Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

For further discussion, see our subpage about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, RSs?

I stumbled upon these, while looking for something and then spent more time trying to improve my general knowledge of that time period. I thought I'd make them available for your perusal. I couldn't find the source on a Wiki search, as having been used/found, but I don't know how to search Wiki too well. They look pretty RS to me. [1],[2], [3],[4],[5],[6] and, [7]. I found them enlightening and interesting, but didn't look at all of them completely. I tend to feel that they can be helpful for many articles within our sphere. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Thread ready to archive, thanks! HG | Talk 04:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletions -- notification

I tried to edit the article on Shmuel Yerushalmi, an anti-Zionist poet and activist in Israel, to add details about his arrest and interrogation yesterday over the content of one of his poems; I was surprised to discover that the article had been deleted earlier yesterday. Apparently there had been a deletion review, which ran for five days and attracted just five contributors. An earlier proposed deletion, which had not reached a consensus, ran for twelve days and attracted more than 30 contributors. The proposal had been notified on the list of Israel-related deletion discussions, but not on the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions, where the article also has relevance. Could we establish some sort of procedure for cross-notification of any such proposals, to ensure that more possibly-interested editors are aware and can take part in discussions? RolandR (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you can simply post it here, if you wish. does that sound good? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is to watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Shmuel Yerushalmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I know nothing of Shmuel Yerushalmi, but if he is currently generating media attention then he may now be notable, and thus merit an article. You can possibly restart the article if notability was the main reason for deletion. See WP:NOTE. See the history link in the linkbar. One can get an article linkbar with wikicode like this: {{article|Shmuel Yerushalmi}} - The talk page will show up via the history link with this linkbar: {{article|Talk:Shmuel Yerushalmi}} Talk:Shmuel Yerushalmi (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Shmuel Yerushalmi|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sometimes these linkbars will pull up a working history page. It looks like this is not true in this case. Maybe because this is a biography page. I don't know. See Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Here are the deletion review pages:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shmuel Yerushalmi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shmuel Yerushalmi (2nd nomination)

It looks like notability was the reason for deletion. The last discussion comment was on July 17, 2008. Google has the Wikipedia articles cached, but probably not for long. You might want to save the pages for the time when he becomes notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. The Simple Wikipedia, and regular Wikipedia articles are slightly different. See:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Shmuel+Yerushalmi --Timeshifter (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Negev Bedouins and Unrecognized villages

I would like to draw your attention to proposed deletion of the entry Unrecognized villages, which refers to the status of 80,000 Arab citizens of Israel in the Negev. See the talk page, where I had been discussing NPOV issues with User:Ynhockey until the label was pinned yesterday.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed that User:Guy0307 has also proposed deletion of Negev Bedouins, which refers to the 160,000 Bedouin in the Negev, for the same reason. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC) This older thread can be archived, thanks. HG | Talk 04:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Internet Defense Force‎

Could I bring this article to people's attention? I seem to be in danger of getting dragged into a fight after being accused of "poisoning the well" and having an edit reverted. Could some people interested in maintaining impartiality have a look, please?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems quite bizarre. Not sure I comprehend what is going on over there? Some orientation? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Very difficult stuff.

How to deal an article about an association that threatens wikipedia ?

I think we should not mind that article and keep it the way it is.

Ceedjee (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my specific issue was over a sentence that said that a report and newspaper articles had described a age as anti-Semitic when the report and one article were written by User:Oboler and the other (in the Jewish media) was based largely on an interview with him. My describign these as Israeli and Jewish sources were claimed to be poisoning the well. But as the report, the most detailed ot these sources says the page is anti-Semitic because it denies the Right to Exist it is hardly an impartial source nd this needed to eb highlighted. I have now deleted the whole sentence.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The archiving and "hiding" of the TalkPage is puzzling and confusing to anyone attempting to follow what's going on. Objections were similarly hidden. When the article on the very notable "Jews Against Zionism" has been repeatedly deleted it's difficult to understand why an organisation of such minor importance gets an article. PR^talk 21:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that "Jews against Zionism" is more known that "JIDF". It is difficult to argue the "deletion" of the 1st and the "conservation" of the 2nd. That could be pointed out at next RfD (in a few months!) Ceedjee (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now posted to the talk page suggesting pge protection. I've been unable to make sense of one of the replies [8]. Perhaps the editor inquestion is daring people to report them to admin. DO people here think page prot a good idea?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote at review page: Keep: As long as there are editors willing to keep on top of it so it does not become a promotional for the guy. And make sure if there is any WP:RS evidence of criminal activity he is put in that category.

Didn't write that we really need a decent category for pro-Zionist "terrorists" like there is for Category:Islamist_terrorists and others who engage in criminal activity to promote pro-Israel views. Someone created Category:American_Zionist_terrorists and put Irv Rubin in but he was immediately removed. (He's still in American terrorists.) Category:Terrorists by nationality doesn't even have an Israeli terrorist category though it has a Palestinian one. So who wants to do it? :-) Carol Moore 19:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm confused, Carol. There doesn't seem to be any indication that "David Appletree" is a criminal, let alone a terrorist. So why all the talk about putting the article in those categories? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have merged two different threads. One was reference to possible or potential criminal hacking. And searching around again I did find "Category:Jewish terrorism." Carol Moore 03:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hi. It's good that folks post, like Peter above, requests for help in dealing with tensions over an article. However, at this juncture, further discussion of the article content should continue on the article Talk page. Right? Thanks. Meanwhile, I've submitted page protection request at WP:RPP to try to get editors into a more productive discussion. Ah, I see that an editor has been blocked, and discussion seems to be moving along. HG | Talk 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So how would people deal with something like this?

This IP user [9] strikes me as an obvious sock puppet operated by someone on one side of the Istael/Palestine conflict. However, I haven't a clue who is operating it. About 70% of the edits are blatant trouble-making. Even legitimate edits such as [10] are captioned in ways that do not WP:Assume good faith. If I knew who was operating the puppet I could report it to the page. But I don't, so can't. So what to do?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this IP has been blocked for vandalism. Contact the blocking admin or AIV if you see further incidents. In general, we should be cautious about allegations of sockpuppetry and appropriate procedures are explained at WP:SUSPSOCK. On the other hand, the vandalism was blatant and can be reported immediately to WP:AIV. When in doubt, you might open a conversation with an admin you know (or WP:AN/I) by giving the diffs, not draw conclusions, and asking folks to take a look. My 2 cents. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Need article(s) on opposition to the occupation of Palestine

If I had time I'd make up a few articles like these: Protests against the invasion of Iraq, Opposition to the Iraq War and American popular opinion on invasion of Iraq and Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq war and Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq. Maybe someone else has time and would like to take it on.  ;-) Carol Moore 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Excellent contrast with the paucity of dedicated articles concerning protests, opposition, popular opinion, and government positions on the much longer and far more controversial war and occupation of the Palestinian Territories, also called (euphemistically?) the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

It fits the pattern I have long pointed out concerning the lack of dedicated Wikipedia articles discussing human rights violations by Israel in the Israeli-occupied territories. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Archive 3#Human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories and User:Timeshifter#Israeli human rights violations in the Palestinian territories.

This is an obvious systemic bias of Wikipedia and the Western world. The case has been made about the lack of Western media coverage of the over one million deaths (nearly all are civilians) caused by the war in Iraq, and the lack of coverage of the larger number of civilian Palestinian casualties versus civilian Israeli casualties (I need to update the chart).

In all these areas Wikipedia should not be reflecting the systemic bias of the Western media, and should make an extra effort to implement WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

People do have to be willing to write, source and defend articles about Palestine and without pay. I'm doing a lot on the broader libertarian quest myself. Carol Moore 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

You're simply ignoring Human_rights_in_israel#Human_rights_record_in_the_Occupied_Territories, the ridiculously long Israel and the apartheid analogy, the detailed Israeli West Bank barrier, and many others. This topic is heavily covered, from all sides. This is, in facts, one of the most heavily covered topics on Wikipedia, providing ample space for even fringe claims. Get your facts straight, before making such claims. okedem (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your tone, Okedem, of strong assertion, does not substitute for the truth. It is just assertion, as you have done before in our past discussions. For example; "simply ignoring" and "ridiculously long" and "heavily covered" and "get your facts straight." You did not point to any dedicated articles on human rights violation by Israelis.

Human rights in Israel#Human rights record in the Occupied Territories, is one section of an article on Israel. News flash; for the UN and the vast majority of the world the Palestinian Territories are not considered to be part of Israel. So what little human rights coverage that is in that section is buried in an article most people wouldn't think to look in. Israel and the apartheid analogy and the Israeli West Bank barrier do not focus on the most egregious human rights violations by Israelis. One focuses on apartheid. The other focuses on the barrier. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We didn't say they were part of israel. Clearly, your focus is on Israel's actions and alleged violations of human rights. that's why we directed you to the article on israel's human rights record. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Those Israeli violations of human rights should be discussed in Human rights in the Palestinian territories, and not in Human rights in Israel. Putting Israeli violations of human rights there buries it somewhat out of sight, and looks like a POV fork. See Wikipedia:Content forking. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Human Rights, Timeshifter, is dealt with on Wikipedia in articles of the form "Human rights in X". This is the way this is done for many a country, including Western Democracies and Third World dictatorships (see Category:Human rights by country). I am not aware of any article detailing human rights violations by "Syrians", "Iranians", or "Americans". The articles are about a country's actions. Thus, following the same format, the issue of human rights violations in the territories, when attributed to Israel, is dealt with in Human rights in Israel. The format isn't holy, but it is the convention here.

We don't, and won't, have an entire article dedicated to "the most egregious human rights violations by Israelis". That would simply be a one-sided POV propaganda article. What we do have, is an article discussing the situation in general, both the good and the bad, both the violations, and the rights that are preserved. But it seems to me you're looking for an attack on Israel, rather than an informative discussion of the subject. okedem (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"But it seems to me you're looking for an attack on Israel, rather than an informative discussion of the subject." Your personal attacks and lack of good faith are against the spirit of this talk page and this WikiProject. You have done this many times before in previous discussions. It seems admins let you get away with it. As I have previously discussed, the logical names for the articles, should be similar to the ones for the categories:

Category:Human rights in the Palestinian territories

Category:Human rights in the West Bank

Category:Human rights in the Gaza Strip

See also List of human rights articles by country. Disputed territories follow the same naming pattern. See Human rights in Western Sahara. So the names of the articles should be:

Human rights in the Palestinian territories

Human rights in the West Bank

Human rights in the Gaza Strip

Human rights in the Palestinian territories is not about human rights violations by the Israelis. Imagine that. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles on human rights always include the most egregious human rights violations. Along with some of the lesser ones. It would be against WP:NPOV to include the lesser ones only.

So Wikipedia is not following the norm in naming the articles, and in following WP:NPOV.--Timeshifter (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles on human rights deal with both the good, and the bad. You want an article focusing on "the most egregious human rights violations". That will not be done.

Your accusation of "POV-fork" seems to be the only lack of AGF attitude here. When that article was started, human rights issues both in Israel and in the territories were all mixed together. The data about the territories was written there (initially) by very pro-Palestinian users, by the way. The issues were sectioned to improve the order, since these are two different points of discussion. If you think that section should become an independent article, I have no objection. But I do object to your constant claims of bias, etc. No one's trying to hide anything, and this topic (the conflict) is among the better covered topics on this project. I'm sick and tired of reading these accusations. No one's at work trying to hide data. You may not like some way things are ordered, and that's fine. But realize, that while you think an article about the territories would be the way to go, other users will claim that moving that data from Israel's article is an attempt to hide Israel's "crimes", and that we shouldn't discuss only Israel itself there. That was clear from previous discussions.

Instead of accusing Wikipedia and Wikipedians of bias, you could have just posted a comment saying: "Hi, I see the issue of human rights in the territories is dealt with inside of Human rights in Israel. I think it would be better to split it to a separate article, what do you think?". You would have gotten a short, to-the-point discussion. Instead, you chose the accusative route, and got what you asked for. okedem (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The first thing I said about human rights info in this talk section was this: "It fits the pattern I have long pointed out concerning the lack of dedicated Wikipedia articles discussing human rights violations by Israel in the Israeli-occupied territories." We could waste further time discussing how this happened, and we could guess at the motivations of all involved (which I haven't done), or we could solve the problem. I am glad that you wrote: "If you think that section should become an independent article, I have no objection." By the way, saying that there may be systemic bias does not necessarily imply intention or motivation to hide anything. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's all about the attitude and assumptions. There was no editorial decision to not create an article about human rights in the territories. It's just that no one wrote it, and someone did write that info in Israel's article. Try to approach these things without assuming bias or anything, and just make suggestions. You'll find other users are much more receptive if you don't try to tie a specific point to some far-reaching bias or phenomenon.

Now, I did say something about your suggestion, beyond my non-objection to it. I guarantee you this - if you move the territories info from Israel's article to a dedicated article (probably with two sections, for Israel and the PA resp.), you will have claims by others that it's not right to discuss only Israel itself in Israel's article. Some will claim that this is an attempt to hide Israel's actions, and paint a rosier picture. Someone is bound to claim this is proof of Wikipedia's "Systematic bias". This will happen, and users will object. If you want to do this, be aware of that, and come up with good reasons to still do this. okedem (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, someone did create an article about Israel's human rights record in the Palestinian Territories during the Second Intifada. Here is a detailed revision history of the original page that existed from February 2004 until January 2007: [11] It was under various names, but the admins deleted the page by redirecting the page to Second Intifada. There was no consensus to do that. Here is the last name of the page: Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For the whole history please see: User:Timeshifter#Israeli human rights violations in the Palestinian territories. Here is a link to a userspace copy of the original page. As for moving the info from Human rights in Israel, I think the info should be moved into separate human rights articles for the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Those articles should cover the human rights record of all parties. If any article becomes too long we can split up that article into separate articles. For example; Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority, Israel's human rights record in the West Bank, and Israel's human rights record in the Gaza Strip. I think Human rights in the Palestinian territories should become a disambiguation page instead of being a redirect as it is now. Currently it redirects to Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority. Here is its history: Human rights in the Palestinian territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Timeshifter (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but all that sounds unworkable, and would not add much to the articles. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it seems unneccesary to group the record on Israel's treatment of the Palestinians with that of the Palestinian Authority. one is the duly elected representatives of the Palestinian people, the other is an occupying force. there is no comparison or equivalence between the two, and there is no reason to place them on any sort of equal footing. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in here: Although one would not normally expect me to agree with Timeshifter on a controversy in this subject area, I do think there is potential merit to the last suggestion in his most recent post. That is, change Human rights in the Palestinian territories from a redirect to a disambiguation page, but only if the links on this disambiguation page are limited to the two relevant "Human rights" articles/sections. That is, Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority and Human rights in Israel#Human rights record in the Occupied Territories. That way, someone searching on "human rights in the Palestinian territories" will be sure to find a page that lets them choose between the two articles that, at least arguably, pertain to the topic they searched for. (I say "at least arguably" because the phrase "Occupied Territories" is arguably non-NPOV, and with regard to certain land is definitely non-NPOV, but that is what the Human rights in Israel article contains at the moment, so lets leave that issue aside.) What I don't want to see happen, however, is for that disambiguation page to become loaded up with links to every article that anybody thinks has something to do with human rights, because that will just shift the dispute rather than resolving it. So how about, as a compromise, turning that page into a disambiguation page with just those two items? 6SJ7 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression of a muddying of the matter at hand. As is often the case on I-P articles, someone uses language that offends us and then we stop listening to the substance of their argument. I think the issue Carol raised is probably a bit different from that discussed by Timeshifter, and I would like to hear more from her(him?) about this, if possible. Also, although I understand what was written above, I'm unclear about the essence of Timeshifter's proposal, as well as Sm and Okedem's opposition. Timeshifter, could you state your proposal in a sentence, and Sm and Okedem, could you state your reasons for your opposition? Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa. I think that 6SJ7's idea is a good start. Changing Human rights in the Palestinian Territories from a redirect page to a tightly-focussed disambiguation page would solve many of the problems that I see. That disambiguation page needs to link to 2 articles: Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority and Israel's human rights record in the Palestinian Territories. I think that "Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority" should be renamed to "Human rights record of the Palestinian National Authority" to make it clearer. There is way too much material concerning all sides to put it all in one page called "Human rights in the Palestinian Territories." So the disambiguation page is necessary. In reply to okedem's concerns about transferring most of the relevant info from Human rights in Israel there can be a summary there that links to "Human rights in the Palestinian Territories." --Timeshifter (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to the disambiguation suggestion. However, why even include a summary in Israel's article? Wouldn't that imply, as now, that the territories are a part of Israel? (in general, we make separate articles out of specific sections when they grow too large - but that doesn't change their hierarchy). okedem (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me either way if there is a summary in Human rights in Israel, nor what it implies. Wikipedia does not take sides. People have to make up their own minds. There is material in several articles that can be transferred or copied to "Israel's human rights record in the Palestinian Territories". The editors of those articles have to decide whether they want to summarize any of the info in those articles, and how they will link to "Israel's human rights record in the Palestinian Territories". See also Wikipedia:Splitting, Wikipedia:Article size, and Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If timeshifter wants, perhaps he can put some material together as a draft version, and maybe that might help us to discuss it more clearly. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise, slightly above, which could avoid a lot of drafting: Changing a redirect page into a disambiguation page, with two items. Details above. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa, please re-read my comments. I'm not opposed to the suggestion. I don't really care either way. It's just an ordering question, simple editorial choice, not about content. I am saying there will be opposition from other editors, who will claim that removing the territories info from Israel's human rights article is wrong, and is an attempt to "hide to the truth". Believe me, such claims will be made. I only wonder if Timeshifter (or others supporting this move) will be there to argue with those users, or will we end up with Israel's article being full, again, with irrelevant territories info. okedem (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this point I understood - in fact, I would be one of those working hard not to see such information transplanted. But I wonder if there is no contradiction between keeping other articles as they are and what Carol, suggests. I still do not know, however, because I don't know for certain what she is proposing, or for what purpose. I do think more explanation of her proposal is required.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeshifter sort of hitched a ride on this section. Carol seems to be suggesting an article about international opinions regarding the occupation. I'm not sure such an article is necessary, as we do have a lot of information about that, just in specific articles, regarding specific issues. Israeli-occupied territories seems like the natural place for that. Maybe a section there? okedem (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

Isn't there already an article on this topic? Second Intifada, perhaps? ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not a dedicated article about human rights violations by the Israelis, nor opposition, nor protests, nor worldwide government and popular positions. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Human rights violations by israel are not a notable topic. "Human rights record" is an encyclopedic topic; "human rights violation" is clearly unencyclopedic, with clear political motivations. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, while we're on the topic, can we create an article like Violations by Israel of every standard of human conduct, decency and democracy? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm8900 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 September 2008

If you want to create it, go ahead. No-one is stopping you. Meanwhile, could you stop (uncharacteristically) maligning the perceived motivations of those you disagree with, and return to the issues? RolandR (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to do so. thanks for your constructive message. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a good start in organizing the material on human rights in the Palestinian territories would be to catalog the existing articles in the categories that have already been defined. For example, the article on Muhammad al-Durrah certainly belongs in the category Category:Human rights in the Gaza Strip, as do the articles on First Intifada and Second Intifada. The article Human rights in Israel should be included in the categories defined, as well.

Once we have identified all the existing articles on human rights in the Palestinian territories, we will be in a better position to determine whether the information should be reorganized and expanded to make it more accessible.

I certainly agree with Timeshifter that the way the information is currently organized makes it hard for a reader to get a clear or comprehensive understanding of the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As usual, an excellent suggestion from Ravpapa. Doing an inventory by category would help us greatly in filling in the blanks. I'll try to start tagging articles soon. Tiamut^talk 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I went pretty much AWOL after starting this thread and in the meantime did learn a lot more about categories, so maybe if I asked the question now I'd start at that point :-) So is "Category:Palestine" the best starting point? I noticed a couple categories on Israel under it. I also noticed that none of the 22 categories under "Category:Israel" mentioned Palestine. If you dig into some categories, of course, you'll find Arab and/or Palestine mentioned. And I don't know if any articles are in both categories, assuming one digs deep enough.

Maybe the answer to my initial specific question is the creation of a "Category: Supporters of Palestinian rights" or something would be good. And then all sorts of individuals and activist groups could be put under it! And there might be more motivation to fill in any missing blanks with relevant articles. :-) Carol Moore 03:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

See also:

Category:Palestinian territories.

Category:Non-governmental organizations involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Category:Jewish anti-occupation groups

Here is a search of wikipedia that lists categories with "supporters" in the name:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+Category+supporters

Those category name search results may help in deciding on similar category names in this topic area. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And these are all under Category:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict I guess one has to study this section carefully. Portal:Contents. I don't think it's as user friendly as could be; "features" too far up, sayying index and indexes instead of indices would help a lot of people; maybe I'll comment there. Carol Moore 18:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Dispute on "Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict"

There is an editing dispute on Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict regarding this diff. Outside input would be greatly appreciated. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 05:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is not really about the article, but about the infobox {{Template:Infobox Arab-Israeli conflict}}, and specifically about the image in that infobox. I have made a really radical suggestion about this, and welcome comments. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys are funny

Quote1: "Is the military operation tab in the infobox necessary? Can't the relevant operation be put down as one of the causes of depopulation? -- Nudve (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote2: "I agree, but in the end this isn't so important because the entire template is redundant. The current one is much better"

Answer to both gentlemen: I dont know you, but I can put it fairly short: It is none of your business. I am here to help the palestinian side getting their Catastrophe (Nakba) portrayed more fairly. They are the underdog, so I take it that Mr. "Ynhockey" is not from England, or any places influenced by English civilisation, as i can convey to him, that we take pride in being on the side of the underdog. Israel is the most powerful country in the Mideast and the worlds fourth biggest nuclear weapons stockpile, while we here are dealing with a people, which have been forcefully thrown out of their ancestal home, and whose descendents are often stateless. If these one million people - today more then 2,5 million - had not been thrown out, they would have altered the whole political outfit of the entity that today are refferred to under the term 'Israel'.- and that was ultimately the reason why they were expelled.

As a matter of course the name of the military operations should be mentioned, as well as the brigades. And I chose the blue colour because it is the lovely israeli blue colour that Mr. "Ynhockey" loves so much, so arent you happy Mr "Ynhockey"? How the template looked before, and whether "you" think it was better, is no business to you, but first and foremost to the palestinians, who like what I have made.Nick Finnsbury (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nick Finnsbury, Wikipedia is not a Palestinian encyclopedia, and comments like the above will not get you very far. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:DR, and return with a constructive comment on why the template should be kept. I will propose the template for deletion tomorrow if the concerns Nudve and I posted about above are not addressed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have listed the infobox for deletion here. Comments are welcome on the TfD page. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable to bring up comparisons to socalled 'shoah' as the Nakba happened as a result of influx of (to many) jews. That upset the balance

It is not acceptable to bring up comparisons like these, It shows a selfcentredness to the extreme; the palestinians are the wounded part, who have had their land taken away from them. Think about them : They have to read about 'Shoah and Holocaust' in discussions about Nakba, and some even question the extend and seriousness of it!! Shame on you! Nudwe should have refused to discuss any further once the world 'Shoah' was mentioned.Nick Finnsbury (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about the 'list of villages depopulated in the(Arab-Israeli war 1948?

This is based in its entirety of a list of the similar name that exist in an article, that you can find, if you search for it.Nick Finnsbury (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote of the day:>That will not get you very far<

So you have supporters in higher places ready to support you? We will see. If they really do support you, we will have wikipedias bias laid our bare. They will present the israeli view, as very many of the (administrator)editors are honorary descendants of the distingiushed israelites. In a context like the israeli-palestinians one has to apply a meassure of largesse. Israel is the most powerful country in the mideast and number 4 in the world when it comes to possesion of nuclear weapons. What is more, it - and especially its powerful lobby in The United States - are able to steer the worlds only superpower into wars, that is not in its national interest, and that it has to provide the soldiers to as well as foot the bill! So we aggree we are talkinmg about a very powerful country? OKAY. Now if this country and its supporters start to use its influence in editing the history of the palestinians - a poor people that have had their countrey taken awaqy from it wuithout any compensation whatsoever,- that will be the day!!! In that case, I it will be my pleasure, if I cannot venture any further into the realms of this online encyclopedia.Nick Finnsbury (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nick, this is the wrong page to get into this type of discussion. We are trying to "collaborate" (not in the Hebrew or Arabic sense) with one another here. I have not looked into the details of the above discussion, but through a quick scan, I can see that you are approaching this issue from a regular talk page perspective. This is not a 'regular talk page', in that at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration we all agree not to violate WP:CIVIL for more than an instant. It's important not to set a precedent for incivility here. Please take this discussion to the talk page YNHockney set up for discussion of the templates. Only come here to make constructive arguments about resolving the issue with community-wide input. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Icehockey need to state right here: Which Template do he refer to

He mixes the two templates that I have made, together, to an extend so taht it is impossible to figure out, which one he refers to, and wamts deleted. He need very clearly to state which one he means should be deleted (?) and why, so that we are able to adress the concerns, he have.Nick Finnsbury (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete HonestReporting?

For some reason, there is currently a discussion about whether the organization HonestReporting meets the notability requirements to have a Wikipedia article. Whether you agree with HonestReporting or disagree with HonestReporting, isn't it quite obviously notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Certainly it's more notable than, for example, the Tara Foundation. In any event, whether you think that we should keep HonestReporting or whether you think that the article should be deleted for somehow not being notable enough, the vote is taking place here. Your feedback at that page would be greatly appreciated. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have voted to keep that article too - but let's not fool ourselves, this is not an RS, it's a reckless attack-dog that specialising in poisoning the debate. Our article should be geently leading our readers towards deeply unpleasant articles like this one "media's favorite Palestinian spokespersons, such as Saeb Erekat - a practiced liar if ever there was one". PR^talk 08:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that site, but the name reminds me of all sorts of "Democratic Republics", etc... okedem (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a very important organization and notable. I do not share PR's views on it at all. More honest reporting with regard to the issues in Israel is what is needed. They have uncovered a lot of troubling material and bias in the media. The work that they do has brought many newspapers to make many corrections upon being proved wrong by many readers. It would seem to me that if their "notability" was in question we could easily find all these corrections (thanks to HR's work) throughout many reliable sources. --Einsteindonut (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dignity to all

(cross-posted at AN/I)

The CU result found out Saxophonemn and Einsteindonut editing from different locations but using the same user agent. Saxophonemn identified himself later on. I then unblocked him with a "I trust[ed] user's e-mails to prove innocence" rationale.

I hope that would stop the never-ending mutual accusations and provocations. I amazed by all those cartoons and incivility (Eleland), Mark Twain's irrelevant quote (Saxophonemn) video (Einsteindonut) and Jaakobou (comments directed at Tiamut a few weeks earlier), etc... Do we still block for wp:POINT, unnecessary and inflammatory acts?

Admins, please sort out the mess with objectivity and profesionalism and please stop arguing about WP:UNINVOLVED. This message is directed mainly to ChrisO and Elonka. I urge both of these admins to stop it or let others deal with the sitaution(s).

Partisans, please don't flood threads with repetitive wikilawyering.

To everyone, there's one important thing to all of us... Dignity. To understand racism we must first understand dignity. Let's start with this... Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them. (Aristotle)

P.S. By the way Erik, CU on oneself to prove innocence "are rarely accepted, please do not ask." And the issue of Saxophonemn/Einsteindonut has already been clarified. As I said above, accusations of sockpuppetry should stop. Any further accusation would be faced by a block. And any further provocative comments from any side would be faced with harsh blocks. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 03:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory comments regularly appear and are bound to impinge upon the apparent fitness of editors to edit on difficult topics. However, CIVIL does not ultimately impinge on the product - whereas RS and UNDUE (along with V, OR etc) are at the core of it. Wilfully ignoring these latter policies is a really major problem (always has been). But at least in the past, we were paying lip-service to the concept and control of WP:DE or "disruptive editing" - why has that changed? In more and more places, TalkPage discussion is being killed by straightforward denial of what's in the sources (eg here). Honest editors cannot fight this other than by accusing other editors of being parsimonious with the verité - where are the administrators when we need them? (I have run the above example by several, experienced, editors in the project. One of the most trusted has confirmed there is nothing to say that the RS newspaper article in question was ever retracted). I could go to some effort to correct what might (just conceivably) be an honest mistake (as most of my valued helpers would probably wish me to do), but the consequence of doing so is often highly personalised and nonsensical additions from editors who have clearly and repeatedly been told to avoid me. Again, where are the administrators? PR^talk 17:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We should all shut up and get back to work. There is such a thing also as the dignity of work, and that is what we are supposed to be doing here. Fayssal has said it all. And this is the last I have to say, even if provoked to start another boring thread.Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Village depopulation template (again)

My last concerns about this template have been buried under a mile of rubble, so I'm re-starting the discussion, with a related issue: on the template {{Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War}}, two completely irrelevant images exist, but because only 2 editors (Timeshifter and myself) are participating in the discussion, and neither side accepts the other's viewpoint, there is no way to gain consensus. I request that the editors of IPCOLL review the arguments from both sides, and insert their 2 cents about whether these images are relevant, should be removed, or perhaps another idea neither of us has thought of. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Controversies related to Israel" article??

While looking around at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CAIR_Watch I noticed at CAIR Watch this template which links to this article Controversies_related_to_Islam_and_Muslims which of course is quite biased. Can you imagine if anyone tried to start "Controversies related to Jews and Israel?" However, maybe a factual "Controversies related to Israel" article would be warranted, if someone else wants to start it. Carol Moore 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

This is interesting: Category:Religious controversies. It seems there are whole categories on "dangerous" Islamic expansionism. Such as Category:Eurabia, a subcategory of Category:Islam-related controversies.

I don't see an equivalent number of categories and subcategories dedicated to "dangerous" Christian expansionism, and "dangerous" Jewish expansionism. They are not filled out as much, nor do they cover the political and territorial side of their respective "dangerous" expansionisms as much. See: Category:Christianity-related controversies and Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies. This is a typical Western systemic bias. See WP:CSB. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see such a big problem with this because it's a simple navigational list, but don't think it should be ethnically or nationally-based. Therefore, 'Controversies related to Islam' or 'Controversies related to Judaism' would be alright, but 'Controversices related to Syria' or 'Controversies related to Israel' would not. My reasoning is that religions are controversial, even the most peaceful ones, and we shouldn't censor something as harmful as a list, and because they are followed out of choice, I don't see this as racist. However, controversies about countries or ethnicities imply that they involve all members of said country/ethnicity, which is clearly racist and inappropriate. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for category links. I'm still not great at navigating my way through them!

I don't think controversies about countries are bigoted as long they are about specific acts of governments or businesses or organizations or citizen attitudes statistically supported by reputable polling and other techniques. Obviously some countries have more controversies than others (i.e. Israel many, Norway relatively few) and if there are too many for a subsection, they might deserve an article. I note the Israel article doesn't have a controversies section or even a See Also section. Carol Moore 02:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Here are my two cents on the topic:

1. A "controversies" article is legitimate if:
   1. The controversy does, indeed, exist.
   2. The controversy extends beyond extreme/fringe groups and has a scholarly basis.
2. A "controversies" article should not be created to "take revenge" or "counter-balance" another controversies article.
3. A "controversies" article should be careful to avoid material of extreme/fringe/hate groups.
4. Given the above, the subject of the controversy doesn't matter.

I think a controversies article on Israel is perfectly reasonable, since there are legitimate controversies with regard to the political decisions made by the Israeli government. I am more than a little concerned about a "Judaism-related controversies" article, though, since I could see such an article easily going into anti-Semitic content. Perhaps a "Controversies within Judaism" rather "Controversies related to Judaism" article would be more appropriate.
← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 08:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to any such thing. "Controversies" is a meaningless categorization. Any such "controversies", if they are notable, should be dealt with in their respective topic articles (such as - foreign relations, occupied territories, human rights, settlements, etc.) okedem (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

@Michael Safyan - congratulations on summing up the serious danger of one of these proposals and the uncontroversial nature of the other one! PR^talk 12:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: in this "controversies" context, which country would be listed down for the killing of Mughniyeh? Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Qatar... ? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with okedem. For all X, I oppose having an article called "Controversies related to X". All Wikipedia articles describe controversies when there are controversies related to their subject matter (WP:NPOV). If there isn't enough room in the "Israel" article for all the controversies related to Israel, then subtopic articles can be split off with specific subtopics. The title of each article should be NPOV. In any article, describing anti-Semitism (or any other POV) is OK if relevant to the topic; writing from such a POV (or any other specific POV) is not OK. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First, remember this discussion was started because of an existing article Controversies_related_to_Islam_and_Muslims. That was before I was told there was a whole Category:Religious controversies. (Some feel it is biased to include too many articles about-or against-Islam.) So starting a Category:Israel-related controversies and linking to existing articles on the occupation, Dier Yassin, Israel's nuclear program, the Samson Option, USS Liberty, various wars of aggression, etc. etc. is an option. And if someone feels there are enough controversies to add a section in the Israel article and then to spill over into a Controversies Related to Israel article, obviously the usual WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. policies apply. Carol Moore 12:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

BLP violations on Gilad Atzmon

This article has been pretty quiet for a while but a couple of POV, insulting editors have come along and started making POV edits and reverting changes, and making no or questionable excuses on talk page. Thus my "Incident Report" - October 26: Serious BLP violations on Gilad Atzmon described here. Yet an administrator threatens WP:3RR (3 revert rule] - ignoring Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions - while refusing to detail his specific concern on the articles talk page! If this keeps up, what options should I pursue of those listed on the main page of this article? Thanks. Carolmooredc 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed "What's Happening report" on article page because discussion ensued and therefore putting discussion here:Carolmooredc 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with Carole's summary above. There has indeed been an edit war on the article, but it seems to me that the POV edits and arbitrary (mis)use of sources have come from both sides. It is true that other editors have made uncalled for attacks on Carole in edit summaries, and action should be taken against this. But the issue here is a content dispute, in which Carole and I take different positions. I'm not sure it is a matter for this project. RolandR (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Roland hasn't commented on the talk page since May 28, including answering recent comments on his recent edits, I am glad to see evidence he is willing to do so. Also the admin is now denying his repeated reminders were threats. But it certainly does feel like one of those situations that the original Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles was created to deal with which is why I brought it here. However, obviously I prefer to deal with issues on the talk page, if people are willing to talk and not just revert away. Carolmooredc 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Two new templates

I'm concerned about two new templates that have been created/heavily modified by User:Nick Finnsbury: {{Villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict}} and {{Infobox Arab villages depopulated}}. I have started a discussion about the first in its own talk page. The second one - I just think it's inferior to the previous template, with which there's really nothing wrong. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the military operation tab in the infobox necessary? Can't the relevant operation be put down as one of the causes of depopulation? -- Nudve (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but in the end this isn't so important because the entire template is redundant. The current one is much better because it doesn't have any symbols (such as the Israeli CoA), is more compact, and technically far superior (e.g. has optional fields). Moreover, the new template displays clear POV due to its required fields, which are exactly the same fields used by palestineremembered.com, which has long since been branded an unreliable and undesirable source. Similar things can be said about the first template, even though that case is different because there's no current alternative (so it should be modified rather than deleted). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Has Nick Finnsbury been informed? -- Nudve (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not personally, but as I said, I have started a discussion at Template talk:Villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict, to which Nick Finnsbury has not replied. Not sure what to make of it, but I'll make sure to notify him if it is clear that he won't reply. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

JIDF and WP:IPCOLL, Interesting Overlap

I have been away on vacation, followed by a frustration-induced wiki-break upon return, but have been back on wiki for a while now, editing and commenting along. This week, I learned that I have been classified as one of the “heavily biased anti-Israel” editors[12] at Wikipedia. I checked the IPCOLL archives for the period during my absence and found this subject has not been raised, so I am raising it, because I feel it significant for this page. I have yet to fully digest the implications of such a classification or my response to it, but I will state the following, simply. I am not anti-Israel, but understand that my life, learning and biases might seem that way to some (and I was overly up-front about that). I am pro-Peace and understand that that bias alone provokes JIDF and their ilk, particularly the post-’67, post-Begin Eretz Israel Zionist zealots. So be it. My noted biases are much different than my commitment to NPOV on Wikipedia where the proof is in one’s article edits, not one’s biases. I can not and will not speak for others; they may or may not do it for themselves.

I want to point out that nine of the 19 listed ‘anti-Israel’ editors (47%) are members of IPCOLL and constitute about a quarter of IPCOLL’s membership. A further 4 listed editors (no overlap) are either named or participated in the RfA that birthed IPCOLL, although many members here can claim that distinction. What does all this mean or foretell; frankly I don’t know. I will surmise that they are suspicious of a) about half the people who ended up being cited in the RfA, b) about half the people who where not cited but defended similar positions, and c) many people who are oppositely POV’d but are particularly willing to collaborate. To me, it indicates an aversion to arbitration, collaboration, WP:AGF and NPOV on JIDF’s part, all basic wiki tenents. It may indicate that other editors with similar alternative knowledge, WP:RSs, bias, and wiki-skills, many of whom are here, will likely end up on the list as it is updated.

I’d be interested to hear and learn what some of the non-listed IPCOLL members think, collaboratively. Happy editing. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Should I Jewish Internet Defense Force ( admin@thejidf.org ) a snotty message about being genocidal sexists for not mentioning me?? :-) Who do they think spearheaded turning Jewish Lobby into a more NPOV article, with lots of help from my friends. Who has tried to make sure every description of what was said by or about Gilad Atzmon was accurate and source-based? Who promotes a libertarian decentralist view of Israel existing in noncontiguous tiny areas of justly acquired land (10-15%). Who organized 4 of the 5 last protests at the DC AIPAC annual convention? Just look at my contributions you sexist pigs! Give me my day in the sun!!! (They should be glad I'm wasting so much time on wikipedia instead of really causing trouble with serious organizing.)

On a more serious note, obviously if I had a job where I was worried about getting fired for such editing I'd be worried. And there is the issue of whether to cover their attacks on wiki users in Jewish Internet Defense Force - or to use this as an excuse to delete the article. (I assume it's been through an AfD and helpful to post that link if you have it.) Carol Moore 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Well, my name is up there in lights, and I am not amused. The innocuous-sounding "Doing a simple search for "Pedrito" yields [..]" is, of course, hogwash. Also, the diff showing where I was allegedly "stripping out important context" shows me adding context and not removing a single character of text. So apart from being evil, they're also morons?

I used to edit here under my real name but gave it up when I realized that some half-assed crazies, who incidentally don't have the balls to write under their real names, might start accusing me of anti-Semitism, as they have done with other editors. How charming.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.10.2008 16:11

Actually, I make light of it because even in progressive peace and libertarian groups and email lists there are always those one or two people who scream antisemite at the slightest criticism of the state of Israel -- even if you start by posting articles from moderate Israeli and Jewish peace groups! (Which became my little test to out the screamers in any new email list I might join.) Not to mention if you get a little more hard core. And I'm the type of person who, the more they scream it, the more hardcore stuff I post. (Though it can get tiring, so my engaging in the debate tends to be episodic, like my editing on the topic here.) So unless one has a very public persona and/or hard shell it probably is best to use a handle when editing these articles. But let's face it, if suddenly there were hundreds of wiki editors and millions of emailers and letter writers and protesters willing to tell the WP:RS truth and protest the nonsense, maybe eventually the intimidators would find they'd lost their power and give up. It's just good nonviolent action. Carol Moore 21:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists

Category:Palestinian terrorists is a subcategory of Category:Terrorists by nationality.

Category:Islamist terrorists is a subcategory of Category:Religious terrorism.

Why is there no Category:Jewish terrorists?

And why is there no Category:Israeli terrorists?

I just heard on National Public Radio here in the USA today of yet another attack by Israeli Jewish fundamentalist settlers rampaging in a Palestinian village. NPR reported that some are calling it a terrorist attack. They have killed many Palestinian civilians in various attacks over decades. They are frequently called terrorists by many reliable sources.

Also, many of the founding militant organizations of Israel have been called terrorists by Western governments and mainstream media. That means some of the members of these organizations should be categorized under Category:Israeli terrorists. They killed many Palestinian civilians before, during, and after the founding of Israel.

For many examples of terrorism by Israelis, and by Jewish militants before and during the founding of Israel see:

• Category:Jewish terrorism
• Cave of the Patriarchs massacre
• Gush Emunim Underground
• Jewish Defense League
• Haganah
• Kach and Kahane Chai
• Israeli settlement#Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights
• Human rights in Israel#Human rights record in the Occupied Territories
• User:Timeshifter/Al-Aqsa Intifada Archive. Old page
• Image:Intifada deaths.svg
• Category:Second Intifada casualties
• List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada
• Irgun
• History of terrorism#Irgun (1936-1948)
• Lehi (group)
• Zionist political violence
• Category:Massacres in Palestine

The lack of this category Category:Israeli terrorists is another example of Western systemic bias. Please see WP:Countering systemic bias. Wikipedia must honor WP:NPOV more systematically. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The leaders of the military wings of these groups when they were attacking trains etc. could certainly be labelled as terrorists, as can the perpertrators. The assassin of Yitzhak Rabin would certainly count as another example of an Israeli terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 October 2008

I also just found this:

List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s

Someone just tried to remove Irgun from Category:Jewish terrorism. See also: History of terrorism#Irgun (1936-1948). --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read Jewish terrorism - Jewish terrorism is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Judaism. Irgun does not fit this. NoCal100 (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) From Irgun (emphasis added):

The Irgun was the armed expression of the nascent ideology of Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. He expressed this ideology as "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".[1] Initially, a central part of their efforts included attacks against Palestinian Arabs,[2] but it increasingly shifted to attacks against the British. Some of the better-known attacks by Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with the Stern Gang) on 9 April 1948. In the West, Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by The New York Times newspaper,[3][4] and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry.[5] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare".[6]

See also: History of terrorism#Irgun (1936-1948). --Timeshifter (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you apparently don't know this, 'Jew' is an ethnicity. The religion you might be thinking about is 'Judaism'. Nothing in the text you quote above suggests that the Irgun's motivations were rooted in their interpretations of Judaism. The article and category is for religiously-motivated terrorism. NoCal100 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions. See Who is a Jew?. The category is called "Jewish terrorism". See Category:Jewish terrorism. The articles listed in that category fit the template requirements at the top of the page. There is no requirement that "Jewish" must mean only one definition of the word. Admins don't look kindly on this type of semantic wikilawyering. Are you aware of this?: Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#ArbCom authorizes discretionary sanctions. I noticed that you also removed the category from List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've quoted to you from the article on Jewish terrorism, and will do so again: Jewish terrorism is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Judaism. Irgun does not fit this. I notice also that the category used to include a similar clarification ("This category is purely for Jewish Religious terrorism. ") which someone removed. I will restore that to make it clearer. NoCal100 (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the editors of the category wanted the qualifier. The editor who originally added the qualifier removed it. You put it back just now. See the history of Category:Jewish terrorism. Irgun's motivations are rooted in their Judaism. No amount of semantics changes this. They weren't hiding it. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NoCal100 on this. Attacks by the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Group should not be included in a category of Jewish terrorism any more than attacks by Fatah, PFLP or even Hizballah should be included in Islamic terrorism. What we need, in fact, is a category for Zionist terrorism, which could include these and other pages. RolandR (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Fatah, PFLP, and Hizballah membership mainly Moslem? Have they committed terrorist acts? If so, then they belong in the category for Islamic terrorists. Haganah, Irgun and Stern Group are all Jewish groups that were trying to create a Jewish state, and they committed terrorist acts. All of the above-mentioned groups meet the criteria of the category template: {{Terrorism category definition}}. There has also been a CFD discussion. See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25#Unqualified "Terrorism". If people want to create more narrow categories, then they need to make the category name itself clearer. Category trees start from the general and then go down to more specific subcategories. So Category:Zionist terrorism would be a subcategory of Category:Jewish terrorism.--Timeshifter (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think NoCal100 and RolandR are onto something here. The terrorism related to the Northern Irish troubles was at one point reported in Britain as Catholic or Protestant, but was actually between rival nationalisms and was eventually described as either Loyalist or Republican in the British media. Zionism is the nationalism of Jews as Jews and that rather than the religion is what should be labelled. If the religious groups on Israel got beyond shaking their fists and shouting at people who drive on Shabbas and start blowing them up, then that would be Jewish terrorism as a form of religious terrorism. The current classification of the Zionist terrorist as Jewish terrorism laced in turn under religious terrorism is misleading.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Category inclusion is always less nuanced than what articles and lists can do. So we either eliminate "terrorism" and "terrorist" from category names, or we accept that category inclusion is imperfect. We can point out in the religious terrorism/terrorist category introduction template that just because an organization or individual is included in a category does not necessarily mean that the organization or individual is strictly religiously focussed, nor can all their activities be labeled as terrorist. We can point out the intersection of religion and nationalism, and can add "see also" links to some of the nationalism categories and subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) NoCal100 has been blocked. Here is his block log: [13] - 19:18, 31 October 2008 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎(Edit warring: Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing and Reactions to the September 11 attacks.) --Timeshifter (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have discussed this issue of inclusion in Category:Jewish terrorism at Talk:Lehi (group). There will probably have to be a CFD discussion concerning Category:Religious terrorism and its subcategories. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually see any discussion of this issue at Talk:Lehi (group). Regardless, it is clear from the discussion above that you do not have consensus for including this category at Irgun or other similar articles, so please stop disruptively adding it against consensus. NoCal100 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not looking very hard. There is an old talk section named after the category in question. Several editors have pointed out the terrorist acts of the Irgun, and a similar organization, Lehi (group). Both on their talk pages, in the edit histories, etc.. Also, at List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s, and at History of terrorism#Irgun (1936-1948). And their talk pages, too. Lehi (group) has been listed for awhile under Category:Jewish terrorism. Only one editor, you, has removed the category recently from Irgun. Editors are discussing the terrorist acts of these groups in several locations, and discussion is fluid and continuing. You are the only editor insistent on removing this category from Irgun. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion you are referring to is 6 months old, and it ended with the category EXCLUDED from the article. Please get consensus for your controversial change first. NoCal100 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is 4, not 6 months old, and did not end with the category excluded from the article. So far, nobody has come up with a proper argument why the category does not apply, besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT and some contorted derivatives of it. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether 4 or 6 month old, it is not a current discussion, and it most certainly ended with the category excluded from the article. It was only very recently re-introduced, on Oct 20, and was immediately removed as inappropriate, by another editor. You don't appear to have read the reason for its exclusion, which has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The reason is that the category, as well as the article are explicitly for acts which are religiously motivated - and the Irgun's actions are not. NoCal100 (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that this discussion might best take place at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Terrorism. It certainly was inappropriate that Irgun had no terrorist categories prior to Timeshifter adding one. Whether it was the right one is another matter. I notice that with groups like Red Hand Commandos you sometimes have to follow up the tree to get to a terrorist label. Also that the terrorist label is attached to a state having banned the organisation. It is claiemd (but citation is needed) that the British authorities did label Irgun a terrorist SO if the evidence were produced, that would give a route for labelling the group--Peter cohen (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it also inappropriate that PLO has no terrorist categories, despite the fact that the article itself has a lengthy section detailing its terrorist activities? NoCal100 (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a red category label there. Although I think "former" is the wrong word and it should be "formerly".--Peter cohen (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So, there's no link to an actual, existing category. Is that appropriate? NoCal100 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't hard to create one. Unless you know of a previous deletion.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed it - seems someone used the wring name. Do you know how to get rid of the redlink that's currently there, for a merge discussion started in 2006? NoCal100 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like whoever created the cat thought in the same way as me. As far as the other redlink is concerned, can't you just remove it? Or ask about it at one of the village pump pages or something.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Zionist terrorism

For now I will go along with what has been said by Peter Cohen, RolandR, NoCal100, etc.. Category:Zionist terrorism is a better category according to them to add to Irgun, Lehi (group) etc.. Versus Category:Jewish terrorism. I think both categories apply, though.

Otherwise, why isn't the Taliban categorized under some name like Category:Afghani nationalist terrorism? Instead of its current categorization under Category:Islamic terrorism? Both the Taliban and the Zionist groups were oriented towards territory and religion.

I could see why the PLO and Fatah might be categorized in the past under some form of nationalist terrorism category such as Category:Palestinian terrorists. Versus Hamas which is much more focussed on religion. Hamas is currently categorized under Category:Islamic terrorism. Why is Hamas classified under different rules than the Irgun? It is a systemic bias. Especially when you consider that both fought for the same territory, and both are religiously and ethnically oriented. It seems like a double standard to me.

Also, back to my original question at the beginning of this talk section (see #Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists above this subsection). Where do many of the Israeli settlers fit in? From Israeli settlement:

Furthermore, the term "settler" is often associated with the primarily Religious Zionist movement, and other settler populations (such as the Haredi residents of Betar Illit and Modi'in Illit) do not associate themselves with it.[5]

How do we classify some of the terrorist attacks, killings, and bombings by the more religiously-oriented settlers? --Timeshifter (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional input is sought at Talk:Irgun#Category:Zionist terrorism. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

CFD discussions

There are a couple current CFD discussions that people might be interested in. Please see these 2 discussions linked below. One is above the other on the same page.

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 4#Category:Palestinian terrorism
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 4#Category:Nationalist terrorism --Timeshifter (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"See also" section

Note: The following discussion started at Category talk:Zionist terrorism.

See [14]. Jayjg removed the "See also" section with this edit summary:

categories don't have "see also" section, and the catmain was incorrect

"See also" sections are common in categories. For example; see Template:Cat see also

There is more info at: meta:Help:Category#"See also" for categories

{{Catmain}} created a link to Zionist terrorism in the form of

"The main article for this category is Zionist terrorism."

Zionist terrorism redirects to Zionist political violence. Click Zionist terrorism to see what I mean. So I moved the Zionist political violence link to the "see also" section.--Timeshifter (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

They are not, in fact, "common", aren't done the way you did them, and the See Alsos were not helpful in any event. The Template is supposed to be used as you see in Category:The Beatles albums, which has a see also to Category:The Beatles songs, not for wildly different categories. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) They are very common. And the fact that you removed all the "see also" links speaks volumes. Here is the list of links you removed:

See also:

• Zionist political violence
• Definitions of terrorism
• History of terrorism#Irgun (1936-1948)
• Nationalist terrorism
• Religious terrorism
• Category:Jewish terrorism
• Category:Islamic terrorism

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists and its talk subsection on Category:Zionist terrorism. All the above links were discussed there. "See also" links are supposed to go to clarifying and related articles and categories. They help readers figure out category inclusion rules, and the meaning of category names. They help readers find what they are looking for.

I guess I will have to take this to an admin notice board since we have wildly different experiences in the uses of "see also" lists in categories. I have thousands of edits in categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Though you claim that "See also" sections are "very common" in categories, I have only found them in about 30 categories, and those were all inserted in the past week by you. Do you have any examples of Categories with "See also" sections that were not inserted by you? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) According to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits you have over 65,000 edits. I am listed there with around 15,000 edits. At Category talk:Zionist terrorism you said concerning 'see also' links "I don't recall ever seeing any, in over four years of editing Wikipedia." Maybe this is because you see and remember only what you want to see and remember? Click the "what links here" links for Template:Cat see also, Template:CatRel, and Template:See also cat. Also see the over 23,000 results from this Google category search for "see also":

• http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also%22

Template:Cat see also is for multiple "see also" links.

See also the categories Zionist terrorism, Nationalist terrorism, and Terrorism by genre

The above line of "see also" links is produced by this:

{{Cat see also|Zionist terrorism|Nationalist terrorism|Terrorism by genre}}

Most people do not use the template.

See also:

• Category:Zionist terrorism
• Category:Nationalist terrorism
• Category:Terrorism by genre

See also: Category:Zionist terrorism, Category:Nationalist terrorism, Category:Terrorism by genre

See also these categories: Zionist terrorism, Nationalist terrorism, Terrorism by genre --Timeshifter (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of see also templates for category pages ({{Cat see also}} or {{CatRel}}) should be judicious. If there are specific categories that are related and are not sub-categories, then a few links to other categories may be useful., but only of directly related (i.e. not parent or child categories, but obvious ones that can be useful). Also important is to avoid guilt by association. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You, Jossi, and Jayjg removed many non-controversial "see also" links from around 20 categories. In his edit summaries Jayjg said that "see also" links aren't allowed on category pages. As shown above he is wrong on this. You went and mass-reverted the same category pages removing many non-controversial "see also" links with this cryptic edit summary: "rm [remove] unusual see also section". There was nothing unusual about the "see also" sections nor the links in them. Nearly all the links met your criteria in your above comment. This kind of mass-reverting is not worthy of admins, especially one such as yourself who has around 70,000 edits according to your user page. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you are welcome to add related categories, but with caution. Some of the "see also" you added are stretching the point quite a bit. Please use the templates available for this. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The template is not required, and if you removed the "see also" links for this reason, then you need to return those links you find acceptable. You can use the template or not. I leave that to you. You added similar "see also" links yourself to some categories, but removed the same type of "see also" links that I had added. See this diff: [15]

If you continue to remove "see also" links I add just because you think a template is required, then I guess I will have to go WP:ANI, because it is my understanding that templates are aids to some people, but not requirements. In fact templates can sometimes be a strain on servers. It is like templates for reference links. Most experienced editors don't need them. I have thousands of edits of categories in Wikipedia and the Commons, and this is the first time I have heard someone claim that this "see also" template is required. Many of the tens of thousands of "see also" links added do not use templates. And the template can not make a vertical list of "see also" links anyway. Show me a guideline that says the "see also" template is required. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to introduce novel formats and purposes for Categories, please get a larger consensus for doing so first. Your "See also" sections linking to various articles are nothing like the Catrel templates, which link to related Categories, not Wikipedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing novel about "see also" sections. See

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also%22

Nearly all the "see also" sections you removed from around 20 categories consisted solely of a few related category links. Some also had some clarifying articles linked concerning the definitions of terrorism, etc.. Some of those type of clarifying articles are linked in these templates: {{Terrorist category definition}} and {{Terrorism category definition}}. So maybe you dislike article links in a list versus being in a paragraph. Fine. But nearly all the "see also" links you removed were related categories. And you have yet to admit that you were wrong in saying that concerning 'see also' links "I don't recall ever seeing any, in over four years of editing Wikipedia." Now you see.

How is religious terrorism unrelated to nationalist terrorism? See this diff showing the removal of a single "see also" category link: [16]

There is a long discussion about this relationship here on this talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why they are related, providing reliable sources that make the connection. Also, as you know, the initial issue was with the non-standard formatting of the "See also" section, which included links to articles, not categories; please don't make disingenuous Talk: page comments. Please provide examples of Categories that provide "See alsos" in a "vertical list", with preceding bullet marks. And finally, please stop splitting the conversation up over a half dozen pages, repeating yourself on each page. Pick one page to discuss this, and stick to it; I'm going to start deleting duplicated comments from the others. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You are the one initiating most of the further discussion on other talk pages. I am the one linking to here. Stop talking on the other talk pages, and I will not reply to you there. Reliable sources are not required for "see also" links in articles or categories. Please stop making up your own set of personal guidelines, and instead quote some Wikipedia guidelines. See

• http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also%22

and you will see many examples of "see also" links in horizontal and vertical form. I can't do all your work. I have thousands of edits in categories. So I know what I am talking about. By the way, I don't answer to you. I answer to the Wikipedia guidelines. Please stop the uncivil ordering tone. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide examples of Categories that provide "See alsos" in a "vertical list", with preceding bullet marks. A link directly to the category, not a Google search that tells us nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my previous reply. To elaborate further, click the Google search link, and keep clicking the search result links until you see the many formatting variations for "see also" links. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide examples of Categories that provide "See alsos" in a "vertical list", with preceding bullet marks. A link directly to the category, not a Google search that tells us nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"See also" lists in vertical format on many category pages

Here is a better Google search for finding "See also" lists in vertical format on category pages: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category+%22see+also+category%22

Most of the results have "see also" lists in various vertical formats. There are over 7000 results. Some also have article links in the vertical lists. Many have article links in explanatory sentences and paragraphs.

As I have said previously I have the experience of thousands of edits on category pages, and have seen "see also" links in many formats. You might try assuming good faith, and respecting my experience, Jayjg and Jossi, instead of making up Wikipedia guidelines on your own, and uncivilly telling people they have to use certain templates. You don't have the authority to tell people what to do. You can only point to Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

There is no Wikipedia guideline that requires "see also" links in any particular format. Even the words "see also" are not required. People use all kinds of introductory words before related category links. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of Categories that provide "See alsos" in a "vertical list", with preceding bullet marks. A link directly to the category, not a Google search that tells us nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Your last reply was copied from your previous reply using the same time stamp as before. Your last reply was actually at 02:43, 9 November 2008. See this diff: [17] Did you even read my last reply? This is not the same Google search shortcut. Most of the Google results from this search pull up "see also" lists in vertical list form. I can't make you click the Google search result links. Some of the lists have bullet marks. Whether a "see also" list has bullet marks, or not, is not important in my opinion. Also, please see Wikipedia:TALK#Good practice concerning overuse of bold formatting on talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you even been reading my responses? Please provide specific examples of Categories that provide "See alsos" in a "vertical list", with preceding bullet marks. A link directly to the category, not a Google search that tells us nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. Click the Google search shortcut. All of the results will be wikipedia category pages. Open the first 5 results in your browser (you can use tabbed browsing). Currently 4 of those 5 category pages have "see also" lists in vertical list format. 3 of those 5 category pages have "see also" lists in vertical list format with preceding bullet marks. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you even been reading my responses? Please provide specific examples of Categories that provide "See alsos" in a "vertical list", with preceding bullet marks. A link directly to the category or categories, not a Google search that tells us nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my previous reply. I already gave you specific examples. Also, I should clarify something after further checking many more Google search results for the second Google shortcut. For those categories with more than one related category link on the category page most are in vertical list format. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you even been reading my responses? Please provide specific examples of Categories that provide "See alsos" in a "vertical list", with preceding bullet marks. That means a link directly to the category or categories. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I see them. Not one includes a link to a specific category. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Try following my instructions. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are either unwilling or unable to actually link to a specific category formatted in the way you were formatting categories. It doesn't really matter which is the case; until you actually do so, you haven't made your point. Any further posts that do not contain links to specific categories will be ignored. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I quote a sentence from one of my previous replies: 3 of those 5 category pages have "see also" lists in vertical list format with preceding bullet marks. You don't make the rules at Wikipedia, Jayjg. There is no standard format for linking to related categories from category pages. You also don't make the rules on talk pages. If you are unwilling to follow my instructions, then you don't get your question answered. Are you really interested in an answer to your question? If you were, I think you would click your mouse a few times.

This all started by you trying to impose your standards. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Israeli terrorists

There is Category:Palestinian terrorists. There needs to be Category:Israeli terrorists.

Peter Cohen wrote: "The leaders of the military wings of these groups when they were attacking trains etc. could certainly be labelled as terrorists, as can the perpertrators. The assassin of Yitzhak Rabin would certainly count as another example of an Israeli terrorist."

Who else could be listed? I am making a list.

• Yigal Amir - assassin of Yitzhak Rabin.
• Baruch Goldstein - Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Killed 29, wounded 125.
• Eden Natan-Zada - fired on a bus, killing 4 people, wounding 22 others.
• Ami Popper - lined up Arabs at a bus stop and killed 7.
• Asher Weisgan - Israeli bus driver killed four Palestinians and injured two others. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is Yigal Amir a terrorist and not just an assassin? Are John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald considered American terrorists? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, after reading his WP article, I wonder why Ami Popper is a terrorist and not just a racist murderer. Where is the political intent in his murders? the intention to coerce others? Where is the terrorism? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Further Israeli terrorists:

• Meir Har-Zion - soldier who carried out a private reprisal raid into Jordan. (The article on him is very POV, and needs rewriting).
• Yona Avrushmi - threw the grenade which killed Peace Now member Emil Grunzweig at a demonstration in 1983.
• Moshe Dwek - threw grenade in Knesset in 1957, in protest at the reparations agreement with Germant, injuring David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and several other ministers.

There are many other candidates for this proposed category. RolandR (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

New developments

I thought we had reached a consensus that the new categories Category:Zionist terrorism and Category:Palestinian terrorism are acceptable, and can be used to tag organizations which are or were involved in terrorism in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. See the discussion above, when Timeshifter introduced these categories, as well as the CFD discussion here. Accordingly, while organizations like Irgun were added to the categories Category:Zionist terrorism, organizations like the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine were added to Category:Palestinian terrorism. Today, however, a couple of editors who did not participate in the previous discussions about the new categories have started removing the Palestinian organizations from the category Category:Palestinian terrorism (see [18] [19]), claiming alternatively that it is a violation of WP:WTA, or that there is no consensus for the new categories. The result is obviously unacceptably POV. I am ok with removing both new categories, but if one is to be used, so must the other. NoCal100 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The result of the CFD discussion for Category:Palestinian terrorism was "no consensus." I am now thinking of proposing a name change for all terrorism and terrorist categories. To names such as "Palestinian terrorism allegations" and "Zionist terrorism allegations." That is more accurate. There have been many attempts to delete all the terrorism categories, and all have failed. So naming them more accurately may be a better option. It would help avoid BLP problems too. Just like the news media do when they name suspects in murders, etc.. "Alleged to have murdered so and so." See this Google search also:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22alleged+terrorist%22 --Timeshifter (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is mind bending. I thought about opining on the CFD on nationalist terrorism but only proposing a whole new category system seemed adequate. (Frankly I think the whole thing should be under Category:Patriarchy but don't get me started.) Anyway, problem with "allegations" is some people have been convicted of crimes (right or wrong) defined as "terrorism" by states. But that's all I can say before my mind boggles at the topic. Carol Moore 18:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Lol. I know the feeling. But then the victors write the history and convict the "terrorists." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right. "Allegations" adds a whole new layer of problems. Since we can't get rid of terrorism categories altogether, I guess I could live with either Category:Ethnic terrorism or Category:Ethnic terrorism allegations as a parent category. See other parent categories at Category:Terrorism by genre. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My latest preference is Category:Ethnic terrorism according to some sources. This seems to satisfy WP:TERRORIST better. It takes the use of the word "terrorism" out of the narrative voice of Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who are interested; terrorism, state terrorism, terrorism categories, etc. are being discussed in a more tangible way at Talk:Irgun#Category:Zionist terrorism. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So, until such time as we either rename all terrorism and terrorist categories, or delete them all, can we agree that while they exits in their current format, we do not depopulate certain categories in a non-neutral way? NoCal100 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Context for Palestinian bombings and other attacks

Recently I've been trying to add some context to articles on Palestinian attacks on Israelis, much in the same way that we have it in the articles on Israeli military interventions. Things are getting a bit sticky on

• Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing (talk)

and I was wondering if some more experienced editors could get involved to keep things balanced.

Cheers and many thanks, pedrito - talk - 30.10.2008 14:41

We could indeed use some help here, as the "context" Pedro is adding in many of these article sis based on either his original research, or uses unreliable sources. NoCal100 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Both posters in this thread are now blocked, partially for activities on the page concerned here. Anyone care to discuss over at the talk page?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources: Sabri Jiryis and Uri Davis?

2-3 years ago I added some information to the history-section in Karmiel, information sourced in a book by Sabri Jiryis (which in turn was largely based on research done by Uri Davis) AFAIK, nobody has questioned the accuracy/truth of the information given by Jiryis.

Earlier this month most of that information was removed, and now it is argued that Sabri Jiryis and Uri Davis are not WP:RS. Please see the discussion on Talk:Karmiel.

More eyes are needed here, IMO. Please voice your opinion. Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, there is no evidence that Huldra's additions to the article were based on research by Uri Davis, and he has failed to provide a draft (which I requested) with information based directly on works by Davis and not Jiryis. Also for the record, I didn't argue Uri Davis's validity as a WP:RS in general, just for the purposes of historical information, because Davis is not an historian (similar to Chomsky for example, who would be WP:RS for linguistics, but not for history). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record:Ynhockey has failed to respond to my requests here, specifically he object to Jiryis because he was a politician in the Palestinian legislature. One of my question is: does he also object to using Benvenisti´s work ..and all other writes who ever had a political position? The rest of the argument I will take on the Karmiel-talk -page, I will just note here that the information had been in the article for more than two years without anybody protesting before user:Gilabrand removed it and then went and canvassed support from Ynhockey for the removal. (Oh, and for what it is worth: I´m a she. Huldras always are!) Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're dead wrong on that puritanical reading of RS, certainly with the Chomsky case. Wikipedia I/P articles are sourced to newspaper articles written by journalists who are not historians, nor, for that, particularly good journalists, but the newspapers, being mainstream, are RS. I gave a list sometime back of 16 top scholars in every major area of modern thought who were not qualified in disciplines where they distinguished themselves, i.e. Claude Lévi-Strauss studied law and philosophy, and got a degree in the latter. He became one of the foremost anthropologists in the world. Joseph Needham's only qualification was in biochemistry, he was one of the greatest sinologists of his time. One of the best articles on Ithaka is writen by a businessman, one of the world's authorities of hallucinogenic mushrooms was a banker, the list is endless. Chomsky's primary qualification is in linguistics (specializing in Hebrew), and has written several substantial works on I/P issues that are, in turn, frequently sourced by area specialists, in dissent or agreement. Chomsky, apart from the Cambodian interlude, is not criticized by his adversaries for bad citation of the abundant evidence, but for his interpretation of that evidence. The evidence he has is eminently citable for I/P articles.

(2) If that reading were true, then you and many others are extending an open invitation to all editors of any persuasion to systematically elide any reference in I/P articles to Alan Dershowitz's Case for Israel, to cite one of a good many examples. He's a professor of law (and as an historian notoriously bad). These rules were aimed to keep outerratic sourcing by overeager kids or POV-pushers, not to make citation of strong interpretive works by scholars of world standing (Dershowitz in law, Chomsky in linguistics) impossible.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither Dershowitz nor Chomsky are historians and shouldn't be used for I-P articles. Please read exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and since almost everything in this field is an exception claim, we must be very careful with sources. IMO, mainstream media's use as sources should also be reduced, but it is generally much more reliable than both Chomsky and Dershowitz, who have clear political agendas, aside from not being historians. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One problem with your argument, Ynhockey, is that the writing in this case isn´t an "exceptional claim", as you claim. Indeed, the construction of Karmiel closely follows that of Nazareth Illit, please read the history-part of that article. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are aware of what you are implying. Do you mean I have to go immediately, to cite one of several hundred pages, and names, and wipe Dore Gold and Mitchell Bard off the Jerusalem Page because they are cited there on issues they have no technical expertise in? It means Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre should be removed from that page as well, including all wiki pages dealing with 1948? WP:REDFLAG has nothing to do with the argument. I never mentioned exceptional claims at all.) Your claim here means that probably a third of the sources used in I/P articles have to be elided, since you are saying only someone qualified in a subject with formal academic credentials can be cited on that subject, a rule I would approve off, but which is never applied. As to having a political agenda, many historians, Efraim Karsh, Benny Morris, Bernard Lewis etc. have them. In any case, if you wish, I will over the next few months review all pages I am interested in, using your rule, and direct you to all sources which according to your reading here, must be erased. The list is huge. In the meantime I look foreward to you removing those four names from the Jerusalem article. The final irony is that we have now, on the grounds you exclude Chomsky, to ban Walter Laqueur from I/P pages, though he is regarded as an accomplished historian. He never got a degree in the subject.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey did not say the problem with Chomsky was that he had no degree in the subject, but that he was not a historian. Chomsky, like Dershowitz, is a figure who has gained respect, fame, and recognition in another professional area, and has also written polemically about the I-P conflict. They are not historians, nor are Jiryis or Davis, unlike Laqueur, who is one. Please desist from making straw man arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Strawman links seem to be your Pavlovian shorthand for 'I haven't got an adequate argument to reply to you'. You're quite entitled to a personal opinion, as is Ynhockey. But it is irrational, and an abuse to apply one strict reading of WP:RS to elide 'pro-Palestinian' sources, while doing nothing to extend the same strict interpretation to 'pro-Israeli' sources, as you do customarily. That is gaming the system. Note that there is no answer from either of you to the inconsistency pointed out. Laqueur is not a qualified historian: he writes historical books. Chomsky is not a qualified historian, he writes historical books. You are both profoundly inconsistent, and should reflect on this. I would be happy if the strict criterion both you and Ynhockey promote, were policy. I happen to approve of much of Ynhockey's work, but if this strict reading is not extended to the huge amount of sourcing not derived from professional scholars used by 'pro-Israeli' editors as well in the future, then a grave inconsistency in judgement will become apparent. I trust he will take care to maintain consistency in the matter.Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how you worked out the last point. Most historians in this field are anti-Israel, and neither of us has worked to remove their content. I think the best example is Khalidi, who constantly attacks Israel and writes only about the bad things Israel and Israelis have done. Even so, he's an historian, and Chomsky, Dershowitz, Davis and Jiryis are not. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishidan, please try to focus on the points under discussion, rather than other editors, or on straw man statements unrelated to reality. The reason why contentious historical claims by non-historians are excluded is because they are non-historians, not because they are anti-Israeli. In addition to the many books of history he has written, Laqueur was Director of the Institute of Contemporary History and the Wiener Library in London for 30 years, and has been a visiting professor of history and government at Harvard, University of Chicago, Tel Aviv and Johns Hopkins University. Chomsky, like Dershowitz, writes polemical works about historical situations; that is not being a historian. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey Historians are not 'anti-Israel' for criticizing many aspects of Israel's history or policy, any more than American or Italian, or German historians of their own country's history are 'anti-America', 'anti-Italy' or 'anti-Germany'. (2) You have, as Jayjg doesn't have, an answer to my point. Walter Laqueur and several other widely cited 'historians' are not qualified. They are considered historians because they write books with historical content, as do Chomsky and many others. Jayjg's point on Laqueur's record is 'historian is as historian does', which means those who write historical books that are widely read by the public and by specialists, are, ipso facto, historians (aside from being other things). If anything Chomsky is a specialized historian, writing the history of reportage of events, interleavened by many references to the standard histories of Israel and Zionism in both Hebrew and English. I note that neither of you have said a word about the presence on the Jerusalem page of several sources not written by historians.Nishidani (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Nishidani, they are considered historians because they write works of history, and because they have other qualifications, as described above, but which you pointedly ignore. Chomsky isn't a "specialized" historian; he does no historical research of his own. Rather, he writes polemical political commentary about historical situations, which is quite another thing. You keep ignoring these points, and instead creating straw men about degrees, etc. It's not that we don't "have an answer to [your] point", but rather that you refuse to hear it. As for other claims, if they are historical and contentious, they would best be sourced to historians, but in any event are best raised on the Talk: pages of the relevant articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jayjg, but having a university appointment is not a 'qualification' in the academic sense. As to your commentary on Chomsky's historical works, I know that you reached p.7 of a Chomsky Reader. I have had no evidence of your familiarity with his work. He has written a history, with great detail from primary reportage and secondary sources, of Israel's relations with other Middle Eastern States. I'll throw refuse to hear it back at you. I see, though you have been pointed to the fact, no move by either of you to remove from the Jerusalem page several sources that come from non-historians, though cited as authoritative on aspects of the city's history. This is an incongruency (one of thousands) and until I see action on this, I will continue to insist you, and many others, are inconsistent in your use of policy, which looks tactical (strong reading on Palestinian sources/lenient reading on pro-Israeli sources). This is the proper page to discuss this, being generically devoted to a project of collaborative understanding. The issue is one of principles to be applied universally, and not according to tactical POV advantage. Consistency on application of policy will always find in me an ally. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, can you provide evidence for your claims that either Jayjg or myself are 'lenient on non-authorative sources if they are pro-Israel'? I'd expecially like to see this in disputed/extraordinary claims, and not citations of widely-known material. This is not to say that I support your method of argument of attacking the editor rather than the issue, but I'm always willing to learn and will remove any non-authorative sources on disputed claims that I have inserted. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ynhochey; there was a case on AN (or AN/I?) not long ago, where G-Dett and I found several cases where Jayjg (in the last two years) had inserted information from FrontPageMagasine (FPM). (here, scroll down to "Off-topic"). Do you feel FrontPageMagasine is more reliable then Jiryis? If so: I can show you several cases where FPM make obviously false claims ("Arafat was the nephew of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni" is my favorite! ;-P). I still do not know of any instance where anybody has claimed that what Jiryis writes is false. Neither you nor anybody else, AFAIK, has provided any claim/reference to that effect. Can you see why some of us feel there is a double-standard here? Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to document Jayjg's record on this: it is proverbial among I/P editors. I gave you the Jerusalem page, and asked if either of you were willing to apply that principle to its sources. No response.

I only hope, as just one editor that as a new administrator, you will prove, as I have reason to think, more coherent. I don't attack editors. I note their behaviour if it is inconsistent, and hope they will do me the same courtesy if my own behaviour in editing is inconsistent (use past tense, I'm on a wikibreak for the forseeable future). For it is the most natural thing in the world to ignore one's own blindspots. As I said on your talk page, in congratulating you, I've found you responsive to logical and evidential argument (our exchange on Jerusalem-irgun street names, to name but one instance). I commented on Chomsky because your remark, justifying his exclusion as an RS source, was almost identical to one used by Jayjg a year ago (no need to take my word for it: we all read the same things, and therefore absorb influences).

I gave an specific example of why a restrictive definition of RS against Chomsky, implies that Walter Laqueur, Dominique Lapierre, Larry Collins, Mitchell Bard, Dore Gold (the first often quoted, the last four quoted on just one page, the Jerusalem page, which is historical) cannot be used, since they are not strictly professional historians, but journalists or partisan writers, some with nowhere near the distinction of Chomsky, whose competence to discuss the Middle East, from his own perspective, at a high level of academic competence, has been recognized by numerous mainstream media, Ivy League and European universities, such as Boston University School of Law, University College Dublin, the BBC, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Washington State University, University of Bologna, University of Leipzig, University of Edinburgh, University of Oxford, Cambridge Forum, Illinois State University, Harvard Graduate School of Education, University of Houston, Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, University of Maryland, The Ohio State University etc., all of which have invited him to address faculty on these geopolitical topics and their historical background, as has West Point (On Just War Theory and the Invasion of Iraq, April 20, 2006). I think that record is infinitely stronger than the arbitrary interpretations of a selectively restrictive kind preferred by a few wikipedian editors. WP:RS is a guide to teach amateurs to stop frigging about with the blogosphere, fringe sources, or tendentious third-rate activist sites: it was not intended to to cancel out use of works written by a world-class controversialist with a 60 year record in academia, speaking Hebrew as his first language, with a civic 'Zionist' interest in Israel's survival, and a lifelong record of observing it, studying it, and analysing its dilemmas.

That is why I set a test. If Chomsky cannot be used, then, look at the Jerusalem page, for starters and remark the use made of these 'unqualified' sources there, and the contradiction is apparent. If the rule is to be taken in the way you both say it should be, clearly one should begin the lengthy task of eliding from wiki I/P articles the numerous authors who are not specifically qualified to comment. Bard, Gold, Collins and Lapierre are no more qualified than Chomsky, though the latter has a forty year record in numerous books of work as an historian far superior to theirs. Even Laqueur, though both of you seem unfamiliar with the fact, recognizes, while criticizing him, that Chomsky is one of the major figures in revisionist historiography on the Cold War (Walter Laqueur,The Dream that Failed: Reflections on the Soviet Union,Oxford University Press US, 1994 p.211 n.41). That is one historian (unqualified) recognizing another (unqualified) as an important exponent of the discipline he practices. If Laqueur recognizes Chomsky as an historian, I don't see why anonymous editors like ourselves should challenge his judgement on this. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been most of my point, too. If, say Jiryis (or Chomsky) cannot be uses for ME-history (because, even though they are academics, they are not academics in the "right" (=historian) field), then we have to remove, say, all journalists writing about the ME, including Larry Collins, Dominique Lapierre, and just about everything that say, CAMERA and other NGO´s write. Regards, Huldra (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Even under the most stringent and exacting criteria, it would be difficult to justify the exclusion of research by Uri Davis. He is an anthropologist, whose PhD was a study of Israeli society; he has held several academic appointments in the field of Middle East studies; and he has a lengthy publication record, of books, pamphlets, conference papers, films, innterviews and other work. His conclusions can, of course, be questioned and challenged -- as can those of any expert -- but his relevance and his status as a reliable source are surely unchallengeable. RolandR (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet, unlike the political activist Chomksy, Walter Laqueur, co-editor of the Journal of Contemporary History, is an "eminent historian", "respected historian", "Noted author and historian", "Historian", "historian", "sober historian", "eminent historian", "illustrious historian", "historian", "historian", "historian", "historian", "British historian", "historian", "historian", "historian", "historian", "historian", etc. The phrase "historian Walter Laqueur" gets 189 hits in Google books alone; the phrase "historian Noam Chomsky" gets exactly 1, an obscure 1972 reference (by comparison, "linguist Noam Chomsky" gets 655 hits, "activist Noam Chomsky" get 123 hits, "critic Noam Chomsky" gets 120 hits, "philosopher Noam Chomsky" gets 94 hits, "radical Noam Chomksy" gets 14 hits, "polemicist Noam Chomsky" gets 6 hits, and even "communist Noam Chomsky" gets more, with 3 hits). Regarding the rest of the straw man arguments, historians are better sources than journalists, and journalists are better sources than polemicists and extremists of any stripe, even if they are famous academic activists/"anti-Zionist Hebrew Palestinians" with degrees in other fields. And finally, the issue here is not what sourcing is required for uncontentious claims, but rather what sourcing is required for contentious claims: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is quite an impressive list of quotes you've collected, even when one prunes out the silliness (you condemn sources which are overly ideological, activist, and chiefly political rather than scholarly, then quote the Hoover Institute approvingly as a source?) What I can't figure out is what, exactly, is the argument you are trying to support by it. Your Googled quotes clearly prove a claim that Nishidani made, above, arguing against your position: "[Lacquer] is regarded as an accomplished historian." Can you please cut out with the Google links, links to straw man and WP:REDFLAG and instead, you know, actually argue your position on the issue? (If you have one.) <eleland/talkedits> 06:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to know that administrators were editing consistently, either to policy or to something else they'll explain to us. If they're not editing helpfully or consistently, that would be nice to know too. PR^talk 09:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg. As Eleland notes, that is an example of the strawman argument you consistently fling at others. Laqueur is indeed an historian, and since (a)historian is as historian does and (2) historians recognize who is one of their profession and (3) Laqueur, as I footnoted, recognizes Chomsky as a major figure in historiographical revisionism on the Cold War, syllogistically, it follows that Chomsky is an historian in the sense understood by Laqueur himself. Neither you, I nor anyone else, have a right as wikipedian editors to override an international known historian like Laqueur's judgement on what amounts to peer review. Laqueur's words, pal, are by your own testimony those of a reliable source, and they vindicate Chomsky as historian.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources generally

I pretty much would concur with most of Nishidani's observations above about double standards when it comes to sources. I recall for example various pages where any attempt to source anything, even when clearly attributed, to Ilan Pappe for example is met with a chorus of disapproval and on one occasion a request to "prove" that he is an academic and published expert in the area. Same goes for sourcing in the media world to The Guardian, CNN and Haaretz (especially Gideon Levy); and, in the NGO/Human Rights field, to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I have lost count of the number of times these have been castigated as being "anti-Israel" or whatever, with editors asking for corroboration even for factual material being sourced to their reports. I'm not going to dig around for diffs since I'm sure most of us have seen this at one point or another on talk pages. Of course all of these individuals, outlets and organisations have their bias to a greater or lesser extent, but all of them clearly fall within the reach of WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and other policies and guidelines. Sources which are - fairly - seen as being actively "pro-Palestinian", such as Electronic Intifada, or the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights are usually tossed out altogether, even when what they are saying is being clearly attributed and even though they are by no means fringe groups.

By contrast for example recently I have seen incendiary and polemical comments from Alan Dershowitz, culled from an op-ed piece, being repeatedly reinserted into an article about a US politician on the basis that he is a "noted authority" [on whether someone is an anti-Semite or not]. Virtually every NGO which has incurred their wrath has acquired a standalone paragraph detailing, with a full blockquote, the criticism being levelled at them by NGO Monitor - eg here, here and here. As for media sources, I lose track of how much information and comment is sourced to Arutz Sheva, FrontPage Magazine etc and even Debka.com. Comment and analysis from CAMERA, HonestReporting and Palestinian Media Watch is trotted out as if they are straight-up, non-partisan groups. And I haven't even got to the academic sources, other than Pappe above. The Chomsky issue is a little more complex than "historian or not a historian?" No he is not a professional academic historian, but he is of course one of the most prolific and respected - given his POV - commentators on political and historical issues - in that respect I suppose he has an equivalence of sorts with Dershowitz, but it's clear which of the two gets an easier ride here on Wikipedia both as a subject matter and as a source in other pages (for example Chomsky has a whole "Criticisms of .." page all to himself - Dershowitz merely gets a short "Controversies" sub-section on his main page). The imbalance is pretty glaring to anyone who comes across these pages who doesn't actually have a stake in the conflict or strong views one way or the other. Obviously the above is not a comprehensive list, and it's not always the same editors who are pushing for FrontPage material while trying to exclude reports from CNN. Nonetheless it's a real problem. The practical solution might be some form of agreed source list, defining them by type (media, human rights group, partisan activist, specialist academic, whatever), whether they are seen as "preferring" one side or another, whether they should be used as sources for fact or only, with attribution, for comment/interpretation, whether we would expect to see what they say being corroborated and/or balanced etc. However I can see endless difficulties with "ranking" sources or putting them into boxes in this way - and even if it were possible in principle, I can never see editors here agreeing on how to do it. --Nickhh (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Just noticed this reference tool linked to above, which I guess attempts to cover the general problem, albeit in a different way. --Nickhh (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally providing diffs instead of emtily accusing other editors of selectively using sources! However, from these diffs it is perfectly clear that Jayjg did not make any preference to pro-Israeli sources. When you write 'according to [unreliable source], [disputed claim]', it is completely acceptable as long as the unreliable source gained enough prominence in the field so as not to be WP:UNDUE. For example, in the article Deir Yassin, it says 'Noam Chomsky reported that some streets were named after units of the Irgun and Palmach forces that conquered the village.', which has been proven to be false, but because we can't find a reliable source directly disputing this claim, it is fine to say that Chomsky 'reported' this. On the other hand, stating Chomsky's empty accusations as fact, or Dershowitz's, or another non-historian's, would be a violation of WP:RS, especially regarding this exceptional claim. In short, there are no double standards here; they only exist in the minds of certain editors. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

On the few occasions when I have mentioned him (Ma'alot, Deir Yassin), I have not used Chomsky's interpretations. I may share his perspective on many issues, but I know these strong interpretations (counterbalanced by Laqueur's 'strong' reading of an extremely restrictive definition of terrorism), what you call 'empty accusations', are neither here nor there. I used Chomsky because his intensive harvesting of contemporary newspaper sources (put aside his use of academic sources, which is equally rich) provide one with much detail that escapes more mainstream academics. It is not that Chomsky reported those street names that interests me, it is the three or four footnotes to Israeli newspapers for that report. Unlike Dershowitz, whose work has been taken apart by academics for its plagiarism, use of poor sources and various inaccuracies, Chomsky's reportage of what Israeli or American papers of the day report on I/P issues has not to my knowledge been impugned for systematic misconstrual. This is therefore not a matter of using Chomsky to push a POV, but simply to note things written in mainstream papers at the time, which are otherwise not readily accessible.

On a point of grammar. You write:-

'Noam Chomsky reported that some streets were named after units of the Irgun and Palmach forces that conquered the village.', which has been proven to be false,

This is ambiguous. Chomsky merely transcribed remarks made in several Israeli newspapers. You made a check, and found no such names. Take it up with the newspapers: here Chomsky is not wrong, if the information given is untrue, but rather the Israeli newspapers he cited for the statement. To translate this into 'Chomsky's empty accusations' is a very strange way of saying 'Chomsky took at their word what Israeli reporters from the mainstream press said, and reprinted it in his book.' (I would add that the Ma'alot information is well sourced, but every time one puts it in, one gets the usual reply, 'Edward Sa'id, or Noam Chomsky is not a reliable source, even though both, the Palestinian and the American Zionist are academics who have written or wrote extensively on I/P issues over their respective lifetimes). The objection is to their politics, perceived as 'empty accusations', and WP:RS appears to be read pretextually to exclude them (and not the Bards and Gold Dores of this world).Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, the objection is to the fact that their writings on the I-P conflict are merely an extension of their politics, rather than reliable histories. And it's not helpful to use Newspeak to describe an anti-Zionist as an "American Zionist": Humpty Dumpty and Chomsky may both claim words can mean whatever they want them to, but that kind of nonsensical gamesmanship doesn't help advance rational Talk: page discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's "not helpful" to throw around accusations of behaving in an Orwellian fashion, especially when Nishidani's reference to Chomsky as a Zionist is completely irrelevant to the actual point. I would say it's "not helpful" to throw around accusations of "nonsensical gamesmanship" while completely ignoring the thesis of Nishidani's post, instead zeroing on a literally parenthetical comment he makes in his last paragraph. Perhaps you and I have different ideas of what is "helpful" and exactly which objectives need our "help" as Wikipedia editors. <eleland/talkedits> 06:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The content, in this case, comprised slander and cavil, as you know. But I'll strike the last "perhaps" remark, that you might deign to respond to the rest of my comment. I won't be holding my breath. <eleland/talkedits> 20:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) the objection is to the fact that their writings on the I-P conflict are merely an extension of their politics

And Laqueur's are not? Come on, everyone has a political POV, even historians, no-one is completely objective.

I'm not sure exactly what this discussion is about, but if it's whether or not Chomsky qualifies as a WP:RS on the Is-Pal conflict, I believe he did write a book called The Fateful Triangle that is widely cited by other scholars, and that is all that is required to qualify as a wp:rs on this project. Whether Chomsky is necessarily the best source to use is another issue, but in some circumstances at least his views are probably worth citing. Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't straw man here; there is a difference between "being completely objective" and writing to advance political goals. As for Chomsky, his work is a political thesis, not a history, and I doubt it is cited by respected historians. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked. Google Books lists no less than 578 books which cite Chomsky's Fateful Triangle - many of them, if not the majority, scholarly works. Seems to me that doesn't leave much room for arguing that he does not qualify as a reliable source on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Gatoclass (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

@Gatoclass I went looking for evidence that Chomsky was unreliable, and was struck by the distortions aimed at him. Blogger Paul Bogdanor publishes "100 lies" and "200 lies", many of which look highly dubious (the most convincing charge is that Chomsky continued defending Pol Pot for around 2 years longer than was reasonable - but at least he stopped, unlike USG). Blogger "diary of an anti-chomskyite" led me to the Dershowitz-Chomsky debate of Nov 2005 - wherein it was clear that Chomsky had tried to stick to the topic and, even when forced off it, continued to make really good, serious points to which Dershowitz could only reply with personal abuse, such as references to "Planet Chomsky". (Two of the most striking points were the US media ignoring Clinton sending helicopters to Israel in Oct 2000 and the story of the Taba offer in Jan 2001).

What blogs say is not worth documenting, PR, and would deviate the issue from the question of these figures as RS, and consistency of principle regarding RS. We have a clash between a highly restrictive and a workable definition of RS. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Before I'm yet again accused of "soap-boxing", investigations like the above are exactly what we should be doing. Otherwise, it looks very much as if we're behaving like bloggers ourselves. PR^talk 11:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to exercise a healthy dose of common sense on this. I agree with Ynhockey and Jayjg that historians are preferable to commentators such as Chomsky and Dershowitz. Same goes for journalists who conduct historical research (go through archives, cross their sources, etc.) and whose works were peer-reviewed and cited by historians. However, I don't think polemical sources should be deemed altogether unreliable, and we shouldn't start automatically removing them from every article. I don't suspect Chomsky or Dershowitz of making things up, but they are more likely than historians to overstretch points that suit their case and ignore the ones that don't. To put it in Wikipedia terms: They are more likely to violate WP:POVFORK. Therefore, I think it would be a good idea not base an entire article or section on them, and to support them with other sources in cases of WP:REDFLAG. -- Nudve (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we got onto Chomsky, since this thread appears to have started on a discussion of a couple of other characters. However, I'm just commenting in regards to the general principle, that one doesn't need formal qualifications in the field in order to be considered a reliable source on a particular topic. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

'No, actually, the objection is to the fact that their writings on the I-P conflict are merely an extension of their politics.'Jayjg

This simply won't hold up to inspection, nor Nudve's remark that Chomsky (or many others) are mere 'commentators' as opposed to historians on this area, though his remarks are commendably nuanced (we are talking not of whole pages, but culling details from these historians that are not reported by many specialists, on specific points). It's the same old argument one gets with Israel Shahak, and Sabri Jiryis. One could say that of Efraim Karsh, Benny Morris, Shmuel Katz, Uri Milstein, Joseph Schechtman, Rashid Khalidi, Martin Sicker, or even of the many political memorialists whose works are cited, Begin, and Ariel Sharon. Many of these are impressive historians:no one familiar with the larger story, however, can read their works without stopping to pause at the huge gaps in their narratives, or the overhwhelming questions left in the air by their choice of perspective, things the Chomskys of this world tend to pick up. The list is endless, including virtually all writers in the Zionist historiographical tradition. What is being objected to is Chomsky's politics, as opposed to those of his adversaries in the field of Zionist historiography.

On the issue of Chomsky's Zionism, it takes a very peculiar imagination to think that Zionism has only an insatiably expansionist right-wing. Uri Avnery, Zeev Sternhell, and Chomsky have never to my knowledge called into question the original Zionist settlement in Palestine. In 1947-9 he was, as were his parents, strongly identified with Zionism. Even after the foundation of the State, he intended going to work on a kibbutz, until doctoral pressures intervened. To the contrary, at key moments in their personal histories, they supported the foundation and development of either the state or a strong Jewish presence in Palestine: Chomsky simply identified with what he calls the 'left-Zionist' tradition, the Trotskyite wing of Zionism at that time, Hashomer Hatsair, and supports binationalism with an Arab-Jewish socialist state, a position he explicitly identifies as that of 'the Zionist left until 1947' (Peace in the Middle East, Pantheon Books, 1974 p.160), a position he learnt to refine under the influence of mentors like the logician Yehoshua Bar-Hillel and the linguist Zellig Harris. It's called left-Zionism, though a generation or two appears to have forgotten, after 1967, its existence. Any objection, I repeat, to Chomsky, rebounds on Walter Laqueur (whom I do not object to as a source, despite the fact that his books are strongly informed by a political vision that makes many of them (outside European fascism) difficult to handle ('The Road to War' is as tilted with a POV as 'Fateful Triangle').).

I have used, according to necessity, people like Paul Johnson or Larry Collins/Dominique Lapierre, whose works have to be handled with great care. No one objects, I presume because he is viewed as strongly pro-Zionist. The objections tumble in precisely when another editor disagrees with the politics of another historian, professional or otherwise, he or she strongly objects to. Of course, these considerations should be be taken seriously. Otherwise, tactically, it will all boil down, page by page, to a numbers game, stasis, static noise, and endless appeals to arbitration. I.e. the gamesmanship of attrition- One should iron out these issues on a page like this once and for all, otherwise editing towards quality articles is a waste of time. Nishidani (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In a conversation some twenty years ago, Chomsky told me that he called himself a Zionist because he still held the same bi-national position that he had held when a member of Hashomer Hatzair 40 years earlier. He was not responsible for the fact that their position had changed, and he saw no need to change his self-definition, or his use of language, as a result of their political shift. I am not aware of a verifiable written source for such an explicit statement. RolandR (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call him a 'Zionist' adventitiously, to be provocative. I had in mind specific statements by him, and my impressions from reading several of his books. I'm glad you can confirm this, but if a verifiable source for the fact is required, Carlos Peregrin Otero makes it clear that is Chomsky's position (and in a book he co-authored with Chomsky, so, since the statement stands, it must be true). he cites Chomsky's answer to Jacob Gewirtz's attack on him in the Guardian in 1981 (February):-

‘The views I hold were called ‘Zionism’ in the past within the Zionist movement, and still are by many today.’ Noam Chomsky, Carlos Peregrin Otero, Radical Priorities, AK Press, 2003 p.13

While 'it's not helpful to use Newspeak to describe an anti-Zionist as an "American Zionist"' and to engage in Humpty Dumptian 'nonsensical gamesmanship' (Jayjg above), it is even less helpful kibitzing about such issues with vague wisecracks in lieu of simply doing one's homework and actually reading primary and secondary sources, in order to get an informed insight into a subject. To do this drastically curtails the sheer quantity of edits one might wish to make, but it does ensure that one edits responsibly, and not from an ideological parti pris. That is what Orwell complained about, and it is decidedly Humpty-Dumptian, aside from questions of nescience, to make out that Zionism did not encompass the position Chomsky staked out. History defines what words mean, and history defines one position within Zionism exactly as Chomsky put it. Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's imagine a test. Were I having difficulties in finding a RS for a statement such as Azzam Pasha's (he was secretary general of the Arab League) infamous hyperbole about what Arab and Palestinian terrorists and infiltrators would do, and couldn't rummage one out acceptable to editors who hold any mention of Chomsky hostage, and proceeded to cite him for that statement where I first encountered it, for example, in Chomsky. I.e.

‘a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades’(Noam Chomsky, Middle East Illusions, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004 p.53

Am I to presume that those who customarily challenge anything cited from Chomsky would then revert me, and make a huge fuss about RS, anti-Zionism, fringe POV sources? We all know the answer. In this case, one would not probably encounter obstructive challenges.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole debate above is a little confusing but it seems that sourced info from Chomsky's books would be WP:RS; opinions, as much as they might be sourced, can only be mentioned as opinions and where appropriate in criticism or like sections. Also, let's not forget about Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions (which needs to be updated by an archive or so) for what others have said in WP:RS/Noticeboard about various relevant political and/or I/P sources. Carol Moore 14:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Chomsky. Some years ago I read an exchange (1985) between Chomsky and Werner Cohn, now Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of British Columbia, which Cohn put up on his website and I thought gave a lot of insight into his character. Cohn calls it ""Liar, Coward, Little Fascist" and it can be found here: http://www.wernercohn.com/liar.coward.html . Of course, character has zip to do with reliability as a source, but I thought some people might enjoy reading what was quite a candid exchange. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cohn is familiar, aside from other considerations, from the Israel Shahak page. His exchange with Chomsky does indeed give 'a lot of insight into his character' i.e. Werner Cohn's. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A dispute on Second Intifada

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Second Intifada#RfC: Are sources used an example of WP:SYNTH or not?

guys, please stop editing the title, this is childish. just leave it <eleland/talkedits> 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is removing referenced text based on those reliable resources. See this diff: [20]

His edit summary says: remove original research based on primary sources. It's not up to you to decide when it started, but up to reliable secondary sources. See talk.

From: WP:Reliable sources#News organizations: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press."

The referenced text strictly concerns events and not opinions:

As reported by the mainstream media (BBC, New York Times, CNN, etc.) the first major riot with injuries occurred on September 28, 2000, soon after a controversial visit earlier in the day by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, a site held sacred by both Jews and Muslims.

• BBC: [21]
• New York Times: [22]
• CNN: [23]

See Talk:Second Intifada#Start of the Second Intifada for quotes from those articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:SYNTH. The articles don't mention the Second intifada - how could they, when they had no idea that the following day serious violence would break out that would continue for years? It is your contention that the events listed in the articles mark the start of the Second Intifada, but reliable sources say it started the next day. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jay appears to be correct, in that the sources cited support the fact that riots occurred on the given day, but say nothing about when the al-Aqsa Intifada began. They cannot be cited to support claims about when the uprising started. <eleland/talkedits> 03:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources reference this: As reported by the mainstream media (BBC, New York Times, CNN, etc.) the first major riot with injuries occurred on September 28, 2000, soon after a controversial visit earlier in the day by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, a site held sacred by both Jews and Muslims.

There is nothing there in that sentence that talks about when the Second Intifada began. So no claim is made. In fact farther down in the article there are various sourced opinions on when the Second Intifada started. My original title for this talk section was "Are BBC, CNN, New York Times reliable sources?" I have not changed the talk section title. Jayjg has. That is rude. My question was about referencing an event. Jayjg is talking about referencing opinions on when the Second Intifada began.

Rather than Jayjg continuing to delete the sourced info on the event another solution is to move the various sourced opinions higher up in the article concerning when the Second Intifada began. Clearly delineate events from opinions. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:SYNTH: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources."

I made no synthesis. The 3 sources I used (BBC, New York Times, CNN) were to reference a single event: the riots on September 28, 2000 the day of the Sharon visit.

I did not write the opinion paragraph concerning the various start dates that various sources put forth as their opinion of when the Second Intifada started.

My goal is to separate the sourced description of the events from the opinions about the overall big picture. I really don't see what we are arguing about. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Are BBC, CNN, New York Times reliable sources? This was my original title for this talk section. My question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration is about reliable sources for narratives of events.

My point is that the current narrative of the events is off by a day: "the first major clashes occurred on September 29, 2000, the day after a controversial visit by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount"

Talk:Second Intifada#Start of the Second Intifada is mainly about sourced opinions concerning a different topic from what I am discussing. So I will not reply there further since it is a different topic.

I don't want to get dragged into a discussion about the meanings or beginnings or global perspectives concerning the Second Intifada. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The original title for the talk section was misleading, since it wasn't the basis for the dispute. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't misleading, and it is still the basis for this dispute. You may have misunderstood the issue. I clarified the issue. You haven't addressed the issue yet. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Terrorism category definition

Additional input is requested at Template talk:Terrorism category definition. The discussion there concerns these 2 category templates:

• {{Terrorism category definition}}
• {{Terrorist category definition}} --Timeshifter (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably best here, first

It has been more than a week, though a momentous one, since any discussion. This is an important topic; in light of change we need, so to speak.

I originally wrote that for a talk edit here, then thought about it, and after considering innumerable possibilities of how best to proceed, decided to bring it here for a sniff test, transparently. I would appreciate your indulgence, on the consideration that some members might want to take a more pro-active approach toward NPOV. Equally, it is in the purview all members, hopefully, collaboratively. I did not pick this fight, it dropped in my lap[24], from an infamous former editor; I could link it, but won’t. Wiki fought off that attack. I do not want to fight that again, but with a commitment to NPOV, I believe this may present the time to end it neutrally. I want to approach it as collaboratively as possible. Please, take a look for yourselves and let me know. You will likely be watching anyway, however I decide to proceed. Also, let me know what wiki-toes I might be starting to step on. It is very difficult to state the obvious about sticky subjects on Wikipedia. Extraordinary whatevers require extraordinary sources and we have come across one with wide, specific and collaborative potential, or not. I fully understand it will not please all, but assume good faith. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Nationalist terrorism has been extended

In order to get additional comments Category:Nationalist terrorism was relisted. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 15#Category:Nationalist terrorism

My view has changed. I now think the category should be renamed to Category:Ethnic terrorism or Category:Ethnic terrorism allegations. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The JIDF rides again

The interestingly named User:DontbeaPOVPUSHER has appeared at the JIDF talk and article pages today. (S)he has reverted two edits I made today which refer to recent articles in Haaretz and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. In the latter case, I have provided a literal translation of the key criticism with the original German in the footnote. On the talk page I have linked an unofficial (and less lieral) translation which supports my interpretation. In the Haaretz case (s)he claimed that the Haaretz information was inaccurate without providing a WP:RS that substantiates the claim. I've re-reverted both edits, but other contributors are invited to comment.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of issue with the original id, the user in question has reincarnated as User:Howdypardner. I'd still appreciate an eye being kept by others on developments. I've now used my three reverts, and they've used more but I'd prefer a friendly word and actions to maintain the integrity of the text than a block.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I've put the page on my watchlist. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly warning to everyone that publishing the text of the article or any translation without aproval of the paper (and author) would be a copyright infringement. I have an authorised translation that has been in the works (and in negotiations with the paper) for some time. I was going to upload it later today in any case, but I'll now also pop a link here for Peter (and anyone else interested) when that is done. On the Haaretz article, yes, the article is full of mistakes. I have a response on this too that was due to be published today, but I need to find another publisher for it as the original place now doesn't have space today. Given it has been through a review by an external editor, I may just publish it on my site or see if a blog wants it. Again, I will provide the link when it is up (if I forget someone please drop me an e-mail as this one may take a few days to arrange), though depending where it ends up it may or may not count as a RS. Oboler (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And the translation is now online here: Facebook and Google Earth: Anti-Semiism in Web 2.0. Oboler (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. This whole thing blew up after I had asked for a link to just such a transaltion. I've linked the it from the footnote. If you do get your critique of the Haaretz article published at a WP:RS, do let us know. It doesn't surprise me that a newspaper got things wrong, but Wikipedia's criterion is verifiability in reliable sources, not truth.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly note that giving the appearance of using wikipedia to notify the world of one's research involves highly delicate questions of policy. You disappeared, unless I am mistaken, when some questions were asked to clarify your association with the JIDF, which called you a consultant, and then erased the information.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I am contactable via e-mail from my user page - and have been since well before the JIDF article was created. I am not aware of any such comments, further I have been busy in real life and my pages has said this. The comment I made above, noting that I was expecting to move to the US and have instead recently moved back to Australia, may go some way to explaining why I've been busy. Frankly, that is personal information that is not needed in Wikipedia. What you have said amounts to a personal attack... I look forward to seeing an appology from you. If you want to contact me about something in the future when I am not doing much Wikipedia editing, feel free to e-mail me.

On the point you raised, I have no idea where these comments about my involvement with JIDF are (in any case you suggest they are old), but to put your mind at rest, I do answer question put to me by people involved in various organisation. Orgnisations I have provide advice to on Web / antisemitism / IT security issues include: universities, government departments, Jewish commnity organiations, security organisations, think tanks, political parties, charities, journalists and newspapers and student groups. I have consulted for / assisted these and other groups on other issues (a bit of background research will show I'm also heavily involved in interfaith work, diversity work, education policy, student representation, process improvement, and research productivity). The JIDF has contacted me with questions and I have provided them with answers, as I do for other organisations. I do not agree with the JIDF on all issues, however I feel the the work they are doing on the topic of antisemitism and combatting the promotion of terrorism is important. You'll note that with the exception of work I have done ON the JIDF, it tends to be the JIDF following my research and not the other way around. If they find it of use to them, then good for them. Likewise for anyone else who finds my work of use and wishes to follow up on any of it.

Oboler (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter, (and anyone else interested in updating the JIDF article) the First Monday article is now online as well. You may wish to correct things in the JIDF article based on information here. The article has been in press for a while, but you'll note it answers some of the points previously raised on the sequence of involving both the creation and the deletion of the Facebook group in question. The article is at [25]. Just an aside on the FAZ copyright issue... the reason I raised it here is that I've just spent the better part of a week in discussions with their archives department to verify the transaltion and get permission to publish it (permission verification I now have). Oboler (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with that link. When I connect I get some sort of program error. I'll look again in a few days time but I have a work crisis looming. Given your activity in interfaith and diversity work, you might want to be wary of an organisation whose leader supplies the JC with an image of himself wearing a Kach and Kahane Chai logo.[26]--Peter cohen (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr.Oboler, as a matter of principle I have never activated my email, since I prefer to edit without any contact with other editors to maintain the autonomy of my role here above the often voiced suspicions of tagteaming.

No attack at all, and no need for me to apologize for anything. The issue of COI was raised here on the wiki JIDF talk page in response to the evidence, since elided that you were an 'officer' of the JIDF and external adviser. If you read my first comment, you will observe the propriety of my address to you, and the fact that I complimented you for, exceptionally in that group, retaining your real name. It's not proper to grill you on this, certainly, for you are as free as the rest of us to ignore what you consider impolite or immaterial queries. It is just that when you now write:-

The JIDF has contacted me with questions and I have provided them with answers, as I do for other organisations.

one naturally wonders why you did not object that their website named you for months as one of its 'officers', a note rapidly erased when the discussion of the JIDF's published list of advisors, officers and directors was touched on, and the Irgun tradition behind the names analysed. Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The JIDF has posted a complaint about the update to the article by John and myself. If anyone wants to check for any validity in these complaints then they can be found in the first article here [27].--Peter cohen (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to note that for the community's awareness, Peter. I shouldn't worry.. It's rather a compliment. They want a high public profile, and at the same time complain when public organs exercise their autonomous judgement in assessing what little evidence exists of them. It's inevitable that they will 'attack' anyone who takes notice of them, while screaming for attention. Part of the pathology of extreme fringe groups. We had it in abundance in the 60s.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And they do this even though they saw my little passive-aggressive remark about my not going to be shut up if they attacked me. I notice that they and their represenatives have now said that the three articles from which I've recently sourced information (the Jewish Chronicle, FAZ and Haartetz pieces) have all got it wrong. I'm sure they can quickly come up with a paranoid explanation about why the Germans should want to malign them, but the other two are both Jewish as, of course, am I. It's strange how much time they spend complaining about people they claim to defend.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Nishidani, I don't believe you need to activate your e-mail to mail someone through wikipedia. I may be wrong about this though. I don't believe mailing soemone to alter them to a discussion about them risks anything. On he contrary it is just polite when you see they are on a break. On the rest of what you've said, I don't believe I was ever listed on the JIDF website as you claim. I certainly never saw it and I have google alters set up so I should have if it was there. I think what you mean is their Facebook group. I've explained this on the JIDF article talk page: "I was invited to the Facebook group of the JIDF, which I accepted as I do wish to be notified on what they are doing. The administrator made me an officer, I wrote to them and said I wasn't willing to be an officer of their Facebook group unless it was made clear that I was not a JIDF official. The solution hit upon was to make the position "external consultant". I was not an admin of the group, nor was I an office holder (or indeed member) of the JIDF itself. I am not aware of having ever been listed on the JIDF website in any capasity other than as an author of work they have reproduced." I don't believe I have a close enough relationship to the JIDF to have a COI writing about them. If I did almost no researcher would ever be able to write about their field of expertise. Oboler (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Look I don't want to harass you or belabour the point. Our duty, and we come from all angles of the universe, is to check sources. Things are drawn to our attention, we follow the links and debate them according to the wiki rules, to see what can go in, make shure no one is misconstruing sources, or involved in WP:SYNTH etc. I saw you listed as an 'officer', and I checked the page three times, because when I saw that page and the names, I was fascinated by the tacit information all those pseudonyms conveyed. My respect for yourself indeed was secured by the fact that you, both there and on wikipedia, did not hide behind a handle, but used your real name, proof of integrity if ever there was.

I think several others also saw what I saw. That was no cause for scandal. It was simply to get things right. It is a fact that since the JIDF wikipage and its talk page are under close observation by the JIDF, indeed actively edited by JIDF members (or sutlers) what is on the JIDF page concerning wiki resonates with feedback from wiki. I pointed out spelling errors, and they adjusted. They got the sex of people wrong in their pseudo list about putative anti-Israeli wikipedians, and it was corrected. The feedback is fairly quick. When your being listed as an officer came under discussion, it was within a day or two delisted, I think a week after your last appearance on our talk page. As I say, this was cross-verified by several independent wiki editors. Once delisted, obviously we, as editors, must drop any note to the effect that you are or were an 'officer' of the JIDF. We were under an editorial obligation then, as now, to examine material on the JIDF site with scrupulous care for precise reference.

Wiki, I think you appreciate, will not post information that cannot be verified. As it is, all we have is several people noting in the archive, as they followed a link, that you figured in that link as an 'officer'. I presume the link is no longer active, or does not lead to that information. Hence the fact that several of us saw the information, and our seeing it is registered in the archives, is neither here nor there, since what we saw is no longer true or verifiable. But few of those editors who saw it interact with each other with frequency, come from widely different backgrounds, have different political and cultural interests and perspectives. This is all a storm in a teacup. We have had several problems with poor behaviour from the JIDF. There is not a skerrick of evidence that your behaviour, in assisting us to get things right, has been anything less than proper and in conformity with what is expected of wiki editors.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ps.off-point, but what on earth is a 'google alter'? I'm a rather decrepitly aged, pretechie book wonk, and don't really know anything about computers, and programs, except how to switch them on, press a few buttons to read pages, and write.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[28]] Carol Moore 18:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Nishidani, though given I was not an officer of JIDF itself, it would be nice to have that mistaken impression corrected in a statement linking back here in the archives. I don't even know if that is possible, but the information was not from a RS in the first place and is not there in the second place. Someone did suggest in the talk page to just ask me... as I've now answered it would be nice to have that included. This does share similar issues to biographys of living people, as such it is not purely a matter of did a source exist, but also, was it true? I believe the standard with respects to living people IS different in order to avoid any possibility of defamation. - I'm not saying there is any at this point, but if JIDF did something problmatic in the future and I was erronously called an officer (or past officer) as a result of that tak page... that could be a problem. I'm happy to be associated with organisations I do or have actually play a role in (they are listed on my website) but I'd prefer not to take up any potential liability for anyone else. As to the "Google Alter", Carol's link is exactly right, it's a typo on Google Alert. Sorry about that. Oboler (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism 2.0

Is there enough material out there to justify an article on this theme? I know that User:Oboler has had research published on the subject and that some of the Zionist groups have picked up the concept gaining some press coverage. Has there been any critique published or is the coverage largely from one side?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. The Antisemitism 2.0 work is academic, as such I do expect others in academia will publish articles that refer to it and agree / disagree / refine the work I have done. I have a piece that will appear in the next issue of First Monday (the Internet Journal) which also makes reference to the topic. Other references I am aware of include Deborah Stone, To hate, click here: antisemitism on the internet, Anti Defamation Commission, Special Report No. 38, August 2008 and this page [29] at the ADL. The other key reference is the media report Anti-Semitism 2.0 Going Largely Unchallenged in the NY Jewish Week. The report is a mix of information from the Antisemitism 2.0 report (which the journalist was given an advanced copy of) and in depth research the journalist themself did.

I would also like to add that your comment "some of the Zionist groups have picked up the concept gaining some press coverage" is both false and I personally feel offensive. The press coverage was a result of the scholarship and not of some "Zionist Conspiracy TM" as you seem to imply. This is self evidently true not only because organisations working in the area of anti-racism picked it up (and not Just Zionist groups - though I wonder if Zionist was really the word you were looking for), but also because the press coverage started before the report was released. The Jewish Week article (the front page story that week) came out a week before the draft of the paper was released to the Global Forum to Combat Antisemitism.

While I welcome news of any academic publications examining this issue (you can e-mail me anything you find out through my user page), the spirit in which this request is made seems unhelpful to Wikipedia. The last time this was attempted (on the article talk page) attempt were then made to discredit me as an expert in the field, these failed. At the time I hinted that there was something I couldn't share but that I was finding these attempts a little funny. I'd like to refer anyone interested in that to this News letter from the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism. As things unfolded I had to decline the Yale position at the last moment and return to Australia, though I am still in contact and working with people in the Center. Again if you find any academic sources on Antisemitism 2.0 which you feel I might not be aware of, please do let me know.

Oboler (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I was suggesting on article on your concept. It's just that I wanted to see if it had spread beyond a group of people with similar views. If, say, your concept were used as the basis of an article looking at similar behaviour by anti-Islamists or other varieties of racist or got linked in to the New anti-Semitism debate, then a decent article could be produced. If all the sourcing was from people who basically agreed with you, it would be less likely that a productive article could be produced. It needs to have been discussed by people using more than one discource on the Middle East. NPOV and all that

My query arose because I wanted to link the concept from my addition to the JIDF article. I used your name for it rather than the FAZ's "Antisemitism on the Web 2.0", as it's punchier, and it would have been handy to link an article.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As a WP:neologism wouldn't it be best to make it as sub-section of New antisemitism when it becomes notable enough for that; otherwise, it shouldn't get its own article until as notable as New antisemitism. Carol Moore 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I agree the term is too new and not widely enough spread for inclusion as an article. That said, I believe it is more relevant to Online Hate than to New Antisemitism. In fact, I don't believe Antisemitism 2.0 is related specifically to regular antisemitism or to new antisemitism - it could apply equally to ideas from both. It's more about process, presentation, goals and technological usage than about the specific claims. Please note... these thoughts DO constitute original research so they are my justification for where it should probably be mentioned, and not useable in an article. At least not on Wikipedia. ;) Oboler (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it won't be logn before there is more analysis of the term. I notice that the "2.0" suffix is getting adapted in the blogosphere and used in headings such as "Kahane Chai 2.0" [30]. A new media academic is bound to publish an analysis of this 2.0 meme with your coinage at the core. But, yes, we have to hold our breaths a while until such material appears and only produce an article then.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter, Antisemitism 2.0 is not just antisemitism with a "2.0" suffix to make it look new and cool... it has a strong relationship with aspects of Web 2.0, both technlogical and social. I hope it doesn't just get lumped in with that as it would kind of miss the point. It's the difference between someone with a computer science background using a technical term and someone with a marketing background doing so. Oboler (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Bio on Rahm Emanuel

RfC intro reads: There is a dispute among a number of editors about keeping out of the (Obama new Chief of Staff) Rahm Emanuel article the following brief and abundantly WP:RS referenced notable and explanative information (in bold; refs in italics). The information is embarrassing to Emanuel, but that is not an excuse to delete it per Wiki Policy on Well Known Public Figures. Doing so creates an article that is confusing to people unfamiliar with Israeli history and suspiciously sanitized to those who have seen the many various mainstream and blog references to these facts, which doubtless will continue relating to Israel-Palestine and terrorism issues during the time Emanuel holds his Chief of Staff position. (Read specifics there of very limited additions I'm proposing.) Carol Moore 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Irgun

I am not sure anybody will notice my request higher up on this talk page.

Additional input is sought at Talk:Irgun#Category:Zionist terrorism. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Input is easy.

1. a wp:rs reference (who - proof of scholarship - precise quote - reference)

2. wp:NPoV (any ohter mind on the issue from wp:rs source ?)

that is easy and cristal clear.

But we completely don't care knowing if this is true or not, if this is terrible or not, if this is a drama or not, if this is a crime against humanity or not. We don't care if Palestinian were victims (or not) of an ethnic cleansing or if the fled in '48 because they didn't like their land or had been asked by Arabs who prepared a jewish genocide. And we don't care if Israel has a 60 years long history of fight against antisemite Arabs for survival or if this is (would be, could be, may be) propganda.

We completely don't mind. Hope this is now definitely clear for you.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say in your main paragraph in your above comment, but your other points about references have been addressed at Talk:Irgun#Category:Zionist terrorism. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi and the PLO

I have made what I believe to be is a fair, accurate, well sourced description of both sides of the controversy here Rashid Khalidi#Controversy regarding relationships with militant organizations. I would appreciate your input here Talk:Rashid Khalidi#New section on militant organizations. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I could not find this. Where is it ?

Ceedjee (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles needing geographical coordinates

Category:Israel articles missing geocoordinate data, Category:West Bank articles missing geocoordinate data and Category:Gaza Strip articles missing geocoordinate data contain lists of articles about places that curently lack geographic coordinates.

Adding coordinates to these articles will allow users of Google Maps and other location-aware services to find these articles on maps, as well as putting them into Wikipedia's own internal atlas.

The articles are all marked with {{coord missing}} tags, which need replacing with {{coord}} tags that contain their latitude/longitude coordinates -- alternatively, you might want to enter the coordinates into an infobox, before removing the {{coord missing}} tag. You can find out how to do this at Wikipedia:How to add geocodes to articles. Please let me know if this is useful! -- The Anome (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New "Critics" Categories??

I was thinking Category:Arab-Israeli conflict could use a Critics subcategory. Options would be:

• Category:Critics (Arab-Israeli conflict). One category listing everyone who is known for substantial criticism of either or both sides.
• Category: Critics of Israel in Arab-Israeli conflict and Category: Critics of Palestinians in Arab-Israeli conflict.

Unless I missed a category, it seems there are a lot of people with articles who are well known for criticism on either side and it's helpful to organize them for wiki readers, as well as for wiki editors, including to be able to check their articles systematically for BLP violations. Thoughts? Carol Moore 15:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot more parties that get criticised. As you're using "Arab-Israeli conflict", then you have to allow critics of Saddam's attempt to bring the issue into the 1991 Gulf War by missilling Israel, critics of Britain and France for working with Israel against Egypt in the Suez conflict. Then their are critics of perceived partisanship of the US and of Iran's use of Holocaust Denial etc etc. I think one big category for critics might therefore be simpler.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There are other difficulties with this, as well. For instance, Edward Said would of course be listed as a "Critic of Israel"; but he was also a prominent critic of the Palestinian leadership. There are many similar examples; though intriguingly I can't think offhand of a "Critic of Palestinians" who might also be listed as critical of Israel. It must be my failure, not theirs! RolandR (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't think of a single Jewish/Israeli commentator who has criticized Palestinians, and who has also at some point criticized one or more of the numerous people and policies which have formed some part of the Israeli government at various times? Oh c'mon now, my good sir! :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I may suggest Category:Analysis on the Arab-Israeli conflict or Category:Commentators of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We all now none is neutral but we could have access to all of them in that category... Ceedjee (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Commentators sounds good to me. Unless someone beats me too it, I'll create "Commentators on the Arab-Israeli conflict" some time next week and add a couple dozen that come to mind or I chance upon and then others can get busy :-). Carol Moore 00:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, looking at the problem described below with Irgun with Ceedjee demanding that some WP:RS describe Irgun specifically as "Zionist terrorist" or whatever for it to be in that category, I'm wondering if Ceedjee or others might decide that only people specifically called "commentator" by a wp:rs would be eligible? I'm assuming a somewhat looser definition: i.e., anyone who has a wikipedia article and has either made news speaking or writing on the topic or writes regularly on the topic in various forums, some or most of which may not be WP:RS (like a well-known scientist who blogs on the topic and occasionally publishes at Electronic Intifada). So in anticipation of just such a problem, perhaps the broader "Category: Writers on the Arab-Israeli conflict" might be better. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't just ask for wp:rs sources. The request is to check all *wp:rs* pov on the topic to see if Irgun is unanimously considered as "zionist terrorist" by wp:rs sources. So, to respect NPoV.

Maybe you could check yourself and analyse the problem with this category.

• commentator is good. A writer is automatically a commentator.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Irgun, I don't think one ever gets unanimity on sources. I do prefer commentator - just as long as someone doesn't have to be called a commentator by unanimous - or even one - WP:RS source. Having a wiki article article which mentions or links to at least 2 or 3 talks, presentations, radio interviews or writings in and/or reported by some WP:RS forum should be sufficient. Of course, people who just say one or two thoughtless stupid things, even if they got a lot of publicity for it and/or are a best selling author on some other topic, would not fit in that category. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

backdent<---

After all of the above it turns out there already is a Category:Writers on the Middle East with Historians of the Middle East (which has bunch of subcategories) and Writers on Zionism subcategories. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dancing angels at Irgun

Despite the fact that several of us have produced WP:RSs that describe Irgun as terrorist, there are people trying to remove categories etc from this article. There seems to be a wierd interpretation of WP:SYN going on whereby even if we can reference that they were Zionist and terrorist, we need to find someone actually saying "Zionist terrorist" before we can put the article in that category.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That can't be the first time you've run into that interpretation of WP:SYN, but then you probably didn't work on Jewish Lobby. Anyway, I'd review whatever the policy on putting things in categories is and then get a third neutral opinion quick. Needless to say, now that the Irgun will probably remain on the blogs, if not in the news, as long as Rahm Emanuel (son of an Irgun-ista) is Obama's Chief of Staff, there probably will be an attempt to sanitize those articles, just as all the WP:RS reviews of and comments about Emanuel's father associations were sanitized from Rahm Emanuel article. Carol Moore 01:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On that see my post [31] and the following thread. I see there a case of WP:BITE creating a vandal and then people assumign that all his/her other edits must be vandalism too.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WHO :

Proof of scholarship :

Precise quote :

Reference.

That is the 1st step -> WP:RS

Then we will discuss WP:NPoV if other minds exist in other wp:rs sources. Ceedjee (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

<---Backdent Wikipedia:Categories#How_to_categorize_an_article is not that specific on needing a specific WP:RS. It says: When assigning an article into categories, try to be thorough in a "horizontal" sense. The topic may be associated with a geographic area, a historical period, an academic subfield, a certain type of thing (like a food or an ornament), and/or a special interest topic (like Roman Empire or LGBT). You might need to poke around the category hierarchy a bit to find the right place. Try searching for articles similar to the article you are categorizing to get ideas or to find the most appropriate place. There may be a debate on which of several categories is best, using various WP:RS. But saying it can't be in a category unless exact terminology is used is a misinterpretation of policy, IM(notvery)HO. Carol Moore 15:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So we can create category:Zionist political violence and add Irgun inside... (note eg, the article Zionist political violence exists while Zionist terrorism is a redirect to this but is categorized in category:Zionist terrorism). The same with Category:National liberation movements. We should aslo add Category:Paramilitary organizations (it was this too) and Category:Israel Defense Forces (it was merged in these). Ceedjee (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First I noticed there is Category:Political violence in United States and Category:Political violence in Senegal. There probably are lots of nation states that could have such categories, under a larger category:Political Violence.

However, I still remain confused between Jewish/Zionist/Israeli Violence/Terrorism so offer no opinion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand you :

Do you still agree with that statement : "But saying it can't be in a category unless exact terminology is used is a misinterpretation of policy" ?

- if not, could you please go on the reasoning and therefore giving your mind about how to deal such issues in respect of wp:rules.

- if so, we can add all the categories abovementionned... (among which a new political violence in the British Mandate of Palestine)

Ceedjee (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Ceedjee's question above, to make it simple, I think the rules mean if sources call them zionists and militants or terrorists in same research piece, but not in the exact order of "Zionist terrorists" you can still consider it WP:RS. Especially if they say it in the same sentence, maybe in different word order or with an intervening word. And even if only 2 or 3 WP:RS out of 7 or 8 use it, you still can use it - unless, for example those 7 or 8 used some other exact phrase. When both descriptions are used, then there is further debate via the rules. But frankly I think this whole debate belongs on article talk page. Bringing it here doesn't seem to have generated much light; though I could be wrong :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An article with No-POV

An {expand} template has been added here, with references on the talkpage to spur discussion. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Rashid Khalidi

Comments would be appreciated after reviewing the evidence here: Talk:Rashid Khalidi. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

JIDF again

Someone has tried to link the JIDF attack page on Wikipedia editors from the article. I hope people here agree it is inappropriate to do so. (I am listed on that page but am on record as objecting to its beign linked before I was added to it.)--Peter cohen (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

At least until some reliable source comments on it, hopefully negatively. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So a litte more than a week before Hummus has to be page protected for edit-warring (see below), this article [32] appeared at the JIDF criticizing Wikipedia for including information on Israel's cultural appropriation of the Arab dish. Of course, it could be a coincidence. Tiamut^talk 12:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Of all things ... Hummus

WikiProject Israel has already been informed by another editor [33], and I'm about to post this at WikiProject Palestine too, since it's relevant there as well.

There's a problem at Hummus, as some of may know. Two main issues: 1) Whether or not the word Palestine can be used in the article 2) How much space should be accorded to the controversy over how Hummus became a part of Israeli cuisine, and the way to phrase it etc.

Anyway, thought you should all know that discussion at Talk:Hummus is actively underway to find solutions to these issues before the page is unprotected. I should caution any who wish to be involved that an admin has threatened to unilaterally block anyone who edits outside of consensus after article protection is lifted. Welcome to the wonderful world of Israel-Palestine collaboration! Tiamut^talk 20:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'd like to offer a free plateful for all those who toil away on this page... Itsmejudith (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hummus with olive oil, lemon juice, cumin and sumac

In fairness, Palestinian cuisine (excuse me, cuisine which was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries prevalent among the Arabic-speaking population of the territory which became known as the British Mandate of Palestine) has become a sore point in the real world, not just in wiki-land. It's deeply disappointing that the natural, neutral, and normal term for a geographic region (ie, Palestine) is being excluded mainly on the basis that it will anger nationalists who don't understand the nature of such geographical names. I dare-say this would not be considered a valid compromise in other WP:NCON contexts, such as the Persian Gulf or the Greek-Macedonian (erm, I mean "FYROMian") thing. <eleland/talkedits> 23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to dive into the article talk page at this point, so I'll just comment here:

Regarding the first point, I don't consider Palestine and Palestinian territories synonymous. The latter refers to the West Bank and Gaza, while the the former refers to those places, but also a larger region that includes present-day Israel. Granted, I would almost never use "Palestine" to refer to a place today (much in the same way I wouldn't use "the Land of Israel" or "Anatolia"), but that's a matter of personal preference. Choose the one that's more accurate.

Regarding the second point, I see the insertion of this material as unnecessary politicization (as others have also called it). There's nothing particularly earth-shattering about immigrants adopting local foods and customs; if this were any other part of the world, no one would think anything of it -- much less write a highly-charged section about it.

Also, Tiamut, although everyone is already entirely aware of some of your positions regarding this region, your snide use of "Israel-Palestine" makes a mockery -- perhaps intentionally, I'm sure -- of the word "collaboration". If you want people to collaborate, you shouldn't do that. -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's called a joke Tariq. Grow a sense of humour. Tiamut^talk 00:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And Falafel too

The food fight has spread. Should an admin find a wrong version to protect there too?==Peter cohen (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would call that a food fight. It looks like one new editor, struggling to get acquainted with things here. Perhaps we might invite him/her to join us here? I know the rhetoric seems a little inflammatory to our rather insular Wiki community, (those with high-speed Internet access and fluency in English aren't really representative of the whole world out there) but he/she just might need to be introduced to a few of our policies and be reminded that behind the screen, are other living beings with whom dialogue is possible. Anyway, I'll try checking out their page to see what's up. Tiamut^talk 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi

There's currently a BLP concern regarding reports about Rashid Khalidi being affiliated with the PLO. Personally, I couldn't care if he was or wasn't, but a recent report by Ehud Yeari on prime time television made me feel that the BLP concern is incorrect. Since my perspective on this has not been accepted, I believe there is room for wider opinions/review. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing bad or nothing good to be affiliated with the PLO...

Nevertheless, I am sure Walid Khalidi is affiliated to the PLO. There may be a misunderstanding given both are historians. Ceedjee (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the sources provided in your discussions on the talk page of Rashid Khalidi, I don't see what would be the wp:blp issue with a statement such as : During the 2008 Presidential campaign this friend of Obama was claimed by McCain and Palin supporters to be an "Israeli hater" and to have been "spokeman of the PLO" during the eighties. [with the sources of course]

(note that Rashid Khalidi is a recognized historian even in Israeli circles)

Ceedjee (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

True, nothing bad or good in the abstract. It is a matter of context. In Khalidi's world of United States politics and academia, calling a professor a 1970s PLO spokesman (or supporter, or sympathizer) is used as disparagement to defeat people in elections, demand that people be fired, deny faculty appointments, etc. Similarly, there is nothing bad or good about being an undeclared Mossad agent, but in certain contexts that would be a damaging thing to say about a professor teaching in Beirut. Other, milder past claims about Khalidi's supposed sympathy for the PLO got him fired from one position, investigated for academic misconduct at Columbia, and serious opposition to a faculty appointment at Princeton. The claim in question was used by McCain and Palin as election-year disparagement of Obama for merely knowing Khalidi. In US politics if you associate with a PLO official you "pal around with terrorists" (per Palin's last minute elction rhetoric about Obama). The core of WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP is not whether the statement is "bad", but rather whether it is untrue and causes WP:HARM to the subject (in the case of libel) or is inadequately sourced and disputed (in the case of BLP). I agree that reporting that McCain and Palin made the claim is not a BLP vio because the claim, however damaging, is widely report. What isn't widely reported or sourced is that it's true (some scattered sources report it but Khalidi himself and various other reliable sources say it is not true), or that reporters and scholars believe it to be true or even consider it an issue. There are a few blogging and writing editorials about the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a valid comparison. Mossad is an intelligence agency. PLO is a national liberation movement. It would be analogous if Khalidi were accused of working for Force 17 or some such. <eleland/talkedits> 22:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You could say World Zionist Organization then. I think it would get us sidetracked to delve into the legitimacy of associating with one organization or another that is reviled on the other side of the fence. The specifics are not the point, but rather that a fact many in the international community might consider neutral can be highly damaging in the context of a person living in a particular context. So it is in America for a professor to be called a former PLO employee, or even sympathizer. Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is notable in context of Obama campaign only, unless some solid evidence comes up more than what was there last time I looked: a 20 year old book review that was glad he had some sort of PLO contacts for the book's sake and a POV opinion piece rant in the Washington Times. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand all comments but I confirm one point : There is nothing bad or nothing good to be affiliated with the PLO.... PLO was chosen as the official representatives of the Palestinian people end of 80's and his President was granted to talk at the UNO.

The only issue is therefore about wp:due weight

Does such an information has enough weight to be in the article about Rashid Khalidi ?

(note that I still personnaly think it was Walid Khalidi and not Rashid).

Ceedjee (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a case of mistaken identity. Rashid Khalidi was often quoted in newspapers for analysis and commentary in Beirut during the 1970s, some of these quotes identify him directly as a spokesman for PLO-affiliated news service Wafa, and with the recent election-related tizzy some of the writers of these articles (i'm not talking about fringey papers like the Washington Times but respected veteran foreign correspondents for real papers) went on record saying their attributions were correct. It seems IMO to be fairly well established, prima facie, that Khalidi had at least some role as a WAFA spokesman, although this may have been a kind of "officially unofficial" role. The question is why anybody should really care, outside of nonsense related to 2008 elections. It is a minor sideline in his bio and should not be inflated into some type of scandal. <eleland/talkedits> 03:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Eleland.

I am not neutral in that discussion because I focus very much on History and as a reader (not editor) focusing on History, I am interested to be aware of the different political (potential) affiliations of scholars on these topics. It doesn't discredit the author (far from, R. Khalidi is highly appreciated) but it can be interesting in some cases to be aware of that information. It is not as if he was 100% out of the political debate.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To me the NPOV way to bring it in would be to reflect the neutral info Friedman presented in his book review of Khalidi's book, naming and describing the book. Assuming the Wash TImes rant mentions Obama, it only should be presented in that context. It seems silly to say: "And (authors) were highly indignant over this fact 20 years later." CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Benjamin M. Emanuel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Benjamin M. Emanuel. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

FYI, based on a conversation on Jimmy Wales's talk page:

• Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey

Your feedback is appreciated. rootology (C)(T) 19:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC) :Copy posted by CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Before We Say Goodbye

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriella_Ambrosio#Gabriella_Ambrosio regarding the author of Before We Say Goodbye,a book about the Israel-Palestine conflict which got a good review in ynet here. — Sebastian 04:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: a) AfD withdrawn b) as self-proclaimed "move editor" I moved this article related notice over here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)