Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Stanley Fischer history/refs/nomination

In case you haven't heard, Fischer holds dual citizenship in Israel and the United States, was the governor of the Bank of Israel in 2005-2013, and Obama has nominated him to be Vice-Chairman of the US Federal Reserve System. The article itself needs refs, but an editor has been removing even quite neutral info/commentary on this (unprecedented?) nomination. Feel free to comment in talk page discussion or add WP:RS refs and info to the article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Israeli people (neutrality)

Hi everyone, I'm still concerned after reading through the Israeli people article, it seems skewed and I'm hoping to help make it a more neutral article.

− In the article lead I modified the ethnic groups listed in Israel, previously (Jews, Arabs, etc. was a very black and white wording that is used by the Israeli government, but is not only vague, it is inaccurate) I changed it to mention specific ethnic groups, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi Jews, and Palestinian Muslims, Christians, etc. But the article currently only contains the specificity of the Jews, it still says "Arab citizens" when referring to the second largest ethnic division, which is false, this is Palestinian Muslims followed by Christians.

"Arab citizens" or "Israeli Arabs" is not the term adequate for this article, they identify as Palestinian rather than Israeli Arab, and they are ethnically Palestinian, to call them simply Arab or Israeli Arab disassociates their Palestinian identity/heritage. The new york times writes, "After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs, which in Hebrew sounds like Arabs who belong to Israel, most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/world/middleeast/service-to-israel-tugs-at-arab-citizens-identity.html?hpw&_r=0

Any input on this would be appreciated as the discussion of neutrality was just brought up again recently. Lazyfoxx (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right that the preferred term for most of the population concerned is Palestinian citizens of Israel, and this has been discussed extensively in the talk pages of the related article.

But I think you are mistaken in your suggested division into Palestinian Muslims and Christians. These are religious distinctions, not ethnic or national differences. It has long been an element of Israel government policy to foster this false classification, but this is not a path we should adopt in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead currently reads "The largest ethnic group is that of Ashkenazi Jews with smaller numbers of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, followed by Arab citizens, mostly Arab Muslims, with smaller numbers of Israeli Christians (mostly Arab Christians), in addition to Druze and others minorities"

I made my suggestion to follow the structure of how it's currently worded but I agree, would you then suggest removing "Arab citizens, mostly Arab Muslims, with smaller numbers of Israeli Christians (mostly Arab Christians)" and replacing it with "Palestinians in addition to other minorities"? Lazyfoxx (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to state "Palestinian Arabs", rather than simply "Palestinians". There are some Palestinians who are not Arabs, and even a few Arabs who are not Palestinian, in Israel. RolandR (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So then wouldn't it be better to state "Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel"? Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Hello all, I am troubled by the skewed POV from which the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions page has been mostly comprised--especially the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Supporters section, which seems to be largely presented in a decidedly negative and less-than-thorough light. I have written a portion of text on the Israeli and international Jewish support for the movement in order to counter the inadequacies of the current article and to promote a more even and nuanced representation of support for the movement. This sort of information does not fit into the current country-by-country breakdown of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions#Reaction because it is international in scope. I think that this is fair cause to add the new section I have compiled, but I would appreciate any feedback and/or comments as to how to go about doing so in a way that will not jeopardize the NPOV of the article. I am happy to post what I have written for editing by fellow members of this group, otherwise I want to make the post live a week from today at this time. Any input would be very helpful. Thanks, Mau Ro (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverts and 1RR - a discussion with potential consequences for all editors in ARBPIA

This discussion at the ANI noticeboard may have consequences for all editors in ARBPIA because it addresses the issue of when an edit (or rather an uninterrupted sequence of edits to an article by an editor) is a revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest idea of what the rules means in technical terms, and often, while editing hyperactive pages, keep hoping someone who does understand the rule will be kind enough to tip me off if, inadvertently, I undo some prior work twice. Too late to comment though, and perhaps irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read through the ANI complaint since seemed more block-related, but it's pretty clear at the article's history the editor Wickey-nl did two sets of reverts within a few hours on June 16 (EST). Of course, waiting 36 hours to revert the same material over and over again would be another form of edit warring. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me Carol when I looked at the details because the second series of edits wasn't something that I have regarded as a revert or edit warring in the past. See User_talk:Wickey-nl#Related_edits for details.

I think the key points from that discussion are probably

• Admin discretion is paramount, which is something most long term editors probably know.
• This question (from me) and answer (by Bbb23)
  • Q: Bbb23, does that mean that editors in ARBPIA can only make one sequence of uninterrupted edits per article per day that changes existing material because subsequent edits that changed content would be a 1RR violation. If someone else makes an edit the editor would need to stop (or add new content rather than change material with any subsequent edits).
  • A: First, technically that is what it means, although as in just about everything, an admin has discretion not to block if the change is insubstantial. As I also said, I wouldn't count on it, especially in controversial subject areas.

In other words, a sequence of uninterrupted edits by an editor that changes existing material is a revert. Admins may use a literal interpretation of the revert description A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material even if the action that was reversed happened several years earlier and the content being changed is in a different part of the article that was not edited by anyone else during an 'edit war'. In this case that meant that the second series of edits was treated as a revert, making it a 1RR violation. As I said, this series is not something that I would have regarded as a revert in the past because the editor isn't edit warring with anyone (e.g. the material is 2 years old) and they may have no idea when it was added or who by because they didn't look i.e. from their perspective they are developing the article. Apparently I was wrong about that and I think it probably means there are a lot more 1RR violations in ARBPIA than I thought. I assume this isn't really relevant to genuinely collaborative article development where editors are, strictly speaking, routinely breaking 1RR by working together without edit warring. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If that reading is true, it means tactically, that any editor observed building an I/P page with successive edits, can be stopped in his tracks for 24 hours by some other editor hopping in, to break the sequence. That is, if true, madness because it hands an IP gamer unending aces to fuck up serious editors, and, no one I am familiar with is aware of the rule in that form, and every regular editor is almost daily guilty of 1R infractions. Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I know in the past there were long discussions about how old an edit had to be before it was a revert. I myself take the position it has to be fairly recent & by a current editors. But perhaps the admin made the same mistake I did and ONLY looked at the edit summary and didn't investigate how old the edits are and thus assumed it was some ongoing edit war. Or maybe they looked and thought it was problematic reverts of solid material and therefore questionable. That admin usually is pretty fair, in my experience, if sometimes strict. But it does remind us to be on our Ps and Qs especially with recent material by current editors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A strict application of this could make normal, uncontentious editing impossible. For instance, updating statistics (population, GDP etc), or noting a change of government, are strictly speaking reversions. Surely nobody is seriously suggesting that someone should be sanctioned for such an edit. So where is the line to be drawn between a normal edit which corrects existing text, and a contentious revert? RolandR (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

1RR is why I've not reverted this IP edit. Sepsis II (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis, you should note that "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring", so you would have been able to revert that clearly unacceptable edit without sanction. RolandR (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it would have to be clear vandalism. Thanks for the reminder, Sepsis II (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Roland, not 'impossible' as such: what it means is that you either group and save all the changes you want to make in one edit, or, spread them over a number of edits but stop for 24 hours if another editor makes an intervening one.     ←   ZScarpia   22:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sean, the interpretation of the rule you've given is the way I have been interpreting it for myself. Further, I'd say that although restrictions such as 1RR are aimed at preventing edit warring, a breach doesn't mean that an editor has been edit warring nor does edit warring have to be shown in order to find that an editor has breached a restriction (WP:3RR says that 3RR is not a definition of what edit warring is). So, a 1RR brightline restriction applies to ARBPIA articles as a method of preventing edit warring, editors need to observe it, but as far as determining whether editors have breached the restriction it doesn't matter whether that editor was, or was intending to, edit war. I'm sure that I interpret the rules more literally than most. I stand with those editors who have been pushing for the rules to either be rewritten or to be interpreted as they are currently (clearly) stated, viewing it as very undesirable that admins have developed and enforced their own individual, divergent readings, making exemptions to what the rules say a revert is and calling them 'normal edits'. At various times, editors have made concerted efforts to have the rules re-written, but failed. Why did they fail? My guess is because it would be very difficult to produce both a straightforward and a consensus alternative to the current rules and also (a sneaking suspicion!) some admins may prefer the current situation where they have latitude to argue whether particular edits are reverts and also where a general unspoken consensus about about what constitutes a revert in practice may have developed (though one which doesn't apply the rules as they are stated).     ←   ZScarpia   22:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why someone should keep track of any Admins who seem to be making decisions in a biased way. I haven't paid enough attention to know myself, but I guess if someone wanted to they could do research in the WP:ARBPIA logs, WP:ANI, WP:EW, etc.

More watchers at Death march needed

Could a few more users watchlist Death march ? It's been targeted by socks and IPs for years, including Lutrinae's socks who is as bad as it gets. It looks like it's being targeted again. It's targeted because it contains the following impeccably sourced information.

• During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, some 70,000 Palestinian Arabs from the cities of Ramle and Lydda were forcibly expelled by Israeli forces. The event has come to be known as the Lydda death march.[10]
• 10. Holmes, Richard; Strachan, Hew; Bellamy, Chris; Bicheno, Hugh (2001). The Oxford companion to military history (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 64. ISBN 9780198662099. "On 12 July, the Arab inhabitants of the Lydda-Ramle area, amounting to some 70,000, were expelled in what became known as the 'Lydda Death March'."

Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

More watchers at Kobi Moyal and Avi Reikan needed

Could a few more users watchlist Kobi Moyal and Avi Reikan ? In both cases registered editors/IPs/disposable SPAs have replaced Ma'ale Adumim, West Bank with Ma'ale Adumim, Israel over and over again for well over a year. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA Reform Initiative

UNRWA Reform Initiative, a new article needs attention or possibly deletion. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Big WP:OR. Should be deleted. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's just an advertisement for this "initiative". Wikipedia doesn't provide organisations with home pages. Zero^talk 13:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hannibal Directive

See Talk:Hannibal_Directive#Death_via_Hannibal_Directive about removal of NY Times mention regarding Hadar Goldin; there have since been many more WP:RS mentions. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been no RS cited to support recently added text on various WP pages various facts in connection with these topics, and without any such references, such text and extraordinary claims should be removed immediately. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The NY Times did remove it's original mentioned quoted by another editor and verified by me. However, several now have been found. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The NYT removal only confirms that the WP mention, regardless of whether it was a good-faith error, must be removed. I've seen no RS for the text that is being inserted in various pages. IBT, for example, is hardly RS for such an extraordinary claim, and others do not verify the text for which they're used. The text lacks RS and must be removed. Clearly, any reinsertion without RS violates Sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You are responsible for finding RS. I have seen nothing that is RS for, and which WP policy would accept as support for, factual assertions along the lines of recent edits. They should be reverted. At some point, these edits will be scrutinized and the community will adjudicate the matter. There will be no excuse for a finding of having violated policy and sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We're discussing this diff with errors corrected, starting at "During the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". I'm sure if other editors agree they will comment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Carol, though nobody disputes your expertise on the Israel-Palestine issue, [[personal attack removed per guidelines by Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)}} Why not adjust your focus to one of your other areas of expertise? You have no shortage of those. Steeletrap (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. Please remove it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, both of you have had several reminders about WP:ARBPIA. Note that they aren't about content disputes, but sanctions can be levied for behavior, like edit warring, personal attacks that make or infer allegations against others, etc. I'm busy with other stuff, but starting to get a bit annoyed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

From Time Immemorial‎‎

Another pair of eyes (or 0 or 1 eye if that's all you have ;) at From Time Immemorial‎‎ would be appreciated. I think a BLP issue is happening there. Zero^talk 11:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on 1982 Lebanon war casualties

Discussion on WP:RSN for the sentence "In 1984, the Lebanese authorities publicly retracted their earlier estimate, instead stating "about 1,000 Lebanese were killed as a result of the Israeli invasion". Comments are appreciated. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue has mutated slightly, and is now on the WP:NPOVN. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#1982_Lebanon_War_casualties. Any comments appreciated. The WP:RSN issue is useful to see, but not necessary for commenting. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Washington Institute for Near East Policy

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy was created in 1985 by AIPAC as a spinoff of AIPAC. Some former AIPAC employees say that it was created to continue AIPAC policies without using the name of AIPAC, which is often criticized. This is an important issue, because the Washington Institute is a widely-quoted source of opinion in media stories about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The article Washington Institute for Near East Policy originally described some of the relationships between the Washington Institute and AIPAC. Over the years, every mention of AIPAC has been deleted from the article, and attempts to mention AIPAC are quickly deleted.

I just looked up the article to check what I remember hearing about this matter. There was nothing in the article about it, so I added something to the Criticism section, making sure to use a WP:RS (Foreign Affairs).

My edit was quickly deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_Institute_for_Near_East_Policy&action=history by an editor who apparently disagrees with the WP:RSs on the basis of his own personal opinion.

What should I do? I don't have time to get into a long edit war or a long wikilawyering procedure. However, this consistent deletion of any reference to AIPAC in the article is WP:CENSORSHIP. I would rather not simply revert it and get into an edit war without getting advice from some reasonable Wikipedians. --Nbauman (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Nbauman:. You have several sources that merit discussion and that will likely substantiate some inclusion of AIPAC in the article. In reverting you, the user gave a clear summary of concerns about your addition. Therefore, it makes sense at this juncture to discuss AIPAC and your sources on the Article Talk page. Don't keep trying to insert your paragraph. Instead, try to reach agreement on the most neutral, bland description of AIPAC's early connection. (Also, familiarize yourself with the previous 2010 long discussion of AIPAC on the Talk page there.) Or maybe ask the editors how they would paraphrase the sources' view of AIPAC. If the other editor(s) don't budge, then you might try dispute resolution, etc. My 2 cents. HG | Talk 06:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Making into individual article about a settlement a piece about neighboring Palestinians

I have noticed that quite a few articles about settlement have been filled with info about condition of neighboring Palestinians or some other pro-Palestinian info that do not belong in a specific article, in my opinion. A recent sample is Carmel, Har Hebron where some quotes, without even actual effort to make them part of the article, were edited in. Another such article is Susya where big part speaks of "Palestinian Susya". I am an Israeli, so not the most objective, but I do see myself as a reasonable person. I think WP should have guidelines about this otherwise, when editors will be done with settlements, it will be on every article about Israel. I do not try to bury the Palestinian subject but in many article the text about the Palestinians is longer then the one about the place. Please advise Ashtul (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to comment on the quality of particular individual articles, but the relationship between the settlements and their Palestinian neighbors is one of the most common topics in coverage of the settlements in books as well as in the press. It is entirely appropriate that the subject is covered here too. Zero^talk 00:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For two years no one has objected to Susya as drafted. Both settlements are imbricated over pre-existing Palestinian settlements, and therefore the site and area have dual 'nationality', and sources mentioning one, mention the other. The articles I introduced have many details about Carmel. Rather than complain about the use of the Palestinian content, the obvious solution, as I have said on several pages, is for 'pro-Israeli' editors to harvest those articles and others, in order to thicken out the description of Carmel Har Hebron's industrial agriculture etc. Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Samir Kuntar at Open University of Israel

There is currently a dispute at the Open university of Israel article about how to present Samir Kuntar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_University_of_Israel#Samir_Kuntar

Please join in. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Answered. I for one respect someone for being honest even if he gets killed.Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Bat Ayin axe attack

There is a discussion at Bat Ayin axe attack if Israel should be labeled "Domestic" in the "reactions" section. Please join the discussion with your views: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)