Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Outside organizing of editing

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration‎ | Current Article Issues
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Carolmooredc in topic Jimmy Wales on NPOV on IP issues

CAMERA emails brouhaha

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

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. --Elonka 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.  :) --Elonka 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. PRtalk 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • this older thread can be archived. thank you. HG | Talk 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

JIDF and WP:IPCOLL, Interesting Overlap

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have been away on vacation, followed by a frustration-induced wiki-break upon return, but have been back on wiki for a while now, editing and commenting along. This week, I learned that I have been classified as one of the “heavily biased anti-Israel” editors[1] at Wikipedia. I checked the IPCOLL archives for the period during my absence and found this subject has not been raised, so I am raising it, because I feel it significant for this page. I have yet to fully digest the implications of such a classification or my response to it, but I will state the following, simply. I am not anti-Israel, but understand that my life, learning and biases might seem that way to some (and I was overly up-front about that). I am pro-Peace and understand that that bias alone provokes JIDF and their ilk, particularly the post-’67, post-Begin Eretz Israel Zionist zealots. So be it. My noted biases are much different than my commitment to NPOV on Wikipedia where the proof is in one’s article edits, not one’s biases. I can not and will not speak for others; they may or may not do it for themselves.

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

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

Should I Jewish Internet Defense Force ( admin@thejidf.org ) a snotty message about being genocidal sexists for not mentioning me?? :-) Who do they think spearheaded turning Jewish Lobby into a more NPOV article, with lots of help from my friends. Who has tried to make sure every description of what was said by or about Gilad Atzmon was accurate and source-based? Who promotes a libertarian decentralist view of Israel existing in noncontiguous tiny areas of justly acquired land (10-15%). Who organized 4 of the 5 last protests at the DC AIPAC annual convention? Just look at my contributions you sexist pigs! Give me my day in the sun!!! (They should be glad I'm wasting so much time on wikipedia instead of really causing trouble with serious organizing.)
On a more serious note, obviously if I had a job where I was worried about getting fired for such editing I'd be worried. And there is the issue of whether to cover their attacks on wiki users in Jewish Internet Defense Force - or to use this as an excuse to delete the article. (I assume it's been through an AfD and helpful to post that link if you have it.) Carol Moore 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Well, my name is up there in lights, and I am not amused. The innocuous-sounding "Doing a simple search for "Pedrito" yields [..]" is, of course, hogwash. Also, the diff showing where I was allegedly "stripping out important context" shows me adding context and not removing a single character of text. So apart from being evil, they're also morons?
I used to edit here under my real name but gave it up when I realized that some half-assed crazies, who incidentally don't have the balls to write under their real names, might start accusing me of anti-Semitism, as they have done with other editors. How charming.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.10.2008 16:11
Actually, I make light of it because even in progressive peace and libertarian groups and email lists there are always those one or two people who scream antisemite at the slightest criticism of the state of Israel -- even if you start by posting articles from moderate Israeli and Jewish peace groups! (Which became my little test to out the screamers in any new email list I might join.) Not to mention if you get a little more hard core. And I'm the type of person who, the more they scream it, the more hardcore stuff I post. (Though it can get tiring, so my engaging in the debate tends to be episodic, like my editing on the topic here.) So unless one has a very public persona and/or hard shell it probably is best to use a handle when editing these articles. But let's face it, if suddenly there were hundreds of wiki editors and millions of emailers and letter writers and protesters willing to tell the WP:RS truth and protest the nonsense, maybe eventually the intimidators would find they'd lost their power and give up. It's just good nonviolent action. Carol Moore 21:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Pro- and Anti-Israel Lobby articles reported at ANI

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I just saw some major changes that have occurred over the last few days and have reported them at the geographical ethnic and religious noticeboard, here. I consider they go to the core of Wikipedia's neutrality and credibility, and have stated such. I hope we can collaborate on this; it ain't black and white, but rather shades of gray with those devilish details. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC) PS If this isin the wrong place please move it to where it should be, thanks. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Even covert and organized pro Israeli campaigns like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia exists in the first place.
It is not unusual that lots of Jewish and Arab supporter editors may contain bias to some degree, however according to my experiences as a 3rd party, there are some organised, categorical deletion attempts of criticism of IDF and Israeli government from wikipedia.
By the way how you intend to change pro or anti lobby article names. Kasaalan (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am neither Arab or Jewish so I am just American and in the middle ground. Actually, I don't know what I will do, but I believe it will depend on whether there is an administrative reply at the ANI page and what it is. I really do not want to be disruptive, but if there is no admin reply, which I have sought honestly, earnestly and very naively, then I suspect my response will be disrupting, but within the five pillar limits and bounds. I had hoped that my reasonably timely response to these recent earth-shaking happenings would be sufficient to delineate the scope of the problem, and alert admins to impending problems, and include my general POV and immediate suggestions. We shall see; at this point, I believe it is in their court. Chances are that they will either return the serve, call a foul, or miss this easy shot. I suspect the latter two will ahppen, but am really hoping for the first one. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If you look for an advice, first tag the sections you feel biased, and try to talk per discussion page. ANI is a last case resort. Applying ANI before discussing, RFC or Arbitrary process is not a solution. Kasaalan (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
First, the presumption is to keep the title unless a change is discussed which it was not. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names. Note the same guy did this to Jewish Lobby changing to Jewish American lobby which is even less justified since the phrase is used all over the world. And of course without discussion. If someone who's better at reverting moves vs. policy above wants to do that for Jewish Lobby, go for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: There is now a discussion on reverted move Talk:Israel lobby in the United States about changing the name through proper processes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As I just added to my own "delete" comment on the Anti-Israel article, *Delete: Basically a WP:attack page and not really encyclopedic. Because this article was created at the same time Israel lobby in the United States was changed (temporarily) to Pro-Israel lobby in the United States this looks like a partisan, POV attempt to use wikipedia to help create a false divide of either you are Pro or Anti Israel, with nothing in between. Wikipedia should not be used in this fashion. This is very much against the resolutions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post. Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

Israeli Foreign Ministry's organized campaign on Wikipedia.

Please see:

Related administrator arbitration, actions, incidents, etc.:

DMI Comparison between Anonymous Palestinian and Israeli Wikipedia Edits.

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

Israeli anonymous edits outnumbered Palestinian anonymous edits several times over.

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

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

New editors may be coming soon

Latest comment: 13 years ago40 comments15 people in discussion

Settlers organizing Wikipedia editors

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

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

There is a discussion here about it also: [2] I have posted a link to a "Wikipedia Course Booklet", if someone speaks hebrew, please translate it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea. ""The idea is not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to include our point of view" sounds harmless enough. I hope they make their position known on the talk page, read the guidelines and policies, and aren't edit warriors. I think it would be hilarious if they ended up doing a good job.Cptnono (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If they had said "The idea is not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to comply with policy" it would be a great idea. They didn't say that. In practice their statement means "we want our point of view included and we don't give a crap about anything else, it's someone else's problem". It's like dropping litter. It doesn't take many people to turn a place into a shithole. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Touché. I'm worried about this crap: "The entry on Jewish family," she said. "The first sentence will be that the Jewish family is the ultimate response to the Western crisis of isolation and lack of affection." We'll see though.Cptnono (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I also laughed when I read that. Right now Jewish family isn't an article, but a redirect to Judaism. Still, I added it to my watchlist anyway.
As you said, Cptnono, we'll see what comes of this. Editors with a genuine interest in improving the project are always welcome, whatever their personal POV. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
At least it's nice to see someone proud of their culture and a quick scan of Wikipedia's coverage of family/kinship systems around the world suggests that there's approximately no coverage. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your reply, and it should be clear to everyone that some of the posts above are not appropriate. Ridiculing an editor who wants to write about family values is just lame and ignorant, and a clear violation of WP:AGF to boot. — Sebastian 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
My reply may have been too angry. See [3]. — Sebastian 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Peter above, that a mechanism has existed on a trial basis, but am unsure where that review trial now stands. I am of the opinion that it seemed to work as planned, but was little engaged personally because most articles covered were of little interest or outside my knowledge to make a proper judgment. Wider 'review' coverage for I/P articles might help to moderate/monitor changes as they occur. Wiki needs experienced moderating editors on both sides, per Carol above, and thanks to Delicious for bringing it out. I have no problem with including their specific point of view, properly ref'd and worded among other povs, but am less than optimistic that many newbies thus motivated, will understand or agree with that balance. Time will tell. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The Guardian has an article on this now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that link! This sounds actually very good; obviously, they learned their lesson and are now instructing people to work constructively: "The idea, says Shaked and her colleauges, is not to storm in, cause havoc and get booted out – the Wikipedia editing community is sensitive, consensus-based and it takes time to build trust." This promises to jibe well with WP:NPOV. According to the § Purpose of our project, we need to help these new editors. This is a historic chance for a productive dialog which we should be grateful for. — Sebastian 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No, this does not sound good. It sounds like they are going to do exactly the same thing, and have learned to game the system effectively. This makes it a bigger problem, which will cause more disruption than if we could just quickly boot them. I love how he says in this video "We want to make it balanced and Zionist in nature..." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the difference in our views is largely like the proverbial question whether a glass is half full or half empty. It depends on what you expect. (“You” meaning anyone, not you specifically.) If you expect extremists to just vanish, then you’d be disappointed. Realistically, as long as the Israel-Palestine is going on in the real world, it will bring people here who feel very strongly about their point of view. If you just want Wikipedia to be a stable encyclopedia, then any such newcomers will make that goal harder. Part of my motivation for participating here goes beyond that: I see Wikipedia, and projects like this in particular, as good tools to help create a common ground between people in difficult situations in the real world. Yes, Wikipedia’s policies have loopholes, and I see your concern of them being abused, but by and large, they have worked pretty well, and I am confident they will also help us now. I’m not blind to the problems you mention, but I’m using my own variant of AGF. — Sebastian 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Of course, from experience a lot of us know that once they get serious opposition many lose it and start yelling "antisemite" and it's all down hill for cooperative editing by them from there on. (And don't forget to report it to Arbitration enforcement the first time and every time it happens.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
To be very honest, I have seen many examples on Wikipedia of what I would consider to be antisemitic and Islamophobic comments. I think that many such comments are made in good faith by editors who would not call themselves antisemites or biased against Muslims. Let's face it, unfortunately, anti-semitism and anti-Muslim bias are currently problems in many countries, and it's no surprise that these biases rear their ugly heads on Wikipedia too. So, I think it's important for editors to point it out when they see someone engaging in inflammatory rhetoric or editing an article in a way that's not NPOV. The goal should not be to get the transgressing editor kicked off the island, nor to make editors in this area even more humorless than we are already, but to help us all understand how we can communicate and edit more constructively.
On that note, I recently came across the following pamphlet, which I thought was an interesting and useful guide in distinguishing between fair criticism of Israel and antisemitic rhetoric. (The pamphlet got some attention after it was posted by the Olympia Food Co-op, which found it received many antisemitic expressions of "support" after deciding to boycott Israeli products.). An excerpt that seems particularly relevant to this thread:
"A lot of activists work to avoid anti-Jewish oppression, and to make a distinction between Jewish people and Israeli misdeeds, by targeting their comments at "Zionists," not Jews, and "Zionism," not Judaism or Jewish culture..."
"A lot of activists work to avoid anti-Jewish oppression, and to make a distinction between Jewish people and Israeli misdeeds, by targeting their comments at "Zionists," not Jews, and "Zionism," not Judaism or Jewish culture. Unfortunately, this shortcut doesn't work.
"First, it backfires because major, organized antisemitic movements also use the term, for the opposite purpose: to spread anti-Jewish ideology without looking so bad. That's why 2005's international conference, "Zionism As the Biggest Threat to Modern Civilization" was co-chaired by neo-nazi politician David Duke. For many antisemitic groups, “Zionists” are the demonic Jews controlling the world, Protocol- style; and “Zionism”is the general body of evildoing by Jews. Because we activists are only suspicious of Jew-bashing, not attacks on “Zionists,” their antisemitic imagery makes its way right into our circles. Second, because it replaces one one- dimensional image of a 'bad guy' with another.It bypasses the actual work of avoiding anti-Jewish oppression: reshaping how we think and talk about Jews and Israelis to see them as 3-dimensional human beings, capable of wrongdoing like any others. Finally, using the term "Zionists" doesn't protect Jews. It just makes people who bomb Jewish schools, synagogues, etc., call the people they're killing Zionists.
"Principled anti-Zionism has little to do with the fake "Zionism" that antisemites like Duke attack. There are many rational reasons why some people are opposed to the philosophy that there should be a Jewish state, just as lots of rational reasons motivate others to believe a Jewish state is neccessary.
"Zionism is not an insult.It's not a catch phrase, a code word for racism or imperialism, or the name for unpleasant things done by Jews. It's a nationalism, and, as often happens with nationalisms, it has not fully liberated its people and has oppressed others in the process. It stands for a huge range of beliefs and believers: from the Right-wing racist who wants to ‘transfer’(forcibly expel) all Palestinians, to the person who wants Jews to have a self-determined state in the only land to which Jewish diaspora ethnicities around the world have shared a cultural tie, to the person who wants to keep living as a Jew in the “Land of Israel” but is open to living in a binational, Palestinian-Jewish state."
Perhaps it would be helpful to have a discussion about how we can reduce antisemitic and anti-Muslim rhetoric in this topic area, since this is a problem that comes up regularly in I/P-related articles. Per Carol's comment, it also seems that it might also be useful to talk about how accusations of antisemitism/anti-Muslim bias can be misused here as personal attacks (since I'm sure it is not pleasant for an editor doing his best to be fair-minded to be repeatedly told that he is antisemitic or Islamophobic). Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
See relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive 7#Categories dealing with bigotry. Unless people feel it should be discussed here. Also reminder about this earlier article/discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Outside organizing of editing#Jerusalem Post. Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
"Blog of one of the organizers" (Jrtayloriv) And he support the Eurabia theory.[4][5][6][7] I hope he could be an usefull wikipedia editor in this topic. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that he would want to write here, where every word can be deleted by anybody, when he has a contract for a book that is already announced at the largest booksellers. That book, BTW, promises to be interesting for us: [8]. — Sebastian 18:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Palestinians counter-organizing Wikipedia editors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification needed on what Nassar said

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

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

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

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

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

Organizing a group to edit Wikipedia isn't necessarily bad (take for instance, [9]) even if their express purpose is to deal with POV issues (e.g. WikiProject Countering systemic bias). These organized groups only become a problem, like the JIDF, they come onto WP with the express purpose of violating WP:NPOV to push a certain political/religious viewpoint. That is, groups that adhere to policy are fine, whatever their real-world motives. Groups that willingly violate policy to meet their aims are not.

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

Best articles to send newbies for info?

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

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

New Haaretz article: "The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia"

Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

[10]

Many new anti-neutral editors may be showing up here soon (or already has) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the article to everybody's attention. This venture isn't likely to succeed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Last year the government of Israel unveiled plans to pay volunteers to post pro-Israel talkbacks on websites, e.g. [11]. harlan (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We may have a live one. Unomi (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Guardian - Rachel Shabi - Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups, 18 August 2010:

And on Wikipedia, they believe that there is much work to do.
Take the page on Israel, for a start: "The map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria," said Bennett, referring to the annexed Syrian territory and the West Bank area occupied by Israel in 1967.

Another point of contention is the reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – a status that is constantly altered on Wikipedia.

Other pages subject to constant re-editing include one titled Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza – which is now being considered for deletion – and a page on the Palestinian territories.

Then there is the problem of what to call certain neighbourhoods. "Is Ariel a city or a settlement?" asks Shaked of the area currently described by Wikipedia as "an Israeli settlement and a city in the central West Bank." That question is the subject of several thousand words of heated debate on a Wikipedia discussion thread.

The idea, says Shaked and her colleauges, is not to storm in, cause havoc and get booted out – the Wikipedia editing community is sensitive, consensus-based and it takes time to build trust.

"We learned what not to do: don't jump into deep waters immediately, don't be argumentative, realise that there is a semi-democratic community out there, realise how not to get yourself banned," says Yisrael Medad, one of the course participants, from Shiloh.

Is that Shiloh in the occupied West Bank? "No," he sighs, patiently. "That's Shiloh in the Binyamin region across the Green Line, or in territories described as disputed."
One Jerusalem-based Wikipedia editor, who doesn't want to be named, said that publicising the initiative might not be such a good idea. "Going public in the past has had a bad effect," she says. "There is a war going on and unfortunately the way to fight it has to be underground."

    ←   ZScarpia   23:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Something must be done about this. These are giant organized meatpuppet groups. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Another article here: [12] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"The goal is to take part in public relations [for Israel] in English." ... hmmmmmm.     ←   ZScarpia   09:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is some kind of guide released here: "Wikipedia Course Booklet" [13] can someone who knows hebrew please translate it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have downloaded it and had a brief look; but it is 18 pages long, so I don't propose to translate it all. I have read the half-page about English Wikipedia, which is remarkably anodyne, just pointing out the rules, and the differences from Hebrew Wikipedia. I'll try to read the whole thing tomorrow, and see if there is anything worth noting; but my first impression is that they haven't put anything damaging down on paper. Really, we need on of the 100-plus people who attended their seminar to spill the beans about what was actually said there. RolandR (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
As I wrote on the main collaboration talk page, if the CAMERA article can note their organizing people to edit wikipedia (see here), why not a note in the Israeli settlement or some other as/more relevant article?? (Even the CAMERA article?) Of course, now that we have two examples from WP:RS sources maybe there needs to be a new section in the Wikipedia article itself. Have any other groups tried this sort of thing to the extent it was noticed by WP:RS?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed: The Guardian has an article on this now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
See Zionist editing on Wikipedia and and related deletion discussion. This campaign is also noted in Yesha Council. RolandR (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: The battle for Wikipedia: Palestinians counter Israeli editing group

[14] and Palestinians prepare to battle 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia [15] harlan (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD "Zionist editing on Wikipedia"

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

”Zionist editing” article links

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Since this remains an ongoing issue, linking to the two most recent threads on the issue as FYI for rest of this year.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Carolmooredc. It was a hot issue among the involved editors for about a week when the news were published, but the tsunami of organized meatpuppets newer arrived, false alarm. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you may be wrong. Allegedly things are getting worse and drastic action is being considered. See comments at: below here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement.2FIsrael-Palestine_articles_rather_drastic_proposals. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Carol, I'm sorry but your analysis IMHO is not even a close miss. The "recent deterioration" has nothing to do with the suggested massive meatpuppeteering. It's all about a limited number of the well known battlegroundish users. Please take a look on this discussion. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The intro of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arbitration_Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_articles and options do not specify that only old users an issue. Some people opine so on the talk page; others mention meat puppet and off-wiki organizing. And don't forget this month's newbie meat puppet may be next January's hardcore experienced user and battle grounder. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That's right, but even the sock puppets are coming from the same known banned puppeteers. There is a lot of problems in I-P area, but the one you are talking about is not among them. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent). I compiled this talk archive:

Here's one for the archive that was missed. Comments on a New York Times web page about a Times article on such pro-Israel organizing on wikipedia. Shows how normal readers get a bad impression of wikipedia on these articles and no doubt in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales on NPOV on IP issues

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wikipedia founder: Israel-Palestine is heavily debated, but we're vigilant on neutrality, Haaretz, Aug. 5, 2011. For your amusement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a bit of relevant text so we can properly file this: In 2010, the right-wing group Israel Sheli (My Israel) embarked on a Wikipedia battle to insert "Zionist" editing onto the Web-based encyclopedia to combat the anti-Israel entries. Yet while the campaign featured heavily in the press, with the group issuing open calls for seminars on how to proceed, Wales says the battle seemed to have been in vain. “I would say we saw absolutely no impact from that effort whatsoever. I don't think it ever – it was in the press but we never saw any impact,” he recalls. “I don't think they ever showed up. I don't know what happened, but we didn't see any impact.”
CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._Outside_organizing_of_editing&oldid=1137378818"