Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Talk Page Guidelines

Here are guidelines for this page. (These guidelines may be discussed below.)

Please stay on topic. Our topic here is to discuss how to edit the WikiProject page and, concomitantly, the project's objectives and activities.
For general discussion of Israeli-Palestinian issues and how to edit them, you might check out the more free-ranging discussion of our Community Lounge. Long comments and off-topic sections may be refactored there as needed. You can also make a brief statement (e.g., 3-5 lines) in the members section, below.

Please observe WP expectations, including Talk guidelines. Let's try to be civil and avoid personal attacks as we figure out how to collaborate together! Do not use page as a soapbox.
Archiving: Discussion sections should be marked Done, Resolved or otherwise closed by moderators. After a reasonably short time, such sections will be archived (the heading might be left in somewhat longer as FYI). Agreements and successes can be recorded under #Mild accomplishments.

Our discussions are moderated. Personal attacks (and excessive incivility) will be deleted. Moderators can mark any off-topic conversation or soapboxing for deletion, or to move to Community Lounge. Progress can be marked as Done or Resolved, etc.

Archives
January - February 2008 February - March 2008

1 Talk Page Guidelines
2 Background
3 Member statements
4 Trouble at Jewish lobby
5 Recent links to antisemitism article inserted into Anti-Zionism
6 CAMERA emails brouhaha
7 An idea worth trying?
8 Massacres
9 Unreliable sources charges of antisemitism
10 Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
11 FYI, RSs?

[edit] Background

This page comes out of suggestions made at an ArbCom workshop. The initial work is borrowed shamelessly from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Folks are welcome to edit this extensively (or to delete, if it does not become active). Thanks. HG | Talk 13:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Member statements

Here is a section to say something about yourself and your interest in working collaboratively in the I-P topic area. Examples may be seen from the Sri Lanka effort. Currently, there are no specific criteria and all are welcome to join. Perhaps certain criteria are implicit; for example, that members engage in deliberately civil conversation, follow Talk and editing etiquette, and only make big changes to this WikiProject after discussion here. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It might help if people articulated their role(s)/goals with the topic or WikiProject. For instance, you might say if you're available to mediate, or uninvolved admin to enforce policies, or an active editor w/an identifiable point-of-view. Ideally, the project could call upon some "good cop/bad cop" teams when heated disputes arise at an article. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this project is a wonderful idea! Come to me for help with images (cropping, rotation, restoration) - I'd be glad to help prepare photographs for featured picture candidacy, particularly historic material. Also glad to help with dispute resolution. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered I sometimes regret wearing my apparent sympathies so openly, at other times it's been useful. Think of me a bit like Emily Hobhouse, having absolutely no dog in this race (as she had none in the Boer War), other than the interest we all share in "peace'n'justice". And the accuracy of the historical record - I have a particular objection to hate-sources. (More on that elsewhere) I have never concealed or attempted to conceal anything that might be "disreputable" to the Palestinian "cause", nor ever (that I'm aware of) used anything doubtful about Israel. This "I-P conflict" is well documented in good sources, so even when there is reasonable room for two different scripts, it should not be difficult to write both up properly/fairly. I look forwards to my first invitation to "write for the enemy", and the first acceptance of an invitation from me to do so. PR^talk 12:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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. ... Shalom, Salaam, Peace. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I'm a pretty uninvolved editor in I-P and other Middle East articles (until I discover something I just have to edit ;). I'm over at medcab, and that's my main role at the moment, and it's there I come across Israeli-Palestinian related discussion. I'm happy to see an Israeli-Palestinian Collaboration project, and am hopeful that it will help and do good things for the future :) I suppose there isn't much for me to say. Here's a nice quote I heard once, though: "seek context; flee abstraction". Words to live by, imo :) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(These comments by Leifern would be a fine statement, if he joins!) 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. (Moved w/permission. HG | Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an uninvolved admin who's here to help out as needed. I'm currently a member of the ArbCom-created Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, and creator/moderator of the dispute board for Hungarian-Slovakian issues. I'm also currently updating various dispute resolution processes around Wikipedia, and am paying close attention to longrunning disputes to see how we can improve our procedures and/or enforcement. I've been a professional online community manager for over 15 years, long before I was involved with Wikipedia, and my own "style" tends to be a bit more on the enforcement side, but I also do a great deal of mediating and mentoring. If I can be of assistance, let me know! :) --El on ka 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for your help with archiving and moderating this Talk page. More assistance (and from others) most welcome. HG | Talk 10:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble at Jewish lobby

Discussion of this request stopped about a month ago, so the thread has been archived. See the article or mediation/DR effforts for current status of the dispute. (Or restart new thread as needed.) Thanks. HG | Talk 21:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI Mediation which started March 14 is still going on and on with the article locked because of constant reverting and re-editing by two sides of issue (one side - mostly one editor and people who come in to support his reversions - wanting to stress antisemitic uses of term; other side of 5-7 independent editors who want to include more of NON-antisemitic uses to make article more accurate and NPOV -obviously sie I'm on). But it's just over and over the same ground with mediator sometimes helping and sometimes not. Fact that article locked makes it difficult to put in and keep edits we agree on. So I guess will have to bring that up. I just wish there was a way of really dealing with editors who are almost peofessionals at WP:Gaming the system. They teach others of us bad habits, too. Just frustrated. Carol Moore 03:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Recent links to antisemitism article inserted into Anti-Zionism

Yesterday User:Telaviv1 inserted a load of see also links into Anti-Zionism connecting to articles on antisemitism. I reversed one of them (not noticing at the time that he/she had added the others). User:Zeq has now reversed my reversion. My view is that inserting such links is POV through equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism. What do other people think?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Equating antizionism to antisemitism is of course not acceptable.

But I am not sure that adding a see also : Anti-globalization and antisemitism at the top of the article has this meaning.

Personnally, I see this as meaning there is a link between both. No more, no less

...

Ceedjee (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. I don't mind so much material in the see also section at the end of the article. It was the insertion of the antismitism see alsos in the antizionism sections that got me.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Ceedjee. They are linked topics, if only because antisemites have realized that fake "anti-Zionism" is a good way to softpedal their views (cf Stalin, David Duke, et al.) <eleland/talkedits> 17:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Peter,

In fact, I didn't realize immediately what you was referring to.

From my point of view (as you have seen in my last edits in the article) it is not acceptable to add at the top of each section, a link to "antisemitism". So, I try to "neutralize" this. I hope this will not produce difficult discussions.

@Eleland. I share your mind too. Ceedjee (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks again. I wanted to bring things here for more neutral comment rather than make a second revert at once and risk becoming a major antogonist on one side of an edit war. And yes the anti-Zionism as a cover and trigger of antisemitism is something I'm well aware of. The link has kept me away from from various activities of the Stop the War Coalition.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread is over a month old and ready to be archived IMO. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAMERA emails brouhaha

In case anyone missed it, there was a brouhaha over CAMERA emails trying to secretly organize pro-Israel and anti-Palestine editing here and sanctions put on some editors, including at least one mentioned above. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign for details. Now to figure out how to deal with certain aggressive partisan editors who manage to dance just within the rules while keeping article POV pro-Israel. Carol Moore 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

This is the right place to talk about it. :) Please bring up any incidents that you notice. --El on ka 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Excellent~~ some idea and approach all around. it's great how you called attention to anyone who keeps an article "pro-Israel" while dancing within the rules.

I assume you feel you did not say anything offensive, since your comment was entirely within the bounds of the rules here. So how about if we in turn do our part to keep an eye out for "aggressive partisan editors who manage to dance just within the rules while keeping article POV anti-Israel." --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. :) --El on ka 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your positive response; however, as you can see though, I have changed my answer slightly. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Like anything else it's all a mater of degree. i.e., one editor who constantly pulls every trick in the book to keep out reliably sourced negative info about Israel by 10 editors is a lot worse than one editor who tries to put in a less than reliable negative allegation that no editor bothers to defend when others delete it. I've seen far more of the former than the latter. And there are many negative facts about Israel that should be reported, just like there are lots about the US and South African (then and now) and Zimbabwe. Defending people's favorite nation states from reliably sourced allegations is not wikipedia's job. Carol Moore 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol and Steve, I think we all agree that any off-Wiki canvassing — whether anti-Israel or pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian or pro-Palestinian — is inappropriate. Evidence recently came to light about an effort to create an "army" of pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian editors. The existence of another group of editors looking to "combat" anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel bias was also discovered.

The nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such that it attracts editors with deeply-held views. If they don't share your POV, they're "aggressive partisan editors who manage to dance just within the rules while keeping article POV". If you agree with their POV, they're upholding Wikipedia's core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR.

Instead of looking under every rock and behind every tree for "aggressive partisan editors", let's all try to avoid appearing to others — especially those with the "wrong" POV — as "aggressive partisan editors". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malik Shabazz. Not appearing to others as "agressive partisan editors" is a first good step in the process of developing these difficult articles in wikipedia where there are numerous contributors with different cultures, different sensitivities and different pov's. Ceedjee (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We must keep our wits about us - it's not just that this CAMERA business was a serious, blatant attempt to cheat. It came to light because one or more editors were coming to believe they were untouchable. No matter how blatantly they cheated in their editing (most infuriatingly for good editors, removing good information), it seemed that the project was incapable of dealing with them and wouldn't pull them up for anything. User:Zeq was being actively encouraged in this conduct, as many of us recognised. PR^talk 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An idea worth trying?

(Crossposting)

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good with the Israeli-Palesinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova^Charge! 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very open to the idea and find it very interesting. I congratulate the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedians for such a big step - though it took only a few steps. I am thinking of proposing it at Wikipedia:IPCOLL and Wikipedia:SLR as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massacres

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/About the use of the word massacre per HG request.
Ceedjee (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable sources charges of antisemitism

Sometimes I clean up biographies of people critical of Israel, deleting obviously POV, unsourced or dubiously sourced statements per WP:BLP, of which there often are many. I now have a case where small time lefty publications -- and an article by an editor of the page -- are used to charge antisemitism against someone who does defend their reputation and probably has threatened law suits to get mainstream editorial access to defend his reputation. Thinking WP:BLP calls for caution in these cases, I brought these examples to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Where the offending editor defended them and another editor gave a reply inferring but not stating they might be deleted. I guess I'll finally bring it to the talk page, but would like a more expedient way of dealing with issue - besides just reverting away per WP:BLP rules. Anyway, I wonder if people in general have found it more of a problem to get such accusations removed as unreliable on antisemitism charges than on other charges. Thanks. Carol Moore 15:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Is this linked to the I-P conflict ?

Whatever, if there is a source, and if the statement is "according to *a precise name*, Mr X is antisemite because *arguments* ", then it should be ok for wikipedia.

Everything less cautious should be forbiden.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't want to export the discussion to this page too, I want to note that, although there are indeed allegations of antisemitism on the page in question, most of these are in sources which Carolmooredc does not propose to delete (including The Guardian and The Times), and none are in the "small time lefty publications" she mentions above. Unfortunately, misuse of the serious charge of antisemitism against opponents of Israeli policy has served to delegitimise and discredit the term even when it might be appropriately used. RolandR (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Firt, glad to see you are a reader of this page. :-)

Second, are you saying that if a reliable source says something negative and potentially libelous, then you can pile on less reliable sources - including your own writings? Actually I think a couple of them should be deleted on the grounds of piling on! WP:UNDUE and all that. For one thing, reliable sources usually cover their butts by publishing replies from the person attacked, as The Guardian did twice. But I guess it's just time to bring it to the talk page since definitive answers not coming up else wheres. Carol Moore 16:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

There is a related discussion here:

Talk:Little Green Footballs#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material --Timeshifter (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

(Hi again. It might be wise if folks could turn now to the question of where to put this discussion/thread. While Jerusalem is obviously a key sticking point in RL and WP, I don't think we want it taking over this Talk page. The purpose of the Talk page, beyond some limited content discussions, is to figure out how to help resolve disputes and lower the tensions among editors. Our goal is not to settle content disputes on this page itself. Would you all like this continued as a subpage of IPCOLL here? Or move it to an existing talk page? Or a new centralized discussion, as is done for some content disputes? Jerusalem is an issue cuts across various articles and template(s), perhaps it would be fruitful to focus less on the debate itself right now, and think about how/where the question can be tackled. Where to move the discussion and help it be constructive there? Thanks.)

Move it wherever you like, and leave a note to that effect. I'm sure no one will object.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can do the same as was done for "Massacres", the discussion was moved to a sub page. Imad marie (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel per HG request. Imad marie (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI, RSs?

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