatives, so I agree they are not the best of sources.

If he says 800k that means he denies 6m. So what is wrong with that statement?

The following impeccable source quotes the book as saying "only a few hundred thousand".[4]

The following source quotes his book "the number of Jewish victims numbered in the hundreds of thousands".[5] I am not sure how reliable they are, but I think that for a simple quote they can be relied on.

So why do you say he said 800k?

The statement that according to his dissertation the Holocaust was a fantasy and a lie, and that only 890k Jews were killed can be reliable sourced as well.[6] And this book by historian and journalist Jeremy Havardi.[7]

In short, there are good sources, and I will add them, and you will stop censoring this article. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It already covered genius. What dont you get about that? It already says what you want it to say, just not so hysterically that it repeats itself every two sentences. Why do you insist on making articles utter crap? And if you want to make directives, try this one on for size. WP:ONUS. You need consensus to add disputed material, and if you continue to violate that, in a BLP of all places, I will seek sanctions against you. nableezy - 17:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I can not be blamed if you removed sourced material without good reason. That is disruption. I comply with the onus by providing sources and using neutral language. Good luck in seeking sanctions, if you must. It am waiting for the day they will boomerang against you and your POV will finally be condemned by this community. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Click on the link and read WP:ONUS. Then try to consider whether or not your comment has absolutely anything to do with it. My POV, lol. Sure. nableezy - 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You can play your games in ARBPIA, but BLP is more serious, keep away from any questionable sources, opinion pieces, etc. Sepsis II (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Instead of calling me "genius" or accusing me of "playing games", please be so kind to state precisely what sources you think should be removed and what statements have been repeated and where. Out of hand reverts will be reported. WP:DISCUSS, don't WP:EDITWAR. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you even read the section now? Do you see how badly it is written? In your zeal to add every crap source you can find, have you noticed the opening line is The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 – 1945 is the title of Mahmoud Abbas' CandSc thesis and the paragraph you added repeats The thesis of the 1982 doctoral dissertation of Mahmoud Abbas, was "The Secret Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement"., and that the second paragraph said In 2013, he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis which stated "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis". and now that is repeated with Abbas has defended the position that Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to perpetrate it? Do you like having encyclopedia articles resemble hysterical polemics written by people with grade school level English? I mean seriously, read that section and tell me if your unmitigated urge to add every single garbage webpage you can find to it is at all misplaced. nableezy - 15:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So merge those two sentences that contain repetitive information. Don't just remove a whole bunch of sentences with information you don't like. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

lol. How about you dont keep adding repeated material without any regard for the rules of the English language? That sound like a better plan than asking me to clean up your mess? nableezy - 15:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it is not my mess. Secondly, because that is what a good editor does: fix, not remove. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

When you restore something that somebody who is banned from editing does, you take responsibility for it. Ill not take lessons on being a "good editor" from somebody who edit-wars to restore crap. nableezy - 17:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, can you please for the love of whatever you hold dear look at what it is you are restoring. Algeminer is a garbage source, and on top of that it is an opinion piece by two writers with seemingly no record of expertise on the topics of Abbas, or the Holocaust, or really anything. Why exactly are you restoring that? And as far as the NY Times, it wasnt removed. It was moved to a sentence where it actually supports what its cited for. It was moved to the end of According to the Anti-Defamation League, Abbas said in the mid 1990s, when asked about the book, "When I wrote 'The Other Side,' we were at war with Israel," and that "today I would not have made such remarks." The reason for that is your edit now has us misrepresenting the source. You have it as a source for a direct quote, that being "it seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure [of Holocaust deaths] so that their gains will be greater. This led them to emphasize this figure [six million] in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions—fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand." and it does not contain this quote. Do you understand that when a footnote is added to the end of a quote that this means that this quote is in the footnote? Because now our article claims that the NY Times has a quote that it does not have. In high school they would call this sloppy sourcing. In college academic dishonesty potentially meriting expulsion. I actually went through the sources, I didnt as you seem to have done, just copy pasted from another article without looking if the cited sources actually support the material. You want to correct your errors? Or do I need to add misrepresenting sources in a BLP to the AE? nableezy - 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I would love it if you would add that to the WP:AE, because it would give me even more bad faith accusations from you, which I can use per WP:BOOMERANG against you.

I had seen the sources before, but had not checked there precise content before my last edit. I am perfectly willing to take your word for it, that they should be moved, and you can make the edit with my blessing.

The Algemeiner Journal is a newspaper existing over 40 years. If you have a problem with it as a reliable source, please raise the issue at WP:RS/N, and I promise I will abide by whatever decision they reach. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That does not make it a reliable source. And your carelessness in restoring sources that do not support the material cited in a BLP is not a bad faith accusation, it is an established fact. nableezy - 17:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I kept the Wiesenthal source even though it is superfluous as the sentence is already cited to another source. The rest I reverted. And to be clear, Im removing it on the basis of WP:BLP and Ill remind you of WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content. nableezy - 17:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I can live with that. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Abbas wrote that the Nazis killed "only a few hundred thousand" Jews can be sourced to numerous books and articles. I just added an academic book by an expert on the topic, published by the Oxford University Press. That should hopefully end this debate about "unreliable sources" Epson Salts (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, because you restored an opinion piece by two writers that have no expertise on the subject and did so violating BLPs prohibition on restoring deleted material without consensus. What dont you get about this? nableezy - 15:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What I don't get is why, after being shown beyond any doubt that Abbas wrote this - as sourced to an academic book by the Oxford University Press, written by an academic expert on the topic of genocide denial and its legal implications, you would still argue to remove that sentence from the article. Does the fact that it was also reported by two non-experts lessen the veracity of the Oxford source? Epson Salts (talk)

Umm, have I asked you to remove that sentence? No, I asked you to remove the deficient source. The one you added is fine, and I dont have a problem with it staying. I dont think its necessary as the material is already well-covered, but I get that some people want to emphasize every last tidbit about this, except when it isnt sufficiently negative about Abbas. nableezy - 16:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I wrote on my page, we disagree that it is a "poor source", but I don't feel strongly about it. You can remove that source if you like. Epson Salts (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Good. But generally it should be a principle, esp. on WP:BIO articles, to have a highbar for RS. Once you find such a source, the proper thing is to remove the inferior source, rather than tell another editor they may remove it with your permission. This is just a simple courtesy, and is collegial.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well the proper thing is when something is challenged it shouldnt just be returned to the article. In fact, in this case, that is Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content). As far as whether or not this is a poor source, how are the current and a former chairman of Religious Zionists of America reliable sources for this material? Look at the opinion piece, it is filled with hysterics. It is argumentative and mostly used to attack the Washington Post for being duped, it argues, by Abbas. This doesnt belong in any serious article on Abbas, and using it smacks of desperation to include every negative tidbit one can find through google. Which is why, incidentally, it was first added. nableezy - 17:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Source control. CNN

Abu Daoud, who planned the 1972 Munich massacre, where members of the Israeli team at the Munich Olympic Games were taken hostage, and which ended in the murder of eleven Israeli athletes and coaches as well as a West German policeman, wrote that funds for the operation were provided by Abbas, though without knowledge of the money's intended purpose.

The source for this was a dead link, but was written or published under the name of a sportswriter, Alexander Wolff, 'The Mastermind: Thirty years after he helped plan the terror strike, Abu Daoud remains in hiding -- and unrepentant,' Sports Illustrated 26 August 2002 and we are given CNN. Looks impressive until, after clicking on the deadlink, you find you have to hunt down the article which is not available on CNN. You can obtain it here. What we have is an online spin off (CNNSI.com )of Sports Illustrated, not itself a reliable source on the biography of a Palestinian politician. The article stated

Though he didn't know what the money was being spent for, longtime Fatah official Mahmoud Abbas, a.k.a. Abu Mazen, was responsible for the financing of the Munich attack. Abu Mazen could not be reached for comment regarding Abu Daoud's allegation. After Oslo in 1993, Abu Mazen went to the White House Rose Garden for a photo op with Arafat, President Bill Clinton and Israel's Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. "Do you think that ... would have been possible if the Israelis had known that Abu Mazen was the financier of our operation?" Abu Daoud writes. "I doubt it." Today the Bush Administration seeks a Palestinian negotiating partner "uncompromised by terror," yet last year Abu Mazen met in Washington with Secretary of State Colin Powell.

So we have a sportswriter attributing 'responsibility' for the financing of the Munich Attack, while not knowing that the funds he supplied were being used to that end. This apparently comes from Abu Daoud's memoirs. One is obliged to assume Wolff had read the French version of Abu Daoud's book (Abou Daoud with Gilles du Jonchay, Palestine: De Jérusalem à Munich, Paris: Anne Carrière, 1999, which was said to be in press through Arcade Books in New York, but I can find no trace of an English version). Wolff's article's assertion was recycled in a reliable source format: Jonathan Schanzer, State of Failure: Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Unmaking of the Palestinian State, Macmillan, 2013 p.95, who writes

Years later, Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud) the mastermind of the Munich Massacre, suggested that although Abbas did not know what the money was being spent on, he was responsible, in part, for raising funds that financed the Munich Massacre.

Since we have meme circulation again (it's the norm in these articles and books) some further work is required here, since the evident innuendo being made is that Abbas bears 'responsibility' for something he knew nothing about. Perhaps, if he can spare the time, our I/P source meister User:Zero0000 can illuminate this. In the meantime, I have allowed the bare bones of the report to remain, as given by Schwantzer, but the elaboration on the Munich Massacre has been taken out because it has no bearing on Abbas's political career or life (at least from these sources) Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

Abbas was born in 1935, not 1936. Sources confirm this. Please change 1936 to 1935. Thank you.

Thenabster126 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You need to specify your sources and say why they are more reliable than what is used now. I'll help with one source for 1935: [8]. Zero^talk 03:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually the given source says "1935" (without date I think but I only see a snippet) and it was 1935 here until changed by an anon without explanation. I'm putting it back. Zero^talk 04:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Toggling, as this looks like it's been answered. Re-open if there are pending issues. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

KGB service in 1983

According to Mabat and Truman institute reported on 7'th September 2016, Abbas served in the KGB in 1983 and used the name Krotov. screenshots from the video http://rotter.net/forum/scoops1/344501.shtml#6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.119.137 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Gilbert Achcar

ZeroNishidani added a new paragraph sourced to Gilbert Achcar. First of all, it says that Israel "support Abu Mazen against Yasser Arafat", but the quote says " preferred Abbas over Arafat". Isn't there a mistake here? Secondly, I think this paragraph doesn't really contribute anything. In addition, the quote is only a suggestion/question, and is therefore probably not a good source for what it comes to state. Per all the pertaining policies, including WP:BRD, and the recent suggestion at WP:AE that major changes should preferably be discussed beforehand, I will remove this small paragraph till such time as all these issues have been addressed. That said, I feel the need to add that I really appreciated ZeroNishidani's edit. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Listen. You have no automatic revert rights over everything several other editors might add to this page. Your complaint is ridiculous. (a) I am not User:Zero0000. (b)if you object to 'support' because the source says 'preferred' that gives an experienced editor no right to remove a whole passage. One simply readjusts the paraphrase to reflect that choice of language in the source. (c) Achcar is a world-ranking authority on Arab attitudes to the Holocaust, and it is pure obstructionism to quibble over this. (d)This is not a 'major change'. It is the addition of further new material that left the existing prior text unaltered. There are no issues to address, therefore. other than changing 'support' to 'preferred to' even though that would push the paraphrase close to a copyright violation.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(a) Sorry for mixing you up with Zero. I fixed that above. Please rest assured that I respect both of you. (b) Okay, let's say they mean the same. (c) I am not disputing that Gilbert Achcar is a reliable source. (d) This is an additional paragraph, which makes it more than a minor contribution.

Now please notice that you have not addressed the major issues here: 1. I think this paragraph doesn't really contribute anything. It is completely unclear what the point of this paragraph is. 2. The quote is really only a suggestion/question, and is therefore probably not a good source for anything.

I am not claiming any "automatic revert rights", nor are you, Nishidani "several other editors". You added something, I contest it should be added. There is nothing to make a fuss about, and per WP:BRD I expect you to make your point and show why you think this information should be added. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed the 'major' issues raised by your revert. The principle that a (a) impeccable academic source (b) bearing precisely on the content of the section (Mahmoud Abbas+ Holocaust) normally cannot be removed except by arguing there is something defective in it on the talk page. You are giving your personal opinion about the content, which doesn't interest me. The source, its quality, and its focused relevance to the section are not in doubt.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim you have not addressed either issue, nor have I given any personal opinion. Please tune down the rhetoric and answer the questions. 1. What statement is there in the paragraph that you think is relevant? To the precise location you added it? 2. How does a question, even a suggestive one, turn into a reliable source? Debresser (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Whats your policy reason for removing it? I removed unreliable sources and you edit warred to restore it, but here is an academic text and you remove for apparently not being negative about Abbas. What is the policy that supports your removal? nableezy - 15:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nish, I think you can restore that material now, no policy reason was given for the removal, just a stream of consciousness masquerading as reasoned debate. nableezy - 15:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

As often stated I don't understand 1R. I made changes to the text in a copyedit, and then in a second edit added Achcar. I was tempted to immediately revert Debresser's WP:IDONTLIKEIT revert, but have refrained from doing so, assuming it would mean I would be breaking 1R. Even if it doesn't, I don't like the kind of trigger-finger happy reverts Debresser has engaged in, and prefer to restore things once I've clarify things on the talk page. Obviously this goes back, because there is no policy motivating the removal. Debresser, as to my reference to page control and you reverting many editors. You reverted User:Sepsis II;You reverted User:Zero0000;You reverted User:Nableezy;You reverted myself. Three of those editors never disregard the iron rule that relevant RS can never be removed from an article, except under two conditions, i.e. known to be inaccurate, or a patent abuse of WP:BLP. You have broken that rule. I'll put it back tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You havent made any reverts. Debresser's stonewalling doesnt really factor into it, but there is zero policy based reason on this talk page for that removal, and I for one would revert it now, but I have one revert already. The commentary piece discussed above should also be removed, but Ill take care of that later. If you dont restore this I will later today. nableezy - 16:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What Commentary piece? By the way in general I think it fair to add the well-poisoning remark, as it is, in two lines, no more. There are good grounds for thinking Abbas was duped (that's not hard to do) on this, as Richard Silverstein noted on his blog not usable unfortunately. Well-poisoning by religious settlers, whose acts do not seem to get censure from the rabbis in those communities is well-documented, and, again, sources do not make that connection, which however no doubt made Abbas susceptible to believing the report in a Turkish source. Israeli politicians thump the Holocaust drum with increasing fervor, and when Netanyahu said the Palestinians inspired the Holocaust it was duly included in his bio. The other day, Avigdor Lieberman likened a fine poem by one of the great post WW2 poets, Mahmoud Darwish, as akin to Mein Kampf, meaning he was familiar with neither. That would, if anyone cared, go into his article. I'd prefer to write an article eventually on Palestinian poets exiled, muzzled or assassinated (or put on trial for 'incitement' as is now occurring with Dareen Tatour) than plunk it onto that bio, however. Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Debresser what is your specific policy objection to the insertion of this material? If you are basing it on BLP then Nishidani should not restore it, if you are basing it on RS then explain how it is a problem, if you are basing it on NPOV then explain how. I dont see any of that up above. Above you repeatedly reverted to include an entirely new section with shoddy sources and here you are demanding that nobody re-insert material based on an academic source directly related to the material in the section? How do you explain that? As far as your question it says that Israel "support Abu Mazen against Yasser Arafat", but the quote says " preferred Abbas over Arafat". Isn't there a mistake here?, Abu Mazen means Abbas, whats the mistake? I have no idea what the quote is only a suggestion/question, and is therefore probably not a good source for what it comes to state. means, I honestly dont understand what you are trying to say there, but if its a question of reliability of the source Gilbert Achcar is a professor at the University of London and the source in question was published by Macmillan, while not a University Press a fairly well regarded publisher in academic works. That is on its face of it a reliable source. I normally would say Nishidani shouldnt re-revert over you, but a. you repeatedly demonstrated that this the manner in which you edit this article, reverting to restore material that has actual policy objections and multiple editors disputing, and are here now demanding that the exact opposite occur, and b. you gave no indication of a policy issue with the edit. So why wouldnt Nishidani restore it? You restore actually objectionable material as a matter of habit, but Nishidani should not restore relevant material from an impeccable source? nableezy - 18:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I repeat: 1. What statement is there in the paragraph that you think is relevant? To the precise location you added it? 2. How does a question, even a suggestive one, turn into a reliable source? Debresser (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It would fit better if the entire subsection was under relations with Israel, but its relevant because it discusses Abbas's writings and its impact on the relationship he has with Israel. It's a reliable source because its by an expert in the field of international relations and published by a respected publisher. What is your policy based objection to the material? nableezy - 23:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing noteworthy about some perceived irony. Nor is the source reliable, because there is only a suggestive question. That is not academic material, that is an op-ed. This paragraph must be removed. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a subjective viewpoint, neither here nor there. The source is reliable. If you are in doubt, ask RSN and you will be told so; it is not a 'suggestive' question, but a rhetorical question; Academics like Gilbert Achcar write academic material; you have misunderstood the meaning of an 'op-ed' -which refers to an opinion piece in a newspaper, not to a remark in a work of scholarship; see WP:RSOPINION, you failed to note that this is given with attribution, flagging it as an authority's informed view; thirdly, Nableezy rightly noted that you are altering the criteria for RS according to the convenience of the POV you introduce: when you want to hit Abbas, you think the opinion of 2 religious Zionists in Philadelphia Moshe Phillips and Benyamin Korn blogging at Algemeiner Journal is acceptable - when you see material added by a ranking mainstream global academic publisher, Macmillan, written by a world authority on the subject at hand, it becomes non-RS. That, Debresser, shows your obstructiveness is behavioural, since you shift the policy goalposts at whim, in a way that your interlocutors find bewilderingly incoherent. And, don't repeat yourself, please. Your argument has been exhaustively analysed and found to be without any policy basis.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability has absolutely nothing to do with the content of an article. If youd like to challenge the reliability of a source written by an expert in the field published by a respected publisher and that it is quote-unquote an op-ed then feel free to try WP:RS/N. Im sure they could use a laugh. nableezy - 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Instead of using such bombastic phrases as "Your argument has been exhaustively analysed and found to be without any policy basis.", you could at least say the whole truth, which is "I disagree with you". Also, I didn't change any criteria. I just disagree with you regarding the reliability of a suggestion (what you call a "rhetorical question") as the source for this statement. Also, you have not explained what the point of the paragraph is, except in the most general terms. Since my objections are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and you have not been able to refute them, or to show any serious consensus here, the text must go. This is also true per WP:BRD, which you fail to adhere to, choosing the path of the edit warrior. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As Nableezy said in the section above: "Well the proper thing is when something is challenged it shouldnt (sic) just be returned to the article." I shall now delete it per the pertaining policies and guidelines, as well as the lack of a consensus, and with tacit support from Nableezy as witnessed in that statement. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been asked several times now, by Nableezy and myself to list with specific policy links, your objection. List them now. If you cannot then what you just did is reportable.BRD is not a wiki policy, and Nableezy's remark you allude to regards potentially deleterious material about a living person. So provide the policies and illustrate them. I'll remind you that you are reverting against a 2 to 1 consensus.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replied every time. My answer can be found above, multiple times. WP:BRD is a good rule to follow, as it essentially is the idea of WP:CONSENSUS, which is a Wikipedia policy. 2 against 1 is not consensus! Where editors ignore core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, no so-called "consensus" can be valid. Nableezy's remark is basically the same WP:BRD I mentioned above, and holds true not just in BLP articles. Not to mention that this article is a BLP article. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Now is when you decide BRD is what counts?!? Now is when you decide BLP counts?!? Jeez, the lack of self-awareness on this one. nableezy - 23:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You have refused to reply. You have waffled. WP:BRD I noted, is not wiki policy. WP:Consensusreads:

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

You are the only person supporting the removal of that material. Two editors disagree. Patience has been exercised. You have refused to budge from your declaration:'This paragraph must be removed.' Since WP:BRD is not policy, you have WP:Consensus, which, and I am repeating what you have been told for years, that does not mean, 'where I Debresser express opposition, it must either prevail, or a compromise must be worked out, no matter if I am alone in my view.'Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gilbert_Achcar_in_Mahmoud_Abbas. Probably the single stupidest challenge to a source I have ever seen, but there you go Debresser. Once thats affirmed as a reliable source, as it very obviously will be, Ill be reverting your edit. And any time you re-revert to restore material that you added to an article I will quote your BRD defense back to you. Lets see how long that newly found sensibility to follow that guideline lasts (oh, security barrier at West Bank barrier article, that was what 2 days ago? Wow, people change quickly, Im sure it isnt any opportunistic or cynical action here, AGF and all that). nableezy - 00:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy As you can see, it is not so simple there that the statement is a reliable source for what you are trying to use it for.

@Nishidani As I said above "2 against 1 is not consensus! Where editors ignore core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, no so-called "consensus" can be valid." Debresser (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(taking a deep breath) You have cited no core policy, or, if you do, do not seem to have read them.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to understand what it is you want. Do I need to quote policies to prove that on Wikipedia as a matter of policy information must be relevant, and reliably sourced? I don't think so! Debresser (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Then explain why a world authority on Arabs and the Holocaust, who mentions Abbas's attitude to the Holocaust and the way Israel regards him, is not relevant to that section of Abbas's biography dealing with his attitude to the Holocaust and Israel's relation with Abbas in that light. Is that clear, or do I have to simplify it even further?Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Because that academic, and I don't think he is a world authority by the way, didn't make a positive statement, just some suggestive question. As uninvolved editors at WP:RS/N seem to agree with me, that is not a reliable source. In addition, the statement is vague and allusive, and we really don't need it. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That isn't true, one person sort of agreed but explicitly said he wasn't speaking to reliability, one person flat out said it was reliable. Please dont distort the record. I'm returning the material as the source meets wp:rs as a work of scholarship. nableezy - 06:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if the source is reliable, you still need consensus to include it. I find this coatracking completely unacceptable. It is obvious that Achcar's point was about Israel, not about Abbas. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was to include it. Debresser's reverting of it without a sufficient motivation was regarded by third parties as poor form. Stepping in at this late hour to revert preemptively and just using the standard WP:COATRACK essay as a basis is not dissimilar.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

When you say "the consensus" you mean you and Nableezy, yes? I don't see any "3rd parties" here saying it was poor form, but whatever. I can arrive as late as I like to the discussion, and as I explained to you several times, "coatrack" is useful shorthand which everyone (I suspect including you) understands. Anyhow, since you think it's so relevant and important, I'm going to summarize it in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I disagreed, and they never answered any of my questions, namely 1. how a suggestive question can be used as though it were a positive statement, and 2. what does this paragraph contribute to the article really? At a WP:RS/N post only two uninvolved editors replied, with one of them echoing my first concern and the second also raising some concern. Nevertheless they edit warred to push through this paragraph. My revert after more than 24 hours was used to claim I was playing with 1RR, and so my opposition was "removed", but they never answered the questions and nobody agreed with them at WP:RS. I still think that for the reasons I mentioned then and now, and because of the lack of consensus to add it, this paragraph should be removed. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. So much for "the consensus was to include it". It's ridiculously non-encyclopedic and only tangentially related to the subject of this article. Achar's point was obviously about Israel, not labeling Abbas a "Jew hater". Should be removed, and obviously there's no consensus to include it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting only in meaning Debresser did not understand the point made when he was sanctioned. He's dead certain he was right, and asked questions not answered. Debresser was exhaustively answered.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what Debresser was sanctioned for or if it's relevant here. I do know that you said "Debresser's reverting of it without a sufficient motivation was regarded by third parties as poor form", and that's apparently untrue.

Anyway, could you kindly explain why you think this stuff improves the article? Because I don't see how calling Abbas a Jew hater just to hang some silly criticism of Israel on it is doing that. Would you agree to it being summarize in the lead along the lines of "Achcar says Abbas is a Jew hater who has been used by the US and Israel"? Because that's what the text amounts to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No. One doesn't summarize one or two lines of a whole section in a lead. A lead summarizes the section, not a snippet. It's your perception that Achcar is using the Abbas case to 'hang some silly criticism of Israel.' Achcar stated a series of fact and left iot to readers to draw their own conclusions. You are making as suggestion we draw an inference in the lead from the source, an inference attributed to Achcar. Numerous commentators think Abbas is a stooge for Israel and the US, in any case, though this is not documented in the article as yet.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He did not maIt's self-explanatory. The section, following shortly after sections on his alleged Corruption, and his Relations with Israel, deals with Abbas's works and statements about the Holocaust. In the corruption section, we have an ourtline of Jonathan Schanzer's views on how the Abbas family got rich. so have quoted in full the publisher's defense against an ensuing libel suit regarding those charges, all cited. A full 2 paragraphs. We have Efraim Sneh, cited for his view that Abbas is the most "courageous partner we have had." We have the ICG cited for the view Israeli leaders see him not as a peace partner but a nonthreatening,violence-abhorring, strategic asset. etc.

In the Holocaust section, in line with these other third party comments on Corruption, and Relations with Israel, we cite Gilbert Achcar, a world authority on the Holocaust and Arab political history remarking on Israel, Abbas and the Holocaust. It is all absolutely normal. Compare the very long section at Gilad Atzmon with its numerous external judgements about him and the issues he comments on. Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't seem to follow your point. You do not seem to be saying my summary is incorrect, just that you don't think it should be in the lead? Achcar is not "remarking on Israel, Abbas and the Holocaust". Don't be ridiculous. He's remarking on Israel and mentioning Abbas in passing (calling him a Jew hater). And what does Gilad Atzmon have to do with anything? Could you please try to focus on the issue? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote. I spend a lot of time making complex texts readable as translator and editor. I only get complaints from one or two people round here.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope we can all see the comical side of this. I have difficulty getting an edit in at Pavel Florensky stating the obvious fact he was an anti-Semite, and you are having difficulties with Achcar's view Mahmoud Abbas is a Jew-Hater, when according to Rafael Medoff, the U.S. State Department says he has promoted anti-semitism.Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with Achcar's view of Abbas, I have a problem with you trying to coatrack an irrelevant issue on this article. I keep returning to the "Jew hater" bit because I know you're going to resist putting that in the article (thanks for showing you are aware of sources that could substantiate the claim, but didn't bother to put them in the article. QED). I don't really care what other issues you're having elsewhere.

To the point, of the two uninvolved editors who commented on this at RSN one said it should not be included and one said it could be included, but carefully. On this page we have two for and two against. That's no consensus to include. So barring more participation, I'm going to remove it per ONUS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's your personal opinion that Achcar's view is irrelevant, and you have no argument other than citing a non-policy essay. I, Nableezy and Debresser went to RSN, and while external advice was split, 1 emerged for, while Debresser found one editor with moderate support for his position. 3 to 2 for inclusion, therefore. Following that confirmation of the talk page weight of opinion, the text was confirmed and stable. You turn up, add your voice against, and then state you will remove it, per WP:ONUS. The onus was met and we arrived at a 3/2 decision to include. The idea that any piece of text, confirmed by talk page argument, and recourse to third opinions, can be cancelled by another editor wandering in, to even the numbers in the original verdict, would make havoc for intelligent editing. The proper approach is for you to reopen a discussion at RSN or ask for a third opinion. As it stands it's a matter of WP:STATUSQUO, and you shouldn't be unilaterally eliding material that, like it or not, was incorporated after extensive discussion, resulting at the time in a majority opinion for inclusion. As to your belief I'd be opposed to citing sources that assert Abbas is anti-Semitic, where did you get that from? Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

STATUSQUO is an essay. ONUS is policy. I don't need to open a discussion at RSN since I'm not questioning the source. I understand that the idea of RS has eroded to such a degree that only rarely is it not acceptable to just pick anything someone wrote and all you need to include it is an attribution.

If you could point out where ONUS says that after a few weeks it no longer applies I will reconsider my position. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani The discussion at WP:RS had only two uninvolved editors, of which one was against, and the other was in favor but with reservations. You and Nableezy are not uninvolved editors from the reliable sources noticeboard, so your 3:2 claim is bogus. Here on the talkpage your "consensus" was the two of you against me, which is hardly a broad discussion, and now it is 2:2. Add to that that nobody has answered my questions, one of which was echoed at WP:RS/N, your claim to the contrary notwithstanding. I agree, now even more than I did then, that you have no consensus to add this material. Per WP:CONSENSUS (WP:ONUS indeed), this material can and should be removed. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What goes into an artilce, per WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUE is always a matter of consensus among editors. The WP:RSN discussion can only decide if Achchar is a reliable source, not if the material should be included in the article. There wasn't even consensus that he's a reliable source in that discussion. Let me add my voice to those opposing its inclusion here on the grounds of WP:COATRACK. Epson Salts (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the specific policy objection to this material? Please list the policies and we will go to the noticeboards for each. Consensus does not mean obtaining the approval of obstinate editors agreement, it is determined by adheral to Wikipedia content policies. So what's the policy, since RS is settled, or if you want to re-do the RS/N we can do that. Please list the specific objections to the material? WP:CONSENSUS isnt one without content policies backing up the objection. nableezy - 03:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The policy is WP:ONUS (part of WP:V): "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Please read that carefully. It's so short I don't even need to highlight the relevant parts, it's all relevant. It's your argument that is not policy based. Several editors have explained quite clearly why they don't think this material belongs in this article. You can't ignore it just because you don't like the argument or the editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS, which is fundamentally about solid argument, not about vote-stacking by the intransigent. Using any number of tags, WP:COATRACK, WP:ONUS, to overturn a text can be used by any group if they have the numbers, but has no weight, except in looking at problematical cunctatorial editing refusalism as a behavioural pattern.

The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

That might be read as applying to both parties here, but ultimately it depends on the quality of the arguments. No arguments for the cancellation of the passage by Epson Salts, who is under examination for sockpuppetry and just reverted without any notable contribution to the talk page, is observable above. Achcar is misrepresented as saying Abbas is a "Jew hater" when he states Sadat was a Jew-hater, while Abbas is a holocaust denier. The following sentence, generic, bundles up the two, but, technically, it is your WP:SYNTH inference that Achcar is calling Abbas a Jew-hater. Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS carefully, it is rather short reading for somebody interested in editing an encyclopedia. Yes, consensus is needed to include disputed material, but consensus is not a show of hands. Here, Ill quote a bit of it for you. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. So, what content policy objection do you have? Explain why and I will open a noticeboard discussion for each policy you say backs up the position to remove the material. You can not just say I disagree so there is no consensus. Otherwise all that horseshit Debresser pushed into this article should likewise be removed. nableezy - 15:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Epson Salts removed it, and that makes it 2:3 in favor of removal, even without WP:ONUS and the weight of both my arguments. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not a counting game. What specific content policy are you claiming supports the exclusion of this material? nableezy - 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Instead of repeating over and over that you don't accept the other editors' arguments (which apparently you never bother to read), why don't you just open an RfC? That's the next DR step as I'm sure you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I was planning on opening a discussion at each policy noticeboard that you all claim applies here. The one I can make out is WP:COATRACK, is that it? Because thats an essay, so is there any policy objection to the material? nableezy - 05:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Far be it from me to tell you what avenue of dispute resolution to pursue. Do what you want. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

1. If consensus is not a counting game then why didn't you tell Nishidani so when he wrote numbers? [9] And why did you push through your opinion when it was 2:1 and I was the one who claimed that is not a serious consensus? [10] Sorry, but you can not use an argument whenever it fits you, and ignore it when it doesn't! 2. If consensus is not a counting game, and the seriousness of the arguments and the measure in which they are based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines play a role as well, then I have two very strong arguments against inclusion, as mentioned above many times, and for sure there is no way to add that paragraph. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Because you never raised a policy objection, just some inane argument masquerading as policy. What policy, and quote from that policy, supports your position? nableezy - 13:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion at WP:RS/N, as you well know, and that discussion left us with 1 against and 1 in favor but with reservations. That already means that there is no consensus for this paragraph, and you should have removed it then, rather than ignoring that noticeboard. Please understand that you will need that all relevant noticeboards come to the conclusion that this material is fitting, because if it fails even one of them, as it clearly failed WP:RS/N, then it can't be included. So there is no need to post at any more noticeboards. I am against you going forumshopping. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I dont think you know what forumshopping means, and I cant say I really care what youre against. It very clearly did not fail RS/N, one person said flat out reliable, the other said they were not speaking against reliability. What specific policy objections are there here? List them out please. If you all cannot do that then there is no reason for the material not to be restored. nableezy - 13:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Abbas on the absence of Israelis in Palestine

I think it is high time to add information on the Abbas's expressed goal that no Jews, civilian or otherwise, would be permitted to live in the future Palestinian state he envisions [11]. Sadly I see this relevant information missing in the article.--Paul Keller (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not the source to quote, in any case. He said Israelis ('"In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands'),-soldiers and settlers, not 'Jews'. That on the face of it suggests:'If you want to stay in areas that become Palestine, you must accept Palestinian citizenship, laws and authority,' just as Palestinians have to in Israel. I see this is being spun across the net, reviving a remark in 2013, connecting it to Nazi jargon about Germany being judenfrei. What the purpose of this sudden memory recall is in recent developments is up for speculation. The Palestinian Authority under Abbas and his predecessor has regularly conferred their passport and citizenship-identity on many Jews who have applied for it, among them Daniel Barenboim, Ilan Halevi and Uri Davis, the last 2 serving on the PLO executive. No states accept extraterritorial enclaves of another state's citizens and military (save Guantanamo) in their midst. It's a standard international principle, and has nothing to do with ethnic enmity, anti-Semitism or whatever. They don't have laws like this. Binjamin Netanyahu considers all Arabs to be 'savage/predatory beasts (hayot teref That's not anti-semitic of course.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jew or Israeli, it's all the same: the real apartheid state would be Palestine! Israel has millions of Arabs, citizens or otherwise. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

We are required to read texts according to what they say, not in terms of our beliefs about what they might really be saying.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course. An Israeli-free Palestine would not be apartheid? Or racist? And is it not a fact, that Israel does not have such a policy? Facts indeed! Debresser (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a general forum. We discuss only to discuss edit proposals.Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Which is why I stressed that although you are possibly right that he said Israelis instead of Jews, that does not change the fact that the statement is extremely notable and a must have for this article. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

He isnt possibly right, he is right. And lol to millions of Arabs, citizens or otherwise. As to the substance, a trivial point, and this article is already overly burdened with these talking points. nableezy - 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing trivial about political leader stating that he wants his country to be based on the principles of apartheid/racism. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jesus christ, he never said anything that can be taken that way. Where does he say he wants his country to be based on the principles of apartheid or racism? nableezy - 23:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Palestinian position is that a future Palestinian state will not have Israeli military forces or settlements on its territories. There is nothing here more than that. Zero^talk 22:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be reasonable. but that is not what he said. See above. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It actually is. nableezy - 23:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The context was that US-sponsored "peace negotations" were just starting in Washington and Abbas was responding to a proposal for a long Israeli military presence In Palestine even after independence. Here is how Haaretz reported it:

Speaking from Cairo where he was meeting with Egypt's interim president Adly Mansour, Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building beyond the Green Line. "In a final solution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands," Abbas said in a briefing to mostly Egyptian journalists. "An international, multinational presence like in Sinai, Lebanon and Syria - we are with that," he said, referring to United Nations peacekeeping operations in those places. Zero^talk 00:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

IN that case, problem the original Arabic would have to be checked because in English 'Final Solution' means Endlösung. When I first checked round, versions by more sensitive translations rendered it 'final resolution'. Had he used the standard Arabic term for the extermination of the Jews by Hitler, we would have heard more about it, esp. given his doctoral thesis.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that and I think it is nothing more than an unfortunate choice of phrase. Zero^talk 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's probably an incompetent translator (excluding for the moment that it might be a malicious redaction to seed precisely this implication - something not rare in this area). One wouldn't know unless this was minutely checked against the Arabic. In any case, on the face of it, this is all piddling. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I've rechecked the several sources I read last night. ‘Final resolution’ is how the right-conservative The Times of Israel puts it, following the Reuters’ text. So, speaking as a philologist, I'd hazard that some sub-editor at Haaretz, transcribing Reuters, made an understandable lapsus calami, or Freudian slip.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)