Talk:The Dado Center for Interdisciplinary Military Studies

From what I can understand there is a campaign aimed at reducing not to mention deleting an IDF military unit from Wikipedia, what is more there is a lot of reliance on its activities and contribution. In the armies of the world. Marloweperel (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement is not a reason for censoring an article. Each sentence is backed up originally. If you do not agree find a valid reason to delete do not do so unless you are a troll. Marloweperel (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV and content without independent sources

Hello Marloweperel. My concern is that the recent changes add a lot of text that is not in accordance with WP:NPOV, and not supported by independent sources. Please feel free to discuss this in further detail here, of course. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Changes according to your requirements were introduced and sources other than the IDF were added. Continuation of censorship on your part is tantamount to harassment and conduct by a troll. Marloweperel (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Throwing around insults like troll does not help this encyclopedia project. Please see WP:CIVIL. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand also censoring an Article on a military unit, not an organization or company, and attaching labels even though the entry met the requirements of Wikipedia is disrespectful. Marloweperel (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That comparison is ridiculous and the accusations are untrue. Again, could you please follow WP:CIVIL and apologise for the "troll" insult? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle. The idea behind the rules against POV and close-to-topic-sources is to avoid bias. Here it's all about a military research institute, and the material you keep on removing is descriptive and bland, not here nor there in terms of bias. It names former heads of the institute, the domains of research... Gives an idea about what it's all about. The fact that a researcher, Brig. Gen. Eran Ortal, who has at least a master's degree in this field (see bio), has now become the head of the institute, does in no way disqualify him; he has earned his degrees over a long period of time. There is no advertisement, propaganda, triumphalism... anything of the kind in the info. There are hardly any adjectives, it's all just dry, precise, technical lingo, with 9 different valid sources - of which your reverts keep on removing 7 (!).

As to notability, google for "Bein Haktavim". If it's good enough for King's College London, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Routledge (here), University Press of Kentucky (here), the University of Washington dissertation of Dr. Marwa Maziad, an Egyptian-American scholar of Middle Eastern Studies with an impressive CV, Americans for Peace Now (here), "Pakistan Defence" (here), etc., etc., etc., it certainly is notable enough for Wikipedia. If I look a bit longer, I might find a reference to it by Yassir Arafat, Colin Powell and Archangel Gabriel.

If you have an issue with Israel's occupation of the West Bank, heavy reliance on its military, export of military hard- and software, etc., then add a "Controversies" section if you can find material particularly referring to this institute and its publications. Or add your voice to the choir. But removing good, useful, i.e. informative and neutral material from this article is not the way to go.

By removing all that info, you are leaving the article empty and useless, and for no good reason. Do you have an issue with the IDF? With military in general? I don't get it. Wiki is first and foremost supposed to inform, and you are here working against it IMO. Please, try and be reasonable. I thank you for that. I have no special interest in this topic, but I came across "Dado Center" and its journal in another article, I knew nothing about it, and was glad to find a good, explanatory Wiki article to help me out. So I'm commenting this from the position of a happy user. But then you intervened and removed most of it. If I leave it as it is now, any future user won't get the benefit I had when I first read it. We're here to serve the user, not to do anything else. Thanks again in advance for rethinking it and accepting these, I hope, rational and convincing arguments. Arminden (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Arminden. Regarding your implications about me in the last two paragraphs, could you please show some WP:FAITH. To clarify, I have no issue with the IDF of the West Bank occupation.

Anyway, as per the opening comment in this Talk Page discussion that I started, this is simply a case of applying Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:NPOV and independent WP:RS. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid you may have a too straightforward understanding of the guidelines about independent sources. Any neutral factual information about the subject can be referenced from the sources coming from this subject. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle. I've given you every reasonable answer I can think of, which should be more than enough. You didn't offer any counter-arguments that can stand up to scrutiny, but prefer addressing this or that minor disagreement that doesn't connect in any way to the actual issues, and then move on to blank whole sections. Please, do take Loew Galitz's advice to heart, if mine is by now out of question for you. Going on the war path is unhealthy, destructive and unwelcome - just listen to the news. Adios. Arminden (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Loew Galitz and Arminden. I see that my concerns with the article are not shared, so I will take your advice. Thank you, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Your concerns were valid and required verification, especially if we were talking about some noisy startup, but here the article about a serious organization and there are no arguments that the neutrally worded statements in question could be false or misleading. Loew Galitz (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)