Talk:Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | The contents of the Wikipedia and the 2023 Israel-Palestine war page were merged into Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on December 29, 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For the interested
editThe Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia by World Jewish Congress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Is currently not very well done. The Wales and Harrison stuff is not summaries of article content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Earlier, I moved some of the lead content to the body, and expanded the article significantly with previously-uncited sources. Isi96 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Lead is still not good. As article is currently written, Wales and Harrison don't belong there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Wasn't arguing with you there, just noting the changes I made. Isi96 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Tried something:[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Lead is still not good. As article is currently written, Wales and Harrison don't belong there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Refs in arabic
editCan be useful per WP:NOENG, but: to aid the reader, they should have a title and publisher in English, and possibly a relevant translated quote, there is a parameter for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Joint Statement on Palestine
edit@BilledMammal Hello, about [2]. I watched the video [3] (it's partisan and gets some details long, but not that bad), I looked at WP:TRT and thought it would be iffy as a source, and it mostly agrees with the article as written anyway. However, I think it makes an ok WP:ELMAYBE #4. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's not that bad and it is directly relevant to the article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Given that the source is unreliable and, as you say, in this instance is biased and inaccurate, I don’t think it’s appropriate to include - it doesn’t help readers seeking neutral and reliable information about the subject to direct them there. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- We disagree on that. IMO, it's good enough for inclusion. As media-coverage of WP goes, it's not worse than average, and pretty much any source used on this general topic will be considered biased by someone. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- External links do not have to be either neutral or reliable.
- I personally dislike video content, but I believe that it's more popular with readers than it is with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- We disagree on that. IMO, it's good enough for inclusion. As media-coverage of WP goes, it's not worse than average, and pretty much any source used on this general topic will be considered biased by someone. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Isi96, you added it, what do you think is missing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång I feel like it could include more information from the body.
- Not sure how to go about it, though. Isi96 (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Something more specific would be easier to have an opinion on. If you can't think of any key-points missing, the template doesn't really fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång That's fair. I'll remove it. Isi96 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Something more specific would be easier to have an opinion on. If you can't think of any key-points missing, the template doesn't really fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The edit-filter says I should seek input before editing
editDear Wikipedians. To the paragraph
"As of 2023, English Wikipedia articles on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have "extended confirmed protection", meaning that only registered editor accounts with a certain age and number of edits can edit them. The WJC commented that this "leaves many Israelis unable to edit articles about which they have great knowledge.""
I'd like to add
"Al Mayadeen voiced similar concerns.[1]"
There may be some other usable opinion there (WP:ALMAYADEEN) too, but that can wait. @Isi96@Selfstudier@BilledMammal@WhatamIdoing, other interested, do you have an opinion?
References
- ^ Youssef, Aya (23 June 2024). "Palestine's battle against Zionist editing on Wikipedia". Al Mayadeen English. Retrieved 23 June 2024.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång It doesn't seem like a good idea to include a quote from a deprecated source unless if the author of the piece is worth quoting. Isi96 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The source is deprecated so best not use it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Currently mentioned source-debates other than ADL
editPer my reading of the source[4]:
"It’s not the first time that Wikipedia editors have examined the reliability of a Jewish source. In 2021, editors debated coverage of leftwing and Muslim groups by the Jewish Chronicle, a British newspaper, ultimately declaring it generally reliable despite concerns of bias. The same year, Wikipedia editors banned the online encyclopedia Jewish Virtual Library for most uses due to concerns about its accuracy and pro-Israel bias. Earlier this year, they banned NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel advocacy group. "
this (JC and JWL) isn't obviously on-topic for this article. There is no mention this was related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Replying a bit late, but your point is valid. I'll remove what I added. Isi96 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Refs
editReposition editing campaigns paragraphs
editThe history section is in chrolonological order, though without much between 2008 to 2017. Then the "Editing campaigns" section has paragraphs on 2008, 2010, 2013. Then subheading w 2024 paragraph. So, two reasons to change this. First, put it all in chrono order and fill the gap. Second, "Editing campaigns" are also described in the History section, so it's not a robust headings structure. I plan the following edit, please discuss it here:
- Move the Editing campaigns paragraph into chrono order under history
- Delete the heading and subheading for Editing campaigns
- No changes to the actual content and sources of anything written, only placement and headings. Perhaps there are subheadings that would be helpful to break up the historical periods? ProfGray (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)