Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

1 Archive for WP:IPCOLL

Archive for WP:IPCOLL

Build - criticize - build

Y Done Proposing as a recommendation for this project:

If you see a political problem with an article, please demonstrate good faith by first helping to make the article better in an uncontroversial aspect, then offer criticism, and follow up with helping some more in uncontroversial ways.

Sounds good? Durova^Charge! 23:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, it's sound. Durova, would you pls put it on the project page, maybe somewhere under Guidelines? We could have various recommendations of this nature, they needn't be mutually exclusive (logically consistent). thanks muchly, HG | Talk 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Durova^Charge! 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mission and membership

Now that we're slightly underway and have a few participants, I think it's important to tackle some key questions.

1. What is our long-term mission and our short-term emphasis? In what ways might we adopt or revise the provisional Goals listed? (Bear in mind that our contribution would presumably differ from either the Isr/Pales WikiProjects or the usual WP:DR mechanisms.)

I'm thinking that our chief aim is to make the topic area a more hospitable working environment, less of a battleground. In the short-term, we might "adopt" a few articles to model collaboration (e.g., Palestinian costumes) or to assign a few uninvolved "peacekeepers" to hotspots for a good cop/bad cop approach. HG | Talk 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Who would we want to join us as members here? Is membership open, invited, and/or subject to review?

We may be best off using this Project to attract uninvolved people, discuss strategies, and intervene/moderate in disputed articles. Toward this end, it would help to get buy-in and collaboration from key users from various "sides." However, it won't help if only one POV side joins the Project, which would then be perceived as one-sided. How do we ensure balance here? I'd guess we'd need to invite/encourage both sides to be represented in a limited manner, as we strive for a critical mass of uninvolved editors.

I welcome your comments. Feel free to place comments after each question, or below. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

IMO, it's a good idea to pitch in at low-tension articles. Otherwise we're redundant with MedCab. Part of what I've found helps change attitudes and environments is to have actual positive collaborations. Durova^Charge! 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell, I think this is a fine idea. Q's: Insofar as the goal is to change attitudes, we should think about our target audience (i.e., whose attitudes) when selecting our next effort (after Palestinian costumes). Are we trying to find pts of collaboration with people involved in the higher-tension disputes? Also, don't we want to somehow invite those "involved parties" to take part in the low-tension collaborations? In other words, is the goal more for us (less partisans) to build relationships, or to get the more partisan editors to agree to work together and build better working relationships? (I'm asking because I suspect that most of the more partisan editors won't notice what might be happening at an article like Costumes.) BTW, MedCab plays a different role than the suggestions made at ArbCom -- such as getting 2 non-partisan editors to intervene helpfully on disputed articles -- because MedCab has the parties come to it, whereas we would be trying to get a peacekeeping team to go pro-actively to the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

With great respect to HG and Durova and their efforts here and at Palestinian costumes, I wasn't envisioning such articles as coming under the scope of this collaboration. The Arbcomm decision counseled editors to:

For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Side X and who finds himself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Side X and Side Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Side X.

I think it's kind of odd to begin a collaborative effort at articles like Palestinian costumes (and even Palestinian people) in light of that advice. These articles are not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they represent the cultural background of Palestinians. That some people see politics in them at every turn is a function of the politics permeating almost every aspect of Palestinian identity, but I don't think we should encourage that tendency in these articles.

I was going to propose Israeli-Palestinian conflict precisely since it was the subject of a MedCab request, and we would be responding to the requests of editors involved in editing these articles, rather than deciding for them what would be good for them to do. I think we have to tackle the big problems head on. Start with Battle of Jenin for example or Second Intifada. That's just my three cents. Tiamut^talk 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Tiamut. But allow me to introduce myself first. As a founding member of WP:SLR I am very happy about the birth of our first "daughter" project, and I wish it as much success as a parent could wish. In an effort to help with related questions, I already had a long, fruitful conversation with HG on user talk:SebastianHelm#Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

I strongly disagree with the statement "[working on high-tension articles would make us] redundant with MedCab." This is certainly not true, as evident from SLR's success, especially the recent statistics. I have mediated enough MedCab cases to assess that, in its area of concern, a dedicated, topical high-tension mediation WikiProject is far more effective than MedCab. Before we had WP:SLR, resolving one single case through MedCab, such as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam took several months; in the same time, we resolved over a dozen of such cases through WP:SLR.

That said, no two conflicts are the same, and you may well have reasons to start with low-tension articles. That's up to you to decide; you know the specifics of your situation better than I do. But I recommend carefully weighing the arguments for both:

The "high-tension first" approach has advantages: It has been proven to work. Moreover, you may have a very fortuitous moment right now, while ArbCom is supporting you - they probably would be happy to help you particularly with high-tension problems. If you want to take that path, you need to actively seek collaboration particularly with partisan editors.

The "low-tension first" approach may be a lower hanging fruit. Its benefits include that it seems what both HG and Durova feel comfortable with and that it may forge good cooperation at least betwen the two of you, which would, at some time in the future, make you feel more comfortable moving towards high-tension articles. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to help you with the low-tension first approach because our approach was different.

The two approaches are not mutually exclusive: you can do them in parallel, but that would either take twice the effort and complexity or twice the time. Both are problematic: Complexity and time are of the essence in an already complex area where many people are impatient to see results. That was at least the case for the SL conflict, and I would be surprised if it were different here. — Sebastian 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy there, Sebastian. Looks like you misinterpreted my statement. Going from the member list here, most of the people who've signed up have offered to volunteer at either mediation or low tension subjects. We aren't necessarily experts on the political nuances of the really hot stuff. If some people are ready and eager for that, I've got no objection. I just wouldn't be as much help.

I'd be very interested in learning more about what's worked for the Sri Lankan project and borrowing/adapting the successful strategies. Coach us! Durova^Charge! 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask again why Palestinian Costumes is listed as a collaboration? There wasn't a dispute there (ever), and per Arbcomm, these kinds of articles are retreat articles for people who are feeling heat elsewhere. Why bring the conflict there? Or drag people uninterested in the subject there, rather than going to where they are? For example, besides Israeli-Palestinian conflict for whom a medcab request was opened, and Second Intifada which recently was unprotected, Palestinian right of return has a number of editors trying to settle on an introduction and improve the article body. We could use some help there. Tiamut^talk 02:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy there, Tiamut! Let's keep this in the open spirit of a brainstorming. We're all struggling to do the right thing; let's not get sidetracked by too much harping on each other's bad ideas. — Sebastian 02:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to harp. I just wanted to be clear about where I think the focus should be. I did overdo it though. Tiamut^talk 02:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; this is of course an issue where everybody with a heart has strong feelings; we're here to learn how to cope with that and to help each other with that. — Sebastian 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, how could I not want to help you, when I'm being asked so nicely?! You have a point, we need to take our current member base into account. In WP:SLR, we were fortunate to have, among the three founding members, not just a lot of good will, but also a wide range of knowledge, both of the real-world conflict itself (from history to the structure of the SL army), as well as of its mirror on Wikipedia (applicable Wikipedia rules, involved editors, sockpuppets, ...). If your current member base does not include such editors, there are two ways to react: Resign to the fact and go with what you have - which might lend itself to the low-conflict first approach - or actively seek out collaboration of the experts. If you decide to go for the second option, you can still be of a lot of help: Each of you could contact a few experts; try to understand them compassionately and find out what they would need before they would consider joining a project like this. As I wrote on user talk:SebastianHelm#Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, I would encourage them to reply in e-mail. Sorry if I'm repeating myself; please read that conversation and feel free to ask there or here if you have any other questions. — Sebastian 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC) (I'm leaving now for about 4 hours, so take your time with your reply.)

A place to help?

Suggesting this as a starting point for the project participants who'd like to work on high tension areas. I'm mentor to one of the disputants (Jaakobou). Durova^Charge! 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a splendid, good sign that Tiamut is encouraging us to tackle a high-tension article. (Thanks T!) Here's what I propose we do before selecting and working on a high tension article:

Let's first get buy-in from some of the editors on both sides. Alternatively, let the choice of an article be made by members of the Project who are not on any "side" of the dispute. We can choose from candidates proposed by any side, or based on our own judgment.
Let's have at least one "uninvolved admin" (as defined by the new [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|ArbCom decisions) who can apply the new discretionary sanctions, if need be.
Ideally, it would be good to have at least two members willing to serve a mediating/facilitating role.
Let's scope out and discuss the selected article enough, via this Talk page, to identify the players, the disputed items we'd tackle, and why we think WP:DR efforts hadn't worked to date. Maybe set specific goals for ourselves.

In term of specific choices, I would prefer to collaborate on two of Tiamut's suggestions, Jenin and Second Intifada, because I've already done some facilitation there. (Durova: Jaakobou had been very involved w/Jenin, though less so in the discrete consensus edit we worked out more recently.) I have no experience w/Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Saeb Erekat specifically. I'd also nominate: Allegations of Israeli apartheid, with which I have much experience, if we could choose a concrete task (e.g., renaming, or work on a section). Not sure why Tiamut didn't mention Palestinian people, where we're about to wrap up a compromise on a small (contentious) edit.

Proposal. Let's discuss a bit more the two questions at the top of this thread. Maybe we can kill 2 birds w/1 stone -- let's invite "involved" editors

Why Palestinian costumes?

Y Done Tiamut has posed this question a couple of times and it deserves a good answer. Luck. A couple of weeks ago Huldra came to my user talk and asked for help cropping an image. I think that's because I've been doing a lot of photo restorations lately. She happened to link to the article and I happen to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts. So I added the textile arts project template to the article talk, gave the article itself a look, and commented that it was already a solid B-class article that might make a good GA drive. This was before the current Israel-Palestine arbitration opened; the textile arts project is small so I outreach to overlapping projects for article improvements. The stars must have aligned just right because for some reason people started showing up and pitching in, and it's been a really pleasant collaboration. Then I received a note that this Israel Palestine Collaboration project had opened, and it seemed like a wonderful idea. So while we have momentum I'd love to see this thing through to FA. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, it does seem that if a involved editor strongly objects to listing the collaboration, we might want to go along. Tiamut isn't asking to stop the great assistance the article is getting from Durova, only that it be delisted here. On the other hand, regardless of whether we delist, I'd like to understand Tiamut's concerns better. T, while you cite the ArbCom sage counsel about working on "cultural heritage" articles, it strikes me that their advice completely supports this kind of collaboration. Are you concerned that it would be harmful if this listing drew the attention of "opposing POV" (an ok term?) editors to a currently low-tension cultural article? Frankly, I think that is exactly what I (and Durova?) would welcome -- let some "opposing" editors come and cooperate in a mundane way. Would you be willing to take a bit of a risk, and trust that we all could handle any ratcheting up of tension that might be incurred? This would then improve relationships, not only among e.g. you/Durova/me but also with "opposing" visitors. In sum, I can see delisting this instance, but I'd like to pursue the conversation because Durova's "low tension" idea and ArbCom's counsel seem compatible and promising. What do you both think? Thanks. HG | Talk 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut is raising some valid concerns to keep in mind. maybe things will not turn out to be problematic. however, she's right that we don;t want this article to be the target of tensions which affact other articles which are more overtly political . maybe we could leave it linked here for now though, and see what happens? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand Tiamut's concerns. When we have, in some other articles, editors denying that there is a Palestinian ethnic identity, or claiming that the very name "Palestine" is artificial and the history manufactured, the last thing that we want is to import this approach into an article on the way to GA status. Of course, if there are editors, from whatever background, who would like to collaborate on this article (or, to pick a random counter-example, Music of Israel), then they should be welcomed and made to feel at home. But we really don't need to widen the sphere of articles subjected to the war of attrition that led to the ArbCom case. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I've injured one of my hands, so typing is a bit of a challenge right now, and I won't be able to be as active for a couple of days at least. I just want to say that I have fully appreciated the collaborative efforts at Palestinian costumes and would like to see them continue. Still, I remain concerned about its listing here, for the reasons I've outlined above (and would echo RolandR here as well). The suggestions from HG on alternate articles to consider is welcome. In general, I think we should avoid cultural articles because of the arbcomm recommendation. Tiamut^talk 12:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your hand, and I wish you to get well soon. You're needed here! — Sebastian 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian costumes seems to be a zero-tension article. Of course, collaboration on any articles is good for Wikipedia, and it is understandable that Durova wants many people to participate in an improvement drive. However, the article is already within the scope of three different WikiProjects, so it should be easy to find editors interested in improving it elsewhere. Using a project that has conflict resolution as its objective to recruit editors for work on such a zero-tension article diverts these editors from actualy helping the project towards the goal of conflict resolution. There's work for every temperament, and you need everybody, especially at this early stage! — Sebastian 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, most comments are leaning toward dropping Costumes as a focus for this project. Personally, I've put much energy into that article and would like to stay with it. However, for the purpose of this WikiProject, how about if we choose something else? I still think the idea of a low-tension article has merit. So, how about if we list something closer to the battleground (e.g., within Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict)? Let's ask everybody to nominate options, and you choose an option as soon as you see a viable one. Thanks for taking the lead on Costumes and with this low-tension idea. HG | Talk 06:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got no particular problem with that. Bear in mind that as you get closer to the political hot potatoes my own ability to participate at the content level will be curtailed. Durova^Charge! 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's consider this issue resolved, successfully. Our first IPCOLL collaboration made significant improvements to Palestinian costumes and go it ready for GA nomination. Kudos esp to Durova. Discussion of next collaborative article below. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to rain on anyone's parade or anything, but Palestinian costumes was never a high conflict article. Nor did any of the editors who have difficulty collaborating in other high tension articles participate here (with the exception of myself, of course ;)). While Kudos are due to Durova, HG, Huldra, Funkynusari, and myself for bringing the article to what may be a GA level, it's not an example of succesful collaboration by the parties that this project intends to target. I have to be clear on this for the record. Sorry for the frankness. Tiamut^talk 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's fair enough. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Low-tension article collaboration

Here are several options for a new effort. Do you have other suggestions and/or which would you like to do? Feel free to add to this list and then !vote/comment. thanks, HG | Talk 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis (out-of-date, lots of info avail via web)
United Nations Conciliation Commission (history, needs editing)
Economic and political boycotts of Israel or Academic boycotts of Israel (data but not encyclopedic, some controversy)
Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (high importance; summary style; manageable dispute imo)

I think it's best for the parties to the dispute to find an article or two where they feel comfortable "chilling". This is mostly for their benefit. Durova^Charge! 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is indeed a good use for low-tension, or even zero-tension articles, which didn't occur to me: It would be very beneficial if collaboration at such an article brought editors together, who have not been able to get along with each other before. If you could convince two such editors to collaborate on any article, I would be very happy. — Sebastian 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova or others, do you have a suggestion on how parties to disputes might choose such an article? I think it's helpful when an uninvolved party spearheads the effort, as Durova did with our first foray. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

613 Mitzvot

Here's a high-importance Judaism article that's ripe for a featured list drive. The list itself is already very well referenced with citations to a simultaneous Hebrew and English source. What it needs is better referencing in the introduction, stub articles to fill in the red links, a good copyedit, and perhaps an image or two. If no one objects, I'll see what I can do to get things moving. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

uh, ok. this is fine as an occasional thing, but maybe we shouldn't try to overdo it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain just what this article -- admirable as it may be -- has to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict? Thanks RolandR (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with that. There is already a Wikiproject for Judaism, and this would obviously fit in there. For that matter, there is already a Wikiproject named "Palestine" and the article on Palestinian costumes would seem to fit in better there. I see no benefit to duplicating the "mission" of existing projects. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Here's why I look for these low tension articles: they're morale builders. I have no objection to any parallel effort to assist high tension areas, so please be respectful of this approach also.

In my own early months as a Wikipedian I contended with two long term disruptive editors. I might have given up on the project if it hadn't been for two other editors who invited me to help start an article on a different topic, which became a really pleasant collaboration and led to my first DYK. Since that time I've volunteered with a lot of dispute resolution. One frequent complaint among individuals who wind up getting sitebanned is that Wikipedia is a cesspool - they call it that because they've never had a positive experience.

So one of the things I want to do is to help people have a positive experience. If we get that going at a few select pages that aren't political hot potatoes, then people will participate at the potato-tossing sessions in a better frame of mind. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. i understand, and i appreciate it. howver, I'm not sure we're much better off if we pick articles simply because they're not controversial, or don;t have any relation to our existing issues, or if we just picked them arbitrarily. and also, we have to think about the actual relevance of this project. there's no guarantee we'll get much response in the first place, so I think we may need to be thinking about making efforts which affect this actual area. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As a suggestion, perhaps you could call attention to articles which relate to some factual area of this region, but which do not bring out too much of the political issues or disputes. i think one of the problems with the 613 article is that it so clearly does not relate to this area, mainly because it is a religious Jewish article. if you could simply pick something related to local topography, natural features, etc, or perhaps general economics, or perhaps local folklore, local culture, mannerisms, etc etc, that might perhaps legitimately call forth some common ideas, yet still not be too overly related to political issues or disputes. just a suggestion. thanks so much for your ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For 6SJ7, Steve and Roland -- let's put our head together. I don't think Durova is as familiar with the Isr-Pal confluence of articles. Please, can you guys make some suggestions of articles that might be good for an open collaboration (e.g., like a Collaboration of the Week) in our area? We do plan to focus on some disputed, high tension articles, but for now let's come up with some candidates for a low-tension effort. I listed some in a section above. What other candidates can you all think of? Let's keep some positive momentum behind this idea, ok? Maybe not everybody will want to participate, but for those who would like this kind of positive experience, just give us an article with which to start, fair enough? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I happened to arrive at this page while Jaakobou and I were discussing potential DYK material on a related subject. Basically I've been coming to these things organically and identifying ones that are within reach of some sort of site accolade. After the first drive - which was surprisingly successful - I'm rather put off by the negativity here. What, may I ask, is the point of stepping in at an article that's just risen to GAC through fruitful collaboration and saying in so many words this is wrong; don't take it any further? Or of stepping onto a featured list drive proposal with we shouldn't overdo it? Durova^Charge! 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying don't take this any further; I am simply noting that 613 Mitzvot is not related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. There is an underlying political issue here, which may not be shared by all collaborators; I would argue -- very strongly, if pushed to it -- that the conflict is not a religious one, that not everything related to the Jewish religion is germane to the conflict, and that we should certainly not confuse separate categories. Similarly, I would argue against a proposal to edit Hadith within this project. The issue is not about Jews and Muslims, and I think we should be very careful not to suggest the contrary.

HG asks for suggestions for possible collaborations. What about the stub articles for significant cultural figures such as Chava Alberstein or Fadwa Toukan? Or one of the inadequate place articles, such as Holon, or Sakhnin. There could well be contentious issues associated with each of these articles, but the nature of them is essentially far less contentious than those listed in battleground statistics, so they could provide a useful first attempt. I could come up with many more similar articles, as I'm sure could others involved in editing in this area. RolandR (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are good ideas, Roland. Also: articles on both flags? Or, what if we started an article from scratch for DYK? Searching for "Israeli-Palestinian Collaboration" I found this project: "Migrating birds know no boundaries."[1] Or we could prepare an article about Israeli-Palestinian scientific collaboration.[2] Other ideas? Thanks again. HG | Talk 01:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing our role here with the role of activists directly involved in the conflict. We are trying to establish collaboration within Wikipedia between editors with sometimes sharply differing viewpoints. But it's not our task to resolve the conflict itself. I am very sceptical about many examples of Israeli-Palestine collaboration; indeed, the very word "collaboration" has very negative implications in a situation of military occupation. So I think we should at present steer clear os such articles, and certainly not initiate them from this project. The suggestions I offered were all around already-existing articles, which could do with a lot of work, which do have the possibility of raising in miniature many of the issues in dispute in other articles, but which are probably not massively contentious in themselves. Let's stick to something like this, rather than attempt to do what generations of activists, politicians and diplomats have not yet succeeded in!RolandR (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm not suggesting these such articles to have a non-WP impact. But I do notice this -- there are far more Wikipedia disputes over the violence-related articles (e.g., massacres, intifada, etc) than around the peace process articles. For instance, look at this important article: Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This summary style article could be polished, given images, etc. It's a crucial article about the Conflict, but not in an editing dispute. There hasn't been a Talk comment there since 2005 despite numerous edits. So, I certainly do NOT mean we should promote peace, only that the peace-related articles will be easier for us to handle editing together. See what I mean? HG | Talk 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that few people argue about things that they dont have, especially when given by others. That is why there is little disruption on the peace process articles. Another is that peace is the land of moderates, middle ground, seeking consensus and compromise, having a prespective that sees both sides (something called NPOV, I believe). Then, mutually agree that living together peacefully is better than the all-or-nothing alternative. Radicals, the all-or-nothing crowd on the other hand, won't consider that; their common defence is denial/rejection of other views (something called POV). When there is an article that includes both types of editors, the radicals on both sides always seem to win both within both the I-side and the P-side, particularly on talk pages. Why do the radicals always win against the moderates?- its because the moderates, well, are too moderate. They build consensus and compromise too easily. It seems that the true NPOV article either can't be written, or will not be allowed. I believe you have seen a typical example of that with a single 'a' on Palestinian people.

I similarly agree that Wikipedia should not become a 'platform' for peace, that would be wrong because Wikipedia couldn't/wouldn't discuss certain things. But with respect I must ask, if you 'certainly do NOT mean we should promote peace' how do you think Wikipedia can help/allow moderates with more NPOV to equalize their inferior position relative to the radical POV? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Roland, some of these Mitzvot can only be observed in the holy land. That was one of the reasons Jews migrated to the region before Theodor Herzl proposed Zionism for political reasons. I'm no expert on Israeli-Palestinian issues, but I'm not entirely ignorant either. And I find it - at least interesting - that Maimonides originally wrote up the list in Arabic. Durova^Charge! 06:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

613 Mitzvot is a topic that purely concerns Judaism. Why is it being dragged into a political project that deals with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Shall we now also discuss the Koran and Jihad because it's what Hamas believes? It is a very bad and very DANGEROUS idea to mix the political and religious aspects here. IZAK (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To Durova: Your actions are puzzling! Why have you focused on this and even gone to the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Featured list drive? without informing anyone here first? So that now, noone knows where the main discussion is going to take place. You are also putting those editors at WP:JUDAISM who do not wish to be part of this project in a tough position. You cannot take a key article belonging to Judaism as a religion and which is of key importance to the WP:JUDAISM primarily and then expect that editors who do not wish to discuss political issues about Israelis and Palestinians killing each other come here to practice to suit your ends. You have made a poor and incorrect choice and kindly withdraw your idea of tampering with the 613 Mitzvot article to satisfy some nebulous need of "light" articles here. There are over two hundred articles in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict and I would suggest that you stick to your subject here and choose a topic that fits into it rather than wandering into fields of knowledge where other skill sets are required and where editors do not share your interests or goals. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflicted)Well if you actually think that's a bad idea, I'll withdraw the proposal. We had good success bringing a Palestinian-related cultural article up to the level of GA candidacy and I thought a low tension article on the other side would be a good thing also. Yet I know you have strong ideas, IZAK, and I won't push if you oppose it. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  - You also placed a note at Talk:613 Mitzvot#Featured list drive? Why do you wish to mix people up? IZAK (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  - Durova: I count about three editors who told you not to do it, so why did you have to wait for me to "convince" you when you should have been listening to them all along. After all, isn't that what this project is about, "mentoring" editors how to "respect" and "listen" to each other so that no conflicts arise? Kindly do not attribute the "conflict" to me when it is entirely of your own making. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    - (ec again) IZAK, if you wish to ask me a question, please wait long enough for me to type a reply before following up with bad faith surmises. What I had written while you posted that was as follows: It was intended respectfully. At the start of this thread I explain how I came to that page. I've done featured lists before. And the intent wasn't to politicize it - the work on Palestinian cultural material hasn't been particularly political either. The idea is more to generate a positive space with material that already has distinct potential of rising to that next level. Your objection is articulate and I'll respect that. Durova^Charge! 08:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      - Ok Durova, I understand. I would not have minded if you wished to draw the attention of editors at the WP:JUDAISM project to improving the 613 Mitzvot article on its own merits (and you tried to make it seem that way) but because you are choosing it coming from this Israeli-Palestinian project, it is a fatally flawed request. I mean, what are serious Judaic editors to think, that on the one hand there is this tough domain of Israel-Palestine articles that are "tough" and that it would be "easy" to choose the 613 Mitzvot article for very strange reasons? (Like Maimonides wrote some of his books in Arabic, well why should that be news, Jews who lived in Arab lands wrote in Arabic, what else, and besides, Maimonides has stated that Arabic is nothing but a corrupted form of classical Hebrew, the Arabs never had their own language till they decided to use Hebrew following the days of Mohamed. Anyhow, but that is all besides the point.) The main problem that I am re-emphasizing to you is that to the WP:JUDAISM editors, the 613 Mitzvot article is a monumental and hugely important article, because it's about the heart of Judaism's doctrines and practices, and it dwarfs any discussions or articles that you may think are important here about Israelis squaring off against the Palestinians or vice versa. As I said, stick with your subject and don't go wandering off base into places that have hidden obstacles and editors that will reject you and who have no interest in getting dragged into a sterile and futile exercise in toning down editorial efforts in political articles. Thanks again for your accomodation, it is truly appreciated. IZAK (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        So you don't want to work on the 613 Mitzvot within this project. Okay, we get it. So, suggest something else, or don't participate in the wikiproject if you feel it's useless. The additional drama, however, is not necessary. -- tariqabjotu 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        
        Tariqabjotu: There is no "drama" here at all. See my responses below. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's consider this thread closed and ready to archive. Or continue at the Community Lounge, thanks. HG | Talk 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of State Terrorism by Israel?

Y Done I'm in danger of being involved in an edit war on the opposite side to usual over at State terrorism. My edit [3] is my second revert of an anonymous editor who claims that Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have accused Israel of state terrorism. However, Neither of the pages linked by that editor substantiate the claim by using the term by including the term or its equivalent. WP:Original Research would be needed to conclude that their accusations amount to such an accusation.

Does anyone have sources that demonstrate the claim that this anonymous editor makes? If so could you provide them, please? If not, can people please join with me in keeping the article within Wikipedia policies? --Peter cohen (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt do an internet search of relevant terms. ;-)Carol Moore 20:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Well I suffer from a condition which means that I have been heavilly fatigued for several months. Therefore searching heavily to substantiate someone else's inadequately referenced claims isn't something a good use of what little energy I have. I have, however, looked on the first hundred results each for "human rights watch"+Israel+"state terrorism" and Amnesty+Israel+"state terrorism" and have seen nothing form reliable sources or pages relating to the organisations concerned to substantiate claims that either organisation has made such an accusation. Part of asking here was to see whether anyone actually new the claims to be true. There are members of this project who I regard as knowledgeable and who would not hold back on citing reliably sourced criticisms of Israel. At the moment I doubt their truth and the editor concerned has not provided any reliable sources that cite the claim. However, I suspect that they will have reverted my revert of the original research by the time I log on tomorrow.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter, greetings. As you'll see in the article Talk page, I reviewed the sources which, as you say, were problematic. Let's see if the anon editor discusses my concerns in Talk. Meanwhile, I invite you to join this WikiProject. Take care, HG | Talk 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am moderately familiar with Amnesty's position on Israel, and have never seen the use of the term "state terrorism" used in reference to Israel. A search of Amnesty's website - which includes all of its press releases and position papers - finds no use of that term ever, confirming my belief that it is not the kind of phrase Amnesty would use.

Here is a statement of Amnesty's position on the Israel-Lebanon conflict: "The total lack of political will to hold to account those responsible for the indiscriminate killing of civilians, more than one thousand of whom lost their lives, is both a gross betrayal of the victims and a recipe for possible further civilian bloodshed with impunity." (statement by Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa programme, in press release "Israel/Lebanon: War crimes without accountability" (12 July 2007), ref MDE 02/001/2007).

In any case, the reference to Israel as a potentially terrorist state should not be in the lead of the article if it is not supported elsewhere in the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ravpapa and HG for your responses.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember similar discussion here [4] starting Dec'07; do a ctrl-f with 'war crimes'. You might also check the second ref noted here [5], which happens to be my first post at Wiki. Its a sticky wicket, as the Brits say. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks CasualObserver. I've not spotted any reference to "stte terrorism" on the HRW page. I think that both they and Amnesty have plenty of complaints about Israel, but I've seen no evidence that either of them have accused Israel of state terrorism. This means that, as far as the State Terrorism article is concerned, their comments on Israel are of no interest.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Short list of Wikipedia's "10 commandments" is a better focus

To my dear fellow Wikipedians: The entire premise and direction of this project, while very noble and grand, is not practical and realistic. How on Earth can anyone imagine that from this pretty little spot on Wikipedia, editors will come on board and be "re-educated" about how to be nice little boy and girl editors when dealing with such heated and volatile subjects as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Hamas, Jihad and much more. It is so infantalizing and insulting as to defy comprehension! It ain't gonna happen folks. The whole premise and notion driving this effort here is faulty because Wikipedia does not need new ways to teach people right from wrong. I commend the recent decisions of the ArbCom to strengthen Admins' powers to impose more order in situations of out-of-hand edit warring, trolling or wasteful and painful discussions. If anything, let's spend time reviewing the contents of Category:Wikipedia official policy.

It is more than clear that the effort should focus on making it very clear that Wikipedia values and will enforce its core policies, see {{Policylist}} and {{Policylist Behavioral}} (and by heavens, by now it has more than enough policies and guidelines to fill a library) but the core policies and guidelines remain. Here are approximately ten of the very most important guidelines that must be drummed into editors and users heads and hearts (I know from experience, that they are not easy to learn and practice, so I am not preaching) but each and every editor who has problems must learn these rules of the Wikipedian road:

WP:NOT in all its details.
WP:NOR an absolute must for good articles.
WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia specialty.
WP:V and WP:CITE verfication and citation as much as possible.
WP:3RR this must be clear, and now there is even a WP:1RR for editors who don't get it.
WP:BIO and WP:BLP for biographies.
WP:SOCKS is so immature.
WP:NPA is Wikipedia's "love thy neighbor" policy...
WP:CIVIL can be tough to follow but it cannot be out of sight.
WP:THREAT no legal threats, ever.

So folks, forget about trying to write "sweet nothing" articles, and focus instead on relearning and ingraining the rules. It takes time but it's worth it. Thank you for your attention. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I think it is quite good having this space where people can bring issues such as the one I raised above without going to a definitely partial page.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to participate, you don't have to be involved. However, I think this is worth a chance; apparently, it was helpful in defusing disputes in another volatile area. -- tariqabjotu 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu: In spite of my initial desire "not to get involved" with this project, but because a subject relating to Judaism (613 Mitzvot) was dragged into this discussion, I have now de facto been dragged into it, and that being so, I have taken a long hard look of what has been said and hoped for here thus far, and in my humble opinion I now have offered what is my take on the entire raison d'être of this project and I have come to a clear conclusion that it is a total waste of time and that people here would be far better served by focusing upon and internalizing the afforementioned rules and policies that I have enumerated. That is because I strongly believe, and as we all should know, that Wikipedia is not just about "shooting one's mouth off" and writing and saying whatever the hell one wants or pops into one's head, but it is about being part of a milieu (meaning a social environment) that must be learned and practiced, just as one would learn how to drive or the rules of a new job, with its hopes and aspirations best idealized and ultimately embodied in Wikipedia:Wikiquette but without limiting or quashing anyone's creativity and enjoyment of being on Wikipedia to freely and fully express themselves. The question is what "cure" this project wishes to offer to some sort of perceived "malady" and what I am suggesting, indeed recommending, is that many folks here are barking up the wrong tree, when they should be looking "closer to home" by highlighting and re-emphasizing what Wikipedia is about and not by trying to create "lighter" versions of articles that pertain to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (And by the way, why is it called that? why is not called the Palestinian-Israeli conflict when it is the Arabs, who stand behind the Palestinians who promote the conflict much more than Israel does in its attempts to protect its own citizens from all sorts of dangers.) But I am getting off the point. There will never be articles for adults that read like watered-down versions of the truth and of facts. Unless this project wants to be the forerunner of Childrens Wikipedia that would ensure that articles, editors and editors' contribution and interactions with each other pass constant ratings, like movies. Editors must learn to self-monitor themselves and not come to projects like this to learn how to be "good little" editors. So then let adult editors be adult editors and let the chips fall where they may, but please stop telling people to limit their creativity or their spark. Simultaneously, instead, let everyone learn and re-learn Wikipedia's rules and guidelines without resorting to fake and phony Maoist-like "reeducation camps" or "reeducation through labor" that leaves a bitter and infantalizing after-taste because its a regressive and not a progressive step, in my humble view. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This thread can be closed or moved to the Community Lounge, thanks. HG | Talk 14:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A basic foundation question

As an introduction, I should say that I spent three months touring around Wikipedia before I dared show my face and self-graduate to newbie status; I should also say that my POV-powered vehicle is heavily loaded with a very long (literally geologic) sense of history and historical perspective; I believe that perspective, and others also, can be called truly encyclopedic. IPCOLL is the first wiki-anything I have joined. I too believe that the difficult issues should be tackled first; it is synonymous to the Oslo accords and leaving the ‘final status’ issues for later evolutionary work.

Anyway, while on tour, I found one article, or more specifically one non-existent article, that caused dissapointment for my historical POV and pro-peace hopes. I see it as the bedrock foundation upon which everything else has evolved. Its absence greatly hampers generating the mutual acceptance and understanding necessary for I-P collaboration to work. Its absence hampers Wiki’s ability to righteously claim to be an NPOV source for ‘everything else’. The basic facts are not in dispute if AGF is real and I think the RSs are fully accepted by both sides. So why does the article not exist?

The word is Semite and the fact that this root noun is absent in Wikipedia. This indisputable, specifically definable root noun is ‘hidden’ and instead, redirected to two adjective usages (linguistics and ethnology), which are then spun in various and specific directions farther and farther from it's Biblical roots. The ethnological meaning spawns a generational ‘anti’-adjective, yes, I am now talking of anti-semitism. To complete this thought, I must also add another adjective to arrive at the most recent generational development new anti-semitism.

That said, I do not, and no honest person can, deny that anti-semitism exists; it has, it does and it is dispicable. It shows that humans are inhumane and inhuman; it shows the difference between how God told us to be and how some are. That the word’s adjective meaning is specifically anti-Jewish, diasporic and originating in the Gentile west of the late 19th century is indisputable. But it is also a basic fact that the Jewish people were the only prominent semitic minority in Europe at that time and in that geography that experienced this type and level of discrimintion ^{[citation needed]}. But the motivation and results of anti-semitism existed in the west with a broader, more inclusive context long before the word itself existed with this limited definition. The history of what happened on the way to the First Crusade and events during each of the Crusades indicates a broader, Gentile/non-Gentile, east/west context. It is likely that other instances in Jewish history indicate this also.

The newest, 21st century, generational adjective, new antisemitism, is a political (Zionist) mutation; it is a neologism created specifically for political purposes, not ethnological or necessarily religious reasons; it has developed into a radical, political blunt instrument used to bludgeon the honest political motivation of those with differing views, and defame them as well. It forgets the Biblical root ethnological meaning, uses instead the secondary, non inclusive (but documented) meaning and moves this secondary usage 'back east' to the root geography where it becomes ethnologically and historically invalid. It is, to an extent, an oxymoron, unless of course, one’s idea is to ‘Nuke ‘em all’. I leave it there, lest I be accused of ‘interference’ in ‘other things’ at Wikipedia.

I am asking I-PCOLL to consider creating the stand-alone article, Semite. I do not think this is a difficult article to tackle; there are no disputes at the root noun. The follow-on adjective issues must be recognized by all editors interested in collaboration; they must recognize the deep hurt they involve. Maybe it is not completely accurate, but I see it as being somewhat equivalent to the usage of ‘Zionist Entity’, which raises simialar passion on the other side. I believe only collaboration can repair either or any. I have a list of other subjects too, maybe later. Shalom, Salaam, Peace. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

CasualObserver: Hi. Firstly, the Semitic article to which Semite redirects has most of the information and links that a "stand-alone" article would have. What would be the purpose of reinventing the wheel in this case especially if it would also attract negative attention and probably become a POV magnet too? (You could, if you like, compose such an article in any case and then put it on the Talk:Semitic page where you will notice the tension that goes with that topic as well, and on Talk:Antisemitism and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism as well notifying readers of your novel plans and ideas, and see if others will go with it.) Secondly, kindly take note that Wikipedia is not the United Nations, and we are not involved in diplomatic exercises here ever as happens between governments. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a political organization of any sort. Thirdly, because you are new, let me tell you that the issues you raise have been discussed and fought over for years on Wikipedia. Just look at all the talk discussions over the years at Talk:Antisemitism (as of today, 26 archived talk pages and more coming!) so you too are provoking a hornets' nest by making a very dangerous suggestion which is actually nothing but faulty and misguided historical revisionism that in itself violates WP:NOR and WP:NOT#OPINION and more. I would suggest you take a few steps back and not make revolutionary recommendations that defy conventional academic scholarship just yet. Fourthly: It must be emphasized again that Wikipedia does not seek to "refine" or "reformulate" anything. Please see again: Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." Finally: May I also say to our general audience here that this is a good example of how this type of project, while having the bestof intentions to create peace and harmony, will and must actually backfire as we see here that someone actually thinks that this project would like to change the harsh and tough aspects of some things ("dumb them down" for the sake of harmony?), in order to "water down" real conceptual, historical, political, ideological, religious and spiritual clashes, conflicts, differences and difficulties that cannot be avoided or whitewashed or finessed, and artificially create a bloated false sense of equanimity which will in fact be a regressive and diversionary trend of negative revisionism, improper usage of accepted concepts and terms, and the creation of a virtual world that may or may not look like a fake Utopia that does not exist in this real world of ours. There is more to be said, but judging by the latest suggestions, things are not shaping up well so far. IZAK (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your support, others may thank you similarly.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I welcome the suggestion, CasualObserver'48, and see no reason why we shouldn't give it consideration. Currently, the word 'Semite' is defined in Semitic, an article which also lists more than a dozen Semite peoples, deals with the ethnicity, languages, religions. Perhaps you'd like Semitic to use the word "Semites" more often than "Semitic peoples"? Anyway, it is conceivable that we could expand Semitic to the point where "Semite" gets a spin-out article. (Just like there's enough material now for "French" as language and as people.) I'll add it to the Collaboration options above. Meanwhile, let's not denigrate anybody's suggested options, thanks! HG | Talk 15:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with this suggestion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your trepidation and rejection, Steve, but we've worked together some, I tend to be reasonable. All I asked for was consideration; specifically the root noun and with what was already there (oops, I didnt say that). The rest of what I posted, I felt was needed because I can see both sides (and now know some who can't/won't). Maybe this [6] might help, I dunno. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User related

One should also look at Nishidani's page [7] and see what he thinks, and why this scholar has stopped editing. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason as user:Zero0000 and user:Ian Pitchford, because of user:Zeq on Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. Ceedjee (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean ? Zeq (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Zeq shouldn't need to respond here. (Hi Zeq, welcome!). Ceedjee, this isn't the place to raise personal complaints. We're aiming for a different kind of atmosphere, a different kind of Talk page. I'd appreciate it if you'd strike out or remove your comment. Let's all try to hold each other to a higher standard. Meanwhile, I encourage Zeq or Ceedjee, et alia, to comment on the various threads. (For instance, volunteering for an article improvement collaboration, choices listed above.) Thanks! HG | Talk 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What complain ? I mean that Nishidani has stopped editing for the same reasons than Ian Pitchford and Zero0000. They were not collaborative enough and refused to edit articles a neutral way and hopefully Zeq was there to prevent their disturbance. I leave to CO'48 the full responsibily of considering that Nishidani (or eventually the two others) is a scholar. I wrote this 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. I would welcome any support to make it GA.Ceedjee (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HG above, and would even go a step further. This kind of discussion is out of place here. See #Moderation below. — Sebastian 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what Ceedjee wants. Zeq (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, Can you explain your accusation ? Zeq (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

? Zqe, it has been asked not to discuss this here. In claiming I accuse you, you don't respect WP:AGF... I already answered : What complain ? I mean that Nishidani has stopped editing for the same reasons than Ian Pitchford and Zero0000. They were not collaborative enough and refused to edit articles a neutral way and hopefully Zeq was there to prevent their disturbance. I leave to CO'48 the full responsibily of considering that Nishidani (or eventually the two others) is a scholar. Chavoua Tov, Ceedjee (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC).

This thread seems to be ready to archive or remove. Thanks. HG | Talk 12:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar too much with this project What I do see here that I am facing accusations - the latest one is that I violated AGF ? maybe someone here can first explain Ceedjee what is AGF and why - since I did not qyestion any of his editing here - nothing I wrote here is a violation of AGF. Next I hope that since he made several accusations toward me here he can appologize and state that he understand I don't violate AGF and all the other accusations he made toward me are false. Thank You. Zeq (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Zeq,

I may be a little bit upset. Please, agree apologizing me if my comments offended you. That was absolutely not the purpose. Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(I personally have no objection with the archiving of this section.)

Positive collaboration ideas

For now the Palestinian costumes article is a great place to concentrate efforts. Maybe we could help identify other cultural topics where people can build bridges. Tossing in a couple of ideas:

Clothing laws: create parallel articles on Jewish and Muslim clothing laws, with information on observance rates and customs. Both new articles could be good candidates for Template:Did you know.

Sesame Street - or to be more specific, Rechov Sumsum and Shara'a Simsim.

Durova^Charge! 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If we go with the easier articles within the conflict area itself, we could start with things like Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis. If that's too pollyanna-ish, then maybe (looking at Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Israeli Supreme Court Opinions on the West Bank Barrier or United Nations Conciliation Commission. Or maybe this pair: Economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority and Economic and political boycotts of Israel. HG | Talk 03:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion thread seems to have move on to other sections and can be archived. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RS and the WP:SLR approach

The WikiProject can also make recommendations about reliable sources and how to deploy them. Consensus-building around sources, and their use, seemed to be part of what we were doing at Battle of Jenin and also a key issue for the [[Jewish lobby] mediation. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point here an important comment : we should immediately discuss on the bases of arguments found in reliable sources and only there. Our minds and opinions are not welcome. Ceedjee (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course anybody and their brother can go into WP:RS and change definitions and if no one's paying attention to every single edit, vandalism can become policy. Plus there is so much that is so subjective that things are easily twisted by strong partisans, especially in a case like Jewish Lobby where even an online phrase book told me they didn't intend to define it, I should look at wikipedia! Unfortunately, too many people actually think that most/all articles on wikipedia are reliable sources themselves. So it is important that common sense be allowed to counter wikilawyering and tag team efforts and persistent reverting. So that in Jewish lobby partisans repeatedly delete non-antisemitic descriptions and uses on double standard applications of WP:RS (plus WP:OR and WP:NEO) to keep the definition the partisan one of ONLY being used in an antisemitic way -- perhaps to be used to destroy the careers and lives of those who slip up - or are a tad bit critical - in their discussion of organized Jewish lobbying activity.Carol Moore 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Both Ceedjee and Carolmooredc make important points: For conflict resolution, it is crucial to agree on what counts as reliable sources. And sadly, WP:RS is not very useful for that, not only because it is in constant flux, but more importantly because it isn't specific; it doesn't make statements about individual sources. For the Sri Lanka conflict, we therefore collectively wrote WP:SLR#Classification of sources. This was the result of discussion like this. We found it useful to distinguish between three classes:

Reliable neutral sources (RS) - can be used without attribution
Reliable partisan sources - need attribution when used (This is the term I would now use; we called these "QS" back then.)
Unreliable sources - can not be used

This defused conflicts in several ways: It moved the focus of discussion from criticizing individual edits to the source; the results of these discussions were put into the table as a visible sign of progress; and they could be reused in later similar conflicts - in fact, the attribution recommendation often prevented such conflicts before they surfaced. — Sebastian 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

I am ready to discuss the matter and discuss this.

SebastianHelm, could you tell if you convinced all to agree on that or if you voted ? And is this respected ?

Thanks you very much ! Ceedjee (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Convinced all" can refer to the project members, or to all editors:

For project members, it is built in the system that all agree, because our decisions are consensus decisions. This sounds too good to be true, so I need to explain: First off, let me clarify the term "vote": We called our decisions "vote", but that differs from how the term is usually understood, e.g. at WP:RfA. We count only "reasons", not editors. So something like "Sorry, I disagree with this suggestion. thanks" would just be disregarded. (Our members know that such statements are just a waste of everybody's time, and when I edited out some votes, I only got nods of approval.) This is fair because everybody has a chance to raise an objection. In practice, it's actually hard to come up with a real reason against an opposing source that doesn't apply to half or your own sources! That's why we have relatively short discussions for many sources.
Reaching a consensus is further facilitated because we distinguish the following two independent criteria. It works out nicely that we often naturally only discuss one one of the two criteria, which simplifies discussion.
- Does the source meet the quality criteria of WP:RS? Since that policy is a bit of a moving target, we just go by what I'd like to call "quality criteria": undisputed criteria such as if a source has oversight, as opposed to POV related questions. Excluding POV related questions not only gives us a solid target, it also helps calm down the discussion. (See WT:SLR#Question about a source for an example.)
- Is the source partisan (or biased)? The only difference this second criterion makes is if a source has to be attributed. Therefore, it's not an all-or-nothing decision, which takes a lot of heat out of that discussion, too.
One word about the "Reliable partisan sources" classification: We put most sources in that category, which I take as a sign that it's a healthy compromise between reliable neutral sources and unreliable sources. Because I believe it is a healthy compromise, I think it's OK that we skip discussion of the first criterion in those cases when we only discussed the second one. Some people may object that we may end up classifying resources as reliable that don't strictly meet all of the RS criteria, but to that I would object that it works well, so it's one of the rare successful applications of WP:IAR. From a practical point of view, it's not necessary to be as strict about your sources when you openly attribute and assess them.
As far as editors that are not project members are concerned, initially not all of them respected our decisions. However, that has changed since SLR earned a good reputation. I don't think you have to worry about this since you got a good headstart already thanks to the ArbCom ruling. — Sebastian 19:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good and promising ! Thank you once again for your comments and experience.

I am ready to work on that but a wider panel of editors should be needed...

On wp:fr, I was with others the initiator of the fr:Projet:Sources/Chez Manon, (sources project) whose purpose is to think on how to source articles, how to convince and motivate people to source, what to source or not and how to source... The rules there are not the same as here on wp:en but basic principles are shared.

I have a good knowledge of the historians or lobbyists who work on the field of the conflict for the area 1900-1950 [8] and of what are their different pov's on the matter and the issues on which they have opposite or common minds. Ceedjee (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, merci! Je vais jetter un oeil sur cette page! — Sebastian 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian, great to hear you explain how your SLR source efforts have worked. I'm intrigued by what you've said about how consensus from the project gradually achieved broader acceptance. I wonder if such acceptance may come both by the quality of your/SLR's reasoning as well as by your getting input representative of multiple POVs. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had to decide between the two, I would say it's the latter. But there's really no strict separation between the two. There are several positive feedback loops involved: Once an editor is in a place where ey expects people to be reasonable, ey behaves reasonable, too, which will bring about some successes, which makes the whole place more inviting to others who want to get things done. — Sebastian 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This thread is closed insofar as we've agreed to work on this model. (See below.) Archive. If need be, we can copy some of the Sebastian's explanation below. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources on WP:SLR model

Resolved.

I agree with the last 2 comments. The suggestion of Sebastian is better.

1) let's identify different categories of sources and informations (without giving exemples or giving names) in "reliable" - "controversed" - "minority pov" - "propagandist" - "biased" - "not reliable"

2) for each of them, let's fix criteria to fix the category and let's decide how to handle the information coming from them (eg. "bla bla bla" (ref) ; "MrA considers that" (ref) ; "Accordig to MrA, ..." (ref) ; "pro-A lobbyist argue that" (ref); ...).

3) Let's compare all the sources at our disposal and let's sources the reliability level according to the criteria fixed anonymously in point 2. Ceedjee (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This approach could run into problems with WP:RS and WP:V. Durova^Charge! 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why ? Do you have an exemple ? Ceedjee (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The traditional way of handling reliability is to go by a source's general record for fact checking, rather than for individual Wikipedians to check its facts or to make assertions about its purported bias. Otherwise reliable sources don't get disqualified because they have bias; the answer is to counter them with additional citations to reliable sources that reflect different biases. This conversation has played itself out many times, over countless disputes. Nothing is different here. Durova^Charge! 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the preceding section, in which this is discussed. The issue is whether we can reach general consensus that some sources are non-partisan WP:RS, that others are partisan WP:RS, and still others are not WP:RS at all. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What makes you suppose I haven't read the discussion? Durova^Charge! 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment seemed to indicate that you weren't familiar with the discussion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer the issue, I feel that no, we can't. All this is probably a historical revisionist plot against Israel, quite frankly. I know some of you probably want to strongly object to this statement. please remember that i'm considered quite moderate around here.

I am expressing myself quite starkly because I don't understand the sudden interest or concern with proscribing entire groups of sources. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't think anybody is talking about prohibiting the use of sources except those that we agree are not WP:RS. If we can agree here that they're not RS, editors don't have to fight at every Israel- or Palestine-related article about whether they're RS.

Second, based on what they've written elsewhere, I think the editors in this project represent a range of different points of view. Why do you think the only sources we would identify as biased would be pro-Israel? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do appreciate the constructive tone of your comments, in your posting just now. So I don't want to strike an overly negative tone. however, my whole point is that this whole idea strikes me as overly negative. it seems better to handle sources individually, than to try to rule out a whole category.

and basically, the reason i thought you would only want to rule out pro-Israel sources is that you are both basically affiliated with more Palestinian viewpoints. there is nothing wrong with that at all of course. however it means you're less likely to see any problems with Palestnian viewpoints, and more likely to see problems with Israeli viewpoints. There are Palestinians who say Israel is a historic mistake and an intrusion on the people of the region and that it should not be negotiated with, but should only be removed. Are you going to object to those sources? There are Palestinians whi say Israel should be attacked if it keeps occupying Palestinian land--and they feel all of Israel is Palestinian land. Are you going to object to those sources? etc etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, sources that say some of the things you describe would be extremist sources. But most sources aren't that obvious in their partisan views, which is why this needs to be a collaborative effort.

With regard to my personal views, I'm both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian. My family made aliyah to a kibbutz when I was young, but there were several problems that led to our return to the States. I grew up in Habonim, a Labor Zionist youth movement. About half of my extended family lives in Israel. I'm often considered anti-Israel because my support of Israel is tempered by criticism of its faults and my support for Palestinians, but I'm absolutely not anti-Israel. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I gather that Durova's concern is that we not second-guess the general assessment in Wikipedia of a source's reliability, is that right? Fair enough, we don't need to assess mainstream and well-analyzed general sources. However, there are still various journals, historians, columnists, etc., who may have a limited focus related to Israeli/Palestininian issues. I would think it would be to our advantage to assess which of the more specialized sourcs may be used without concern, which sourcs need to be attributed to a given POV, and which sources are generally unacceptable (e.g., except to represent a marginal POV). Maybe we should start compiling the list of such sources worth assessment: for instance, CAMERA or AK Press. I also like the SLR schematization, as Sebastian describes above, and am open to alternatives. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That much is fine, as long as we're careful to define the purpose. Durova^Charge! 10:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated below, we seem to have resolved (or decided to continue to address) concerns and agreed to try this model. So, this and the other SLR Model thread can be archived. Maybe link to the threads for background? Thanks. HG | Talk 10:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could Talk Page Guidelines explain archiving process

{{done} I'm just confused about why some things are archived, and why there is no link to that place. Perhaps Talk Page Guidelines could explain.Carol Moore 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Hi Carol. If you look above, near the first section below the table of contents, you'll see an archive box. It's ok if somebody wants to move it to a more prominent place. Msg my Talk if you have more questions about this, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the archive box alongside the Table of Contents so it's more prominent. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realize that section headers could be left when text removed, but that can have its uses.Carol Moore 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

This thread probably can be closed. Maybe some explanation at top will be added, since my archiving may be a bit more pro-active than a less-moderated Talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

General user conduct issue

<snip>, as I think I've mentioned, IPCOLL isn't really needed or suitable to deal w/complaints about individuals. See our guidance for Citing and reporting of incidents andWP:DR. You might try starting with the individual editor and taking it to WP:WQA] etc. Meanwhile, it improper for you to air your assumption/opinions that an individual is acting in bad faith (e.g., gaming) in this venue. Please desist. If you have a constructive idea about how to deal w/problematic editors, perhaps we could entertain a general discussion (float your idea in the Lounge), but I'm afraid it would devolve quickly into traded accusations. Respectfully yours, HG | Talk 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is temporarily closed to further discussion. Feel free to comment on above sections or start a new topic below. Thanks for your patience. HG | Talk 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption at Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Resolved.

Here is a concrete exemple of disruptive behaviour that is highly time-consuming : [9]
ArbCom gave the tools to deal with this. Is there an uninvolved administrator to solve the problem. Ceedjee (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One place to start is with User talk:Durova, the mentor of your interlocutor. In general, I suppose we could put it on the list of items that would benefit from an umbrella recommendation. thanks HG | Talk 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've weighed in at the thread. It would help if some project members here who know the content side of things in depth kept an eye on that discussion. It looks like they've requested mediation. Durova^Charge! 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, hi. Your idea of project members keeping an eye on this dispute is good. Please note that the requested mediation actually isn't for that dispute nor even that article alone. That said, I'm wondering if we might want to go ahead and choose this article, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for our Collaboration on a (higher tension) article? Granted, there hasn't been much response to the poll, but maybe people are willing to cooperate with whatever we choose. The people involved would include (at least) me and you, Tiamut, plus Jaakobou and his interlocutors. I can also send specific msgs to some of the uninvolved parties on our list. What do you think? If it sounds plausible, maybe we should also talk here a bit about how the IPCOLL project would introduce itself into this kind of a setting. Thanks, HG | Talk 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I you play the game that way, that will be without me.

Good luck. Ceedjee (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining your comment (on my Talk). Yes, I can that you may be fed up and do not want to approach this as a content dispute. Nonetheless, some of us may need a chance to reach our own conclusion, right? We need to see whether the situation is undergoing a reasoned dispute or just obstructionism (or in between). It's my suggestion that, as a few of us work to figure out how to gauge the dispute, we all pitch in to improve the article. Do folks see why I would go about it this way? Of course, we can deal with this is a more ad hoc manner, too. Thanks very much. HG | Talk 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Update. The situation at Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems calmer. We're now discussing a second proposal on a disputed sentence. Some broader issues of editor relationships could be addressed, too. Advice welcome. Thanks, HG | Talk 03:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The specific dispute at Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which involved the use of 'occupied' terminology, seems to have been resolved with a consensus agreement among disputing parties. I've also asked them to join IPCOLL. (Of course, the article has other disputed matters.) The specific agreement and my understanding of the underlying principles is recorded on the article Talk page and a new subpage. This may help us develop an area-wide agreement on this terminology. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A positive example

Y Done I don't know how many of you have seen User:Michael Safyan/Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. It's a very transparent and scrupulously balanced effort to rewrite a problematic article to high standards. It seems to be much in the vein of this project - I've asked if Michael Safyan might want to sign up. <eleland/talkedits> 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He certainly put a lot of effort in it! I hope he will join; such an editor would be a great asset for this project! — Sebastian 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thread closed. Michael joined, thanks to inviter and invitee! HG | Talk 11:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical view

This thread has been refactored w/Leifern's ok. See archive for original thread. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)) On principle, I support any kind of initiative that leads to 1) better adherence to NPOV, 2) more informative articles, and 3) better written articles. I have no reason to doubt the intent of those who are initiating this Wikiproject and would encourage them to continue.

But I think I'd be doing them and the other well-meaning editors a disservice if I didn't express my reservations candidly.

My biggest fear is that this becomes an alibi, a safe haven, for POV-pushers. I can all too easily imagine a scenario where an editor comes running her with an edit dispute, finds other editors sympathetic to his/her point of view, and then uses their support as a basis for claiming "consensus." There are too many editors on this particular issue who claim to be absolutely neutral, but are anything but neutral, whether they realize this or not.

If it were up to me, I would organize this effort in the following way:

Identify common sources of edit conflicts and list them. Maybe they can't be resolved, but let's try to agree what they are. Some that come to mind are:
1. Common terminology - e.g., "Israel" rather than "Zionist entity", "Palestinian" rather than "Arab," etc. It's going to be a long list...
2. Acceptable article types - how to best treat political rhetoric, allegations, neologisms, concepts, in articles - what is the threshold for overcoming POV forks, coathangers, etc.
Escalations we all want to avoid - Arbcom, bans, mediation, etc.
Should we encourage people to state their biases on their user pages? Should there be a series of questions they should answer? My opinion is NO, but others may feel differently.
How do we deal with assertions that are self-evident truths to one party but offensive allegations by others?
Can we find a common way, perhaps a protocol, to succinctly and fairly describe a controversy?
Above all, what level of participation do we need from all sides to assert that we have a community or consensus view? After all, any group of people on one side or another can form a Wikiproject and assert some kind of moral authority, while the other side boycots the whole thing, denying them any form of legitimacy.
Ultimately, it would be nice and probably helpful if we could hammer out some commonly shared principles, even if there are only a few of them to begin with.
And yes, if this seems like a microcosm of the real-life conflict, it probably is.

--Leifern (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leifern,

Nobody is neutral. But that should not prevent us from editing a neutral way if WP:NPOV is perfectly understood and if the existence of other (let's say 'false') pov's would be agreed !

I share most of your comments.

1.2 indeed ! That is a start.

3. never mind. But we should ban people who can avoid always editing in the same direction or who think that they have to defend a banner. Nevertheless, that is the mediators team to fix this issue. I don't want to interfere.

4. very easy I think but if I share your mind : we must discuss how to present them.

5. Good question because WP:AGF is an utopy.

8. I don't agree at all with the microcosm of real life conflict. Most problem come from the internet. The I-P conflict is just a context used for the quarrel. None of trouble makers are either an "IDF soldier in the West bank", a "Palestinian of the street" or a "politician of any side". I think most just carry a "banneer" and their presence generates animosity and a global mess. Ceedjee (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Leifern, welcome aboard this(?) ship and thanks for your principled support. Your fear/reservations are well-taken, as Ibn Tibbon said, Pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will. Perhaps it can be more rehab than haven for those w/strong POV. I suspect you'd agree that we may need some tight, npov moderation. So let me suggest that you/I reallocate your fine comments. Initial para's into a Members statement. Item 1 to "Content issues." Items 3,4,5,8 to Community lounge until fleshed out to propose here (or are you ready to shepherd a new discussion of 4 or 5?). Is #7 about our goals or mission, topics above? Your item #6 is important and cuts across several topics. You could introduce a new section or, having raised it, see if it emerges organically out of one of the main tasks. Thanks very much and welcome again. HG | Talk 15:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good post Leifern, (I believe that you had MECE on your user page back in December, but I couldn’t find it quickly now; do I have that right? I have something along those line for the future if I-PCOLL moves more ahead. But that is somewhat off-topic now.)

Your #1.1 The words that are immediately are on my list right now happen to be a general over-use of overly-POV Land of Israel when Eretz Israel is technically more accurate in a political (post-Begin) sense; and I’ve seen some when just Israel is specifically correct. My objection comes from this simple term in English with Biblical roots which is now POV’d so that it sounds perfectly correct and a normal reader won’t see the difference, nor know what the specific geographic and political differences.

To me, it also seems to be pandering to Christian Zionists, which happens to be my second word. Historically there have been many Zionists of Christian faith, Woodrow Wilson, what’s his name Balfour, etc. I understand that, but the current POV trend is to make every historical instance of that into a blued Christian Zionist with the, let’s say, post-Jerry Falwell, Bible –banging, evangelical fervor that it currently tends to entail. Pres. Wilson would turn over in his grave. Come to think of it, 1948 Palestine war is one that I tangled with twice last week. It might be OK as a new concept for future better understanding and description of events, but I can’t see it when it is the broader 1948 Arab-Israel war that normal readers understand.

Your #4, self-evident truths = offensive allegations, agree to disagree and find some place else to edit for a while.

Your #5, perhaps a protocol, to succinctly and fairly describe a controversy, this is a hard one. Both sides never have time to succinctly describe their side of the truth and their side of the controversy before the other side jumps in to challenge each word. I made an ‘article on a fork’ proposal at ArbCom, but I doubt it was appreciated.

Your #6 is at the heart of the matter. I think the ArbCom, 1RR, blocks etc are the first steps and they were overdue. I do believe I have seen a positive change in attitude since, but I am an optimist. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RS by two new criteria

Proposed: That we examine sources for 1) hate and 2) gross historical fabrications. One clear example of either(/both) should be enough to permanently render sources non-RS for our purposes. Since in practice, these features are linked, finding one is a good indicator we'll find the other. It is unlikely that any serious historian/scholar/advocacy or broadcasting source will be caught by either of these trip-wires, since these folk always(?) steer well clear of both. We might have to be more forgiving of newspapers and a few of their articles, however. My personal belief is that neither of these features are all that difficult to identify. (Naturally, this is an additional criteria to what appears in WP:RS, introduced because of the sometimes extreme nature of commentary on this topic). PR^talk 19:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is problematic. Many of what you call "hate sources" are really sources which use insensitive, equivocal language, but in such a way that thay are not necessarily hateful. "The Palestinians lie all the time" could be a statement about the Palestinian people or the Palestinian government (just like "the Germans invaded Poland" does not mean that every German-speaker or ethnically German person everywhere invaded Poland, but that the German state sent its armies into Poland.)

However, I think we should agree that modern sources are generally more valuable than contemporary ones, ie, books written by senior members of the Zionist or Palestinian movements in the 1940s are not reliable sources for factual claims.

If an author or authors has reliably been exposed as falsifying information, that is one thing. But I do not support the idea of doing our own original research to determine who is guilty of "gross historical fabrications." We're amateurs compiling an encyclopedia, not experts doing our own research. <eleland/talkedits> 20:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elelnad. this is extremely problematic. if you have a problem witjh a source, the answer is to examine its validity; if it is valid, then simply provide counter-balancing sources, which show the other side of the argument. Asking whether a source is "hateful" means that we are adding a new criteria which is completely subjective, which is obviously separate from validity (since if it weren't, there would be no need to suggest it separately). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Some articles are rife with very dubious material. If you have better tests, then let's hear them. PR^talk 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

@User:Eleland - I see nothing problematic in those two tests, which I believe are inextricably linked. We should no more use someone who claims "The Palestinians lie all the time" than we should use anyone who claims "The Jews lie all the time". In both cases, there is wiggle-room as regards whether it's the nationality or the race that is being slandered, but in both cases it's so unpleasant that it has no place in the project. Ask any Palestinian whether "The Palestinians lie all the time" is vicious racism or not, I'm sure they'd set you straight. And we can (I suggest) confidently state that people who speak in this fashion are untrustworthy as regards their historical writings too.

My proposal works forward from the point we've already reached - whereby we not only bar using David Irving in articles, we almost certainly block anyone attempting to use David Irving.

So why do we bar using David Irving? Answer, he is known to have cheated with some (many?) of his translations, and generally to have distorted the reasonably clear sense of some of his primary sources. I'm not sure whether he's guilty of the still more serious crime of "gross historical fabrications" such as have sometimes appeared in other "historical writings", perhaps someone here has better information than me.

Furthermore, Irving is known to either be a racist, or at least to have come out with statements that would appear to be racist to the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Let's build on the consensus we've achieved, justice requires that we bar any source that would appear to have done likewise (or you might prefer "consistently done likewise").

We also (correct me if I'm wrong) bar David Duke - I assume there are good reasons for this (very much along the lines of what I'm proposing), but I've never seen any discussion of it. Any guidelines we draw up now will have to drawn tightly enough to exclude the Dukes of this world, even though they were once main-stream politicians.

Finally, there are sources such as Lenni Brenner - if (as I've been told again recently) we cannot use him, then someone needs to demonstrate what standard he's being judged against. PR^talk 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Title issue : 1948 Palestine War

There have been opposition concerning the use of this expression. I would like this issue is solved to be able to work on some articles related to the topic.
NB: before forging your mind, I would kindly ask you to read the following and to document yourself :

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, as indicated by its name, is the war that involved Israel and several Arab states. Israel is born on May 14, 1948. For this reason, Israel also name this war, the(ir) Independence War
Struggles between Jewish community of Palestine (Yishuv) and Palestinian Arab community of Palestine backed by Arab volunteers started on November 30, 47 just after the UN resolution 181 vote. The events are detailled in this article : 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
When referring to the 1948 War (from November 47 to January 49), historians talk about the 1948 Palestine War. This is not a pro-Palestinian pov from them. This is simply due to the fact that there was no Israel before May 14, 1948 and that events must be analysed over this whole period to be understood (eg, the 1948 Palestinian exodus but also all the preparation of the Yishuv and the Arab states to the war).

As a proof, here are books from different scholars (representing the whole panel of pov and/or bias) using the expression :

references to scholars book where the term to talk about the 1948 War :
- Karsh, Efraim (virulent anti-new historian), The Arab-Israeli Conflit - The Palestine War 1948, Osprey Publishing, 2002, ISBN 1841763721
- Gelber, Yoav (virulent adversary of Ilan Pappé), Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, ISBN 1845190750
- David Tal (a tradionnal historian), War in Palestine, 1948 : Strategy and Diplomacy, Routledge
- Rogan, Eugène et Shlaim Avi (controversed new historian), The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Cambridge University Press' 2001.
- Pappé, Ilan (highly controversed new historian), La guerre de 1948 en Palestine, La fabrique éditions, 2000, ISBN 226404036X
google.books reasearch on the term : [10]

This denomination is not new but has been used before by pro-Israeli historians :

Hurewitz, The struggle for Palestine, New York, 1950.
Jon and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill : Britain and the Palestine War, London, 1960.

I met here the opposition of JayJg, CasualObserver48 (and less of Tiamut) but could not succeed in generating a real discussion. I brought the issue on wp:fr [11] where the discussion (in which I voluntary didn't take part) concluded that if historians use a expression for clear reasons even if it is not what is usually used or heard, wikipedia must chose the expression of the knowledge (because this is an encyclopaedia).
The questions to answer, are :

Does 1948 Palestine War can exist ? (some claim not user:Zeq, User:Jayjg and want this to be deleted)
To what expression do we refer when we contextualize other events : 1948 Palestine War, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1948 War, First Arab-Israeli War, other ?

Thank you ! :-) Ceedjee (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Prepositions make a big difference here: War for Palestine is quite different in meaning from War in Palestine, for example. We can either try to find the most commonly used term by going through sources both contemporary of the events and of today; or we can settle on a neutral term as the main title with lots of redirects. I think the latter would be simpler, but I may be proven wrong. Off the top of my head, 1948 Arab-Israeli war is descriptive and unambiguous, reasonable short hand for War between the newly formed State of Israel and surrounding Arab states as well as Palestinian Arab irregulars and militia. I think we should steer clear of what was at stake in the title for the sake of everyone's sanity (viz The War of Northern Aggression vs The War between the States vs American Civil War. --Leifern (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leifern,

There are for and in in all titles used by historians. Gelber uses Palestine War. 1948 Palestine War answers to the issues you point out.

1948 Arab-Israel War is not neutral. What about Yishuv and the Palestinians ? What about the events before May 1948 where there were not 5 Arab armies ? What about Palestinians ? What about the sentence : "The 1948 exodus took part during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War" when 60% of refugees were such before May 14 ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a suggestion - before May there was no State of Israel, though there were of course acts of violence not just between Jews and Arabs, but also between each of these and the British Army. I'm sure there's lots to argue about here, but a state of war - as it's commonly defined - could not exist before and until two or more states had engaged in hostilities toward each other. And there can be no question that May 14, 1948 was a dividing line in time for all parties. --Leifern (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leifern,

Thank you once more for your analysis.

I agree with what you say but I am not sure to conclude the same as you do (?)

1. You point out a war between Jews/Palestinians Arabs/British and then Arabs armies

2. ~~You point out 14 May is no pertinent transition~~ Thinking about that, I don't agree. The transition is in the books here above mentionned and the days around May 14 were days of intense tensions all over the country.

So you say the same as historians do : there was a Palestine War (in and/or for) from Dec'47 to '49.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold on folks. It's great Ceedjee raised this question. However, before launching into this debate here -- let's decide where's the best forum for this discussion/decision. I see some of you already have had User Talk discussions and at somewhat related articles. I can imagine that this could be a prolonged discussion. Where? Please nominate options and tell us your preferences. Thanks! HG Personally, I'd guess the choice is between Talk:1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and Talk:1948 Palestine war. Other thoughts? HG | Talk 20:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent: my own views) It seems like a complicated issue. On the one hand, there are two separate articles for the war from November 1947-May 1948 and the war after, and there is no need for an article which duplicates the two of them in detail. On the other hand, there is a common problem whereby one POV (the Israeli side) wants to ignore all that happened prior to 15 May 1948, so that it can be presented as a vicious unprovoked attack by the Arab hordes against Israel, rather than an intervention in an already brutal situation, wherein the Arab states (excepting a few early and unsuccessful raids) took up defensive positions in Palestinian Arab areas. One even sees, in the "pro-Israel" literature, claims like "such-and-such bombing attack by the Arabs occurred months before the war even started," as if there was no war prior to the British evacuation.

I'm not saying POV forks are a good idea, I'm saying that one doesn't get to declare another article as a "POV fork" simply because one has already "occupied the high ground" by creating an article on the subject. There is a real problem of WP:OWNership of Isr-Pal articles which drives this type of forking. It is very difficult to make any substantial change to existing articles as they tend to be dominated by small cliques, who often revert while saying that a particular issue has already been decided in the past.

I do not think the solution is to delete any articles, they all need to be merged in a careful and thoughtful way. Personally, I think it makes sense to have a summary article of about 6-7 paragraphs called 1947-49 Palestine war, and it will have a brief treatment of the major phases of the war, probably two other articles 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Both articles would link prominently to the other, to avoid the impression that these are totally distinct events as opposed to two phases of the same conflict.

Ultimately we need to make sure that all editors who are interested in Isr-Pal issues are aware of, and have time to take part in, important discussions on these edits. Some type of semi-formal mediation process might be advisable. <eleland/talkedits> 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "pro-Israeli" sources you read, but none that I've come across make believe that nothing happened before the mandate was physically abandoned in May 1948. So you're constructing a bit of a strawman argument here, to put it kindly. As with all conflicts, it's hard to draw the line between one event and the other, which is why nearly all historical articles are prefaced with a context and links to relevant articles that fill in the historical background. But I'm a little confused here: are we talking about how to divide up the articles, or what to title whatever we end up with? --Leifern (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked two questions at the end of my introduction of the issue... I think we could discuss both.

We are not discussing the cut of an article : (I assume you think about 1948 Arab-Israeli War) : it starts on May 14. All events that arose before are in the background... Ceedjee (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what Eleland write~s is good.

In fact, I added material in 1948 Palestine War only because OC'48 asked for this. Before it was very short. It could refer to both former articles. (I just think 1948 and not 1947-1949 is better... This is most common and simplest term among historians : we don't talk about 1948-1949 Arab-Israeli War...).

I point out also that without a consensus among all editors of the I/P related articles, that will generate problems... Ceedjee (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. What I hear is that you both see that there's a POV fork concern (you think there are ameliorating circumstances but also opposing views). In terms of my question -- Where to discuss the name? -- Eleland suggests a semi-formal mediation process. That sounds plausible. Still, there's usually other WP:DR steps taken, via an article Talk, beforehand. HG | Talk 21:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oups. No, from my point of view, no pov-fork but I can understand people thinks there is one.

There are historians and WP:RS.

I don't mind where it is discussed, I will follow the discussion. Ceedjee (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Compliment to everybody on this constructive and respectful discussion! Just an idea: How about moving this into a subpage like /Title issue: 1948 Palestine War or short /1948? — Sebastian 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the compliment. Your idea of an IPCOLL subpage could be good, if that is preferred to an article page. Perhaps somebody could politely ask Zeq, Jayjg, Tiamut, (or others as need be) to reply here about the venue question? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

No problem for me to proceed to the transfer to the appropriated subpage.

I suggest an uninvolved mediator invite other parties in the discussion.

Maybe a message could be left on the Palestine and Israel project discussion page too.

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for a discussion on the very interesting proposals being aired here. Sebastian's suggested page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Title issue: 1948 Palestine War sounds good. Tiamut^talk 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it all events starting on Nov 29, 1947 are part of the same war. Zeq (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is really not about how you or I or any other editor here sees it. Wikipedia needs to rely on reliable souces. Can you please back up your statement with such sources? Please excuse my ignorance; I know less than anyone here about the I-P conflict. So I would like to request that you write your statements so that even an ignorant like me can understand where you're coming from. Thank you! — Sebastian 07:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the recent changes that have taken place on the page, and I see them as somewhat positive. Ceedjee, I think you have made some positive improvements to the article. Initially, I was skeptical of the term, first because I was unaware of it and secondly, because I was skeptical of its provenance. The current page, which describes two distinct periods in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war makes it easier to understand what you were driving at in our discussions. Initially, I called it a neologism, but some sources do indicate that a term similar to that have been used in the past. In addition, it can also be seen as a refined understanding of previous history, rather than all events being rolled into one. It can be seen somewhat as a new concept, which is what I termed it before. In its more recent incarnation, I believe it comes from the New Historians, along with the acquisition of new data for which they are now (in)famous, these new data may also have caused a re evaluation of how events transpired and their results. It also can be seen as Historical Revisionism, which has both good and bad connotations, please read it.

I tend to agree with eleland that a several-paragraph introductory page could be developed, somewhat like it is now, which divides the pre-May civil war and post-May 48 events with several other countries. I think that kind of short format introduction might be a positive step. I think it would be a positive step to discuss it. I don't particularly care, which form is used to discuss it just as long as it's easy to find. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Ceedjee's point a valid one conceptually, and, reviewing comments, believe User:Eleland has cut the Gordian Knot and provided us with a sensible solution. We should not be precipitate in eliding articles, given the problem Ceedjee raises, but rather clarify the sequence, coordinate three pages, and merge where necessity. I need hardly remind those who push for erasing the article, that a huge volume of clumsy reduplication with considerable overlap and infratextual dissonances, exist all over the Wikipedia articles on events in Palestine-Israel, since the 20s. Merging, while retaining distinct foci in the existing pages, is the solution, not wiping out one page of several.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really all one war, in different phases, so separating it into even two articles makes little sense to me. The Six-Day War article, for example, discussing events leading up to the war in some detail, stretching back as far as 1956, continuing up to the actual hostilities of June 5 to June 11, 1967, and continuing even after the war was over. In fact, the "preamble" to the war takes up perhaps 50% of the whole article - yet it would make little sense to have an article titled Pre Six-Day War hostilities for everything up to June 4, then a second Six-Day War article restricted solely to events occurring from June 5 to June 11. Similarly, the Yom Kippur War article has a lengthy "Background" section leading up to the war itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody disputes that it was really all one war. However I'm having trouble with this analogy, since neither of those "preamble" cases involved any fighting nearly as extensive as that from Winter 1947 to May 1948. One of the combatant groups - the Palestinians - were decisively defeated, half a million were made refugees, their senior military leader was killed in action. An appreciable fraction of the entire population of the area was killed - something like 2 percent?

Not to mention that we already have at least 6 articles which, per the Six-Day War analogy, would all need to be merged - take 1948 Palestinian exodus, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, 1949 Armistice Agreements, etc. Nobody really wants a >500k monster article, or to thow away a lot of quality information. Also, as I said above, I'm concerned that focussing our article around 15 May 1948 has serious NPOV implications. The Israeli POV has traditionally been that their brand new nation was attacked almost out of the blue, while the Arabs have always maintained that they intervened in a civil war, trying to halt the Zionists's destruction of Palestinian society. If you cover both the civil war and the foreign-Arab involvement in an article called 1948 Arab-Israeli war you're effectively favouring one narriative over the other - labelling the foreign intervention as crucial, while relegating the civil war to a "preamble."

Anyway, I see 1948 Palestine war as a WP:SUMMARY article for all the others - two or three paragraphs on the civil war phase, two or three on the post-May phase, one each on the refugee flight and the causes of the flight, one on the armistice terms, etc. <eleland/talkedits> 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg : "It's really all one war, in different phases, so separating it into even two articles makes little sense to me"

On the pertinence : Howard Sachar, A History of Israel, starts his chapter XIII : The independence War on May 14, 1948 while he refers several times in this chapter to the "Palestine War" (for info : he is rather partisan of the "old historian")

On the interest : I share Eleland comments. We are not going to merge both articles about the Civil War period and about the after may 48 period in one unique article ! And just for information, there is a 3rd article that I would like to translate one day or the other about the protagonists of that war, mainly their objectives and strengths.

1948 Palestine War could refer to all factual articles related to the topic, summarizind each of them in 2-3 paragraphs and developing other issues.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarify disagreements

Let's try to clarify the exact points of dis/agreement. Please let me know if this looks right:

It's all one war. Jayjg and Eleland (and Leifern and Ceedjee ?) agree that it's all one war.
Summary style article for the one war. You all seem to agree that one overview article can cover the period and, summary style, link to various subset articles as needed.
Use of 1948 Palestine War as a term. Ceedjee raises the question of whether the term can be used, regardless of whether there's an article by this name. I see that the term appears already in 1948 Arab-Israeli War and 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. So, does this mean the term is already accepted in part, or are you all debating this, too? Maybe the parties need to elucidate what the term covers, if it has synonyms, and when it may be used.
Disagree on summary style/overview title. Currently, 1948 Arab-Israeli War serves the overview/summary purpose and Eleland proposes that 1948 Palestine war should serve that purpose (instead?). Let's call the the Title disagreement, ok? Leifern's comment is apt, that we keep our sanity w/the title. Still, Eleland is frustrated that the Arab-Israeli War title is not sufficiently neutral because it downplays the Palestinian aspect (my paraphrase). So, first question, I'd like to know if Jayjg and Leifern (et al.) would be open to the possibility of renaming 1948 Arab-Israeli War, if a more mutually-agreeable name can be found? Second question, esp for eleland, talk et al., if the title doesn't change, would you consider a section in the overview that, w/reliable sources, describes the scholarly/political disagreement over the naming and periodization of the conflict?

If I've omitted or mischaracterized pts, please clarify, too. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG, thank you very much for this synthesis that appears complete to me.

1. I agree that 1948 Palestine War is all one war but some historians (eg Sachar starts this on May 14, 1948).

2. Yes.

3. I think we should refer to 1948 Palestine War when the full period (1947-49) is covered and 1948 Arab-Israeli War when it clearly only concerns events after May 14.

4. I don't agree to rename 1948 Arab-Israeli War. I would rather suggest to transfer comments and analysis from there to 1948 Palestine War and let this article only deal with facts.

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can we consider we found an agreement except concerning point 4 ?

HG, what do you think ?

Ceedjee (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, #4 it is. So, shouldn't your idea be floated at 1948 Arab-Israeli War as a spin-out (transfer of comments/analysis) from there? I'd recommend proposing something on that article's Talk, describing (but not making) specific edits, and see how the conversation develops. You may want to apprise your interlocutors above (Jayjg, Leifern, Zeq, Eleland, Tiamut, Nishidani, CO'48) and invite them to help you think about it your approach. How does that sound? Let us know what happens. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well. You know, I have already done this on both these talk pages : 1948 Palestinian exodus and List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war...

But there is no hurry.

I will proceed the way you suggest. Ceedjee (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Dear community of editors striving to maintain neutrality and collegiality. I need your help and advice. After months of discussion on whether to people or nation the Palestinian people and agreement on the exact sentence we would use, I noticed that User:Zeq changed the last part of the sentence without garnering feedback for that change. I tried to restore the previous version that had been the subject of consensus and he reverted those changes. I opened discussion on the page, but I would appreciate your feedback there as well. Tiamut^talk 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

<snip previous reply>... Tiamut, one thing we might try is NVC, which I've signed up for in IPCOLL, and I'd like to explore how to use it. I'm going to share some of my thinking with Sebastian (see his link below) and get his recommendations on how to use NVC in a wiki situation. Meanwhile, besides dealing with the specific edit dispute at Palestinian people, let's figure out how to use these incidents to tackle the overall battleground here. Thank you. HG | Talk 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. it is good to see this discussion. errr, one suggestion; are you sure it's a good idea to discuss or to guess at people's motives? just wanted to mention that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Sebastian? Maybe NVC would distinguish between assuming bad motives, so as to blame, and honest self-expression of how unmet feelings, so as to try to meet another's needs. NVC articles says: "Offering a feeling (uncontaminated by interpretation and blame) tends to increase connection." Also, I tried not to lay a heavy feeling on any given individual. Good q. HG | Talk 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To "guess at people's motives" (compassionately) is actually an important policy of Wikipedia: WP:Assume good faith. HG bravely took on a very hard case here. It is really not easy to assume good faith when you face a revertion against consensus. To be honest, even though I pledged NVC, too, I don't always use it; and this is a case where I would have just politely warned the reverting user, as I did here. NVC has been developed for oral communication, and it is not always easy to transfer it to Wikipedia. For that reason, I started User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC a year ago in the hope to gather some feedback on how I could improve my nonviolent communication at Wikipedia. Let's revive that page and discuss the rest there! — Sebastian 16:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this approach is good. However, i don't think that Palestinian people is necessarily the best place to start using it. the whole point of your approach is to try an even-handedness on matters on importance to both sides. the problem is that this article by definition relates only to one side. so maybe we should not ask Tiamut to necessarily lay out so many points and concepts on this article. A different article, one which relates more to the actual conflict, might be fine as a subject for this process. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've modified my initial reply (so Steve's and Sebastian's may seem out of context). I'll move the original to Sebastian's NVC subpage and discuss, edit or delete it there. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A few of us have gotten involved since this thread started. Does the editing/Talk seem calmer? HG | Talk 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Checking the article. It seems so. Ceedjee (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at Palestinian people is quite active and mostly reasoned/civil, and I don't get a sense that there is edit warring or similar problems, so perhaps this thread can be closed. If issues arise that have broader implications, perhaps folks could add the issues to the list to be tackled hopefully by an IPCOLL Content task force. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

anti-Israeli behavior

Recently, a new User Coda Stage (talk · contribs) created a number of controversial articles and categories that are profoundly POV. Some attention and input, as well as some discussion, would be welcome regarding: Zionist hunter (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionist hunter); Category:The Nakba (deletion discussion); Category:Israeli war crimes (deletion discussion); and his creation of Daniel Machover and contributions to Doron Almog; Sabra and Shatila massacre‎ and Qibya massacre‎. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I permit myself to modify the title : this was not Palestinian pov pushing.

Most of these seem obvious except maybe the one concerning Nakba.

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure Ceedjee, suit yourself, it's still "six of these and half a dozen of the other" either way you slice it. IZAK (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As an editorial aside, I agree with Ceedjee's distinction. Most of the editors and people in real life who are virulently anti-Israeli don't give a hoot about Palestinians. --Leifern (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the POV categorizations and deleted the re-insertion of the "suspected war criminal" in the Doron Almog article. I am not sure how much more there is to discuss about this on this page. I think we have to wait and see whether this editor shows up again and tries to defend these edits before we know whether any further action is required. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I read, this situation seems to have stabilized. Thread ready to be closed. IZAK, thanks for the notice! HG | Talk 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Trouble at Jewish lobby

Jayjg has reverted a well researched and placed edit here[12], after being missing for several days and uninvolved in the discussions. Please see my most recent post [13] concerning discussion, especially my last para. This kind of behavoir just inflames things. This is where I will use my 1RR. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi CasualObserver1948,

From what I understand, Jayjg has reverted some material you added, which is not good and not acceptable. I think he did so because this is controversed material (it makes a parallelism between the jewish lobby that is/would have become agressively pro-Israeli) while on the other side, just below, the controversy that alleges critics of Jewish lobbies are antisemite is developed.

I think for wikipedia, that is an easy issue : WP:NPOV implies this pov can be introduced and I don't see how somebody could argue this is wp:undue.

Here is a suggestion :

I think controversy matters should not be discussed in the core of the articles (so that they only gather all the material on which all WP:RS agree) and that controversed issues or important disagreement between WP:RS be discussed in another section labelled controversies.

With such a structure, I have the feeling the whole article could sound more neutral and satisfy more people. In a controversy, it is expected to read : A thinks that... but B thinks that... In the core of an article, it is harder to make this sounds more like a fact than like a controversy. (I don't know if I am clear).

Good luck and hope this help.

NB: to all : I think if we want IPCOOL projets gets credibility and respect we must involve in all these issues and try to solve them in the name of the project.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To what extent would this issue fall within the scope of the ongoing mediation? Given my own preference for consensus prior to bold editing in high tension situations, I would think that it's not helpful to try adding material (absent consensus) that falls within the mediation purview. Have you talked to Jayjg, either in article or user Talk, to discuss if your proposed edit can be placed within the mediation? (Also "drive-by shooting" is uncivil, esp since Jayjg is clearly involved there, eh? Pls strikeout.) I would like to see IPCOLL watching these mediations and maybe providing some helpful info and analysis, esp since the results may have broader relevance to the area-wide battleground. Thanks for keeping us abreast of these developments, HG | Talk 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Archive for WP:IPCOLL

Build - criticize - build

Mission and membership

Article improvement drive

A place to help?

Why Palestinian costumes?

Low-tension article collaboration

613 Mitzvot

Accusations of State Terrorism by Israel?

Short list of Wikipedia's "10 commandments" is a better focus

A basic foundation question

User related

Positive collaboration ideas

RS and the WP:SLR approach

Reliable sources on WP:SLR model

Could Talk Page Guidelines explain archiving process

General user conduct issue

Disruption at Israeli-Palestinian conflict

A positive example

Skeptical view

RS by two new criteria

Title issue : 1948 Palestine War

Clarify disagreements

Palestinian people

anti-Israeli behavior

Trouble at Jewish lobby

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search