Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Carolmooredc in topic 1RR for the Arab-Israeli conflict articles
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Multiple articles - the founding myths of Israel

Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments7 people in discussion

A number of articles recite well-known Zionist viewpoints in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia. Attempts to add opposing viewpoints contained in works marketed by the textbook divisions of Routledge, Cambridge University, and MacMillan-Palgrave have resulted in reverts and bizarre claims that the authors of the textbooks are misquoting sources, lying, promoting fringe theories that are out-of-the-mainstream, or have nothing new or interesting to say on the subject. The authors in question include Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Eugene Rogan, Benny Morris, and many others. There is clear evidence regarding the acceptance of their views by mainstream groups and academics outside Israel that are independent of their theories.

The published Wikipedia policy says that articles should describe all significant views in accordance with their prominence, and fairly weight the authority accorded each view in the relevant scholarly community with the aim of providing neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties. Wikipedia policy requires editors to document the level of acceptance within the relevant academic community with reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Reporting on the levels of acceptance. Wikipedia:ARBPIA requires that they utilize reliable sources to document their disputed or contentious assertions. It appears that a centralized community discussion on the New Historians and Critical Sociologists is in order. Here are some relevant sources which indicate mainstream acceptance:

  • L. Carl Brown, reviewed the controversy between Israel's old and new historians. He criticized historians who had claimed that the new historians' "point of departure was political and moralistic rather than academic." According to Brown, "One would have thought that orthodoxy and heterodoxy share politicizing and moralizing about equally." See State of Grace? Rethinking Israel's Founding Myths in Foreign Affairs Magazine [1]
  • Prof. Sanford R. Silverburg, reviewed Simha Flapan's The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities in The Library Journal and said "Though bound to create controversy, this is essential for those interested in Middle Eastern history or the politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict."[2]
  • Neil Caplan wrote a review article: "Zionism and the Arabs: Another Look at the 'New' Historiography", in the Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 345-360. The works he reviewed were: Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999 by Benny Morris; The Israel/Palestine Question by Ilan Pappe; and The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists and Palestine, 1921-1951 by Avi Shlaim. He noted that the views of Baruch Kimmerling, the late Simha Flapan, Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Gershon Shafir, Uri Ram, Ilan Pappe and Zeev Sternhell had been incorporated into mainstream textbooks. He said that no serious student of the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict can ignore these publications; that they are important and impressive; and cannot be dismissed simply because of their unpleasant revelations or political slant.
  • Elie Podeh has written articles that appeared in the Journal History and Memory, and a book length treatment of "The Arab-Israeli conflict in Israeli history textbooks, 1948-2000" [3] which illustrated that the views of the New Historians and Critical Sociologists had been incorporated in Israeli textbooks.
  • Ethan Bonner has worked as the Jerusalem corespondent for the Boston Globe, Reuters, and the New York Times. He also served as the Education Editor for the New York Times. He wrote about the adoption of textbooks containing the views of the New Historians and said that Israel's State archives contain clear evidence of double deals, schemes to transfer Arabs out of the country and rebuffed gestures of peace by the Arab states. Bonner said Morris book was a first-class work of history, bringing together the latest scholarship and that there is no question that Shlaim presented compelling evidence for a revaluation of traditional Israeli history. See Israel: The Revised Edition [4] harlan (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Harlan -- does this mean that you're going to stop pushing your own "fringe" historical revisionism, which involves you eternally coming up with new and innovative personal theories to somehow try to overturn the basic facts of history as accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable scholars in the field (such as that the Arabs -- in formal public statements issued by Arab governments and the recognized representative institutions of the Arabs of the British mandate of Palestine -- REJECTED the November 29th 1947 UNGA 181 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 or early 1948, while the formal public statements issued by the recognized representative institutions of the Jews of the British mandate of Palestine ACCEPTED the United Nations Partition Plan for November 29th 1947 UNGA 181 Palestine in 1947 or early 1948)[1]? In any case, much of the school whose works you're pushing is really a phenomenon of about 15 years ago -- and since then, Benny Morris has significantly revised some of his findings, while there have been challenges to some of the conclusions of other works of the school. AnonMoos (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
AnonMoos, Wikipedia says "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." I'd settle for a project where we can cite the material in my college-aged kid's Middle East Studies textbook without you throwing a tantrum. harlan (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That's nice high-flown abstract idealistic sounding verbal rhetoric -- but in your concrete actions, you seem to be trying to deny the right of "every single human being" to "freely share in the... knowledge" that the mainstream consensus of basic historical fact as accepted by reputable scholars in the field is that the Jews accepted the 1947 partition plan, while the Arabs rejected it... AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
AnonMoos I'm not removing that viewpoint from the article, I'm trying to add the opposing view that it was a myth that the Jewish leadership accepted the plan and that it was a myth that the Arabs rejected the plan and prepared for war. You cite Wahlid Kahlidi here, but removed the background material and cites to his journal articles which discussed the partition plan: Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution and Plan Dalet Revisited. Sami Al-Arian doesn't have anything to do with this topic and I haven't edited any articles about him. Are you acting out again or what? harlan (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That's nice -- however, Wikipedia is not "neutral" between the "opposing views" that the earth is round and that the earth is flat. As I said long ago, somewhere near the beginning of all the nonsense connected with the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article, if "revisionist" historiography has achieved some degree of prominence, then it can be mentioned in the proper place in the article -- but that proper place is not the lead section of the article up at the top, and there can be no phoney symmetry or "balance" between what is accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable scholarship and what is not accepted. I downloaded the first PDF file that you linked to ("Walid" is not spelled with an "h" by the way), and it contained a completely unscholarly ranting propaganda tirade without the slightest pretensions to objectivity or any form of serious study of history. The first 15 pages (or 3/4ths) of this document consist solely of a Jeremiad Philippic on how eeeeeeeevil the UN partition plan was, and how eeeeeeeeeeevil the Jews were continuously from 1897 to 1947, without one single moment's cessation. In the remaining 3 pages where he actually touches on matters relevant to the main point being discussed here, he nowhere says that the Arabs accepted the 1947 partition plan (and he's clearly of the opinion that the Arabs never should have considered even for a millisecond the possibility of accepting the 1947 partition plan), and he clearly says that the Jews DID actually accept the 1947 partition plan. So he actually provides no support whatsoever for your position with respect to the central issue which has been generating most of the endless tedious tiresome discussions on the talk page of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (as I would have predicted from what he said in the Encyclopedia Britannica article subsection which I've referenced). I'm afraid that the rather cavalier attitude you take toward "sources" (which often seem to be of rather dubious quality anyway) — as shown again by this little incident — is exactly why I haven't taken the piling on of bibliographic citations by you very seriously for a long time now... AnonMoos (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The New Historians are not saying the earth is flat. There are policies and procedures in place that you can use if you want to establish that they are advancing a "fringe theory". Do you in fact have any reliable sources to support the claim that their views are not accepted by mainstream academics or that they deserve less weight? harlan (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Harlan -- the so-called "new historiography" (which is not actually all that new anymore, as I mentioned above) is not in general equivalent to a flat earth theory, but your own personal theories that the Arabs somehow supposedly did not reject the 1947 UN partition plan and/or that the Jews somehow supposedly did not accept the 1947 UN partition plan ARE in fact equivalent to a flat earth theory. There's no use in trying to move on to advanced points connected with the so-called "new historiography" until you first stop trying to push your personal fringe flat-earth theories -- a futile attempt at historical revisionism which has already generated hundreds of kilobytes of tiresome, tedious, monotonous discussions on the talk page and talk page archives of the partition plan article. AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A few points:
First, the fact that the Arabs rejected the plan while the Jews accepted it is the absolute mainstream view. A sampling of sources to this can be found in State of Palestine#Background; a great multitude of them can be easily found by searching, for instance, Google books. I'm not going to bother citing dozens of books here; everyone can review this themselves.
Second, even the "New historians" (Flappan, Morris, etc.) don't challenge the basic point - Jews said yes, Arabs said no. This much is clear fact, known to everyone, present in all historical and contemporary sources.
Third, what the new historians claim is that although the Jewish leadership said 'yes', they really planned to prevent the creation of an Arab state. However, this amount to crystal-balling, a 'what-if' scenario. The basic premise is that had the Arabs accepted, it 'wouldn't have mattered'. But here it doesn't even matter if their views are accepted - their claim is irrelevant. No one can know for sure what might have happened, and all of the Jews' actions were taken in light of Arab rejection. It boiled down to a simple 'yes' and 'no' on November 1947. Thus, when saying the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected, there's no question of mainstream and minority views. This is unquestionable fact. Had we said "the Jews lovingly embraced the plan, and had every intention of helping the Arabs establish a state, acknowledging their right to one", we might have had to mention other views.
Fourth, and this is a major one - it isn't even important whether harlan's claims are completely irrelevant (as I've explained in section three), are fringe, are merely minority. In the article about a subject, we need to mention the significant viewpoints. We do not need to do so in every single article where something is mentioned (or every article would be some 10MB in length). When a subject is mentioned in another article, we merely need to use the mainstream view. okedem (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Okedem, nobody is removing the viewpoint that the Arabs rejected the plan while the Jews accepted it from articles or adding 10MB to them. Here are three mainstream viewpoints that you removed from the State of Palestine article:

  • "Simha Flapan said it was a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and it was also a myth that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war. The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, by Simha Flapan, Pantheon, 1988, ISBN 0-679-72098-7, Myth One pages 13-54, Myth Two pages 55-80.
  • James Crawford said Israel was created by the use of force, without the consent of any previous sovereign and without complying with the partition plan. Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, and Stefan Talmon, eds., The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999) 108
  • According to Clea Bunch, President Truman viewed Israel and Jordan as twin emergent states. Clea Lutz Bunch, "Balancing Acts: Jordan and the United States during the Johnson Administration," Canadian Journal of History 41.3 (2006) harlan (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll reply in the article's talkpage. okedem (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Harlan wrote: "Wikipedia:ARBPIA requires that they utilize reliable sources to document their disputed or contentious assertions." And that's why this is relevant here because this is being done at a number of articles. While it's news to me that Arabs accepted the plan, Zionist leaders from the 19th century expressed their desire to kick the Arabs off their land and expand Israel to a much larger size than the UN partition plan. But looking at the two most relevant articles Ethnic Cleansing and Greater Israel one would think that only fringes or the Likkud had promoted those views. I'm sure anyone daring to add WP:RS info on mainstream Zionist leaders expansionism would have a hard time. Anyway, have you tried WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN??? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It's news to you because it's Harlan's own personal innovative theory, and it's complete historical nonsense. We can discus how generally eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil the Jews were on some other occasion, but right now this is about trying to prevent Harlan from overturning the basic accepted facts of mainstream historical scholarship (i.e. that the Jews accepted the UN partition plan in 1947 / early 1948, while the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan in 1947 / early 1948) and replacing it with his own original research fringe theory. AnonMoos (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
AnonMoos, we cannot discuss how generally "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil" the Jews were, and I'd appreciate you cease using that phrase in this discussion, because its not relevant and comes off as soapboxing.
What is relevant is that many historians have put forward the notion that while the Zionist leadership publicly accepted the partition plan, they had other intentions, and privately expressed their reservations and disappointments with it, looking to it as a steeping stone to larger territorial gains in Palestine. As for the Arabs, privately some in that multifaceted leadership were privately indicating their acceptance of partition to gain their own leadership advantages in the "carve-out-a-country" and "put-in-a puppet-government" colonial sale the European powers had on offer at the time.
Harlan is right to try to include these well documented and significant POVs in relevant articles on the subject. What is wrong is giving this discussion too much space is remotely related articles which becomes an issue only when some people try to pretend there is only one legitimate POV here and express it in Wiki's neutral voice. Tiamuttalk 07:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Tiamut, what's you're saying has nothing to do with POVs or new notions by new historians. It is a matter of level of detail.
The discussions and different views within the Jewish leadership regarding partition are well known and documented (yes, by "old" historians). Some opposed partition, but the majority supported it, understanding the need to compromise. It doesn't mean that every single Jew, or every single Zionist leadership member loved the notion, or even supported it, so you can always find quotes of this person or that against partition (often as a larger argument for it, actually) but that majority did support, and that was the official position. Some may have indeed viewed it as a "stepping stone", but that is of little importance, and their future actions are merely conjecture. All we know for sure is their actions (saying 'Yes'), not their possible intentions.
Naturally, the Arab response was not completely monolithic, though it was way more uniform than the Jewish position, and dissenters very rarely, if ever, voiced support for partition (you used the adjective "privately" twice, and "indicating" instead of "supported"). No one claims every single Jew supported, and every single Arab opposed. The question is the majority or the leadership.
Now, the complexities are certainly of interest, but in the article about the plan itself. In other articles, where the plan is mentioned, there no need or justification to go into this level of detail. Similarly, when we mention the official British (for example) position on something, we don't discuss the opinion of every single opposition member, or dissenting cabinet member. It is obvious that decisions and position are generally not supported by 100% of the people, or of the leadership (which is why we specifically mention when some resolution is passed unanimously). okedem (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Tiamut -- I really don't see what saying that there were deep-laid Machiavellian conniving aggressive expansionist secret scheming plans pursued consistently over decades is, if it's not demonization of Jews. And yes, Harlan can include references to actual real "new" historiography in the article, if he does so in a manner which reflects that some of the conclusions of the "new" historiographers have not gone unchallenged, and that not every off-hand remark by a "new" historiographer is always to be presented as absolute unassailable 100% Gospel truth. What Harlan CAN'T do is do include in Wikipedia articles his own personal version of the "new" historiography, where by means of introspective meditation on the texts of primary source documents, Harlan comes up with his own personal innovative metaphysical speculative hypothetical counterfactual theories, which attempt to overturn basic facts of history as accepted by the mainstream consensus of reputable scholars in the area -- such as that in all relevant public official or quasi-official pronouncements, the Arabs rejected the UN 1947 partition plan, while the Jews accepted it... AnonMoos (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
AnonMoos, assuming good faith is incompatible with an assumption that everyone who offers a less than glowingly complimentary assessment of the Zionist leadership's aims in Palestine (i.e. tends to be skeptical of their publicly stated aims) is secretly out to demonize the Jews. It is often the case that the political leadership of various national groups says one thing when they mean another. To point this out does not necessarily imply that the national group they represent is inherently dishonest. It would greatly help this discussion if you would stop insinuating that your fellow editors are anti-Semites. Tiamuttalk 14:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"Unflattering" has very little to do with it -- they can be as "unflattering" about the Yishuv leadership as they want, as long as such unflattering assertions have some kind of remote basis in fact and/or some remote relationship to improving a Wikipedia article. However, maintaining that there was some deep-laid Machiavellian aggressive expansionistic Master Plan which the cunning conniving scheming Jews consistently followed over decades is a purely nonsensical conspiracy theory, which I'm not going to pretend is anything else other than a nonsensical conspiracy theory... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I have great difficulty understanding why, when your fellow editors point out problems in your comments, that instead of heeding their requests for you to abide by the policy, you instead to choose to continue to repeat the offensive statements in question. No one is using the phraseology you have used. Everything actually said has had source material presented (in abundance) to back it up. This is a discussion page for people interested in collaborating collegially with one another to solve longstanding problems in the I-P arena - and is not a place for hurling thinly veiled insults based on existing prejudices and inferences. Please stop. Tiamuttalk 07:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ṛ

Original discussion about content restrictions

I would only point out that every time AnonMoos cites an actual example of one of my "personal theories", it invariably is contained in one or more published sources in a talk page discussion he has participated in.

The central discussion I'm trying to start deals with whether or not the final decision in [Wikipedia:ARBPIA]] constitutes a content restriction that requires editors to utilize reliable sources to document their disputed or contentious assertions. In other words, Can editors engage in endless editorial conflict across multiple articles; assert there is only one mainstream viewpoint; remove other well-sourced material that represents opposing views; and then refuse to cite reliable published sources which prove that those views are actually considered fringe theories by the relevant academic communities?

  • The Peel Commission had recommended the partition of Palestine between a Jewish State and an Arab State, including Transjordan, with a British administered Corpus Separatum. The US Consul General at Jerusalem told the State Department that the Mufti refused the principle of partition and declined to consider it. He said the Emir Abdullah of Transjordan urged acceptance on the ground that realities must be faced. The Consul also noted that Nashashibi side-stepped the principle, but was willing to negotiate for favorable modifications. See the FRUS [5] and H. Eugene Bovis, The Jerusalem question, 1917-1968, Hoover Press, 1971, ISBN 0817932917, page 26 [6]
  • Joseph Heller wrote that Ben Gurion and Shertok discussed a plan similar to the Peel proposal with members of the Grady-Morrison Commission. Heller said that Sasson went to Egypt, and that with the exception of Saudi Arabia there was unanimous support for partition among the Arab League. Sasson proposed a union of the Jewish state with Transjordan under Abdullah. See Joseph Heller, The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics, University Press of Florida, 2000, ISBN 0813017327, pages 82-83 [7]
  • On page 2 of Refabricating 1948.pdf, Benny Morris says that entire issues or large parts of serious academic journals had been devoted to New Historiography and that books and articles by the New Historians are taught in all of Israel's universities and in a variety of courses and disciplines (history, sociology, political science, etc.), not to mention in most universities outside Israel.
  • In pages 7-14 Morris says there was an agreement between the Yishuv and the Hashemites to partition Palestine between themselves. Morris says that British Foreign Secretary Bevin had given the green light for the Arab Legion to occupy the territory allocated to the Arab state, after the Prime Minister of Transjordan explained that Abdullah had received hundreds of petitions from Palestinian notables requesting protection upon the withdrawal of the British forces. Morris says Abdullah honored the agreement.
  • Eugene Rogan says that petitions requesting protection, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in "The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)". see Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in "The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948", By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  • Benny Morris, Simha Flapan, Shlomo Ben Ami & etc. cite statements made by Ben Gurion, Weizmann and other Zionist leaders who said they had no intention of abiding by the terms of the partition proposals that they were advancing. They also say that Ben Gurion had been meticulously preparing for war ever since the Arab Revolt and that he personally ordered the development of the Avner Plan and its successors, like Plan Dalet, in order to pursue territorial expansion beyond the borders of the partition plans in conjunction with the British withdrawal. Ben Gurion told the Zionist Executive "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine" See Simha Flapan "The Birth of Israel, Myths and realities, page 22.
  • Flapan and Morris both cite a letter Ben Gurion had published as evidence of his intentions to use partition as a tactic in the conquest of Palestine. Ben Gurion told his son that he was in favor of partition because he didn't envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. According to Ben Gurion "What we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish." He explained that he was organizing a first-class army that would permit the Zionists to settle in the rest of the country with or without the consent of the Arabs. See David Ben-Gurion, Letters to Paula and the Children, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 153; Simha Flapan "The Birth of Israel, Myths and realities, Pantheon Books, 1987, ISBN 0-394-55888-X, page 22; Benny Morris "Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-1999", Knopf, 1999, ISBN: 0679421203, page 138.

Here are a small sample of the historical documents that are cited by Simha Flapan, Benny Morris, Elmer Berger, Avi Shlaim, Eugene Rogan, & etc.

  • The US Minister in Saudi Arabia told Secretary Marshall that the Saudi's and Abdullah had warned the other members of the Arab League in March of 1948 that the partition was a civil matter and that the Arab states shouldn't take any action that the Security Council might interpret as aggression.
  • Sir Arthur Creech Jones, assured Moshe Shertok that Abdullah might enter the Arab portions of Palestine, but that the British led and subsidized Arab Legion would not seek to penetrate Jewish areas of Palestine. Shertok told Secretary Marshall that Colonel Goldy of the Arab Legion had made contact with the Haganah in order to coordinate their respective military plans and "avoid clashes without appearing to betray the Arab cause." Under Secretary Lovett reported that the Jewish Agency was no longer interested in a truce, but counted on the "behind the barn deal" with Abdullah.
  • On the 1st of December 1948 the US Consul cabled the State Department saying that the governments of Israel and Transjordan had started conducting negotiations under the guise of implementing a truce in order to protect Abdullah from criticism from the Arab League that he accepted partition and had entered into direct negotiations with Israel. see the FRUS footnote [8] harlan (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Harlan, against, attempts to confuse by throwing as many irrelevant points as possible. As Efraim Karsh explained it better, I'm not going to repeat his words, but simply refer the readers here to his paper, discussing the level of accuracy and veracity of some of these theories (warning to weak-hearted readers - some of the examples might be truly outrageous). Crystal-balling the Jews' intentions is absurd; and example of Morris' distortions can be read in the Karsh paper, under "Pushing out the Arabs".
The Peel plan isn't being discussed here, nor is Abdullah personal position. As I've explained, the question is the response of the official leadership, not every single member of it.
Grady-Morrison is also not the topic here, and the Arabs ended up opposing it anyway.
Naturally Morris claims his views are widely accepted; would he concede he's fringe?
The Yishuv-Abdullah collusion is a very old idea, but lacks evidence.
"protection" - irrelevant.
The Ben Gurion quotes - a wonderful example of Harlan's tactics - we're discussing the 1947 partition plan, so the naive reader might assume these quotes refers to it; in fact, both of these quotes are dated 1937. I don't know if they're accurate or out of context, but they're not even claimed to be remotely related to the 1947 plan. For all we know, Ben Gurion might have completely changed his mind in the ten years between the plans. Many leaders changed from side to side, turning from hawks to doves (and vice versa). Remember - when you read Harlan's quotes, never take them at face value; never assume anything about them, and always check them yourself. okedem (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Okedem, we don't delete material on Wikipedia because Daniel Pipes and Efram Karsh hold an opposing view. The Morris article above is a response to Karsh's article. WP:NPOV requires that all significant views be included.
  • We've discussed this before, but it is Morris, Flapan, and Ben Ami who say the Ben Gurion quotes are relevant to 1947, not Harlan. The cites from Ben Ami and Flapan say he repeated the remarks to the Zionist Executive in May of 1947. So, there is no crystal-balling involved.
  • By the way, Ben Gurion's biographer, Shabati Teveth, said that economic, social, and geographical partition were inherent in Ben Gurion's conception of Zionism. See for example pages 10, 12, 43-44, and 179-184 of Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs. Even he quotes the letter Ben Gurion wrote to his son on the subject. The idea that Ben Gurion changed his mind is your unpublished thesis.
  • The Yishuv-Abdullah connection doesn't lack evidence unless you can't read the links to the FRUS I provided above. The CAB files in the British Archives are just as revealing.
  • You are still not addressing the actual topic of this discussion. The New Historians books are being marketed by the textbook divisions of Routledge, Cambridge University, and MacMillan-Palgrave. Elie Podeh published studies about the adoption of their views into Israeli textbooks on the subject "The Arab-Israeli conflict in Israeli history textbooks, 1948-2000" [9]. Members of the academic community not connected with the theory like Neil Caplan, L. Carl Brown, and Sanford R. Silverburg say they are serious scholarly works that are essential reading. The New York Times has even discussed the inclusion of the New Historians views into textbooks and says they are first rate works of history.[10]. Do you have any evidence those are fringe theories? Because I think that is sufficient evidence to demonstrate their views are accepted by mainstream academic circles not connected to the dispute. harlan (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Harlan, all of these claims are incredibly irrelevant. We're not discussing partition in general, or people's possible motives or plans, but their actual response to the 1947 partition plan, which was Jewish acceptance, and Arab rejection. That's it.
I'm not suggesting we ignore the claims of these "new historians". In their own articles - sure. In the article about the partition plan - perhaps. But we're talking about other articles, like State of Palestine, which only mention the plan for background. None of the new historians actually challenge the fact that Jews accepted and Arabs rejected. They only claim there's some stuff beyond it. Fine. But irrelevant for the background, especially considering I've shown what the mainstream view is.
I'm not doubting the claim that the new historians' claims are commonly discussed, but they have a whole lot of them, and even if most of what they were saying would be mainstream, that still does not imply everything they're saying is mainstream. In this case, it is blindingly obvious that the partition claims are not mainstream, and even if they would be, they still don't change the basic 'yes'/'no' responses of the sides.
As I've explained above, in response to Tiamut, at this point this isn't an NPOV issue at all, but a level of detail issue. Oh, and inferring, from comments before the partition plan, what the post-plan actions might be (had the Arabs accepted the plan) is still crystal balling. Also, I highly doubt that Ben Gurion "repeated the remarks to the Zionist Executive in May of 1947". People don't usually say the exact same thing after ten years. okedem (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If one oversimplifies the response in such black and white terms when things were actuallhy more grey, it does the reader a disservice. I'm not suggesting we go into a detailed breakdown of who said what about the partition plan everytime it comes up. I do suggest however that we avoid the old "The Arabs rejected and Jews accepted" summary as it is POV in that it leaves out most of story. Its a old, tired propaganda line that as Harlan's sources point out, has since been neatly dismantled. Tiamuttalk 07:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it simply doesn't "leave out" sufficient "of the story" to be factually wrong, while the contrary assertions (i.e. Harlan's claims that the Arabs supposedly accepted, and his apparent sporadic claims that the Jews supposedly rejected) are simply factually false. Frankly, in 1947 the Palestinian Arabs pretty much had handed to them on a silver platter the possibility of a strongly externally internationally-guaranteed independent state whose land area would have been much larger than the subsequent 1949-1967 Gaza Strip and West Bank combined, and which would have confined the Jews within an area which was completely militarily indefensible. The Arabs chose to flush all of these international guarantees straight down the crapper because their inflexibly rigid narrow political mind-set would not allow them to publicly admit or recognize any slightest form of Jewish sovereignty in the slightest degree for even one millisecond -- so of their own free will, with eyes fully open, they deliberately and intentionally decided to risk their future on the uncertain outcomes of war, making a "double or nothing" gamble that they would gain everything if they conquered in the war that they chose to start, or lose almost everything if they lost the war that they chose to start. In the end, they lost, and their own poor decision-making and poor-quality leadership were largely to blame... AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Tiamut, it's perfectly alright to discuss the complexities of the response to partition, on both sides. The discussions leading to Jewish acceptance were long and hard, and signified the rise of pragmatism (especially in the wake of WW2) over idealism; the almost complete lack of meaningful and open discussions among Arabs are also noteworthy - the Arabs of Palestine didn't really create any "state-like" institutions or governing bodies to facilitate such discussions.
However, the claim that "Jews accepted, Arabs rejected" is "old, tired propaganda" is such a complete fallacy, that any fourth grader with an internet connection can debunk in two minutes. I'm not sending you off to dank libraries and microfilm collections for this; we have lovely tools, such as Google books, that mostly spare us such tiresome procedures. I've provided such a variety of sources using this formulation, to make your claim obviously false, but I'll add another one, just because it's interesting to read - this article by John Bagot Glubb, better known as Glubb Pasha, commander of the Arab Legion. I guess he's also struck by propaganda.
That Glubb source is interesting, but here's one a little more informative, that should end this discussion. The UN working paper, titled "The Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Partition", dated 30 July 1949.
  • Section 5: "In accepting the Partition Plan, the Jews accepted indirectly the status of a future independent Arab State of Palestine to be its partner in an economic union. Commenting on the Partition Plan, Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, member of the Jewish Agency executive, in October 1947 expressed the following opinion on the future relations of the Jewish and Arab Palestine: "With the removal of political friction which we hope will eventually result from the setting up of these two independent States, each people master in its own home, it should be possible to usher in an era of progress and regeneration which would be a boon to all the peoples in that important part of the world. The Jewish State, when it is established, will respect the sovereignty of its neighbour states as fully as it will defend its own." (Article in "Palestine and the Middle East", Tel Aviv, Sept. Oct. 1947)"
  • Also in section 5: "The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety."
  • Section 6, 7 - 27 June 1948 - A UN mediator suggests an economic union of two states in the whole of Palestine, one Jewish, one Arab (including Transjordan). The Jordanians PM rejects the idea of any such union with a Jewish state, and states their purpose is to prevent the creation of a Jewish state. The Secretary of the Arab League also rejects, demanding a unitary Arab state in Palestine, and opposing union with Transjordan. Israel supports an independent Arab state in Western Palestine, and opposes having a complex of Transjordan with the Arab state.
  • Section 9, 18 Sep 1948, the mediator writes: "As regards the parts of Palestine under Arab control, no central authority exists and no independent Arab State has been organized or attempted. This situation may be explained in part by Arab unwillingness to undertake any step which would suggest even tacit acceptance of partition, and by their insistence on a unitary State in Palestine. [...] There now exists in Palestine a form of partition, though an Arab State for which the Partition Plan provided has not materialized and there is no economic union."
  • Section 14, "To follow the recent Israeli thinking on the future of Arab Palestine, several official declarations are worth nothing. During the session of the Zionist General Council in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv between 22 August and 3 September 1948, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett made the following statement on the position of Arab Palestine: We are faced with the problem of what is going to happen to the rest of Eretz Israel. That part has no definite borders yet. Even if we suppose that no revolutionary changes occur, which is not impossible, a certain part of Palestine will stay outside the State of Israel. The political fate of the Arab part of Palestine, its annexation by any state whatsoever, the flag that it will fly and the regime it will be subjected to are all matters with which we are directly concerned. It may not be possible for us to stem every new development in that connection. There are contingencies which we shall have to oppose, or they will become a threat to us. We shall have to fight against splitting up the Arab part and annexing its fractions to various countries. We shall have to consider carefully whether the annexation of any part to any state does not constitute a danger for us, which could be avoided by a different solution. We shall have to consider carefully whether we should not prefer this Arab part to form a state of its own, if possible."
  • Section 15, "On 16 November 1948, appearing before the Political Committee of the General Assembly considering the Mediator's Report, Israeli Foreign Minister Sharett again stated Israel's views on the future of Arab Palestine: Concerning all these territorial questions, Israel would welcome the creation of an independent Arab State in Palestine..."
  • Similar quotes are in following sections, including: "Sharett declared that Israel had proposed to the Conciliation Commission to organize a plebiscite in Arab Palestine to determine whether these regions should be attached to Transjordan or become an independent Arab State...pointed out the reasons why Israel would prefer an independent Arab State...".
Sorry for the length, but I think this document is quite conclusive, on several issues. 1 - Jewish acceptance; 2 - Arab rejection; 3 - Jewish support for an independent state, and opposition to a Transjordanian take-over. I think this is the time to close this case of revisionism. okedem (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

<--back> To Tiamut, what language would you suggest in stead of "The Arabs rejected and Jews accepted" and is there a way of linking to the article that would explain the view most clearly? Like I said, it's news to me and I would like to easily find more info - or be reminded of the "grey" area if I run across it six months from now when I've completely forgotten this discussion :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carol. Sorry for the delay in responding ... real life stuff. But I've given it some thought and have a few a proposals:
  1. add "publicly" to preface remarks on Arab rejection and Jewish acceptance, or "tactical" or some other qualifier to preface the Jewish position. Reasoning? – privately, there were Arabs who favoured the plan ([11] [12], and Jewish acceptance has been described as tactical or begruding (While the Zionists begrudgingly accepted the partition plan, working on the principle that half a loaf was better than no loaf at all … The Jewish community's leadership knew that they did not have enough power to control the entire territory of Palestine and to expel or to rule its Arab majority so they accepted the partition plan but invested all their efforts in improving its terms and maximally expanding their boundaries while including as small an Arab population as possible within them. It was accepted with misgivings by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. Jewish acceptance was superficial and misleading: the Jews were willing to accept publicly ...)
  2. provide some context for why there was public Arab rejection and Jewish acceptance. Reasoning? partition was not voluntary but forcible, and there was a strong Arab reaction considering that Jews only owned 6% of the land in Palestine but were being accorded 55% ([13])
  3. avoid issue in articles where it is not the main subject by writing, along the lines of this source : “In 1947 the UN recommended partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. The partition plan proved to be unworkable, and in May 1948 Israel declared itself an independent state.” Reasoning? Oversimplifications mislead the reader into thinking the situation is more straightforward than it was, and tend to favour the Zionist POV (those belligerent Arabs unreasonably rejected a fine solution ...). It is more NPOV to give full space to the spectrum of views and considerations on both sides in the article on the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and simply link to that page while avoiding the whole acceptance/rejection narrative, which as the sources I provided here and those provided by Harlan above indicate is much more complex than what that one sentence portrays. Tiamuttalk 07:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. "accepted" and "rejected" says nothing about the internal beliefs of the parties, but simply what their response was - 'yes', or 'no'; this is inherently a public issue. (Oh, not to mention the dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv when the plan was approved, and the Arab proclamations of the coming massacre of all Jews.) As I've said before, you can obviously find some Arabs who privately favoured the plan, and even if it wasn't privately, it still isn't important here. We don't say "All Arabs unanimously rejected the plan"; the overwhelming majority did, the leadership did, and the few who might have supported it mostly kept their mouths shut. We're not here to discuss their innermost thoughts, but their actions and responses. It is clear to any reader that there's always a minority, that unless the text says "unanimously", some people thought otherwise. This much is obvious. Similarly, the reason the Jews accepted isn't relevant - saying "the Jews accepted" does not imply in any way that they accepted because the loved the Palestinian Arabs and wanted them to have a state. It just means they said 'yes'; additionally, I'd like to point out that a pragmatic approach ("better a bird in the hand") isn't inferior to any other; you seem to be judging the Jews on some moral scale, ruling them not pious enough ('oh my god, they were just being pragmatic!'). This is not our job. The reasoning that led the Arabs to reject and the Jews to accept, as well as possible minorities within each group are interesting, in the article about partition.
  2. Again, level of detail. Mentioning partition and acceptance/rejection does not imply one side is good and the other bad. A reader wishing to learn more about this can go read the article about the partition plan.
  3. "Unworkable"? That's a very misleading euphemism. It became "unworkable" because the Arabs rejected it on principle. Had they accepted it, we might have had two states in Palestine, celebrating their 62nd birthday these days.
Sorry, but your argument is a mess of level-of-detail issues, wrong interpretations (saying "accepted" does not imply motives or unanimity), and wholly false claims ("Its a old, tired propaganda line"). Like it or not, a vast number of sources happily use the "accepted / rejected" phrasing, including the fascinating UN document I've quoted above. The Arabs might have thought rejecting the plan was the right thing to do, but in hindsight, they were wrong. They made a mistake. Rewriting history to make them look better is not a proper goal for an encyclopedia. okedem (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Original discussion about ARBCOM content restrictions (once again)

Okedem and AnonMoos, at the top of this thread I said this discussion was not about removing the POV you are describing. The discussion is about the removal of other mainstream POV's based upon the controversial assertion that they represent "fringe theories" and attempts to utilize Wikipedia to endorse one particular POV. Wikipedia describes positions, it does not endorse them.

  • There is no "level of detail" issue involved with including a simple sentence which says "According to Simha Flapan, it is a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and that the Arabs rejected partition and launched a war." -- Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities", Pantheon, 1988, ISBN: 0679720987, page [v]
  • Citing your own unpublished analysis of a July 1949 Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC) "working document" which reflect Israel's desire to renegotiate the terms of the Economic Union that had been set-down in UNGA resolution 181(II) simply begs the central question. Neil Caplan writes that the very first "working document" of the PCC was the Lausanne Protocol (12 May 1949). It was a signed agreement between Israel and all of the Arab states to use the map from the 1947 UNGA Partition plan as the basis of their negotiations. See Futile Diplomacy: The United Nations, the great powers, and Middle East peacemaking, 1948-1954, Routledge, 1997, ISBN: 071464756X, page 82 [14]
  • Your unpublished analysis does not address the published works of actual historians on that topic, or the level of acceptance of their works by the relevant academic community. The working paper that you mention cites Israeli newspaper accounts and material obtained from information organs of Zionist agencies. Those accounts were written by individuals who had no knowledge of the on-going secret negotiations between the governments of Israel and Transjordan. That has nothing to do with revisionism. The declassified records of those negotiations have been available for decades and the published primary and secondary literature on that topic is quite abundant.
  • The PCC ground rules limited its activities to submitting questionnaires, eliciting position papers, and conciliating to bridge the gaps between the positions held by the parties "upon their request". Historians have written that the mediation efforts of the PCC left behind a treasure trove of material reflecting political philosophy, diplomatic stratagems, and the images each side had of the other. See Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities", Pantheon, 1988, ISBN: 0679720987, page 213-215; and Caplan's "Futile Diplomacy", page 81 [15]
  • Neil Caplan writes that Security Council resolution 62 and General Assembly resolution 194(III) authorized the parties to seek an agreement by negotiations conducted either directly or through the Mediator and the PCC. See "The Lausanne Conference, 1949: A case study in Middle East peacemaking" page 14. Caplan, Elmer Berger, Giora Goldberg, and others cite declassified archival documents from the US, UK, and Israeli archives which say that Israel and Transjordan opted for direct negotiations that were conducted in secret. The parties decided to present the results of their agreements as fait accomplis and not to keep the UN Mediator, the Palestine Conciliation Committee, members of the Knesset, UN Secretariat, and etc. informed about the details. For example:
    • According to Simha Flapan, in November of 1948 Israeli negotiator Sasson asked Abdullah to accelerate his annexation of the West Bank and to present the Arab states with a fait accompli. At that time Abdullah was organizing the Jericho Conference. The conferees issued a procla­mation naming Abdullah King of Arab Palestine and demanding that a joint kingdom be established with Transjordan. [16] On December 13, Sasson told Abdallah al-Tal, the Transjordanian negotiator and commander of Jeru­salem, that annexation should be implemented under the guise of "saving the Palestinian Arabs." Flapan cites Sasson's own account in the official Documents on the Forign Policy of Israel (DFPI), volume 3, doc 181, pp331-332, December 14, 1948. See Simha Flapan, "The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities", Pantheon, 1988, ISBN: 0679720987, page 145
    • By 25 March 1949 Moshe Dayan thought UN Mediator Ralph Bunche should be advised about the secret armistice agreement, since he would be tasked to implement it in early April. Dayan's superiors in Tel Aviv decided to go on concealing it from Bunche. The US State Department and UK Foreign Office knew about the secret negotiations, but they also decided not to tell the UN Mediator. Berger's account cites the official Documents on the Forign Policy of Israel (DFPI), Companion Volume (C.V.) and documents from the official Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS). [17]
    • Israel insisted that the Lausanne and Rhodes Conferences be conducted as affairs concerning existing states and refused to recognize any Palestinian delegations. See Neil Caplan, "A Tale of Two Cities: The Rhodes and Lausanne Conferences, 1949", Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Spring, 1992), page 16. The Foreign Relations of the United States says that Mark Etheridge of the UN PCC held preliminary discussions with Ben Guurion in April of 1949 in which Ben Gurion proposed that the status of Arab Palestine be recognized in the settlement through a federal union with Transjordan. [18]
    • Ben Gurion did not inform the Foreign Affairs or Security committees of the Knesset about the armistice agreement with Jordan in advance. See Giora Goldberg, Ben-Gurion against the Knesset, Routledge, 2003, ISBN: 0714655562, page 71 [19] he also refused to allow the Knesset to debate the armistice agreements before they were ratified. [20]

So once again, do you have any evidence to present which says these are fringe theories that are not accepted by the relevant academic communities? harlan (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, surely it's up to you to prove that Encyclopaedia Britannica is wrong, not up to us to show that it's right. You have your standard little spiel, which you regurgitate over and over again -- but after your past actions consistently over the last year and a half, your dubious "sources" really don't impress me, and they appear to impress Okedem (who has a greater degree of stoic patience and stolid fortitude to slog through the tedious details of your dubious "sources" than I do) even less. Frankly, after I wasted half an hour of my life reading through the Walid Khalidi ranting propaganda tirade (which did NOT say what you clearly implied that it would say), my formerly very limited remaining degree of patience with your dodgy manipulated "sources" has finally definitively expired. As for the rest, Wikipedia is not "neutral" between the "POV"[sic] that the earth is round and the "POV"[sic] that the earth is flat, and there is no requirement for such pseudo-neutrality or phoney "balance" in any Wikipedia policy, as previously explained above. -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody else find the tone of AnonMoos's comment gratuitously offensive and extremely condescending? At least Harlan bothers to find sources to support his arguments.     ←   ZScarpia   18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) AnonMoos' posts seldom pass "the straight face test". The viewpoints discussed above that he refuses to summarize in the lede are cited either as sources, or in the "Additional Reading" section of the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica article "Palestine", i.e. Ian J. Bickerton and Carla L. Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict; Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949; Issa Khalaf, Politics in Palestine: Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration, 1939–1948; Avi Shlaim, Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine; and Wm. Roger Louis and Robert W. Stookey (eds.), The End of the Palestine Mandate; and etc. harlan (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

While we're talking about tests, I'd like to propose a new one, the Space Probe Test, for identifying editors who are so far up themselves that one of the space agencies would have to launch a deep space probe in order to locate where they are.     ←   ZScarpia   15:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The latest example of an article which recites a well-known Zionist myth in the neutral voice of the encyclopedia is a claim made in the Israel article. It says that five Arab armies, including Jordan, attacked Israel the day after the Jewish authorities declared the establishment of their State. The discussion is located here. [21] It is a well known fact that Jordan never invaded the territory of Israel, and that the Arab states said that they were launching a counter-attack in response to more than a month of Jewish armed attacks on Arab communities in Palestine. Attempts to add that viewpoint to Wikipedia articles have always ended in reverts by editors who claim the views expressed by reliable historians, US State Department officials, and the Arab leaders (who supposedly launched the 1948 War) are "irrelevant". harlan (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that the current version of the article gives false impressions:
In November 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[16] Partition was accepted by Zionist leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day.
  • The impression is given that approval from the two sets of leaders was sought or was necessary. It wasn't.
  • No mention is made that the Revisionist Zionists rejected the plan. Although the article doesn't say that all the Zionist leaders accepted the plan, it does give the incorrect impression that there was no significant opposition. Something related that I find interesting is that, not long before the UN Partition Plan was produced, a jointly produced American and British plan which recommended partition was ditched because of a senatorial (I think) election in the States. Neither of the opposing Jewish candidates (I think it was in New York) could afford to give his rival an advantage by coming out in favour of the plan.
  • The impression is given that the Arab states attacked because of the declaration of independence. In fact, the Arab states had announced in advance that they would intervene in the civil war, but only after the British had left. The Israelis proclaimed independence just before the last British troops left. The declaration of independence and the Arab invasion were timed to coincide with the British departure, not with each other.
  • The impression is given that the declaration of independence was made as a result of the partition plan, which therefore justified it. There was no direct link.
  • Because there is no indication given to the contrary, the impression is given that the area which was declared independent was correlated with the area set aside in the plan for a "Jewish state". It wasn't. The declaration of independence made no mention of borders and the fighting taking place was hardly affected by the territorial division proposed in the plan.
  • The impression is given that the Israelis were merely defending themselves. That is only correct if you take the view that Israel had the right to subsume all of what had been Palestine (including, for Revisionist Zionists, Transjordan).
... My two cents (I should probably have stuck this on the talkpage rather than here, shouldn't I?).     ←   ZScarpia   14:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
ZScarpia, you should ad this to the article if you have sources for it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
So many articles, so little time. If others are interested, I'd be willing to take it to the article talkpage and argue it out point by point. The quoted passage is interesting; it doesn't actually say anything that is untrue, but the wording and what is omitted certainly imply it.     ←   ZScarpia   16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Controversies related to Israel and Zionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-lethal and less-lethal weapons

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are rubber bullets non-lethal weapons?

Please see:

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity of “village lands”

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please can I have some input at Ambiguity of “village lands”. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (development)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please participate:

Sockpuppets have long been a problem in the editing and discussion of Israel-Palestine articles. Also, this project talk page is semi-protected due to "Excessive sock puppetry." --Timeshifter (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post. Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia". May 16, 2010 article. Jerusalem Post:.

When I have looked at Israeli-Palestinian (IP) articles I notice an overall pro-Israeli POV instead of an NPOV expressed. Same as in the mainstream U.S. media overall. And then there is this Wikipedia IP history:

Israeli Foreign Ministry's organized campaign on Wikipedia.

Please see:

Related administrator arbitration, actions, incidents, etc.:

DMI Comparison between Anonymous Palestinian and Israeli Wikipedia Edits.

Using WikiScanner the Digital Methods Initiative (DMI) site has an analysis called:

Israeli anonymous edits outnumbered Palestinian anonymous edits several times over.

And then there is the unresolved problem of sockpuppets everywhere. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The comments after this article include an appeal for readers to emulate the Runtshit vandal (and one comment purportedly by me, but actually by the same stalker). This is likely to lead to a spate of vandalism; keep alert! RolandR (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The article should have been published a few months ago, but is a bit 'out dated'. I-P has actually calmed down in the past two months with many editors being sanctioned. Let's keep the collaboration going and not the useless warring. --Shuki (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


rfc on israeli settlement terminology

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements nableezy - 23:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Informal RfC request

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey all, I'm trying to get a page moved, but am having trouble getting editors to comment on the request. If anyone has a moment to weigh in, please see Talk:Anat_Kamm#Requested_Move. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD "Arabs for Israel"

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[22] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible issues with three new main page sections

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Looking carefully at these, I thought there might be some minor concerns, especially with last one, since they were not passed by this page first. Others have an opinion?

I agree that we should merge the 2 sections about articles we like. As the person who started the page "Articles We Edit", I'd also like to mention that articles about seemingly unrelated topics may actually be key to getting this collaboration working. For example, Al-Azhar Mosque (an article on which several IPCOLL editors have worked together) is in Egypt, and "science" articles about the flora, fauna and geology of the area are probably within the scope of IPCOLL. I don't see how the articles would be cherry-picked if all editors are welcome to contribute to the list. Or, perhaps IPCOLL could have a "Collaboration of the Month"/"Collaboration of the Year" to encourage its editors to focus their efforts on working together, and encourage suggestions about articles and topics?

Also, the columns in the Members table would definitely be a bit narrow if we ask members to add more information such as a commitment to welcoming new users. My own concern with the Members table is that requiring editors to express their commitment to the project in Table format intimidates all but the most experienced. It's certainly an unusual way for a WikiProject to have Users sign up. For example, the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign encourages people to add a short statement after their names, which I think would accomplish much the same as this Table. Anyway, I think the visuals and format of this WikiProject need work in general. --AFriedman (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting.
  • Agree on unrelated topics, just want to make sure what should be included (i.e., where there was successful collaboration) is clear so people don't start adding articles where there actually is a strong POV for whatever reason. So maybe a section called something like "Articles where there has been successful collaboration" would be a good name for the merged sections. Of course given drift in any article over time as editors come and go, it might be better to make it a short term section as you suggest. Longer than a month - a year? And cross fingers it doesn't get gutted in interim? Or maybe link to the version that was really good when people where happy with it - which gives people who suspect a POV has crept in a chance to go back and look? Sooner the better for changing that, if you want to go for it. Otherwise getting a second agreement on a fairly obvious point, I'll do it :-)
  • I don't see example in Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign. But I agree tables can be frustrating even after using them a few times. However, I think we'd have to get more input before changing it, given all the people who were comfortable with that format. Maybe an intro telling people what info to add and then format like this:
  1. User: abcxyz Roles: ( include text) Pledges: (include text if relevant) Comments: ( include text)
  2. User: defxyz Roles: ( include text) Pledges: (include text if relevant) Comments: ( include text)
  3. etc
I agree with making the collaborations "collaborations of the year." Perhaps there could be several articles per year listed as collaborations, and about a variety of topics? --AFriedman (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"Recent Collaborations" would be better since it doesn't infer that some are better than others, and allows for possibility a nice collaborative set of edits that lasted six months won't be permanently gutted in the seventh. In any case, we should do something to correct current messiness. Unfortunately for wikipedia (if not rest of my life), it's become a fairly low priority with me of late. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We need a hit list

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hey all. I know this is going to be a bit of an extreme suggestion, so feel free to shout it down, but I wanted to know if anyone would second my proposal for an "Extremist Hit List". The basic idea is this; I think the real issue plaguing I/P articles on wikipedia are extremists on both sides of the debate. There is always going to be disagreement, but problems arise when people start shouting and demonstrating no willingness to compromise. I suggest extremists of this nature are directly oppossed to the spirit of IPCOLL's mission. As such, I think we should make some effort to identify them, so that they might be neutralized/opposed. I suggest making a list with 2 categories - Editors who in IPCOLL's opinion cannot edit I/P articles with NPOV and a slightly lesser Editors who in IPCOLL's opinion have difficulty editting I/P articles with NPOV. If through consensus we put editors in the first category, we should actively watch thier edit historys and be ready to pursue topic-bans if appropriate. I know this might sound a bit cabal like, but I'm really desperate to find means of bringing down the tone of the debate on wikipedia. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about a hit list, but I certainly do believe that we need to be able to identify the editors who might be eligible for one. I have recently suggested that we have a venue for small slights and problems, so that we can have more eyes on them and hopefully resolve them before they have chance to escalate. This could then serve as the basis for seeing if there are repeat issues or mannerisms viewed as problematic by the community. Unomi (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the likes of that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism--discussions about particular editors who may be POV pushers. In my view, many of these are overreactions to Users whose edits, as far as the encyclopedia is concerned, are "hit or miss"--but that is what collaborative editing is for. Furthermore, they add a certain unpleasantness to WP Judaism that I think would be even more undesirable over here, given that these articles are even more contentious. A "small slights" noticeboard for general Wikipedia is a good idea, but if we make a "hit list" part of IPCOLL I am concerned this would be yet another source of disagreement, as not everyone would agree about whether particular people go there. --AFriedman (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles recommends how to deal with contentious editors through established processes. While it is less than perfect, and sometimes innocent editors are punished with guilty ones, it is the procedure we are using now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the current processes is that it is unsuitable for minor things. Lets say that you believe that another editor is ignoring your argument without providing a rationale or is misrepresenting your actions. Currently WQA is the only place to take such single instance issues, afaik. In the course of waiting to collect enough evidence to be able to reasonably open an RFAE too much disruption and tit-for-tat behavior could have transpired to make it possible for the AE admin to be able to make a clear judgement. I strongly believe that we need a place for perceived infractions where the result is not sanctions but simple community admonishment. We could easily have editors among us who disagree on what constitutes desirable behavior and if so, we should try to modify it as soon as possible. Unomi (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to close ranks

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Following on from my thoughts above; would it be possible to restrict who can join this project? I think editors should be able to demonstrate some degree of neutrality and willingness to compromise to be able to join. Otherwise being a member of the project is sort of meaningless. I suggest we ask editors who want to join to "Provide examples of several edits/comments where you demonstrate NPOV or willingness to compromise" then poll on whether that editor should be allowed to join. Of the editors I'm familiar with on the current member list, I don't see anyone yet who I don't think wold be able to pass this test. Again, I know this suggestion may be a bit radical. Feel free to shout it down. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV. IMO, IPCOLL (like almost any other WikiProject) works best when editors with different POVs find a common place to stand. These articles just get more POV pushers than articles about other topics, which is why so many people are too frustrated to join IPCOLL in the first place. In addition, the extremists may have a tendency to push the moderates apart and shatter the co-operative spirit some of us are trying to create. I've been on IPCOLL for some months now, and the main problem tends to be a few editors who don't listen to other people and engage in edit warring and disruptive editing. In my experience, these editors are eventually blocked by admins after many warnings for their behavior, or quit out of frustration. Whether or not they've signed up for IPCOLL is a moot point, IMO--the damage tends to be caused by their editing of articles and Talk pages, not their editing of IPCOLL. But I agree with you that asking people for "examples of several edits/comments where you demonstrate NPOV or willingness to compromise" might be a good idea. It helps people get to know one another in a way that would make them appreciate each other. Your post makes me wonder: In its overall goal, is IPCOLL actually a category-specific subproject of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign? --AFriedman (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
"these editors are eventually blocked by admins after many warnings for their behavior" - Some of them yes, but I think I can point to some examples of accounts that seem to exist solely to POV-push in an uncivil manner.
"moderates apart and shatter the co-operative spirit some of us are trying to create" - Couldn't agree more.
"not their editing of IPCOLL" - I guess what I'm trying to suggest here, is that we might be able to create a group, where members can lay claim to some degree of NPOV by virtue of the fact that they belong to the group. I think we made somekind of process for vetting potential members of IPCOLL would make. If this is something you think sounds viable, I will sandbox a "potential membership page" for review. What I'm curious about is whether there is precedent for people setting up exclusive groups on wikipedia?
Re Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign - I think IPCOLL's goal is to prevent hate rather than spread peace and love. Perhaps these goals are ultimately the same. NickCT (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A few things:

  • "accounts that seem to exist solely to POV-push in an uncivil manner"--the ones that come to my mind were allowed to continue editing for a time, but eventually got blocked after the admins realized what game those editors were playing or how they had a pattern of just not knowing how to behave. It can take time to realize what someone is up to and what someone is all about. BTW, most of the people in question didn't end up doing very much damage to articles, even if some of them may have built up bad energy amongst other editors of those articles. And I'm also talking about editors that had nothing to do with IPCOLL but were working on other parts of the encyclopedia. Do you know of any "bad" editors that no one seems to be taking action against?
  • "a group, where members can lay claim to some degree of NPOV by virtue of the fact that they belong to the group." Why not make it positive--e.g., "meritorious editors of IPCOLL" who have distinguished themselves by their willingness to cross the aisle, rather than negative? I think there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing things that way.
  • "whether there is precedent for people setting up exclusive groups on wikipedia?" All administrative positions involve some type of vetting, e.g., there are elections for custodianship where people who have worked with these editors comment on how they've behaved. I've voted and commented in some of these elections, and actually, I'm up for election right now as a custodian of our sister project Wikiversity. Have you been involved with selecting any of our administrators? IMO, that might be something to look at re: identification of IPCOLL's best editors.
  • "Re Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign - I think IPCOLL's goal is to prevent hate rather than spread peace and love. Perhaps these goals are ultimately the same." I agree that they are ultimately the same. IMO, the best thing we can do to prevent hatred is to make as potent a bomb of WikiLove as we can and drop it right in the middle of Israel-Palestine. Why stop at "prevent hate" if we can just as easily aim for something much better? --AFriedman (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Self-selecting and insular groups are often frowned upon, and I think for good reason. I think that we as a whole just need to highlight and seek to modify behavior which is problematic. The biggest problem, as I see it, with "bad" editors is that they can sometimes succeed in setting off a domino effect where people respond in kind and makes it difficult for admins and other editors to pinpoint who started and who is continuing disruption. I would like to see IPCOLL being both a wikilove campaign and also a force for behavior modification when necessary. Unomi (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It's hard to define who is and isn't contentious, since we all have different sensitivity levels on different topics. I've certainly been very contentious on issues of interest to me while being quite moderate on others where others are battling it out.
Obviously editors do post to these talk pages to continue their battles in an uncollaborative fashion, but unless it becomes disruptive to these talk pages, not much we can/should? As a moderator I've asked others to take long contentious debates back to original article talk pages once or twice. Again best to seek sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Singling people out - much as I'd like to do it myself in a few cases - too controversial and disruptive of the project. CarolMooreDC (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, imagine if we had a WQA style board where we can nip these things in the bud? It wouldn't be a one sided singling out, it would simply be a way for us as a community to agree on what behavior is and isn't acceptable as it happens. Unomi (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that's what Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues is for - to get other editors to come on over and help correct the problem. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Which would be same on list you suggest. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Templates section

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking at WikiProject banner section, I realized the "promotional language" I wrote up last year was so confusing I couldn't understand it. Also, it looks like there are two templates and I just realized there is another one - an actual warning about sanctions - which someone just used on a page and which should be included. (See here.) Maybe we do need a promotional language section, but will have to make it more user friendly than previous language. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reward for good editors?

Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments4 people in discussion

I've been a little bit involved in the editing spree at Gaza flotilla raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I must say, I'm impressed by how many editors really are there to improve the article, not just push one or the other opinion. I noticed in particular Ai 00 (talk · contribs), ValenShephard (talk · contribs), and ReneJohnsen (talk · contribs), but there are several others. (As a disclaimer, I didn't look at all their contributions.) What do people think; should we give such good editors some reward, like the Sri Lanka Hope Award? I would like to "Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive". — Sebastian 18:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I followed the edits some more, and I now found a couple edits by the above editors that I do not approve of: [23], [24], [25]. However, by and large their edits are still good; it is really hard to always keep a cool head in a hot article like this. See also my comment below. — Sebastian 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd second the giving of some kind of award. Perhaps we should generate an IPColl Barnstar? Whatever we do, I'd suggest that User:Nosfartu get one! NickCT (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Nosfartu certainly cares about the article! I also now would add Zuchinni one (talk · contribs). Also, per what I said above, I think we should also honor those who are partisan, but by and large do a good job of keeping their edits neutral. The following editors come to mind: Prodego (talk · contribs) (but [26] against community decision Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive_2#Activists or passengers?) and Licory (talk · contribs) (but [27] - edit warring over attribution). — Sebastian 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Seb, I reviewed the edits you offered looking at them, here's my opinion.
Ai 00 (talk · contribs) - 1 - This seemed like a mostly NPOV edit, offering POVs from both sides. Poor english though. 2 -I agree this is a most awkward edit. Poorly worded at best. At worst an attempt to insert somekind of POV material (though I can't figure out what).
ValenShephard (talk · contribs) - 1 - This seems relatively harmless, though I can certainly see how this could raise POV concerns.
I've reviewed some of Zuchinni one (talk · contribs)'s contribs and can see no reason to object to his nomination. NickCT (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
An award or barnster could be a source of contention in such an already contentious area, as even above discussion shows. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely 100% with carolmooredc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"Completely 100%"? As oppossed to completely 99%? (chuckle) - Ok. Perhaps true. However, it would be nice if a bipartisan body such as ours did something ot acknowledge editors who did good neutral work on contentious I/P issues. NickCT (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course the I/P conflict is contentious; we all know that. That's precisely why we're here! "The purpose of this collaboration project is to create a more hospitable editing environment for Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict related topics". I believe that if we're serious about creating a hospitable editing environment, we have to show support for those who actively contribute to it, and not allow a vague fear to discourage us from our purpose.
Is there anything specific you are afraid of? The only thing you mention, the discussion between NickCT and me, does not contain anything that even remotely makes me afraid. — Sebastian 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: Other than the edit conflict I just experienced. :-)— Sebastian 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself! (and edit conflicts of course) NickCT (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! I'd like to add another benefit I see in a project award: An award will appear on a user page and advertizes our project to exactly those people who we want to recruit per our purpose (a). — Sebastian 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think somekind of image similar to this would be appropriate for a barnstar. NickCT (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if they have copyright on that one. How about this one:  ? (The disadvantage of that is that it's already widely used here.) — Sebastian 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1)What does the text say?, 2) In keeping with traditional practices on wikipedia, do you think we could potentially build it into somekind of barnstar? NickCT (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Oops, just noticed all these replies. Anyway, maybe if people are nominated on either this talk page or the articles one and then there being no objections they get one. g. :-) But do Barnsters usually need group approval, or is it flexible?
The problem is more that editors might be really good on 6 article and then there's that one article that pushes their buttons and they end up with people coming by and objecting. (And there are people like me who would prefer not to be nominated because we might have been good on one article, but we may have been naughty on others, even if never sanctioned, and would prefer not to hear the criticism from the partisan peanut gallery.)
As for the image, I'd suggest a dove with the flags small and not touching. I suppose it could be a trial project, but I'm not enthusiastic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Or just make it a purely private thing, announce it from time to time on this and/or the articles issues talk page so it's not official, and then any contention is segregated to the individual's talk page where it can be quickly deleted/archived. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
@CarolMoore - Re "But do Barnsters usually need group approval, or is it flexible?" - Flexible. But I think there is value in some semi-official IPCOLL barnstar. People can where it as a badge of bipartisanship in this issue. Currently, I don't think anything like that exists.
If you have another suggestion for artwork, do you think you could link to it or offer it? NickCT (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Why not put together a short and specific proposal here for comment and then run it by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues where there are more (and more contentious] editors, just to see what happens. Meanwhile a much better wikicommons image of flags. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that the same image Sebastian suggested? We need to adapt it to a barnstar before putting the proposal forth. I'd agree there should definately be somekind of poll before we move forward with it. NickCT (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, same image. I think I read it all in draft form and missed it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, I've been absent for a while. I still would like to go ahead with this soon. Carol, I am grateful to the people in this world who do good things without talking about them (and I won't comment on the good things I've seen from you), but people are different. I think most people appreciate getting a barnstar for something they spent a lot of effort on. And if that barnstar results from an open, public discussion between people of both sides of a conflict, can it get any better than that?! If people disagree with a proposal then they need to speak up at this very page. This is the hub of the project; if some people don't watch it, it's their decision. If they grumble about that, no neutral editor will take them seriously. I understand your concern about the occasional pushed button, but a barnstar is not a sanctification; we're all human and may make mistakes. For me, that's just one reason why we need barnstars: To strengthen the good in people. If someone does 5 good deeds, and never hears even a "thank you", then the temptation to do something nasty becomes harder to resist. At least I'm wired that way, and I think I'm not alone.

In a nutshell

So, the following editors have been proposed so far; if there is no objection against awarding any of them then I will do so in three days:

As it has been almost 2 weeks since I first proposed this, and I have been absent for a week, things may have changed; maybe I should add some sort of a disclaimer that these may be outdated. Are there any others that deserve recognition?

As for the graphic: I looked at the usage, and (contrary to what I said) it's not widely used, but it has been claimed by supporters of the two-state solution. If that is a problem, we could just use some nice graphic variant of the words "سلام - שלום". — Sebastian 18:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above: Why not put together a short and specific proposal here for comment and then run it by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues where there are more (and more contentious] editors, just to see what happens. Also, the following editors are your proposal or did I miss something above? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the proposal! I read your suggestion, and I when I wrote "This is the hub of the project; if some people don't watch it, it's their decision", it was meant as a reply. Moreover, more people are watching this page (80) than the current article issues page (48), and it doesn't belong on that page because barnstars are no current article issues. — Sebastian 03:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, not clear where proposal begins. Could you put it in a box or otherwise more clearly demarc it? Also, I was thinking in terms of language that could be inserted in the actual WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration mainpage with explanation and instructions and the graphic. Also, I was just guessing at how many people watching and did not know there's a page to read how many are tracking an article. How does one find it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. As for the language on the main page, how about something like WP:SLR#Sri Lanka Reconciliation Award? Would you also like to keep a list, as we did there? — Sebastian 03:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cease fire?

Latest comment: 14 years ago42 comments11 people in discussion

Radical idea: what if all willing regular editors in the I-P area pledge the following: for the next month, ending at midnight July 17 GMT, all editors refrain from:

  1. Opening arbcom cases against other I-P editors or commenting negatively in an arbcase about them
  2. Requesting AE enforcement against other I-P editors
  3. Filing 3rr against other I-P editors (very polite warnings okay)
  4. Posting complaints on any admin board against other I-P editors
  5. Insulting other I-P editors, or reporting same to WQA

and make a good faith effort to:

  1. Adhere to voluntary 1rr (except true vandalism and outright BLP vios) on all articles, broadly construed, in the topic area.
  2. Give a heartfelt, sincere olive branch to at least one editor who has wronged you/you may have wronged in the past (you don't have to specify which!).

It seems to me that there is a knee-jerk reaction in the air to simply ban everyone who makes good contributions to this area, on both "sides." It's a horrible idea, but showing we can work in peace might help put a graphite rod in that emotional response to our editing. What say you all? After a month, if it's been too painful to go without, everyone can go back to WP:BATTLEing. (PS: I notified everyone I could think of off the top of my head, but please feel free to notify more people if you can think of anyone else.) IronDuke 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds like a good idea, sign me up

  1. I'll try. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Well done for trying to cool things down IronDuke.     ←   ZScarpia   20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  3. As nom, so to speak. IronDuke 02:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No thanks: here's why

  1. I think that as draft it would be harmful, for the reasons I reflect below. Limit activity by disruptive editors? Worth considering. Limit activity by non-disruptive editors? Harmful to the project (though I imagine it might gain some traction with editors previously found to be disruptive--It will be interesting to note, therefore, how the "previously blocked for Arab/Pal-Israel conflict edit violations" editors vote). This rec, unfortunately, bolsters disruptive editors, while hamstringing non-disruptive editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Really, you must be kidding. What you propose is basically that the POV-warriors have a free reign because what you propose is not enforce normal editing. What about
    1. if all editors ever blocked for edit warring etc stop editing for a month and will only comment on the talk pages?
    2. if editors within the same side of the dispute would actually control their own, instead of piling up on each other against the other side.
    -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

General discussion

  • Comment. We have a definitional issue. Which is, how does one define who is a "regular editor in the I-P area." Furthermore, why would we wish to chill continued input from helpful editors in that area?

How about we change that to something along the lines of "Editors who have been sanctioned for violations in the I-P area, which sanctions have not been reversed as unfounded". Or, "Editors who have been subjected to topic bans in the I-P area, which bans have not been reversed as unfounded".

I think we want to distinguish between editors who have edited disruptively in the area, and editors who have simply edited in the area (whose continued input should be encouraged).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand where you're coming from, but I don't want to make any such distinction. WP will not asplode merely because a disruptive editor is watched a bit less closely. I don't want to get too bogged down in rigid definitions; I'm not looking for another opportunity to fuss and nitpick. I think if we all really adhere to the spirit of this, good will come of it. IronDuke 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well then, I certainly can't support the rec. I can see the project being improved by limiting further disruption by disruptive editors.
At the same time, I see the project being hurt--and hurt needlessly--by limiting the contributions of non-disruptive editors. As your suggestion would have that effect, I believe it would be deleterious to the project.
In short, the projected is bettered by non-disruptive editors opening arbcom cases against disruptive I-P editors and commenting in an arbcase about them, requesting AE enforcement against disruptive I-P editors, filing 3rr against disruptive I-P editors, posting complaints against disruptive I-P editors, reporting disruptive editors to WQA, etc. This suggestion is IMHO analogous to Obama saying "let's try a month with good law-abiding citizens not reporting suspicions of terrorism to Homeland Security -- wouldn't that be a nifty way to address terrorism?" That's somehow not intuitive to me.
I can't support a harmful suggestion (though I imagine my emendation would not be supported by disruptive editors either).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment—I think it would be more helpful if the editors in question just stayed away from controversial articles, or at least from making controversial edits (any edit that they believe might potentially be reverted for any reason). In any case, I don't like to think that I'm "at war" with another Wikipedian and need a "ceasefire", but if this wording will help your initiative, then I support, because anything that reduces the amount of time wasted on mutual dirt-throwing is positive, IMO. —Ynhockey (Talk) 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The editors in question = all of us. I'm not talking about good actors versus bad actors, just an across the board chilling out of all the regulars. It may not ultimately do good, but I can't see harm -- and it just might lead to something positive. IronDuke 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, I support the idea in principle, but it's not helpful that editors who were never problematic to begin with are dragged into an agreement which would place them on a list with many problematic editors (i.e. Epeefleche has a point). Personally, I believe that everyone in I–P should adhere to voluntary 1RR anyway. —Ynhockey (Talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@Kim. No, I am not kidding. Assuming you aren't either, I'd like to cast a wider net than what you propose in point 1 and as far as point 2 goes, I'd agree with it, but I think that's harder to get accomplished (and generally a more amorphous concept). Thanks for weighing in. IronDuke 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

@1: Well, my points were not part of your proposal. What the proposal misses is the sequence of trouble:
  1. An editor tries to push their POV
  2. The editor resorts to bad behaviour to get his way
  3. Fellow POV editor pile up, coordinate off wiki etc.
  4. Editor goes to far
  5. Enforcement comes in play.
What you want us to believe is that we shoudl all stop with point 5, and the other will TRY to behave better. The point you are missing is simple, point 5 would not be reached if point 4 would not be reached.
@2: It is easy. Make a list of editors, look who is pro either side and who is neutral. Make a enforcement page for each group, and give the editors within each group 24 hours to respond to an incident related to their own. If no response, escalate it to the general enforcement. Really, it is the POV-warriors that are the problem, not the resonable editors. if the POV-warriors are sick of being hammered by the enforcement, MAYBE they could take some lessons in respectful, neutral and reliable source based editing. Really, the best thing for these articles would a a total no nonsense policy. One violation, you are flagged. Two you are topic banned. No excuses. I guarantee you, within a month, all the editing in the area would be smooth as you can imagine. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that is brilliant. nableezy - 01:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Kim van der Linde first suggestion is excellent. And I agree it's a great idea for the more self-controlled "Pov" editors to educate and/or pressure the less self controlled ones and I'm always glad to see it when it does happen on a talk page or else where. But it's important to make it clear the alternatives are not POV or Neutral. Frankly hardly anyone has the nerve to go near these articles unless they have a strong opinion. Also, let's recognize the strength of the POV differs among editors. Additionally, each editor may have a stronger POV on one kind of article or issue than another. The bottom line is behavior and honest adherence to policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, there is more than POV and neutral. But as you indicate, many do have a strong POV, and if you do not have one, you will be tagged with one on both sides (being labelled an anti-Semite and a Zionist on the same day was very hilarious). It is indeed all about behaviour, and if the well-behaved editors control the editors with the same slant, we will have substantial less issues.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
@Kim. No, I don't think I am missing the point. Your point five is the only point in your list I mean to address, as the other ones are really not addressable. I'd like to see less use of the wiki-enforcement mechanisms used as "gotcha" against editors who have a differing POV. I'm not trying to rein in POV, because it simply cannot be done. Virtually everyone who edits intelligently on this issue has a POV. That's a dirty word here, but it doesn't have to be. It's sort of like hating gasoline, because gasoline can explode. While gas is dangerous, it can also be very useful, when channeled appropriately. And your idea for self-policing is nice in theory, but would never work. Indeed, if it did work, it wouldn't be necessary, if you follow me. Just a few of the issues: a lot of editors would be reluctant to pick a "side" (or does someone just decide that?), and what constitutes an "incident," and who makes that call? And what is a "violation?" If I add a source that could support an Israeli position, and someone deletes it because it's an op-Ed and they don't think that's a good enough source, do I get punished? Do they? Does everyone involved? And really, this is the whole point for me is not to add more draconian punishments, but to get away from the punishment model as much as possible, which is why I am asking IP editors, for a month, not to sic the law on each other, among other things. I still think it's a good idea. IronDuke 02:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, ceasing the enforcement because the other aspects are so difficult to address is basically giving the POV-pushers a free rein to do what they do best, POV-pushing, edit-warring etc.
As for the bigger issue, all the reasons you give me for not doing a self-control group idea are exactly why it should be done. Really, I want to see a pro-Palestinian editor tell another pro-Palestinian that the op-ed article is really not worth the paper it was written on. The problem is that it is now the pro-Israel editor who slams the pro-Palestinian editor. If you suggest that there are not enough good editors who actually know the above mentioned points, even more reason to start the POV-peer control now. The problem is that the dicusssions are not about content, but about the (perceived) POV of the editor one that editor addresses behavioural problems of an editor. What we need is to discuss content, not editors. And to do that, you have to kill the main source of discussing the editors, namely that editors with a different POV need to address behavioural issues. To achieve that, you need to focus the enforcement to the same POV-peer group. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This part is an excellent idea, it is so good that I may have made it. I dont think identifying the "side" would be a problem, we all know each other, the bigger problem is whether or not people will be willing to call out their own "side" in a public forum. But this suffers the same flaw as most good ideas, it doesnt have a chance of happening. I think ID has an idea here, but I think a less severe implementation should be adopted. I think we should start practicing a form of jury nullification, well not really cause we aint the jury, but anyway, we refuse to report some of the stupider "violations". If you, as an opposing editor, do not find any fault with the actual content of a supposed "violation", dont report it even if it is a clear cut violation of the topic ban. I wont comment on my own last AE, but I will for Gilabrand's. We shouldnt be looking for other people's "violations", and we shouldnt be bringing up edits that no reasonable person could object to. This edit shouldnt have been reported, this either. The ones she was actually sanctioned for could have just been handled on her talk page. When there are real problems AE can and probably should be used, but most of the recent ones have not been about anything real. nableezy - 05:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
In general, calling people out really happens best on an article talk page because most people are too busy to go to a new article and figure out all the issues, unless they just are lockstep on a certain POV. However, I still think we need sanctions and the threat of them because how else are those of us who at least control selves by not constantly reverting others supposed to defend Wikipedia Policy? These sanctions are there for a reason. I know from experience they are the best control on fanatical POV warriors, besides having 6 against one on a talk page, which doesn't happen too often. And on occassion they keep me from drifting into 3RR which I easily would do if I didn't know people were watching. Or maybe Iron Duke is encouraging me to keep reverting others til I get my way instead of usually letting the stronger POV warrior win on questionable reverts and going to noticeboards and whining about it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would go even a bit further. It is very easy to pick out the editors who we do not want here, because they will selectively target the opposite side for violations. Editors who really want to make wikipedia work do not make such a distinction. They will look at the bare facts and act accordingly, without regard to who it is. To me, each and every editor who is selectivbe should be banned from WP for violating the spirit of the project for their own personal POV. Having a POV is okay, but enforcing it by gaming the rules, that is not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To me the big problem remains a lack of gutsy admins willing to jump in and explain to editors why their behavior is bad, especially if the offender is one of those who soapbox constantly about bigotry - in terms general enough to avoid sanctions for WP:personal attack, but broad enough to scare people away from explaining why the offender should stop their bad behavior, especially reverts of WP:RS. Big problem I've seen here over the years. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hear, hear to the last two comments above. We need bolder admins for sure. Perhaps one of you two ought to request. I'll lend my weight to it. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No thanks, I have been stalked, treatened etc enough over this project, I will use my admin tools elesewhere. And my experience is one of the major reasons I suggest POV-peer group editors enforce wikipedia rules, and not anybody else. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Be bolder! Whoever admins over these things is going to be stalked/threatened, but someone has to do it. I certainly think a "POV-peer group" is a nice idea, but frankly, I haven't seen anything like that work well on WP. NickCT (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anyone be given a "free rein" to do anything. What I am suggesting is that using WP enforcement as a tool to further POV struggles does way more harm than good. I think WP IP topics could last for a month without editors trying to get each other banned, and that the project as a whole would be better off without it. If anything egregious pops up, presumably neutral, fair admins could deal with it. IronDuke 02:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

One problem is there are different articles with different parties pulling various things, sometimes things that need to be sanctioned, sometimes threatening undue sanctions. So it's hard to act in such a general fashion.
Back to POV peer group pressure, if it were to be done, WikiProject Palestine and ISrael Talk Pages might be the place to start, with an on going section called "Let's practice being good editors" or something with one sentence requests like: "USER:BLAHBLAH could you control the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TAGGING on article SOMETHING AOBUT ISRAEL PALESTINE. Thanks for your help Signed USER:SOANDSO" CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What you all are suggesting aren't necessarily bad ideas, but they are far more ambitious than what I am proposing. If my proposal does not catch on -- and it looks very much like it won't -- I am nearly certain these other proposals will fail as well. IronDuke 23:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, how well did you expect this to go over? But if we are going for tame, how about this. Nobody among the regulars, besides the initial filer of the complaint and obviously the subject, makes any comments at all at any AE thread. Take the "teams" and make them silent "cheerleaders". While I am a fan of comedy, seeing the same people arguing the opposite logic in two sections at the same time isnt making me laugh as much as it had in the past. NMMNG and Huldra were right at one of the AE threads brought against me, there is a remarkable consistency in the people arguing for and against a ban. We dont need people lobbying for or against bans; if there is a legitimate issue the evidence laid out will show it, and all the me toos in the world wont be needed. Having a bunch of people saying lynch him and the others crying bloody murder doesnt do much but further deepen any rifts between editors that after any ban expires will have to work together again. The team mentality is the biggest issue. Even on the silliest issues, most of us would rather not respond to poll or discussion instead of support the position of the "other side". Maybe if some of the vitriol that remains from the arguing on AE or AN/I or wherever was removed we could be more collegial and be able to work together. nableezy - 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't have a firm idea of whether it would go over well or not. I guess I hoped, since it's time-limited, that people could stop using enforcement as a weapon for just a little while and, further, that this cooperation could lay the groundwork for further cooperation. That was my hope. As to your idea, I like it. IronDuke 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I will say that we could use guidelines that lead to repercussions when editors, as Nab points out, argue precisely the opposite logic on the same issues --- depending on whether it meets their POV in any particular case. That's fairly poor form, IMHO, and happens way too often.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • That last proposal would be a disaster! Far from resolving anything, it would be likely to lead to meta-debates about whether or not a particular comment was counter to another comment by the same editor, with editors arguing (sometimes inconsistently) both ways on this. It would just add an extra level of potential dispute; please don't take this one any further. RolandR (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with Roland here (much as it pains me to type those words ;)). Trying to parse whether an argument is or is not consistent is a recipe for, well, Roland puts it best -- a debate about the debate we're having. IronDuke 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasnt saying that we should start enforcing consistency in arguments, I was just saying that on AE specifically we often see people arguing for a ban using the opposite argument that same user has in the past, and sometimes at the same time in a separate section, made against a ban. My solution would be to eliminate that by not having anybody arguing for or against a ban except the person filing the complaint and the subject of the complaint. nableezy - 15:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
really, the only way the endless disputes are going to be resolved is when the resonable editors who edit based on content only and are willing to discuss, negotiate and concede when appropriately become the people who dominate these pages. To keep talking about which side does what wrong, that doesn't work, it just keeps the negative going. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with this, and yet, I feel it's too ambitious for where we are at present. I think if we take baby steps now, we can take larger steps later. IronDuke 17:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
No, the start is easy. Youi know many of the regulars of your side, and you know who is okay and who goes over the edge. Start talkking with the regulars that are ok. Find someone to do so for the other side and start making a group. That is step one. Once you have those, you can start talking with each other. Next step, make the within-peer group boards, and everybody sighned up for either group deals with those signed up on those boards. Everybody who chooses to stay away from the groups is fair game for normal enforcement. If it works, it will be very soon that everybody wants to join. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused now. What do you mean by "fair game for normal enforcement?" Also, I have a feeling a number of editors (probably a majority) will not want to be lumped into one side or the other. Would you want to be part of the "pro-Palestinian" side? IronDuke 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the problem is the drama that comes with cross-partisan enforcement. So, you reduce that drama with peer-enforcement. As for me being grouped, go ahead. I have been called a zionist and a anti-semite at the same day, so I really don't care. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Nableezy says above, in both my two recent AE filings, the same group of editors attacked me in a harassing manner and defended the editors up for AE at both requests. WP:Mind your own business should apply there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't look at ArbEnforcment pages much, but obviously it is annoying to see partisans going at it and I wonder why it's even allowed. They bring up all sorts of charges, usually against the complainant, whose goal may be to stop such complaints. The fact both sides often are punished may stem from Arbitrators frustration with this. And it discourages people making legit complaints because of fear of being sanctioned too. (It has me, anyway.)
Also, just to nitpick, let's not be too simplistic on editors motivations. It's not just pro-Israel and pro-Palestine viewpoints motivating editing. There also is a "pro-America" view of those who may be working on Israel lobby-related or, say U.S.S. Liberty, or Rachel Corrie, like articles. Then there is the "stop WP:UNDUE on charges of antisemitism in BLPs" viewpoint. And there is just - "OMG, what an obnoxious violation of policy that must be fixed" and months of wrangling to try to fix it just out of shear stubborness. And there may be other views that bring people to various articles or sets of articles. I know I've got 4 or 5 motivations that differ depending on the article and which keep me getting involved though frankly there are other dozens of other topics I would have preferred working on over last couple years. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Battleground returning? Please no.

Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Two issues here: Nableezy and terminology. Nableezy has just returned from a topic ban and we are now being threatened with a return to the battleground which has certainly calmed down over the past two months in his absence. Instead of taking the opportunity to make constructive edits on Palestinian / Arab pages, some of his first edits today return to the exact same attitude of jumping on the 'Israeli' pages at Katzrin, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Mevo'ot Yerich, Tzofim and Tekoa, Gush Etzion, with rehashes of claims that have never been finalized with a community consensus. He (and SupremeDeliciousness jumping in as well) claim UNDUE, but the real mature issue is whether the political term is used before the municipal description on these and similar localities and associated pages, about 200+ articles. I have suggested over the past several months a status quo 'ceasefire', since the alternating wording ratio currently seems half:half, until such a consensus can be reached across the I-P project by reasonable members of the community. --Shuki (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. Maybe we need someone to start working on limitations of those who have been topic banned from this area. It does seem that most problems emanate from such individuals. Slowing them down would also encourage productive editors, who would not otherwise be dismayed by the edits they confront. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Good luck with that. nableezy - 22:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your good wishes, and look forward to your support in the future. I saw an approach akin to that applied in a recent article. The results were overwhelmingly successful, as in the absence of the formerly-banned editors, the remaining editors were notably collaborative.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, the issue is whether or not the terminology used by the overwhelming majority of sources is placed before what a fringe sized minority use in its place. And I am working on a draft RFC for this topic and will make no more changes for the time being. nableezy - 22:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And to that end, I started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements nableezy - 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Shuki's assessment even though it might have been a little premature to foster his transition back into the topic area. An RfC on if "settlement" or "city" should be mentioned first in articles and the gross over politicization of something like Tourism in Israel show that he simply cannot function collaboratively. This behavior sucks.Cptnono (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, over politicization is someone who ads regions in the Palestinian territories and in Syria and presents them as if they are in Israel. You are complaining about someone adding reality, the international view, the npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Start writing letters to Lonely Planet, Frommer's, and Fodor's if you do not like how the topic is covered in the industry. That is a conversation better left at the article (even though things such as layout are ignored) while I am simply saying that Nableezy's return has rocked the boat. Your not doing so hot yourself with your refusal to contribute anything related to tourism over there even though that is the topic.Cptnono (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
No, the topic there is Tourism in Israel. East Jerusalem, the Golan Height, the West Bank and Gaza are not in Israel. And so the circle starts again... RolandR (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
If editors addressed why the sources lump them together instead of arguing their own interpretation of intl law over there the circle might not be one anymore. Just like if editors stopped causing trouble over something as trivial as what label is applied first to where people live (settlement or town?) improvement could actually be made to those articles.Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It isn't our own interpretation Sherlock. And I really dont care what you think about me or my ability "to function collaboratively". And unless you would like me to provide a critique of your editing in the topic area kindly refrain from doing so for me. nableezy - 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
If your only way of handling this criticism (not started by me) is by deflecting then maybe a good idea is an RfC on you if you do not adjust how you conduct yourself here. There are legitimate reasons for people to continue to bring you up. Maybe it is time to take a look at yourself and try to understand where they are coming from. Or we can all just pout about it.Cptnono (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Feel free. I am not so vain as to constantly "look at myself", but I sometimes do pause for a bit of self-reflection. One of the things I have thought about is why "people continue to bring [me] up". And then I realize who is "bringing me up" and that it is always the same people with the same views on the same topic. And I feel much the same about the editor who started this section as I do about you, so it being opened by that user gives me no reason to pay it any mind. I dont want to waste me time dealing with you, so if there is something actually content related feel free to raise it. As it stands now a few users are whining that they aren't getting their way and it is all because of the oh-so-evil Nableezy. Ah well, dems the breaks. nableezy - 03:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Like usual, only his critics are the problem and not Nableezy. Shuki hit the nail on the head, and it looks like Nableezy is content battling and not collaborating. Real shame.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the humanity! I already said I really dont care what you (or Shuki) has to say about my editing. So if you would like to open an RfC on me feel free. If you would like to open an AE thread on me feel free. Other than that, to use a phrase so often used by a certain group of editors, comment on content, not on editors. nableezy - 04:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Er... this is not an article and content was brought up. Your content is the problem. Please see the content in the conversation related to Katzrin, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Mevo'ot Yerich, Tzofim and Tekoa, Gush Etzion, and Tourism in Israel. And the purpose of this project is "The purpose of this collaboration project is to create a more hospitable editing environment for Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict related topics". I have asked you and other editors to take a look at what you are doing in an attempt to get the topic on track. You take offense to it it looks like but that wasn't the intent.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Er you apparently dont understand what I am saying. I'll type slower this time. Shuki has long opposed using the language that sources use to describe the illegal colonies Israel has established in the occupied territories. As this affects many pages I opened a centralized RFC on the issue. You apparently think that is "battleground" behavior. But since I dont care what you think about me, we'll skip that part. Next, there is a discussion about the article Tourism in Israel, with a number of users pretending that the Golan, East Jerusalem and the West Bank are in Israel. I attempted to rectify that falsehood. You apparently think that is "battleground" behavior. But since I dont care what you think about me, we'll skip that part. You now are insisting in casting aspersions about my editing in general. That is not the purpose of this page. If you wish to discuss a specific editor there are places you can do that. An RFC is an option, as are ANI or AE. If you wish to do that feel free. It is obvious that certain users that have been frustrated in their attempts to present minority views as fact or completely disregarding other POVs take issue with me. It is equally obvious that I dont care what these users think. So if there is something you wish to accomplish on this page about my editing chances are you wont be successful. If you just wish to cry about how terrible I am I request you do it on a page that is better suited to handle such inanity. If you wish to discuss my editing behavior in general WP:RFC/U is thataway. If you wish to discuss a specific incident WP:ANI is thataway. If you wish to request that I be sanctioned for some fault under ARBPIA WP:AE is thataway. None of those places are here. Not so warm regards, and feel free to have the last word, I aint paying any more attention to this section, nableezy - 05:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (after ec) I dont take offense to this, that would require that I care. I thought I made it clear that I dont care what you think about me. Bye. nableezy - 05:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, let's not mess with the facts here. You came out of the topic ban making those controversial changes, and only when you were caught, did you open the RfC. And you should care about what other's think since this is a collaboration project and we all should be working together, not against each other. --Shuki (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy was correct before that this is not the proper venue. I didn't realize but at the top it states that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. Not sure how active that page is but I opened up a discussion over there related to this.Cptnono (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

IPCOLL IRC Channel

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This was just added to the main page. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#IRC_Channel Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I thought it might be handy to have a place where people of all stripes could get to know each other and discuss in a more unbridled fashion. IRC is clearly not well suited for structured discussions, but the hope is that we might be able to resolve smaller issues or just get a more 'human' perspective on each other. I hope to see all of you there :) un☯mi 13:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • PS. We had a small discussion on IRC regarding official logging. One user argued that this would ensure transparency, one argued that most other wikipedia channels discouraged logging - and it could work against the goals of the channel. At this point we do not have public logging. Public logging would necessitate all users to agree upon per wikipedias IRC policy. Any one is free to participate, the channel is of course public but discussions there cannot be used to establish claims of a consensus regarding matters on wikipedia, nor can the logs be used to further other forms of dispute resolution endeavors. un☯mi 13:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the above needs to be explained a bit more formally in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#IRC_Channel both for those not familiar with IRC and others who might jump to wrong conclusions about uses. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added some more text. I think it is important for me to emphasize that this is our channel, it is meant to serve the IPCOLL project. If anyone has ambitions on behalf of or constraints they want to see imposed on the IRC channel they are free to add them per BRD etc etc :) un☯mi 18:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


New editors may be coming soon

Latest comment: 14 years ago40 comments15 people in discussion

Settlers organizing Wikipedia editors

Hi, I noticed this article and thought to bring it up here as a heads-up. Apparently some settler groups are arranging courses on how to edit wikipedia from a "Zionist" POV. We may therefore be expecting some new contributors to I-P area articles. New editors are a positive opportunity for the project to the extent that they comply with policy, but there appears in this case also a risk that there will be a spike in edit-warring. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If the CAMERA article can note their organizing people to edit wikipedia (see here), why not a note in the Israeli settlement or some other as/more relevant article?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally, now that we have a mechanism for reviewing edits before they go live, I would like to see a load of IP and other battleground articles protecting by this mechanism so that people who arrive with an agenda of POV-pushing can't just turn up and cause trouble.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the article Dailycare. These kind of shinanigans are so disturbing. I sincerely that moderates on both sides of the I/P issue can come together to stymie these peoples' efforts.
I second CarolMooreDC to note this in some relevant article. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course, now that we have two examples from WP:RS sources maybe there needs to be a new section in the Wikipedia article itself. Have any other groups tried this sort of thing to the extent it was noticed by WP:RS?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the Guardian's (RS) report, dated today, on the same issue. I agree mention on e.g. the Israeli settlement and Wikipedia pages may be a good idea. --Dailycare (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion here about it also: [28] I have posted a link to a "Wikipedia Course Booklet", if someone speaks hebrew, please translate it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea. ""The idea is not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to include our point of view" sounds harmless enough. I hope they make their position known on the talk page, read the guidelines and policies, and aren't edit warriors. I think it would be hilarious if they ended up doing a good job.Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If they had said "The idea is not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to comply with policy" it would be a great idea. They didn't say that. In practice their statement means "we want our point of view included and we don't give a crap about anything else, it's someone else's problem". It's like dropping litter. It doesn't take many people to turn a place into a shithole. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Touché. I'm worried about this crap: "The entry on Jewish family," she said. "The first sentence will be that the Jewish family is the ultimate response to the Western crisis of isolation and lack of affection." We'll see though.Cptnono (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I also laughed when I read that. Right now Jewish family isn't an article, but a redirect to Judaism. Still, I added it to my watchlist anyway.
As you said, Cptnono, we'll see what comes of this. Editors with a genuine interest in improving the project are always welcome, whatever their personal POV. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
At least it's nice to see someone proud of their culture and a quick scan of Wikipedia's coverage of family/kinship systems around the world suggests that there's approximately no coverage. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your reply, and it should be clear to everyone that some of the posts above are not appropriate. Ridiculing an editor who wants to write about family values is just lame and ignorant, and a clear violation of WP:AGF to boot. — Sebastian 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
My reply may have been too angry. See [29]. — Sebastian 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Peter above, that a mechanism has existed on a trial basis, but am unsure where that review trial now stands. I am of the opinion that it seemed to work as planned, but was little engaged personally because most articles covered were of little interest or outside my knowledge to make a proper judgment. Wider 'review' coverage for I/P articles might help to moderate/monitor changes as they occur. Wiki needs experienced moderating editors on both sides, per Carol above, and thanks to Delicious for bringing it out. I have no problem with including their specific point of view, properly ref'd and worded among other povs, but am less than optimistic that many newbies thus motivated, will understand or agree with that balance. Time will tell. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The Guardian has an article on this now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that link! This sounds actually very good; obviously, they learned their lesson and are now instructing people to work constructively: "The idea, says Shaked and her colleauges, is not to storm in, cause havoc and get booted out – the Wikipedia editing community is sensitive, consensus-based and it takes time to build trust." This promises to jibe well with WP:NPOV. According to the § Purpose of our project, we need to help these new editors. This is a historic chance for a productive dialog which we should be grateful for. — Sebastian 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No, this does not sound good. It sounds like they are going to do exactly the same thing, and have learned to game the system effectively. This makes it a bigger problem, which will cause more disruption than if we could just quickly boot them. I love how he says in this video "We want to make it balanced and Zionist in nature..." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the difference in our views is largely like the proverbial question whether a glass is half full or half empty. It depends on what you expect. (“You” meaning anyone, not you specifically.) If you expect extremists to just vanish, then you’d be disappointed. Realistically, as long as the Israel-Palestine is going on in the real world, it will bring people here who feel very strongly about their point of view. If you just want Wikipedia to be a stable encyclopedia, then any such newcomers will make that goal harder. Part of my motivation for participating here goes beyond that: I see Wikipedia, and projects like this in particular, as good tools to help create a common ground between people in difficult situations in the real world. Yes, Wikipedia’s policies have loopholes, and I see your concern of them being abused, but by and large, they have worked pretty well, and I am confident they will also help us now. I’m not blind to the problems you mention, but I’m using my own variant of AGF. — Sebastian 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just thought it might be useful to collect all of the articles I've found on this in one spot, for quick & easy access:

... and I would like to point out any editors who aren't aware of the old CAMERA scandal to WP:CAMERA.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, from experience a lot of us know that once they get serious opposition many lose it and start yelling "antisemite" and it's all down hill for cooperative editing by them from there on. (And don't forget to report it to Arbitration enforcement the first time and every time it happens.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
To be very honest, I have seen many examples on Wikipedia of what I would consider to be antisemitic and Islamophobic comments. I think that many such comments are made in good faith by editors who would not call themselves antisemites or biased against Muslims. Let's face it, unfortunately, anti-semitism and anti-Muslim bias are currently problems in many countries, and it's no surprise that these biases rear their ugly heads on Wikipedia too. So, I think it's important for editors to point it out when they see someone engaging in inflammatory rhetoric or editing an article in a way that's not NPOV. The goal should not be to get the transgressing editor kicked off the island, nor to make editors in this area even more humorless than we are already, but to help us all understand how we can communicate and edit more constructively.
On that note, I recently came across the following pamphlet, which I thought was an interesting and useful guide in distinguishing between fair criticism of Israel and antisemitic rhetoric. (The pamphlet got some attention after it was posted by the Olympia Food Co-op, which found it received many antisemitic expressions of "support" after deciding to boycott Israeli products.). An excerpt that seems particularly relevant to this thread:
"A lot of activists work to avoid anti-Jewish oppression, and to make a distinction between Jewish people and Israeli misdeeds, by targeting their comments at "Zionists," not Jews, and "Zionism," not Judaism or Jewish culture..."
"A lot of activists work to avoid anti-Jewish oppression, and to make a distinction between Jewish people and Israeli misdeeds, by targeting their comments at "Zionists," not Jews, and "Zionism," not Judaism or Jewish culture. Unfortunately, this shortcut doesn't work.
"First, it backfires because major, organized antisemitic movements also use the term, for the opposite purpose: to spread anti-Jewish ideology without looking so bad. That's why 2005's international conference, "Zionism As the Biggest Threat to Modern Civilization" was co-chaired by neo-nazi politician David Duke. For many antisemitic groups, “Zionists” are the demonic Jews controlling the world, Protocol- style; and “Zionism”is the general body of evildoing by Jews. Because we activists are only suspicious of Jew-bashing, not attacks on “Zionists,” their antisemitic imagery makes its way right into our circles. Second, because it replaces one one- dimensional image of a 'bad guy' with another.It bypasses the actual work of avoiding anti-Jewish oppression: reshaping how we think and talk about Jews and Israelis to see them as 3-dimensional human beings, capable of wrongdoing like any others. Finally, using the term "Zionists" doesn't protect Jews. It just makes people who bomb Jewish schools, synagogues, etc., call the people they're killing Zionists.
"Principled anti-Zionism has little to do with the fake "Zionism" that antisemites like Duke attack. There are many rational reasons why some people are opposed to the philosophy that there should be a Jewish state, just as lots of rational reasons motivate others to believe a Jewish state is neccessary.
"Zionism is not an insult.It's not a catch phrase, a code word for racism or imperialism, or the name for unpleasant things done by Jews. It's a nationalism, and, as often happens with nationalisms, it has not fully liberated its people and has oppressed others in the process. It stands for a huge range of beliefs and believers: from the Right-wing racist who wants to ‘transfer’(forcibly expel) all Palestinians, to the person who wants Jews to have a self-determined state in the only land to which Jewish diaspora ethnicities around the world have shared a cultural tie, to the person who wants to keep living as a Jew in the “Land of Israel” but is open to living in a binational, Palestinian-Jewish state."
Perhaps it would be helpful to have a discussion about how we can reduce antisemitic and anti-Muslim rhetoric in this topic area, since this is a problem that comes up regularly in I/P-related articles. Per Carol's comment, it also seems that it might also be useful to talk about how accusations of antisemitism/anti-Muslim bias can be misused here as personal attacks (since I'm sure it is not pleasant for an editor doing his best to be fair-minded to be repeatedly told that he is antisemitic or Islamophobic). Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
See relevant discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Categories_dealing_with_bigotry. Unless people feel it should be discussed here. Also reminder about this earlier article/discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Jerusalem_Post._Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_rages_on_Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
"Blog of one of the organizers" (Jrtayloriv) And he support the Eurabia theory.[30][31][32][33] I hope he could be an usefull wikipedia editor in this topic. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that he would want to write here, where every word can be deleted by anybody, when he has a contract for a book that is already announced at the largest booksellers. That book, BTW, promises to be interesting for us: [34]. — Sebastian 18:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We won't necessarily know which editors came in from the pro-Israel courses, but we should never stop assuming good faith when new people start editing the IPCOLL articles. Hopefully these editors will be able to quickly learn about Wikipedia's culture and will support our wish to make the Internet into an open society that can flow past the checkpoints and the walls. I'm mostly retired from IPCOLL, but I would suggest that level-headed editors (preferably a pro-Israel editor paired with a Palestinian or Arab editor) be on the alert to welcome these new users and hopefully teach them what they're supposed to do before they can cause any real harm to the site. Our own mediators are always there as a second line of defense, and finally there's AN/I if things really get out of hand. Even though I don't think we have a problem yet, it's always good to be prepared. --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder some editors edit here not because they are Jewish or Arab or Palestinian but because they may have a variety of other religious/political/cultural/etc. viewpoints relevant to the issue and therefore find it interesting. The important thing they can leave as much of their POV at door as possible, and certainly more than the new editors may be able to. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding all this, has anyone noticed a slight increase in vandalism? un☯mi 18:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Palestinians counter-organizing Wikipedia editors?

Palestinians to face 'Wikipedia War': "[Head of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate Abdul Nasser] An-Najar said PJS plans to set up counter editing groups, and asked the Palestinian Authority to support the effort."

Just what we need. <eyeroll> — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. I'm getting geared up for some WP:battlegrounding. I wonder if we'll be able to identify editors who partook in these "courses". NickCT (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, fellow project members, stay calm! Eye rolling may not make you blind, but it doesn't help you see what's in front of you, either. Yes, it happens that people who see only one side of the story in an article, may just delete that - gouging one eye because another eye is missing. But that's not why they come here in the first place.

They come here because they want to add eyes. They want others to see - their plights, their rights, their believes and values, the injustice they perceive, and the terrible conflict they're caught in. That intention is obvious from the articles cited above. The conflict is real; we can't wish it away or fight it with "battlegrounding". Simplistically accusing people of things they might do, ridiculing their family values, and the like, is not based on reason, but on the group instinct of warding off outsiders. (Nobody has reported any problem in answer to Unomi's question of three days ago.) Moreover, such cynicism is poisonous because it can easily turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Above all, this mindset flies in the face of what we're here for:

Our stated Purpose is "to create a more hospitable editing environment". At Wikipedia, we add and reconcile opposite viewpoints in our articles every day. To achieve that in our difficult subject area, we have to firmly believe in our purpose and actively work on realizing it, beginning with ourselves. If you don't stand behind that, you can just take your name off the member list. — Sebastian 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to Sebastian for seeing the positive aspect in this, but the risk here is that these new editors (on either side) won't seek to reconcile opposite viewpoints, rather to remove certain viewpoints. Here is another article on this - in theory now if these newest entrants are trained journalists they would already know about presenting different viewpoints in text and they might produce very good text, but Nassar's talk of a "counter-attack" doesn't encourage. Of course we can, and will, assume good faith, guide newcomers and hope things eventually settle. --Dailycare (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Cleaning up some files happened to come across this May 18, 2008 article of some relevance: 'Ordinary' Arabs to retake Internet: Wikipedia founder. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed on what Nassar said

I'd like to see an actual copy Al-Nasser's statement, rather than Haaretz's interpretation of it. I have seen quotes from Al-Nasser that said things like that he wanted to "guard the facts in the Internet encyclopedia", which is rather different from Haaretz's paraphrasing of "make it more pro-Palestinian". It seems like he might just be pushing for people to protect Wikipedia from the large number of organized Israeli propaganda groups that are targeting Wikipedia, ensuring that people stick to a neutral presentation of the facts, instead of allowing Zionist groups to censor certain viewpoints, and push a Zionist point of view.

Yes, he used the word "information war", and for good reason in my opinion -- as he said, misinformation on Wikipedia gets ingested by a large number of people, and can have significant effects in the real world. There is an organized campaign to introduce bias into the encyclopedia. This is an information war, initiated by Zionist propaganda groups, not only against Palestine, but also against the Wikipedia community who's consensual guidelines their are flaunting. Calling it an information war does not necessarily mean that the Palestian group in question is planning to use the same inappropriate tactics that the JIDF is using. That is, they might be willing to fight this "war" in line with Wikipedia policy -- not pushing a point of view, and neutrally presenting facts and viewpoints found in reliable sources.

If this is what Al-Nasser is saying -- i.e. that we need to guard the articles against these organized propaganda groups who are violating WP:NPOV, and make sure we stick to neutral presentation of facts -- then it doesn't seem any different from what most of the editors have said in the CAMERA/JIDF discussions have been saying.

I'm not saying that POV pushing groups are acceptable, whether Zionist or Palestinian. I'm saying that it's very possible that this is not an "POV-pushing" group like JIDF/CAMERA. That is, their only "agenda" might be to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:V (i.e. "guard the facts" as Al-Nasser said), and that they shouldn't be classified as an "POV-pushing" group, any more than other editors who are working to make sure that neutrality and sourcing guidelines are followed in Israel-Palestine articles.

We might have a person who is simply saying what dozens of editors here have already said, namely "We've got several Zionist groups running a propaganda campaign on Wikipedia. We need to guard Israel/Palestine articles and make sure they remain factual, instead of letting them devolve into a Israeli propaganda medium." If this is what he's saying, there is no problem with it, and we should welcome it. If he's saying "Let's do what the Zionist groups are doing, and run a propaganda campaign where we push a certain point of view to the exclusion of others", then they should be smothered out just like the JIDF.

Organizing a group to edit Wikipedia isn't necessarily bad (take for instance, [35]) even if their express purpose is to deal with POV issues (e.g. WikiProject Countering systemic bias). These organized groups only become a problem, like the JIDF, they come onto WP with the express purpose of violating WP:NPOV to push a certain political/religious viewpoint. That is, groups that adhere to policy are fine, whatever their real-world motives. Groups that willingly violate policy to meet their aims are not.

But I don't know what type of group he's organizing until I see what the man actually said, rather than how some journalist from an Israeli paper paraphrased him. So, does anyone have an English-language translation of Al-Nasser's comments, so we can get a balanced and accurate idea of what he actually said? Until we know what was said, we won't be able to figure out how to deal with it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Best articles to send newbies for info?

Well, again the good news is the uncontrollably POV editors will soon gain criticism from more controlled editors, whatever their POV, and either change their ways or leave. Of course, they can be difficult to deal with for the first year or so of concerted editing. The most important thing that got me straight was editors leaving clear links to policy articles and sections which made me realize that the "opposition" wasn't just making up their arguments, but in general they were based on policy. (Or at least I could find out when they were twisting policy.) Of course, it's very frustrating that I still can't figure out which is the best overall policy page to send new users to for a good overview of what the policies actually are. Wikipedia:About - Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines - Wikipedia:Five_pillars - maybe Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset?? Thoughts? A list withe brief description on the main page would be very helpful. Let's do it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for looking for a practical way towards our purpose. We could of course ask our not-so-new-bies; people who have joined recently enough to still remember their beginners' problems. A lot of experienced editors have already contributed to this question, and there are almost as many different answers. Good selections are on WP:Welcome, WP:New contributors' help page, and of course on the ever popular Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates (table of more). (Of the templates, I prefer {{welcomeshort}} and {{welcomeshorter}}, but I may be biased since I created them.) With all that information already out there, I'm not sure, though, how much sense it makes to add specific newbie information on our project page. But how about a project specific welcome message? Other projects have such messages - see e.g. WP:SLR#Welcome message for new users. — Sebastian 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
POV and high amounts of edit warring are probably the biggest issues in the topic area. It would be great if those things ca be added to any sort of message. It may be too much for a welcome message, but a note on the possible sanctions could be added in a way that is not BITEy.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, I just wrote the following as a follow-up to a welcome message: "... the bigger issue is that you always have to deal with other people who may disagree with you. For someone who is used to creating web pages, that can be the biggest challenge. Just drop me a message before you get frustrated." That may be a bit too weak for our area, but something similar might work. — Sebastian 02:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I never ran into any of those other links before, despite searching from time to time for things like that, so there's no doubt a paragraph like that from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation which Sebastian recommended needs to be there. Also for longtime users, especially those who may wander into these issues for the first time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So is anyone going to do this or should I put on my overly long to do list which I'm way behind on. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Deciding to take bull by horns, looked at organization of "Guidelines and Rules" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation and maybe we need something more detailed like that (integrating existing material) not just for newbies, but for people new to the level of conflict in some of these articles - or just as a good review for people long editing these articles. And maybe a welcoming section too. Hearing no objections - unless you want to beat me to it! :-) - I'll play around with it this week.

New External Link: "Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration"

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration" here. Another feature new to me that might be new to others. While once you go to page it's sort of clear what it is. Though I don't know what The edits below are the most recent to articles that have talk pages transcluding {WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration} means. Is that related to how articles can get on the list? Whatever the case, 10 word explanation after the link would be very helpful just in interest of clarity for newbies to the feature. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles rather drastic proposals

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to page linked above "A recent deterioration in the editing of Israel-Palestine articles has resulted in a large number of complaints to WP:AE related to edit warring and civility." There are now proposals to deal with it including making all Israel-Palestine pages 1rr and more easily banning alleged edit warriors. I get the impression this is supposed to be an admin discussion but not sure if all participants are in fact admins. Obviously this is relevant to this project. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carol, I set up the page after a recent flurry of WP:AE reports, including some concerning pointless edit wars over tags. I guess I should have put a notification on this page - sorry about that. Regarding whether the discussion was admin only, the recent discussions at WP:AE have been slightly aggressive, and I didn't want the discussion to become unstructured. However, as it happens, the discussion has generally been of a high standard, so I needn't have worried. PhilKnight (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have a problem with an admin-only discussion, just with a mostly admin with a lot of non-admins of one POV who go distorting it. Not saying that is the case, since I didn't pay that much attention to who was saying what. Just an obvious concern. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1RR for the Arab-Israeli conflict articles

Latest comment: 13 years ago30 comments7 people in discussion

The discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles has established a consensus to impose a 1RR restriction on the entire Arab-Israeli conflict set of articles. There's a template {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which has a shortcut of {{ARBPIA}}, to place on talk pages to explain the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the process to have an article included in the set under 1RR or 'ask for clarification' as the template says ? I'm thinking of articles like B'Tselem, Gideon Levy and many other articles that are related to the conflict somewhat indirectly. Perhaps the template usage documentation should say something more about the process. I've added the discretionary sanctions template to the talk page of many articles in the past but I wouldn't expect non-admins to be able to add this template without some kind of semi-formal step. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The application of 1RR to the whole conflict is based on what was done in The Troubles set of articles. They side stepped this question by agreeing that if in doubt articles could be included, and I'm inclined to follow their approach. PhilKnight (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
So would I be correct to assume that in practice that means that a non-admin could add the template to an article related to the conflict ? That has already happened here. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess your note to Supreme Deliciousness confirms this to be the case. And many thanks to SD. Here are some more that probably need the template at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Question Phil - Does this cover all of the A-I conflict articles, or just those in the I-P conflict topic area? I thought we had been discussing the latter, though I don't have a problem with the former being covered as well. ← George talk 21:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions cover the whole of the A-I, so I guess this 1RR restriction can as well. Apologies for the confusion - I appreciate the difference, and shouldn't be using the terms interchangeably. PhilKnight (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries, I just wanted to verify the scope after noticing this template being added to articles about Middle Eastern foods like Hummus and Za'atar. Thanks for clarifying. ← George talk 01:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, so any one can put {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} on any page that doesn't have one that we believe is related? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. PhilKnight (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are you of all people commenting, Philknight? Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
¿qué Sean.hoyland - talk 05:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
PhilKnight made the mistake of bringing over a hard as nails template that specifically states "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." (emphasis not mine) then warning and then ignoring a problem. No credibility and he might as well stop attempting to be an admin in the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I see. Seems harsh. I disagree. "may be" isn't "will be". Perhaps it should be "will be" (unless they self-revert) and admins should have no discretion at all in these matters. I would actually support that because it makes all admins equal, it's very simple for editors to understand and it forces consistency but Wikipedia doesn't work like that in any area it seems (or at least the areas that aren't handled by bots). I'm not sure "and then ignoring a problem" is accurate. Discussion seemed to move to people's talk pages. In the end though, the result was that Sherif9282 and Jiujitsuguy agreed to resolve the issue together by talking to eachother which is the best possible outcome. And by the way, talking of discretion, look at this shocking case where Jiujitsuguy says "Self-revert to last version by George. George, I never would have reported you even if you had violated 3r" actively encouraging George to break 1RR. Shame on him. It's unnatural and disturbing to see such friendly and reasonable behavior in the topic area. What next ? People setting aside their personal views and working together to build an encyclopedia, no more edits like this ? It's an alarming prospect. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You have previously defended Nableezy when he made a similar comment. George is badass and I doubt he would ever cross 3rr. Thank God since I don't know how I would handle such a situation. But back on topic, PhilKnight has shown he is a problem. I know it isn't his fault (it is the editors screwing up) but it is so shocking when he was the one adding the template that (regardless of wordsmithing) was pretty damn hard.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Sean - I reverted Jiujitsuguy's edit to that article, violating 1RR (having already reverted an editor that you yourself were editing warring with), and self-reverted after noticing that the topic fell under these sanctions - before anyone noticed or asked me to. At the time, Jiujitsuguy and I were in the middle of a discussion on the article's talk page, so I explained that I couldn't revert his edit due to 1RR, and asked if he would kindly self-revert while our discussion was ongoing; he obliged. I don't at all feel encouraged to break 1RR in the future (and will continue to try not to), but I was encouraged that Jiujitsuguy showed the decency to self-revert, per my request, while we discussed the matter further. I can respect and work with an editor like that.
Cptnono - I think a better approach would have been to take the matter to the edit warring noticeboard. I had filed a case at the EW noticeboard the same day as the Sherif9282 case, noting that an editor had reverted six times over a few days - the last time coming 28 hours after their previous revert (they had been reverted by several different editors, including myself & Sean, and after they had been warned about 1RR by Jiujitsugy). I listed the six reverts, noted that I thought they were using two accounts as sock puppets even though they had never officially violated either 1RR or 3RR, and added a link to the 1RR consensus discussion. An admin on those noticeboards banned the editor for a week, and filed a sock puppet investigation of the user (which later confirmed the second account was indeed the same user). I think the edit warring noticeboard is just more streamlined for handling cases covered by this 1RR sanction. ← George talk 08:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I have seen at least one admin instruct editors to not go to the other boards and instead to take it to AE. Sherif's violation wasn't completely terrible (he made it worse after the self revert, though). I think I am more butthurt that Philknight disregarded it after signaling that admins (especially himself) were going to be tougher. Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I might go to AE for repeat, serial abusers (that require exceptionally longer blocks), but AE is usually bogged down with long, complicated cases, and too many voices with differing opinions; I avoid it whenever possible. The EW noticeboard, on the other hand, is specifically used to these types of cases (and editors and articles under 1RR). Most of the discussions there are quite succinct, don't grow past a paragraph or two, and action is pretty swift. I'm going to continue using it to report violations of this 1RR sanction until/unless someone yells at me. :) ← George talk 08:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think AE is better suited since it is more focused. But I'm not suire. So I just asked for clarification so that wit doesn't come up again:[36] 08:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Good call. ← George talk 08:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was really encouraged by what happened at the 2006 Lebanon war article George, the self reverts, your efforts to provide of a large number sources and the fact that the admin took it upon themselves to request a checkuser on the accounts based on your 3RR report rather than requiring an additional SPI report to be filed. It made the whole process quite efficient. Obviously I deny the charge of editing warring on my part as I make all of my edits in that topic area while wearing a blue UN helmet. I think the AE vs 3RR point needs clarification too. I would have filed it at 3RR by default and almost did file one by mistake. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Haha, I want a blue hat! I didn't mean edit warring in a negative way (as I agreed with your reverts), but not sure what you call beating back the anonymous editor scourge. And what a rude little anonymous editor. I can't believe that 'obscurantist' is actually a word. ← George talk 08:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is 1RR still active?

I don't edit much lately on Israel-Palestine articles. Is 1RR still active? If so, where does one report 1RR violations? Are there additional templates for 1RR? How about a userbox? This template does not say where to report 1RR violations:

I did not notice 1RR in that template at first. I made it bold today. See this diff.

Can info and links be put in a section on the front page of the project so people can get up to speed? Here:

1RR as listed as option 3 here:

I have some additional options to suggest. Where can they be suggested? Such as this option to help find sockpuppets:

On that village pump talk page read the sections above it for more info and discussion.

OK. I found this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies

The 1RR part was buried until I put it in a subheading so that "1RR" is visible in the table of contents. See this diff. It has taken me a long time to retrieve this 1RR info. So that is why 1RR info needs to be put on the front page of the project.

I, or others, can do it later, if no one objects. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more is needed. Probably best thing is to mention it in purpose in one sentence as do now and then add a link saying get more detailed info below, which would link to a separate subsection of the Dealing with Disputes section and/or Citing and reporting incidents. Unless you have better idea. Anyway, feel free to do it! If it needs tweaking, someone probably will tweak it. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Timeshifter, yes the 1RR is still active. In addition to the talk page notice, there's an edit notice. Violations can be reported to either WP:AE or WP:EWN. As to where to post ideas, I guess you can post them on this page? At least until someone sets up another discussion page. PhilKnight (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
And hopefully it's active for a loooong time, it's been blissfully quiet by comparison. Sol (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
PhilKnight and CarolMooreDC. Can links to WP:AE or WP:EWN be added to Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement? I believe that is a place for this arbitration info that editors in this topic area will find most often. I added some 1RR info to Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Dealing with disputes. Many editors may not see that though. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added a note to Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. PhilKnight (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. If this is related to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles, why call the template Arab-Israeli and hide the actual arbitration name inside wikilinks? Others might be confused to once they follow the links. I'm not saying title of template has to be changed, just that it has to be made explicit why that title is chose to link to that arbitration. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The arbitration case was called 'Palestine-Israel articles', however the scope of the arbitration enforcement was defined as the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles. That said, I wouldn't object to renaming the template. PhilKnight (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be less confusing to do that and then just explain it covers "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles." Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Article "History of Palestine", Encyclopaedia Britannica (2002 edition), article section written by Walid Ahmed Khalidi and Ian J. Bickerton.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Archive_5&oldid=1148782293"