Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Palestine at Asia topic

An ongoing discussion at Asia topic template talk page is proposing to change the redirection target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Also see similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#Palestine_portal_split and Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Abbas_changes_PNA_name_to_State_of_Palestine. The question being if PNA now declares itself a state, is it one and should related articles be changed, redirected, recategorized, renamed etc. I don't have time to figure it out right now but input by others would help. This would seem to be a good place for a centralized discussion or maybe it does have to go to village pump, but it would be nice if all the experts following this page would weigh in. (Of course this page only has 81 watchers and noticed State of Palestine has 203.)CarolMooreDC 15:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD relist: Adam Horowitz (journalist)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Horowitz_(journalist). FYI. CarolMooreDC 02:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD at Definitions of Pogrom

Hi everyone, we'd be grateful for your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. By the way, i recognise it's only tangentially related to this topic, but most commentators so far are regular contributors in the I/P area on wikipedia, perhaps because this question was first opened at Talk:1517 Safed pogrom in April 2012. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange edits at Al-Fakhura school incident

I just reverted some edits at Al-Fakhura school incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which mangled references, by what appears to be an experienced editor. The same editor also made some more edits previously, but I can't look at them because I have to go now, so I thought I better alert people here. — Sebastian 08:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Orthodox yeshivot in Israel

Over a year ago, Supreme Deliciousness left this message concerning Template:Orthodox yeshivot in Israel. It does not appear to have been addressed. I have just stumbled across this because I noticed edit warring at the Ateret Cohanim article. Ateret Cohanim is not in Israel, but is treated as if it is in the template. This factual error needs to be fixed. Perhaps someone has the time and inclination to correct the errors. I don't have an opinion as to the best way to do that because I can't be bothered to look at all the links... Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised it was not addressed. Appears like yet another trial to initiate a nationalistic turf war, which is unrelated to the apolitical subject of the template discussed. Another topic which so far has not been addressed is Planning to blank the so called "Jewish keffiyehs" section. SD probably deserves a Keffiyeh barnstar. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Assuming bad motives because someone has identified a factual error in the content of the encyclopedia could indicate that you view wikipedia as some sort of battleground. Dlv999 (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Well, the bottomline, ignoring the people-factor, is that it's a factual error and should just be dealt with that way, like getting a date wrong or a spelling error. I think there are probably ways to fix it by giving the template a less contentious title (by which I actually mean an accurate title) and/or perhaps splitting up the contents of the template into spatial sets with boring titles or possibly using color coding like Template:Neighborhoods_of_Jerusalem. Either way, it's nothing for anyone to get excited about. It just something else in ARBPIA that is wrong and needs to be fixed. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I see two fairly straightforward solutions to the identified factual error. 1) Change the template name to "Orthodox yeshivot in Israel and the Palestinian territories" as suggested by AD so that the title accurately reflects the content covered by the template. 2) Remove all the yeshivas that are not in Israel from the template so that the content covered by the template acurately reflects the current title. Dlv999 (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Images in Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Note: It's been pretty dead here so forgot about this Project as being best place to bring this - hopefully - for discussion. No response at WP:NPOVN.

A couple of us have slowly been cleaning up this article which originally was overwhelmingly about Palestinian children as mostly being terrorists while emphasizing Israeli children suffering. However, a couple editors insist that besides the two appropriate photos of injured Israeli children in this section, we add this photo of a bloody shoe in this section .

• It's a flickr photo by same individual who did other two photos but, as I've questioned today at Flickr and the Wikicommons talk page "Given that a photograph like this easily could have been manufactured for propaganda purposes, how are we to know it really is blood, blood from the incident or whether or not blood from a child itself?" Even if I get a response it is what it purports, who knows if that is true? Note that photos of injured Palestinian children from Flickr are routinely taken off commons and wikipedia on same grounds. I am only challenging this one.
• Even if somehow proven true, it's still WP:Undue both for graphic content and for being yet a third photograph of an injured Israeli child. (A screen shot from TV of a Palestinian child was found and is in the article now.)

We could use some outside noninvolved/neutral eyes/opinions on this to settle the dispute. Thanks! CarolMooreDC🗽 15:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this whole subject seems rather gruesome and/or tacky but... to continue with a relevant issue.

As a "compromise" I put up this cartoon called "Double Standard" by well known political cartoonist Carlos Latuff showing nearly identical drawings of an injured Israeli (labeled "innocent victims") and an injured Palestinian child (labeled "casualty of war"). I put it in media because it is a media commentary on double standards. It was taken out with the talk page comment: He is clearly an anti-Israel propagandist and adding such a cartoon is not NPOV or constructive at all. And this image doesn’t even refer to media manipulation, but an alleged “Israeli double standard” (when it targets military objectives, unlike her enemies which deliberately target civilians).

Looking around I have found some WP:RS re such double standards I can include somewhere in the article, if not that section. But the question is, is Latuff's cartoon any more biased than an Israeli Flickr page photo by something called http://www.israelnewsphotos.com/ which doesn't even allow one to view its web page and a photo that shows an allegedly bloody shoe allegedly taken at a terrorist incident?

(I have left questions about it at the Wikicommons and Flickr pages.)

The editor is right about there not being an explicit double standard mentioned now but I've since found a couple WPRS on that to put in when I get a chance. If people want to comment now, I won't have to come back here later. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽

Now the same editor has put in a photo of another injured Israeli child, making it four to one. So removed shoe again which I am working to have removed from Wikicommons as unverifiable. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously WP:NPOV rigorously imposes an obligation to ensure no bias in coverage. Since there are two subjects, Israeli and Palestinian children, the photos must not be biased to one side or another, and technically you are in your right to demand equal coverage. (The irony of course is that, if this source is to be believed,129 Israeli children and 1,516 Palestinian children have been killed since September 29, 2000, meaning there is a one to 12 kill ratio in Israel's favour. For every one Israeli child killed, 12 Palestinian children are killed. I doubt whether WP:NPOV in this case would work out as allowing 1:12 coverage to reflect that massive disproportion, (12 photos of Palestinian casualties to every single photo of an Israeli casuality). Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made that point myself about ratio. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The fourth photo is back in case anyone wants to opine. (added a bit later:) Ooops, just noticed there's an edit war with new editors removing and adding bloody shoe photo! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem lead RfC

There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Exchanging content/sources between English, Arabic, and Hebrew articles

Has amybody considered establishing cooperation with the Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias to promote exchanging sources and content between the three Wikipedias? Perhaps it can be done so all viewpoints are represented on all three projects WhisperToMe (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Just make sure everyone knows to put a translation link on them. I won't do it with a language I have no possibility of comprehending (unlike say french or spanish) and tend to tag such refs and, if no one fixes them up, delete them. I often get away with it. But if there was someplace I could send people when I initially catch them doing it, that would be nice. (I do finally have a translation tag to use instead of unreliable source, anyway.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

For material on the English Wikipedia you mean the "this article can be expanded from the WXY Wikipedia", correct? That's a good idea! WhisperToMe (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks/Lists of Israeli attacks on Palestinians

There is currently an anomalous situation in the topic area in that we have annual lists of rocket attacks by Palestinians on Israel (see e.g. List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012), but we don't have equivalent annual lists of Israeli attacks on Palestinians.

This was raised in two recent AFD discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2012 (delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (Keep). However the issue was somewhat muddied in these discussions as it focussed on the specific names and the quality of the sources of the articles in question.

My suggested solution to the anomaly would be to create annual lists of Israeli attacks on Palestinians and once they are created I would recommend a merge with the corresponding "Palestinian rocket attack" article. If the merge is rejected, we would be left with two stand alone lists for each year which could be mutually linked, which in my view would be the second best option to a single merged article per year documenting attacks by both sides.

My suggested name for the articles would be List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, XXXX (XXXX=date), to mirror the "Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel" articles as closely as possible (but I am not too concerned about the name and am open to suggestions). The two sources I have in mind as the basis for the lists are the Journal of Palestine Studies and the Middle East Journal, both of which produce detailed chronologies of events documenting daily incidents in the conflict. Dlv999 (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The deletion of 2012 was odd. By my count, 8 votes delete/7 votes keep/move & merge. That really is a split decision because keep/move and merge votes indicate a desire to retain the material. I don't think significant material should be elided by such a thin margin (I vote). In any case, I have a back-up copy. The only problem there seems to be the title. If the ceasefire articles were moved to 'Palestinian Attacks on Palestinians and their territories' by year, there should be no objection. WP:NPOV requires the balance. I prefer separate pages because one can open two windows and compare, whereas if merging were the case, one would have a long list, prob. Israel, followed by the other Palestinian list way down the page.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked the closing admin (here) if they could make the rationale a bit clearer. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't see any explanation. All I see is that (a) a deletion attempt of a similar article was rejected some weeks ago (b) then this sister page was deleted by a vote of 8/7, which looks like 'no consensus' but was taken to warrant the removal of the page c) clarifications of the rule behind this reading were asked for and, at least as far as I know, have failed to be forthcoming (d) immediately the decision led an editor to repropose the deletion of the first page. This is all very odd, and I hope someone with administrative expertise looks into the correctness of both moves. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I thirded the motion.

As for a resolution, there should be a way of dealing with Rocket Attack articles POV. I know that "the 2006-2008 casualty" articles that had "too many" Palestinian casualties were renamed and then deleted. So that bias is really obvious.

It would help if someone would just merge the material into one article called List of violations of Gaza ceasefire of 2012

Re: List of Israeli attacks on Palestinians, XXXX I can see the many (pov) objections already. Probably best to list them and see what looks like the best alternative as far as specific (like rocket attacks) given there are a variety of kinds - illegal ceasefire, "defensive" strikes, "retaliatory" strikes, "rogue" IDF soldiers, settler attacks, etc. And of course partisans would look at those as an excuse to AfD. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The deleted article is available at User:Sean.hoyland/List_of_Violations_of_the_Ceasefire_of_21_November,_2012. I support Dlv999's 'My suggested solution...' approach. I prefer the merged article approach with events simply listed as a time series, rather than separate lists. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

sounds good. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Howard Grief

Howard Grief was clearly written by someone who hasn't read WP:NOTADVOCATE or doesn't care about such things. Consequently it needs to be cleaned up. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

San Remo conference

The San Remo conference article is currently being exploited for advocacy purposes by a new intermittently active user. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Israeli settlement infobox inaccuracy problem

I have noticed that several articles about Israeli settlements in the occupied Golan heights say "Country Israel" in the infobox. For example:Ein Zivan and Mevo Hama. How can we remove this inaccuracy from the infobox? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just remove it.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It cant be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes. I've just checked and see why. Those damned pishpin jobs that smuggle in ideological statements in the design that no editor can fix without massive hassle. 'pushpin_map=Israel Golan' (and also the 'district = North'. We had this some years ago with a pushpin map of the West Bank, when the cursor hovered over it, you got a pop-up of 'Israel'. The map has to be remodelled, and the distinct issue resolved. Nableezy, I think, knows how this thing can be handled. Drop him a note. This is a clear violation, in any case.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's because Template:Infobox Kibbutz hardcodes subdivision_name = Israel among other things. It would be better if these articles used the standard Template:Infobox settlement. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Made it so country has to be declared in the infobox, no hardcoded value now. nableezy - 15:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. I left a note at User_talk:Plastikspork#Infobox_Kibbutz. I guess there was a communication breakdown somewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, what do you do with this.?Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

use a larger map? Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Palestinian_territory_development

I raised a couple questions that others might answer more easily on the talk page, in case people want to take a look. User:Carolmooredc 16:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ma'ale Adumim

Is Ma'ale Adumim in the West Bank or in Israel?

Discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Avi_Reikan --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It is in the West Bank and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories but not in Israel. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is East Jerusalem a part of the West Bank?

Because of the discussions here and here, where different arguments about the topic have been used by people, I think the issue should be discussed here. East Jerusalem is certainly not a part of Israel but is it a part of the West Bank/Palestinian territories? I say it is regarded such, amongst others by the International Court of Justice who in their ruling in 2004 repeatedly refers to East Jerusalem as being "including" in the West Bank/Palestinian territories. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

East-Jerusalem is considered to be a Palestinian occupied territories by the international community but that is not the problem here.

It doesn't mean that East-Jerusalem is in the West Bank. The West bank is a geographical entity and sources are not clear whether to include the city or not in the West Bank so no wording should be prefered on the other.

As a proof : [1] ; [2] ; [3] ; [4] ; [5] ; [6]

As another proof : if it was so obvious that East-JErusalem is in the West bank, it would not be required to precise "West bank, including Jerusalem" because "West bank" would be enough.

That's why "West bank and East-Jerusalem" is no less good than the other option.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, does someone know when the words "West Bank" was used for the first time and who did so ? Pluto2012 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

West Bank refers to the territory Jordan controlled between 1948 and 1967. It doesn't matter if it's East Jerusalem, Beit Sahour, Jenin or Bethlehem. While not everyone agrees, I think it's the consensus. For example, UN reports repeatedly refers to it as such. If you search for "West Bank, including East Jerusalem", you get 936,000 hits and "East Jerusalem in the West Bank" (both with quotation marks) gives 1,090,000 hits.

That of course is because Israel has annexed East Jerusalem and tries to separate the issue between the city and the West Bank, which too many have succumbed to. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

So, the purpose of your edits is to [re-]establish the truth, ie that East-Jerusalem is linked to the West Bank and therefore to prevent reader to drop in the Israeli propaganda that wants to make believe they would be separated... Am I right ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my purpose is to reflect how it's viewed by the world. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Some more results. "Occupation of the West Bank by Israel" (with quotation marks) gives 40,000 hits on Google. Adding "and East Jerusalem" after West Bank gives 8 hits while adding "East Jerusalem and" before the West Bank gives 9 hits. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Doing the same test with "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" and "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" plus inserting East Jerusalem, as described above, shows the same superiority with regards to hits. This superiority is a fact also if you exclude Wikipedia. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)