Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Community lounge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi everyone. We have just been through a few major processes which have brought us into frequent contact, both in collaborative and contentious ways. During this time, we have all gained some idea of each other's ideas and views. I think each of us has had some occasional conversation here and there, in the course of editing, where we find another person's views rather enlightening. However, such conversations only occur when the editing process somehow swings into an area of greater discussion. So sometimes the moments of open communication only occur sporadically.

So I would like to offer this page as another alternative. This can be a place where we can lay out different views and ideas in an open-ended manner.

By the way, I also can picture the following additional ideas; one lounge for any major, drawn-out disputes or discussions. Another for any general discussions, and general conversation. Also we could have one lounge for Palestinian-affiliated editors, one for Israel-affiliated editors, and for both groups together. hope that sounds good.

Anyway, please feel free to post here if you wish. this is all still in an experimental phase. We can look at further ways to expand this and refine this, as things go forward. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Discussion scope 2 Graphics 2.1 Award 3 Most Successful Conflict Resolution Route on these issues? 4 Frustrating Stuff! 5 "Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism" needs a page 6 The Heart of the matter 7 Personal Attack on User:Jayjg and complaining about WP:Gaming the system vs. WP:AGF 8 WikiProject banner

[edit] Discussion scope

Please feel free to post here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Steve, a few random thoughts. A barnstar/award system, like the Sri Lanka project? Some place to mark every little success at collaboration within the I-P arena? You're pretty energetic, maybe you could find a way to recruit some uninvolved users (including admins who could work w/us on articles and apply the new discretionary sanctions, etc). Do you want to put links to this project on the Isr and Pales wikiproject pages (or is that premature)? Pass me a Shirley Temple, Mr. Lounge Lizard. Thanks.... HG | Talk 03:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks. actually I was thinking more about having conversations here on existing issues, rather than launching any new efforts. but thanks very much anyway. we can see what comes up. right now I hope to just wait and see how this page takes shape over time. it's really great to have your input here, as usual. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's always nice to have a place to throw out ideas. Like the one I just had on publicizing the existence of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles since just a quick look at a couple of pages shows that some people are just out there going at it as usual. How about a HEADER for Israel/Palestine-related pages saying something like "The WIkipedia Community has created a policy to ensure civil and NPOV editing on pages about this topic. Please [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles|see this link]] for more details." With a friendly image icon. I don't know who can officially OK that sort of thing, if I should recommend it there?? Thanks. Carol Moore 05:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I don't know specifically, but that will probably be a good topic for us to discuss here generally. feel free to let us know which articles seem overly contentious to you. I don't want to guarante I can always respond swiftly, or immediately adddress each issue, but this is probably a topic which would be discussed here sooner or later anyway. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Carol and Steve could create a WikiProject Banner (template)? Maybe the template could mention the ArbCom remedies. (I also added it to our project page.) Maybe we could do a different kind of assessment, too, instead of quality -- assess on level and intensity of edit disputes! HG | Talk 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC) For a comparison, see the Sri Lanka {{Banner WPSLR}}. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't. I don't know much about how to do graphics here. thanks anyway. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see #WikiProject banner. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics

There's been a request for a userbox and now a barnstar. I'm thinking something that incorporates both the Palestinian and the Israeli flags might be appropriate? Durova^Charge! 07:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That might chase people away, actually from both sides. If we do have anything, it should not have any political symbols at all. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's dual flag image you might use, if not here, somewhere. I wouldn't mind the flags but I suppose it might be off-putting to some. Another idea is to mix logos from the Israel and Palestine WikiProjects. Or wp-Israel humor and wp-Palestine humor? Wait, here's an idea. One difficulty with the political symbols is that we need to consider the sensitivities of the both the hawks and the doves. We don't want to look like we favor a dovish POV. So how about a logo with a hawk and a dove nodding to each other? Oy, I'm full of wacky ideas already today. HG | Talk 15:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need to be careful. One thing to remember is that this is not a project really for people who necessarily want to cooperate or to find peace. this is an article for people who edit articles on Wikipedia in these areas, and wish to exchange ideas on such articles, even if they totally' distrust and dislike the group on the other side of the issue.

As far as a visual sumbol, how about a blue circle? or a simple mathematical equation? or a quill pen? or nothing at all? I lean more toward simplicity, than actually finding anything. thanks. sorry to be so prosaic, by the way. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, how about an image of putting the pieces back together? Like this restored piece of pottery from ancient Israel/Palestine? HG | Talk 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful symbolism, HG. Aptly chosen. Anyone else object? Durova^Charge! 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award

What we need is something that links Israelis and Palestinians, but without political or national implications. Whaddaya think? <eleland/talkedits> 04:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The award looks fabulous, thanks! Do we want that as the logo for the Project, banner, userbox? Here are two other image options I'm working on. First, a stamp from 1921 where the Arabs and Jews reached a compromise (impasse?) with the British, who made an overprint with both 'Palestine' and the Hebrew initials for 'Eretz Yisrael.' Alternatively, I'm on the brink of getting permission for a photo of restored pottery, along the lines of the discussion above.[1] What do you think? Who can work on it? Thanks HG | Talk 09:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the concept behind the pottery, but I wonder if it may be too subtle. I also love the stamp, but it may bother some editors because it says Palestine and not Israel, even though it has the aleph yud for "Eretz Yisrael", the Land of Israel. Interestingly, that article discusses the Hebrew overprint shown on the stamp: Land of Israel#Land of Israel and State of Israel.

I spent some time last week looking on Commons for a good image. I really like Image:Satellite image of Israel in January 2003.jpg, but I wish it didn't have the political borders overlaid on it. If other editors like it, I'll ask the editor who uploaded it if she/he has a copy without the borders.

I think the falafel would make a nice barnstar. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Let us know what you find out w/satellite image. Meanwhile, how about making that barnstar? Thanks, HG | Talk 19:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, NASA superimposes the political borders on its satellite images. I found a picture of the region, focused on Israel, Palestine and Sinai, on which most of the borders are so faint that they're hardly visible: Image:NASA Middle East.jpg

I'll work on a barnstar over the next few days. I'll start some of the other templates soon, and we can see if there's a consensus on an image. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most Successful Conflict Resolution Route on these issues?

We all know that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles is creating a working group on this topic to provide more guidelines. Meanwhile we're having a 2 year running debate on the same topic in Jewish Lobby about the definition of the term and whether its overwhelmingly antisemitic. So I made the following comment Talk:Jewish_lobby#Please_Note_New_Arbitration_Resolution_on_Israel.2FPalestine_and_Related_issues here. Any ideas?

Meanwhile I think it is time we finally get some WP:dispute resolution going here.

The question is WHICH shall we start with under Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Step_6:_Turn_to_others_for_help? It seems like this is already too much of sticky wicket with so many editors involved (and too many partisans running about) for: Editor assistance, Request a comment, Ask for a third opinion, Ask at a subject-specific WikiProject, Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard.

Perhaps it is time for Informal mediation which reads: If things are getting a bit tricky, it might be useful to ask some cool heads to look in and help out. Sometimes editors who provide third opinions or respond to requests for comments may be willing to help mediate a dispute, if it is requested. The WP:Mediation Cabal can also assist in settling disputes without turning to formal mediation. And of course they will have to carefully read and think about what is written in the Resolution on Israel/Palestine and Related issues page linked above.

Carol Moore 01:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

hi. thanks for the idea. however, I'm not sure that we are a dispute resolution group. this might be more a place to provide a forum for discussions of disputes, for thiose who wish to. As you yourself already noted, perhaps we can help contact other groups who already work in the area of mediation. If you want to contact members here individually, and discuss with them, perhaps some might like to help you with dispute resolution. Alternatively, you could start your own effort, and then come back here and let us know how things are going, what issues you are facing, and what things you feel you would like to have done, or what ideas you'd like us to discuss. so feel free to let us know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interim another editor went over to Enforcement of Arbitration on Israel/Palestine issues, there was some debate, the originator said maybe mediation was enough, I chimed in saying maybe arbitration is best way after all, but at least WP:Mediation_Cabal. See contributions there.

Also, I'm wondering if this page on Collaboration needs to be more structured to differentiate it from a talk page, or should that be discussed on talk? :-) First time using one myself. Carol Moore 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Actually, I had in mind that this "Community Lounge" page might be absolutely open-ended, and would not be specifically about collaboration or related necessarily to any particular topic. The reason is that it would free us to raise any topics here at all, and then perhaps to split them off if we saw enough interest in any one topic to give it a separate page. so this is a page for almost any topic; discussing collaboration, discussing disputes, laying out issues from opposing sides, telling each other "nice job" or discussing Wikipedia procedures, or how to create a table or formatting, or anything at all.

By the way, i was thinking at one point to maybe create one page for article political issues, and one for low-key Wikipedia discussions, but probably right now we're better off being open-ended, just to see where people's interests really are. of course, this is all open to discussion as well, so if people really wanted this page to be used for a specific topic, we could perhaps do that too. I just wanted to mention all this now, since we are still in an initial period right now. But of course all of this is subject to possible change or discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frustrating Stuff!

Here's a section we can use to just vent about how frustrating it can be editing these pages!

What's really frustrating is that if you only meant to work on ONE article on these topics, as I did orginaly (Samson Option since I'm big anti-nuke war person), you find in your researches other articles on the topic that are just so obnoxiously POV that you can't help getting involved in more articles than you had any intention of becoming involved with. Others, like anti-Arab I end up doing a lot of clean up editing for people whose first language is not English. By then I'm too tired to figure out how relevant the info is, so at least I let other people tussle with those issues. :-) I had some fun cleaning up James Petras today -- just hope the anon. IP who was yelling Nazi racist in edit summary at last person who deleted their absurd and unsourced POV material doesn't do it again. Oi! Meanwhile, I'm halfway through adding a lot of good stuff to a couple pages on other topics that just keeps getting shunted aside. But if it all helps stop WWIII, I guess it is worth it!! Carol Moore 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] "Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism" needs a page

I just discovered "Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism" http://www.codz.org/ and there seems to be enough internet links discussing it for a nice stub of a page in case someone wants to take it on.Carol Moore 00:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] The Heart of the matter

(retrieved from user:Nishidani's talk page by user:ceedjee)

The root cause of this dispute is that many editors and admins believe that an article must present a single point of view that is "neutral". This is a fallacy. NPOV is the presentation of multiple views when they exist. As explained in Wikipedia:Five_pillars: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." Martintg (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. In my experience, admittedly limited experience, that point is well understood. The major problem, as I see it, is that a very large number of editors on topics that are historical in nature, surf the net through search engines for information to back their position. They never seem to frequent libraries, or read books. What pops up very quickly in searches are sites written from a strong POV as part of the daily informational wars to influence and pull one way or another public opinion. Most of that material consists of editorializing, by well known members of the partisan commentariat, feeding off vaguely from secondary sources, which are read simply to cull 'ammo'. Most of the serious technical-historical or academic research on the relevant issues is not yet available on the net. In consequence, we get a huge volume of sourcing to virtual tabloid, or digital ragsheet sites, and little from up-to-date academic sources. This in turn engenders RS arguments. I am not questioning net sources, but have little confidence in them as the basic sources for writing historical articles.

There are multiple points of view in the historical literature, but at least one knows that each viewpoint emerges from archival work and peer review, something that, on the other hand, does not occur with the POV junk from internet hearsay produced and fine-tuned to sway a mass audience. The distinctions customarily made on RS itself, with internet sites, is often one based on corporate size and throwweight in the informational wars, and not on quality. Counterpunch, for example, has proven to have been much better informed on the politics of staging the Invasion of Iraq than the New York Times. The latter is unchallenged (though User:xxxx(censored by user:ceedjee) did manage to eliminate it as a source because he disliked the content, on at least one occasion) the former dismissed mechanically as 'fringe'. Fox News is, to an historian, an horrific place to source reliable information from. But it's a major News organization so . . . being big, quoted on the stock exchange, and widely followed, its material on an issue can be deemed more reliable that say some article by Uri Avnery, who is endlessly challenged because he only posts on minor 'fringe' news outlets. Yet Avnery is not under instruction from Rupert Murdoch to follow a line, was a pro-Zionist, has written powerful memoirs of his years as a terrorist, was elected to the Knesset, boasts 50 years of experience as a journalist, engaged politicians, knows personally everyone relevant to the inside world of world politics. Even as the rules stand, huge systemic bias can intrude, often preicsely because the rules inadvertently favour as 'mainstream' what are corporate 'news'-factories over minority voices with far better records for integrity, but not being widely read or quoted on the stock exchange, can airily be dismissed as 'fringe', 'undue weight' (Undue weight is often given to what are sources that have a high public profile, but represent highly partisan interests). Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I share both analysis given here above :

• by Marting : "NPoV doesn't mean giving "a single point of view that is "neutral"".
• By Nishidani : The distinctions customarily made on RS itself, with internet sites, is often one based on corporate size and throwweight in the informational wars, and not on quality.

The fact that these principles are not respected by most editors is one of the root of the conflict.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was very helpful after years of debate on the Jewish Lobby article when a few of us actually cracked open a couple books (two online, one hardcover) to find reliable sources that support the use of the term "Jewish Lobby" as a non-antisemitic descriptive term. Even found a newer and better quote on same topic from authors than a truncated old quote that was used to "prove" a different point. I also reread and took notes on Samson Option (book) for Samson Option article, as well as one hard cover book and an online book, though not as much success in making that article more NPVO yet. Have to revisit the issue now that WP:Gaming the system is being discouraged. BOOKS GOOD!!Carol Moore 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Nishidani, to partially answer some of your concerns here, I feel that fringe views, minority views, etc, can be quoted if they are a large part of the debates which occur in notable sources elsewhere. Is there some theory that jews displaced Palestinians, or dispossessed them? If so, fine; if that view comes up frequently in debates or arguments between the two sides, then it can be quoted, even if it first appeared in relatively unknown sources. However, if there is a mainstream view in favor of various points associated with Israel's right to exist, then the article will reflect the overall acceptance of those points, where appropriate. Doing so doesn't mean that we are excluding all dissent; it means that such dissent can go in a separate section, where we reflect some of the prominent dissenters. BTW, I realize that you already do know some of these points, but I did want to respond to your concerns, which do have much validity. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack on User:Jayjg and complaining about WP:Gaming the system vs. WP:AGF

I'm posting this here because it's a more informal situation. But frankly wondering if this page is redundant and the collabortion page good enough? Thoughts??

• Special:Contributions/Eichman is a new account -- probably sockpuppet -- that attacked User:Jayjg on a bunch of pages, evidently ones that jayjg edits. Obviously this sort of thing is BAD and Jayjg or someone who knows what to do will get that account banned soon.
• Also, what is the proper sentence structure of asserting that someone is using WP:Idontlikeit or WP:Gaming the system or whatever that refers directly to motivation as opposed to the result of an edit? And what is Wiki's solution for WP:Gaming the system editors? Carol Moore 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

For the time being, this section is closed to further discussion. Please see my response to the identical post on Project Talk. HG | Talk 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject banner

This was discussed previously here. Please see #Discussion scope

I copied the wikicode from Template:Banner WPSLR, and created Template:Banner WPIPC.

Place {{Banner WPIPC}} on top of article talk page below other WikiProject banners. It will produce this banner:

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.

I saw an article needing some collaboration, moderation, and a place to seek help. Since I couldn't find a project banner I created this one. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)