This page 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.
I am renominating the Yasser Arafat article for FA status.
The issues from the previous nomination have been fixed/solved.
I have looked into all internet citations to make sure they backed the text. I have also looked into the Aburish biography (which also covers several other book refs in the beginning sections of the article. The Jimmy Carter and Michael Oren books on agreements and the Six-Day war have been looked into as well. (I have these books and the biography). I have removed several passages of info because they were falsely referenced.
Bolding, italics and excess slots in the citations and their templates have been removed.
An enormous amount of trimming and cleanup has been done to bring the article to an acceptable size and to stick strictly to the bio.
Portions of the article have been relocated, in particular the illness and aftermath sections. More subsections have been created.
A tremendous amount of images have been added to the article.
Over all I know this article deserves a bronze star. --Al Ameer son 03:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Two of the images have been labeled as having uncertain copyright status. 82.71.48.158 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Addressed. There was actually three but I removed two until their fate is decided. I kept the one with Arafat and Ahmed Yassin because it is leaning towards survival. --Al Ameer son 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Leaning towards opposition, I would like to point out that in "Tunisia and First Intifada" the prose at the end of the section is not nice with the presence of these stubby seamlessly inter-connected paragraph. Most importantly, though, IMO the dealing of Arafat's record as president of PNA between 1993-2001 (prior to the second Intifada) is unsatisfactory. Human rights violations issues? Bureaucracy and corruption accusations against him during all these years? The way international community treated him and his government despite these accusations until 2001? And if the international community swallowed these accusations against the President of the PNA until 2001, why did they do that? How did Arafat build the first Palestinian quasi-state between 1994-1996? Pros and cons of his choices? I would also like to say that the lead is not necessary to be over-cited. During the analysis all the issues mentioned briefly in the lead can be exhaustively analyzed and properly referenced.--Yannismarou 14:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I expanded Arafat's decision on his support for Iraq during the Gulf War, and its consequences as well as mentioning top aide Abu Iyad's assassination in that same time period. I am not sure what you are referring to by Human Rights violations. How and why the international community treated him despite corruption accusations is getting into choppy waters and will seem like POV which is something we have worked hard on eliminating. However the way Arafat built PLO authority in the territories is a major transition point and is a missing piece in the article. I will try to add a new subsection after Oslo and before Elections elaborating on it. This would include the construction of a police force, assignment of posts to certain people, confiscating or taking control of independent Palestinian businesses, etc. Here I could briefly mention the accusations of bureaucracy and corruption. I will work on this section ASAP and the lead as well. It should be finished by the end of the day. Hopefully you will change your mind about the article after the ending results. Also I would like to mention that the primary reason we I do not want to go all out on the details is because of size concerns. From the previous discussion there was an issue on the article's text passing the limits of FA standards (30-50KB). --Al Ameer son 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The lead is done. The new section might take a little bit more than a day. --Al Ameer son 22:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I do not care so much about size limits. FACs with over 80 kbs of prose have gone through this page or have survived FAR(C). Of course, not exceeding 65-70 kbs of prose is IMO a fare goal. But do not sacrifice thoroughness and quality in favor of some unclear size limits. And I do understand what you say that you cannot go into many details about the issues I brought here, but some mentioning and analysis is needed. When I speak about HR violations, I refer to all the accusations against PNA and Arafat personally that misused their powers and their control of security forces, in order to suppress dissidents. There are many relative analyses (e.g. Forgione (2004), Kelly (1998), Brynen, Rex (2000). A Very Political Economy: Peacebuilding and Foreign Aid in the West Bank and Gaza, 175-176, Le More, Anne (October 2005). "Killing with Kindness: Funding the Demise of a Palestinian State", 985-986 etc.). Looking forward to your improvements as you have announced them here!--Yannismarou 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I created the new section entitled Establishing authority in the territories. The section might need some copyediting which will be taken care of by a professional English teacher who is a user on wikipedia. The section mentions Arafat's need for financial backing, his leanings to dictatorship and clear financial corruption. However I did not write any of these statements exactly to avoid POV but the reader will infer this by reading about the actions he committed. I can't really explain it, you should read the section to understand. If you see anything missing, then inform me and I'll add it to the section or subsection. I am going to add on more about the PSS (the new police force Arafat developed) and how they wounded over 50 and killed one after attempts downsizing Arafat's dissidents and even torture in some cases. Your sources for these allegations will be useful in this area I think. I personally never had a problem with size but it was a factor in the article's FAC failing the last nomination. However the article still has not exceeded 50KB in text and there is some room for more editing. --Al Ameer son 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added accusations of human rights abuses in the new section with your Forgione reference. I also added bits of financial corruption in the Financial dealings section with a reference already existing in that particular section. --Al Ameer son 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I repeat that in FAC size limits were never so strict. I respect other editors' opinions (and Sandy is one of the most respectful around) on this issue, but I can name a series of nominations where size over 55 kbs was no problem for FA status. I say again that, of course, we shouldn't overdo it, but this does not mean that there are specific strict size limits. Concerning the corruption issue, I understand your POV worries. I just want to mention the 1997 report of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which dealt with the issue of the financial mismanagement (not using the word "corruption"), and provoked a political crisis within the PNA. As a result of this report, the Palestinian cabinet resigned, but Arafat refused to accept the resignations (See Halevi [1998], "Self-Government, Democracy, and Mismanagement under the Palestinian Authority", 42). And these are facts ... Just in case you think this information could be useful in your article. Anyway, I still see ground for improvements (in terms of content and prose), but I'll give my support, taking into consideration that the quality of the article is already high.--Yannismarou 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll certainly add the 1997 event especially since there is somewhat of a gap between events in '96 and in '98. Also it does not incite and POV. Thanks for your suggestions, sources and support!
I added the 1997 event. I also wanted to point out there is more info on Arafat's corruption in the Financial dealings section. I know there is other content that could be added in this section such as a Romanian flour import incident and another with a refusal of proposed Palestinian cement. --Al Ameer son 01:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Support. I worked to copyedit this article in earlier stages, and I've been impressed with the level of dedication Al Ameer son has put into it. I'm a little concerned with the possibly-unfree image of Ahmed Yassin, but I believe the quality of the research and documentation is very high. – Scartol · Talk 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The Arafat-Yassin image is in discussion. Apparently the image is not free but the fair use rationale for its place in the Yasser Arafat article is valid. I'll remove it until the discussion is officially over. See the discussion here --Al Ameer son 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Support—Seems pretty well-written. MOS breach in "1973–4" and in the hyphens after "...ly". And there are a few hyphens used as interruptors—see MOS on em dashes. And the one-sentence paras need merging. Tony(talk) 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
One-sentence paragraphs merged. I will separate some again but expand on them soon when I obtain more info. I'll fix the en dashes tomorrow. --Al Ameer son 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Articles about controversial figures will never please everyone and will inevitably attract criticism. Al Ameer son has shown remarkable dedication and tenacity in achieving such a high standard with such a difficult subject. --ROGER DAVIESTALK 22:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Truly great article. Great work Al Ameer Son. I just have some questions about the "Lebanon" section in the article.
The primary component of the Christian militias was the Maronite Phalangists loyal to President Camille Chamoun. Weren't the Kataeb/Phalangists loyal to Pierre Gemayel instead, while the National Liberal Party) were the ones loyal to Camille Chamoun?
against the Lebanese Army, a primary backer of the Christian militias. Could you provide a source for that?
Thank you. -- CG (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, for finding those errors. It has been corrected;Phalangists loyal to Gemayel, Tigers Militia loyal to Chamoun. Its all mentioned correctly in the Aburish biography, but I mistakenly added misread text from the bio into the article. I removed the primary backer of the Christian militias portion of the statement above, until I find it firmly written in a reputable source. The fact that the DFLP carried out attacks against the Army is from the bio. The Lebanse Army as well as the Syrian, did back the seige of Tel al-Zaatar and that is mentioned with a ref. Damour casualties have also been specifically cited. I hope I have addressed all of your concerns. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Great work!! Thank you!! This article deserves a support. CG (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - Well-written, thorough and balanced article which is hard to do considering Yasser Arafat's long and complex life. Shoukran Al Ameer son, excellent patience shown. - Fedayee (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please help expand Palestinian Scout Association and also visit Scouting in displaced persons camps and contribute, and build this article as well. Surely for the bulk of the Palestinian Scout Association's history there must be Scouting for displaced persons camps. Chris 21:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject links
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
"Palestine" has two meanings in English, and this WikiProject seems to confuse them. It means:
This WikiProject seems to be about the second meaning. However, some links and categories refer to the geographical area, and it's confusing. Please recheck them. – rotemliss – Talk 22:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This WikiProject is a working group about anything to do with Palestine (past, present, and future), Palestinians, Palestinian territories, etc.. No WikiProject name for this topic will make everybody happy. And since it is a WikiProject more leeway is allowed. It is not in article space so we do not have to meet strict naming standards, etc..
I will add this info to the "Scope" section of the project page.--Timeshifter 23:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, WikiProjects have a lot more leeway concerning naming. And a WikiProject Palestine by necessity is going to cover historical Palestine too. Historical Palestine included the current territory of Israel, etc.. The historical record is part of what a WikiProject Palestine will cover. It is fairly amorphous what it covers since it covers all things Palestinian. But no territorial claims are made or implied by the WikiProject or its name.
From Palestine: "In recent times, the broadest definition of Palestine has been that adopted by the British Mandate of Palestine, which includes present-day Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The narrowest definition used in contemporary politics embraces only the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip."
So that article covers all angles and no claims are being made by linking to it. I will add some clarifying info, though, to the Goals section.--Timeshifter 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Occupation
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
There doesn't seem to be a good article on the Israeli occupation of the territories, including such things as security arrangements, the barrier, checkpoints, travel restrictions, settlements, citizenship, roads, water rights and so on. There is some information in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, but that's focussed on the word "apartheid" rather than more general. —Ashley Y 09:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Occupation of Palestine has been reduced to a (very problematic) disambiguation page. As far as I can tell, anyone looking for this quite important topic under its obvious name will be sent down a maze of twisty little passages. Further comments at Talk:Occupation of Palestine#A nonsense and/or an evasion, which is probably where this should be discussed. - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So, it seems that it will take some dedication and WikiProject teamwork to get WP:NPOV info into wikipedia in articles focused specifically on those topics. --Timeshifter 10:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There is the article Israeli-occupied territories. Its scope includes the Golan Heights as well as the Palestinian Territories. Sanguinalis 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to that article. I think that article needs to be vastly expanded, and/or WP:SPINOUT articles created, to include more info on the things mentioned by Ashley Y (especially the hardships experienced by Palestinians): "such things as security arrangements, the barrier, checkpoints, travel restrictions, settlements, citizenship, roads, water rights and so on." Also, the human rights abuses that are alleged in the info I linked to higher up.
I think it is an obvious systemic bias to put that info there. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The Palestinian territories are NOT in Israel. Read the article Palestinian territories. Israel occupies the Palestinian territories, at least according to the UN and most of the world. So why does wikipedia treat it differently at times? Why is the main discussion of alleged Israeli human rights abuses buried in a non-obvious location? It would take a determined reader to find it. The average wikipedia reader may not find it.
I agree with all of the above. Sanguinalis 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
A better picture?
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Since every nation/culture use either their flag or something significant to represent that project, I think this project needs a better picture too. I mean, a family covered in dust? Doesn't that just deepen the Palestinian stereotype? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see the description of the project which is not confined to the Palestinian state (as represented by its flag). A family in traditional Palestinian costume is more representative than the flag in this case. Tiamut 11:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The real Palestinian stereotype is that there were no Palestinians: that Israel was founded on an empty desert, or something like it. The picture directly counters that myth. Sanguinalis 02:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Occupation 101, and Second Intifada
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are some disagreements occurring at Occupation 101 and Second Intifada. Please have a look, and feel free to edit the articles. --Timeshifter 00:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maps and Infoboxes
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't have a problem with custom-made infobox templates.
But it's damaging the usefulness to readers, if location maps get removed from Palestinian towns and cities. eg recent edits to Jericho, Nablus, etc by User:Al Ameer son.
I'll have to see what other users think about keeping the older infoboxes in for now. However the coordinates should be kept to make it easier for the integration of a map into the new infobox. I'll reinstate them ASAP. --Al Ameer son 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Some changes and improvements, more collaboration
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
We need to make some improvements for this project for the sake of Palestinian related articles! We as a team have to start cracking down on cleanup, copyediting, referencing and NPOV. Many of our articles are of poor quality.
For the past few days I've come upon several biographical and geographical articles that had such mistakes as no bolding of the article name, no sections, absolutely no referencing and terrible grammar! We need to start working on these things together. Our notice board is virtually ignored and rarely anyone works on requests, expansion, verifications and ce-ing. We need to start taking the collaboration of the week more seriously because if we did we would have many more articles of GA status! We should start adding dates to our new articles and start adding new articles to the list.
Sorry to be harsh but this is very evident, and I myself am included in all these complaints. I've been cleaning up some articles and making new ones but its all minor stuff. The Yasser Arafat article failed its nomination. It has cleaned up real well since then and I will renominate it soon. Please check the article for any mistakes in any field and be sure to leave comments and suggestions on the discussion page if any. After all it is of top-importance to the project. --Al Ameer son 02:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE! --Al Ameer son 02:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The mentioning of Yasser Arafat was a sidenote, I only mentioned it now because it was ignored above twice. The article doesn't need much more work (I myself can't see anything wron with it now) however other users might think or see otherwise. I'll b sure to join the project you mentioned above.Thanks --Al Ameer son 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
On the main discussion now, I say we should invite users that have been contributing endlessly to Palestine-related articles to vote for B-class articles that should be edited with teamwork to achieve GA status. I know thats covered in the Collaboration of the Week section of this project and its a great idea if pursued by many editors. Now, what I'm saying is that an article that you or I or anyone else thinks should be edited should not only be posted there, but the person who brings it up should contact other users for their opinions on its nomination for collaboration. Then the entire project should be notified on the announcements section and the process of teamwork should begin and hopefully we can achieve a GA or higher status for the selected article. --Al Ameer son 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I guess thats true. I'm going to try to find an article that needs some work and we can try to get some users to participate. --Al Ameer son 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
We need ever more editors signed up as WikiProject members in order to get more collaborators. See my user page to read about the systemic bias concerning the distribution of editors concerning articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Timeshifter 19:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Then we could make the Open Tasks portal work on our own pages as a way to get more collaborators. Including people not signed up for WikiProjects. --Timeshifter 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think thats a great idea although I'm not very good at making templates. If make one in that format I'll certainly add it to my page and help advertise it. --Al Ameer son 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is the template page for "countering systemic bias open tasks":
"Diaa' Marwan a-Tameizi. Under 1 year-old resident of Idhna, Hebron district, killed on 19.07.2001 next to Idhna, Hebron district, by gunfire. Additional information: Killed in a shooting attack by settlers when she was riding in her father's car." --Timeshifter 10:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there a point in creating articles for Palestinian casualties during the Al-Aqsa Intifada? Will they not simply get deleted as "non notable" on sight? // Liftarn
the category Category:Israeli casualties during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is about notable casualties, and of course does not try to include all of them. A category for Palestinians should also only include those for which there is already an article. Jon513 16:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes thats what I meant in "are there Wikipedia articles that involve the subject." --Al Ameer son 21:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Is an aerial bombing by an Israeli jet of an occupied apartment building as part of a targeted killing considered to be a massacre? Or artillery attacks of all or part of a neighborhood?
B'Tselem reported that through September 30, 2007, out of 4267 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces, there were 1414 "Palestinians who took part in the hostilities and were killed by Israeli security forces," or 31.8%. According to their statistics, 2028 of those killed by Israeli security forces "did not take part in the hostilities." There were 606 who B'Tselem defines as "Palestinians who were killed by Israeli security forces and it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities."
Emphasis added. --Timeshifter 13:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
While I don't disagree that if there are articles about massacres in Palestinians territories that it might make sense for there to a category, I don't think that there must be on because there is an Israeli equivalent. For example there does not need to be a category Category:Israeli suicide bomber attacks against buses because there is Category:Palestinian suicide bomber attacks against buses. I think you should consider what article there are (and perhaps should be) and how to appropriately group them. It does not make sense to me to clone categories for some idea of "balance" when it doesn't make sense. Jon513 14:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see relevant discussion farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Open tasks
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
There is now an "open tasks" template for the project:
People can click the "other tasks" link on the bottom right of the template to see the full list. That link goes to:
Portal:Palestine/Opentask from which I copied the open tasks.
At first Template:WikiProjectCSBTasks was better than our project's template because it was shorter. It puts many links in "standby" hidden comments sections in the template. This keeps the template short, and better suited for pasting in many user pages, and talk pages. People can still go to the main "open tasks" page for more info and more tasks.
We could also get rid of the subheadings in italics. They are not used in Template:WikiProjectCSBTasks. That would shorten the WikiProject Palestine open tasks template.
I removed them in order to shorten the infobox. I need suggestions for what to remove from the requests.
I changed the name of the template so that when goes to the template page there is automatically a link at the top back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine.
I realized also that it is not necessary to put "template" in a page name in order to use it as a transcluded template. One only has to add double curly brackets {{}} around any page name. --Timeshifter 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and shortened the requests section so that the template is shorter. That way people can put it right away on their user pages, talk pages, etc.. --Timeshifter 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Great job on the template! I'm adding it to my page. --Al Ameer son 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Fatah Flag Finally!
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have found a perfect picture of Fatah's official flag at the FOTW website which allows all images to be distributed freely to Internet community. The Fatah flag should be distributed virtually everywhere there is a Fatah emblem in infoboxes in particular. --Al Ameer son 07:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
GeoGroupTemplate
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Click the link there called "Map of all coordinates."
A Google Map will come up with blue markers for some of the towns and villages. Clicking a blue marker will pull up info on it and a link to the wikipedia page for that town.
But that Google map is not the best part. Click the link "View in Google Earth"
That is an amazing map. You may have to install Google Earth if you don't have it already. It is a great, free, three-dimensional map tool.
You can zoom in or out, and get all kinds of detail. You can drag in any direction. The options on the left allow one to insert roads, borders, places of interest, terrain, etc..
It works great on categories and more. Just paste in this code:
{{GeoGroupTemplate}}
It will put in the link for "Map of all coordinates." --Timeshifter (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Infobox for depopulated or former Arab villages in Palestine
Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion
I noticed there is no infobox template for former Arab villages in Palestine. I think creating one will be great for organizing them all into one subject. Unfortunately, I am literally clueless about creating templates. Is there anyone in this project that could do this? I will distribute them to the articles if the infobox is made. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have seen village information tables in many former village articles but these are not satisfactory.
(1. They are basically shortened versions of the tables in the Palestine Remembered website.
(2. In most cases the tables alone are the article.
(3. The layout is messy and could look better if some of the sections of the table could be morphed into an infobox.
Some of the included sections other than the village name should be the following:
Arabic name
1945 population (There was a census in 1945 by the British Mandate government)
The above might help get you started. It helps to copy another similar template, too. Another infobox sidebar template, for example. I don't know much about templates. I copied one, though, to make the WikiProject Palestine "open tasks" template. Once created just add the curly brackets around the name of the template page, and paste the name in any article wherever you want the infobox sidebar. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll get on it right away. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I created the infobox but for some reason the current locality section is not appearing when I add the infobox to an article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
What template was this one based on, or copied from? --Timeshifter (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This one for Arab localities in the Palestinian territories. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the 2 templates have some different parameters. I haven't studied how parameters are set up for templates. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I warmly support an Infobox on these villages. However; I am completely "technically challenged" myself... Just a note: Benny Morris in his "Revisited" book (2004) gives the cause for the abandonment for each village (A=abandonment on Arab orders, C= influence of nearby town´s fall, E=expulsion by Jewish forces F= fear (of being cought up in fighting) M=military assault on settlements, W=whispering campaigns - psychological warfare by Haganah/IDF) ..perhaps there should be a field for this? (Also; Finkelstein has pointed out that Morris is rather conservative in his assessment of causes ..and he gives several examples. Perhaps there should be a possibility to include that, too. E.g with a *, signifying a footnote, where we can reiterate Finkelsteins (or any others) objection in a footnote.) I guess that those "causes" would also be very suitable for categories? So we could just click on a cat. and see all the villages that were "abandoned on Arab orders", or "expelled by Jewish forces", and so on. (Some would have a combination of causes, (e.g. see Qatra); it would then have more than one "Abandonment"-category.)
Also, a template, like the one for Template:Palestinian_refugee_camps would have been great! But, since there are so many villages: that would have to be a template i 2 levels; say one for all the (14?) districts, and then one "sub-template" for each district?
I did start a template once ...and messed up completely. I then went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_template_coder-4 and contacted a couple of those on the list, and got great help in no time. That is perhaps an idea? (I see that the editor who made the refugee camp template has not been around for a while.) Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to ask for help from some of the level-4 template coders. I bookmarked the page: Category:User template coder-4 - Thanks for the link. I won't be the one to ask for help though about this particular template since I am not the one creating the template. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made a couple of minor changes to Al Ameer Son's model template and appended it to Yibna as a pilot. I will try to add an additional field for the cause of abandonment, as suggested by Huldra, before adding them to other articles. Any other fields that people would like to see? Tiamut 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, update. I've managed to figure out how to add a variable for causes. To add a template to any village, just copy as paste this template from Template:Infobox_Former_Arab_villages_in_Palestine and fill out the variables for the district and cause of depopulation using the guide listed on that page. I think that we can begin adding the template, unless there are major objections to its layout. inor changes can always be made later. Good work everyone! Tiamut 12:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I do still need help on getting the Current localities field to appear in the infobox. While listed in the coding, it doesn't show up even when filled out. I'm not fluent enough with the code to fix it, so help is appreciated. Tiamut 15:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The Current localities field now works. What doesn't seem to be work is the Altsp=Also Called field. I'm trying but an expert eye would be great. Tiamut 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Convenience break
Happy to announce that after some tinkering, the infobox fields all seem to be working now! Tiamut 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful work! but.... there is one small problem: as I mentioned above, Morris gives more than one reason for the depopulation for many of the villages. E.g. for Yibna he gives: M/E (=Military assault on settlement/Expulsion by Jewish forces). Now there is no possibility to have more than one cause (?) Is there? I have not managed that, anyway. Have you followed the "cause of depopulation" as it is given by the website (=Palestineremembered)? ...I think we should rather follow Morris... Also: it makes sense to have the possibility for more than one "cause": some of these villages were "depopulated" more than once, with different "causes" each time. Huldra (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Also; is it possible to get a reference into the template? (I know, I know, I am being difficult.....) In Ammuqa I was trying to put this: <ref>[[Benny Morris]] (2004): ''The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited'', p. XVI</ref> in after the "M" in the "Cause of depopulation" field. However, that did not work. It would be nice to show exactly where the inf. is coming from.. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I figured out how to add two possible causal fields and how to make the second one hide if there is no entry. So you can now add multiple fields. (See the new template at Template:Infobox Former Arab villages in Palestine.) About refs, I tried to add one myself as a test in preview setting and it worked. Maybe it can't take wikilinks within the ref though. Try dropping the brackets aroiund Morris' name. I hope that helps. Tiamut 23:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, a couple of notes:
A: Firstly, the text now in the info-box say "Cause of depopulation" and then "Additional cause"; this implies that there is one *major* and one *minor* cause. But Morris makes no such distinction. Also, if we are to follow Morris we actually need a further option (besides the 6 that are there), namely "(?)" (In fact; he also uses "not known" as cause in a few cases, but I cannot find what the difference is between "not known" and "?" I think we therefore we can "translate" "Not known" to "?"....unless anybody objects..). Morris has "?" in quite a few villages. In fact, we also need *3* causal fields; in some villages he gives 2 "causes" + a "?" or just 3 different causes. For example; 5 Khisas; causes are given as W, C, E. In 75 Arab al Suyyad causes are given as (?) M/E, and at 126 Beisan: causes are given as M, C, E. I cannot find that he gives more than 3 causes for any village.
So, what if we wrote: "Cause(s) of depopulation"? ...and had a maximum of 3 fields after that?
B: The numbers infront of the village names above (that is: 5, 75, 126) are the numbers that Morris assigns each village: very useful, I think. Is it possible the get that (fixed) number into the template?)
C: as for refs: now I can get the ref. appearing (*with* wiki-links!)...however, then the "cause" field appears empty!
D: can we have a field for "Date of depopulation"? ...since Morris gives the date for each village? Such a field would have to accommodate variations like : "21 April-1 May 1948" (=172 (Arab) Haifa), "May 1948" (=126 Beisan), "early November 1948" (=38 Kafr Birim), and "Not known" (=312 Beit Jirja) Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, here's what I have done:
There is now a date of depopulation field per your request.
There are now three possible casual factor fields and an additional variable of unknown, per your request.
About the refs, I don't know why it is blanking the field. Will have to ask someone with more tech savvy.
About the numbering scheme provided by Morris: I didn't add anything for that, since I don't think we should use his numbering scheme. I hope that's okay. Tiamut 16:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Note the use of the asterisk in the above line. The asterisk is interpreted as a line break by the wiki software.
{{Infobox Former Arab villages in Palestine
|name=
|image=
|imgsize=
|caption=
|arname=
|meaning=
|altSp=
|district=
|population=
|popyear=
|area=
|areakm=
|date=
|cause=
|*=
|**=
|curlocl=
}}
I think the asterisks might be causing the problems with refs blanking, etc.. Asterisks at the beginning of lines do different things than asterisks elsewhere. Asterisks are "magic" characters in wikicode. I suggest using a word instead of an asterisk to avoid conflicting translations by the wiki software. The wiki software is looking at 3 different interpretations of the asterisk: Its placement, its normal function as a line break when placed at the beginning of a line, and its special meaning in this case as a field in a template.
Maybe use "cause2" and "cause3" instead. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Timeshifter, we should make the change. Any opposition to the change? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys. Huldra's problem with the refs came before I added the asterisks. But I don't have a problem with changing it again if you think it's better. Tiamut 03:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been following this too closely. It might be good to substitute a word for the asterisks even if the asterisks aren't the cause of the refs problem. If people misplace the asterisks when filling in the infobox it may cause all kinds of problems.--Timeshifter (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I made the changes already. Instead of asterisks, there is Cause 2 and Cause 3, as suggested. I hope that's cool with everyone. Anything else? Tiamut 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Tewfik's edits are still vandalizing this article. Please have a look. There is also a Request for Comment on the talk page. Hope some more people can get involved.
Diff for Tewfik's last edit. Except for cursory comments, Tewfik is ignoring the talk page concerning his last few edits of the introduction of the article. Poor collaboration. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Massacres of Palestinians in Israel
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
There is a CFD discussion here. One comment was that there were not enough articles in it. Are there other articles that belong in this category? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This new renamed category would save time. Versus scanning lists, and clicking many articles in various categories trying to find out which ones are about massacres of Israelis, and which ones are about massacres of Palestinians, Arab-Israelis, other Arabs, etc..
One article listed in the category in question, Eilabun massacre, states: "Eilabun was the only one of the 532 villages where expulsions took place whose inhabitants managed to return. The other 531 Palestinian villages were razed to the ground by the Israeli army, including garden walls and cemeteries." I don't know how many of those villages were in what is now called Israel, or how many of them involved massacres. But I am sure many readers would want to know about the massacres. And it would counter systemic bias.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Second Intifada and POV warring. It seems that Tewfik and Armon do little editing lately on this article. Their contribution lately seems to be mostly blind reversion, selective blanking, and occasional tag-team obstructionism. See the diffs I left on the talk page, and check the history of the article lately. After all the discussion about not putting the controversial civilian/combatant breakdown in the infobox, Armon put it back! Tewfik also put it back. See this diff. They both only want to allow the number of Israeli civilian deaths in the infobox. They will not allow the number of noncombatant Palestinians (at the time of their deaths) in the infobox. I have tried to include both numbers in the infobox, or to remove both numbers from the infobox, and direct people to the casualties section of the article.
They will not allow either. Several editors have pointed out the obvious POV-favoring of this. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have edited this section without discussion, yet; hope it is OK or at least better. In the process however, I screwed up the '(edit)' buttons so that they dont direct action to the proper section. This could use someone with more wiki-savvy than I. I intend to do a similar re-write with what exists at at the top of Palestinian Fedayeen, but will wait a few days. I found some better refs for the casualities. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sub-headings issue no longer an issue. Tiamut 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I decided to dance to a different drummer, as you can see. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
British Mandate District template
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Now since we have started and expanded several depopulated village articles and a number of district articles (3) we should now establish a template for each district - which we would place in individual village articles. Similar to Israeli locality articles. The same should be also done for current Palestinian localities in the West bank and Gaza Strip. I'm gonna see what I can personally accomplish, but I'm not very professional with templates, so any volunteers? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but that scenario is conducted on a computer screen with someone young and computer literate. What you can best use is: a) someone young and computer conversant on google earth to 'fly around' and see things, then b) do the same thing while they are sitting with 'jida' (transliterated (sp)), or the grandfather. You do not want numbers; you need real names and places. Those places may be found while you are 'flying around' with jida. In most cases I have seen on google earth to date (in the north), there is generally only a Palestinian-related dot, a description and little else. I understand, that the 'population was evicted/fled' and the villages were 'totally destroyed', but there are many places I have also seen on GE (Google Earth) where there are visible 'ruins' and no description of possible former sites. Maybe it might be best to start with areas (on GE) where ruins are visible, memories are valid, and 'jida' is still alive. It has been 60 years and there is little time left. As a practical situation in most cases, the one who can 'fly' is not the one whe can identify things seen on the flight. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you understand what I am talking about. I mean creating a box to represent each district to add to each former village article. The district template would have the linked names of all of the villages within it, separated into two or three sections based on population. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Oddly, and without engaging in any discussion on the talk page, Tewfik (talk·contribs) has unilaterally changed the name of Balad al-Shaykh massacre to Balad al-Shaykh Raid. He has also deleted, again without any discussion or rationale, over 5,000 bytes of material from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. I have reverted the latter edit, but have not done so for the former, because I do not want to precipitate a move war. Could Tewfik please explain these edits, on either on the talk pages in question? Discussing significant changes to article names with project members would also be a good idea.Tiamut 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Revived Colloboraton of the Week
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings fellow project members, this is message to you all: I've nominated the article of Bethlehem for the Collaboration of the Week. All of us need to strive to improve and expand the article and bring the collaboration between us back to life! The reasons I nominated Bethlehem are on the COTW page and plus Christmas is coming up and it was the hometown of the birthday boy. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. PARTICIPATE EVERYONE!!!
Isarig blocked again
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Isarig was almost permanently banned from wikipedia. Isarig and his sockpuppets were banned from editing anything relating to Arabs and Israel. Isarig was recently blocked for 3 days for violating his topic ban. Here is the history, followed by my request for further action.
December 20, 2007diff. Avi (one of Isarig's 2 mentors) wrote (emphasis added): "Just for reference, I talk with Fayssal before he performed the block, and I agree with his action. Isarig, you have to demonstrate the ability to consistently edit articles completely separate from anything relating to Arabs and Israel, in a neutral, sock-free fashion, for a significant length of time, before the ban is lifted. Continued violation of the terms of your probation may result in ban extension or permanence."
August 30, 2007 topic ban placed on User:Isarig for at least 6 months, with possible extensions. See:
These may not be all the Isarig sockpuppets. I don't believe Isarig should be allowed to edit any part of wikipedia until he reveals all his sockpuppets. Some "Truth and reconciliation commissions" require public confession of all crimes before any leniency is allowed.
I believe the topic ban should be extended to at least a year. Other people have gotten a complete ban from editing all topics for a year for smaller infractions of the rules.
Isarig caused an incredible amount of damage to this topic area with his many sockpuppet edit wars, and we are still digging out from all the damage he caused. Plus many POV warriors followed his example. Also, see my user page for examples of systemic bias in this topic area.
Besides looking for more sockpuppets (old and new ones), I am looking for more links to discussion of Isarig's infractions, etc..--Timeshifter (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it extremely disturbing that User:Isarig's account was deleted, making it very difficult to assess potential sock-puppets he might use. I'm also keen to know who is the (so far not positively identified) sock-master behind User:MouseWarrior and User:Paul_T._Evans. PRtalk 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Isarig's contribution history can currently be found under the (temporary?) name "Former user 2" at [2]RolandR (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou blocked for 3 and a half days
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Jaakobou was blocked for 84 hours (3 and a half days) for "edit-warring and persistent reverting across multiple articles." Please see:
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey fellow project members, I just want to inform everyone that Bethlehem is on the brink of a GA Review. Since its nomination in the COTW, I have added several important sections to the article and images from the commons.
This is what I think a good city article should have and I'll cross out what I've done or whats been there before its nomination
History
Climate
Economy
Demographics
Government
Culture
Transportation
The economy section should be broader in context. The tourism industry is passing, and I've added a small subsection on shopping and elaborated the higher education portion. Does anyone have access to education stats or economic sectors?
Culture is well done but perhaps could use something on food, not really that important.
Transportation needs a lot of work. Its really concentrated on movement restrictions and the barrier. I've added a bus and taxi services section, but the topic still needs information on roads, does anyone have anything?
There hasn't been much participation from project members in the COTW and I understand its holidays time but thats ending soon, so we should really starting getting involved; A grammar fix, a stat or anything of that sort is helping. --Al Ameer son (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeking feedback at an RFC
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I've found a historic photo that might be feature-worthy but the caption from the century-old stereoscope looks politically loaded by today's standards (Mideast issues). So I'm seeking feedback on how to craft NPOV language and move forward with a nomination. The discussion is located here. Input would be much appreciated.
I contacted a couple of users individually, but I guess the best thing to do here is to contact both the Israel and the Palestine WikiProjects. It's a fine historic image of two Arab women grinding coffee, basially apolitical, but the original description doesn't look NPOV by today's standards. I'd just like to move toward WP:FPC without accidentally stepping on anybody's toes. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Your feedback is needed
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi everyone. I also posted this message at the WikiProject Ethnic groups and at the Arab world WikiProject:
We are having a discussion over Talk:Arab citizens of Israel about how to compose the ethnicity infobox for that page. It's a rather complex discussion, given that most, but not all of the group in question identify ethnically or nationally as "Palestinian", "Arab" or "Palestinian Arab". There are some arguing that "Arab citizens of Israel" or "Israeli Arabs" (as they are sometimes called, though most reject that label) are an ethnic group in their own right and seem to think there is no need to mention their relation to, or their forming a part of the Palestinian and/or Arab peoples. Rest assured these are the same people. They are separated from the others as a result of Israel's creation.
In any case, we could really use some expert attention. Someone well-versed on the differences and sometimes overlaps between citizenship, national identity, ethnic identity, cultural identity etc. Also, someone with some insight into how to represent indigenous populations, since Palestinian Arabs in Israel perceive themselves as an indigenous group. Ideally, we would like to represent the complexity of the issue in the infobox without compromising reader comprehension. So far, we haven't been able to find a solution. Your input is appreciated. Tiamut 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Bethlehem Collaboration check
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Bethlehem has been substantially improved since its nomination for the COTW (although there was not much participation from other project members... guess it was the holiday season) and I would really appreciate if any user in this project could make a little checkup on the article before I nominate for GA review, you know seeing if it meets the city criteria, grammar and prose, broadness and focus etc. Thanks! --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Project page revisions
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
I was thinking just now, that we should liven up the WikiProject Palestine home page. Perhaps a white or any light and bright colored background instead of light gray we have now and a couple of border lines. Also, what is your opinion on the way WikiProject Syria is set up? I think its magnificent, just needs some color and a better borderline. What do you think about imitating that project? I will appreciate your feedback, Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on one. Here's the rough draft. Theres still some bugs to be worked out and we need too add other portions of the current Project page to the pending one. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Might want to ask for ideas from the talk page, too. You can add a table of contents too if you want. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have any advice on the layout and context of the sample page? After adding the advertisement section, the box widths became different (in a bad way), does anyone know how to fix that? Also is there a way we could add a table of contents? I chose the khaki, dark khaki and dark green for the page's color but thats very minor and if others think it should be changed, we could have a consensus on that. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
A table of contents can be added in the same way as with a single-column page. One adds the equal signs (==) around the titles in each box. Then put __TOC__ at the top of the page to force the table of contents to be at the top of the page. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
That could work, however, the titles are not present in the content of the boxes. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
See how I added the equal signs (==) around the headings in the "Overview" table in Casualties of the Iraq War. Here is a direct link to that section:
Another reason for creating the subheadings is that this puts "edit" links for editing each individual cell of the Overview table.
The key, I discovered, was that the first equal sign must be the first character in a line. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I meant its not possible (as far as I can see, you could try if you want) to add the (==) signs since there is not title. I myself am confused, I really think you should do it whenever you have time. The link is here. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried just now and could not get it to work. I think it is because it is not a standard wikitable. It is a special one that incorporates other pages. It may be possible, I believe, if each box had its own table. I don't know. Someone more skilled than me may be able to figure out how to add a table of contents. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of making another row with only one box and physically adding links to each section, but theres no way to link the boxes anyway. We should try to find a professional in this area of editing to figure out hot to do it. In the meantime, do you think the page is ready or do you see anything missing (except of course the ToC)? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Ameer son (talk • contribs) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I may not get around to thoroughly checking out if anything else is needed. I suggest making sure that everything that is in the current project page is added to your new version. Then I don't see any problems with using the new version. People can figure out the table of contents when time allows. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to add the the to do list you arranged for users to add to their page at the top or bottom, I think top is better. Also the categories and other missing details, then I will post it. Thanks for your help! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Mattar's biography of the Great Mufti
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In his biography of the Mufti, Philip Mattar writes (Page 149) : "The four cases of political violence in 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1933 were not revolts, (...) They were localized spontaneous riots that resulted in no sustained (...)"
I get this from google.books but cannot get more. Would someone have his book ? (maybe p.17 ?) Could you give me more information about what he writes exactly ? I also read that Mattar writes that the Mufti was not accused of any involvment by Palin Commission. This should be in that book. Could someone check ? Thank you Ceedjee (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
category only has pictures
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The category Category:Israeli West Bank barrier no articles in it; only pictures (ironically not even the article Israeli West Bank barrier is in it). All but one of the pictures are in the same (and larger) category at the commons. Is there any logic to this or should the picture be moved and the category deleted? (a link to the commons category is already provided at the bottom of Israeli West Bank barrier). Jon513 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The topic is not significant or broad enough to be a category. The only article I can think of is the Seam Zone. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that there are other article that are appropriate for the category. This would number it five if you include the article on the barrier itself. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are the rest of the articles in the category so far:
So I guess everything is fine now. Nice job Timeshifter! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Good article candidate
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It's probably also worth mentioning that this image has become a featured picture on Commons. The only article where it appears so far is history of coffee. Maybe you can find other good places for it. DurovaCharge! 04:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Tiamut and Huldra for their work especially! Bethlehem is a nominee as well. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Bethlehem passed the GA review! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Project page changes
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Just to inform everyone, the page has been changed and so no one is confused the noticeboard, portal, open tasks and COTW could be found at the very top of the page on the right. We'll get used to it eventually. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Also feel free to change the page all you want, just post a warning of your activity here on the discussion page or on the Noticeboard. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Serious lack of church articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Wikipedia Palestine-sphere needs a whole lot more on Palestinian churches in the Palestinian territories. The only one I've seen is the Church of the Nativity. I know there several others, we just need get it cracking... or whatever the phrase is. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please help us with this article. I think it deserves to be put on the main page.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean as featured article, did you know or as a current event? If its the latter, then that has already been fulfilled. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Israel and al-Wazir
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Does anyone here have a reference on the general Israel opinion on Khalil al-Wazir? I assume most Israelis view him as a terrorist but think a source would be appropriate. More importantly, does anyone have a much-needed source on al-Wazir's role in the Coastal Road massacre and whether or not he was granted any special status by the Israeli government i.e No. 1, 2 3 terrorist? Any help in finding these sources would be much appreciated. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Wikimedia
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Great idea! Pretty much everything that deals with Palestine on wikimedia is now linked to the WikiProject. Should we now eliminate the section of the project that deals with these links since virtually everything (other wikimedia, portal, noticeboard, new articles page, COTW) is now linked at the top of the page? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why a Palestinian National Authority section?
Latest comment: 15 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion
Why is there a section for the Palestinian National Authority but not ones for Israel and Jordan also? -- SEWilco (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Israel and Jordan do not claim "Palestine" while the PNA is centered around it. Plus the scope includes historic Palestine and the PNA, not the modern nations of Israel and Jordan. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The Purpose says articles relating to Palestine — past, present and future., so wouldn't that include the broadest definition? The broadest definition of Palestine was that adopted by the British Mandate of Palestine, which included present-day Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Do Israeli and Jordanian historians and archeologists ignore the land's history? -- SEWilco (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a note to the purpose section of the project clarifying that articles about Israel are covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel.--Timeshifter (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but Israel has its own wikiproject and the project will have to incorporate the thousands of articles that are under its scope. Jordan does not have a wikiproject but it should. Jordan, therefore could be mentioned but this is somewhat controversial (there's enough controversy in this project already) and it will need a consensus by the project's members. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking about why this project's page has a section summarizing the PNA but not Israel and Jordan. Either all three or none should be summarized. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
From British Mandate of Palestine: "Transfer of authority to an Arab government took place gradually in Transjordan, starting with the recognition of a local administration in 1923 and transfer of most administrative functions in 1928. Britain retained mandatory authority over the region until it became fully independent as the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan in 1946."
I don't think so, I think only the PNA is appropriate for an extra mention since (and I can't believe I forgot to mention this), they are the only recognized governing body of the Palestinians. Anyhow that is just my opinion. If you want it to change then like I said before, you'll need a consensus. I suggest you invite active users in this project (ex. Timeshifter, Tiamut, Huldra, G-Dett, RolandR, PatGallacher, Malik Shabbaz) to vote on this issue:keep it the way it is, remove PNA, or add Israel and Jordan. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I would offer also that precisely because there is an existing Wikiproject Israel, it would be inappropriate for us to include Israel. (They might view it as encroaching on their space). Further, Jordan was a part of British Mandate Palestine for the first two years of the Mandate only. Suggesting thay because some colonial entity that occupied Palestine for a few decades decided that Jordan was part of it for two years, means that we have to include in this Wikiproject doesn't wash (with me, at least). I think most Jordanians would be offended too, if we decided that their country/government falls under the auspicies of this project. There are some sites or events that took place in Jordan which are relevant, but those are dealt with on a case by case basis.Tiamuttalk 08:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If the project is not covering the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and various adjoining lands, but rather the Palestinian people or the PNA's area, then this should be WikiProject Palestinians or WikiProject Palestine National Authority. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The project covers much more than just "Palestinians" or the PNA. However, precisely because there are Wikprojects for Jordan and Israel, we do not cover those governments or areas, except for individual article pages that determined by project members to be areas of common interest. Tiamuttalk 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose removing the PNA coat-of-arms and the accompanying blurb from the Project page. The PNA does not govern Gaza and is a relatively recent outcome of Oslo I and, hence, not terribly significant in light of the long stream of Palestinian history. Moreover, I agree with the late Edward Said in his criticism of the Oslo "peace process" and its child, the PNA.[3][4] By highlighting the PNA I think we implicitly send a message of endorsement of Oslo and the PNA/Fatah over against its critics and Hamas. I don't think we should do that and I don't think it is necessary or particularly useful for the Project. I'm sorry I didn't speak up about this sooner but I usually only look at the noticeboard and that not very often. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't Hamas still officially claim to be the PNA? <eleland/talkedits> 11:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I believe so, should the Fatah-Hamas claims to the PNA be mentioned in the section? --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't confirm the Hamas claim but I do know that Israel, EU, and the US recognize the Fatah-led faction as the PNA. This is all the more reason to remove the section, IMO. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I added it to show that the project has something like two spheres of focus: The historic land of Palestine and the current self-governing entity that is the PNA. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but doesn't the "scope" section showed the breadth of the Project's focus. I also question just how "self-governing" the PNA is. It would fold in a minute if it (the Fatah controlled PNA) stopped collaborating with the Israelis and Americans. On your user page, you talk against an Arab "Western puppet-state." Isn't that what the PNA is? What is the harm in removing the PNA stuff from the Project front page? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point, the passage also gives the parallel side of the project page a big white blank space. Until the Palestinian state becomes a "real" state, I have no problem with its removal. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed the refs to the PNA on the Project front page. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi has anyone noticed all of the recent vandalism on the project page and on its subpages? Should we get a lock or something to reduce this? --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there has been a spate of attacks in the past day or two. It looks like a concerted attack, though not from one person. I suspect that there has been a call for "contributions" on an email list somewhere, and I think that semi-protection, which would allow established editors to edit, but not anonymous IPs or recently established, and possibly throw-away, user IDs, would be helpful. RolandR (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, so who do we contact to obtain the lock? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Bias?
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
"History: A record of Palestine's history from before the Canaanites to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict encompassing wars, events (old and current), rulers (tribes, dynasties, empires, kingdoms and republics), historical figures and documents such as treaties, cessations and other agreements"
I noticed this. How can you honestly say "Palestine's history from before the Caanites"? This wouldn't even constitute as Palestine, or anything related to Palestine. Where is the line drawn from what is Israel history and what is Palestine history? To me, Palestine history begins when Israel was renamed and not a moment before. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of reliable sources that use the term "Palestine" to refer to the history of the region in question, even when discussing events that took place prior to the Canaanites. See the page on Syro-Palestinian archaeology for example. This usage is widespread in expert, scholarly sources and even among lay people in much of the world today. Your view that "Palestine history begins when Israel renamed and not a moment before" is not supported by reliable sources. Tiamuttalk 08:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles on nations and territories go back before the various nation or territory names were created, and give some history. Also, some use the word "Palestine" in a geographical sense. Just as some use the word "Canaan" as a geographical name for the region.
"The name Land of Canaan is mentioned frequently in the the Bible. It predates the Land of Israel name and describes the same land [1]. The classical Jewish view, as explained by Schweid, is that Canaan is the geographical name; the renaming as Israel prior to its conquest by the the people of Israel marks its sanctification, the origin of the Holy Land concept [2]. This land was later renamed Palestine by the Romans.
A 2003 satellite image of the region, with national borders shown in light gray.Palestine (from Greek: Παλαιστίνη; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראלEretz Yisrael, formerly also פלשתינהPalestina; Arabic: فلسطينFilasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) is one of several names for the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and various adjoining lands.
The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. Palestine is included between two lines drawn from the Mediterranean eastward—the lower from the southeast corner of the Mediterranean through the southern end of the Dead Sea, and the upper from Tyre to the southern foot of Mount Hermon. Palestine has certain natural boundaries to justify its historical individuality[3]. Palestine embraces the current state of Israel and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
So, I don't see a bias. Maybe it needs to be better explained though. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If the timeline is Canaan, which is conquered by Israelites, and then renamed Palestine, suggesting that Canaan is part of Palestine's history is incorrect. Palestine is a term describing a geographic region which came long much later. It is inappropriate to say it's part of "Palestine's history" when the term was coined by Romans. Again, where is the line drawn as to what constitutes as "Palestine history" and "Israel history"? --Erroneuz1 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is Wikiproject, not an article page. In any case, people use the term Palestine to discuss the region pre-history as well. See Palestine Before the Hebrews, Palestine, or, the Holy Land: From the Earliest Period to the Present Time, History of Syria, Including Lebanon and Palestine for some examples. This project is designed to organize efforts related to the region's history. Some of us here are members of WikiProject Israel as well, and members of the Israel-Palestine Collaboration Wikiproject. There is some overlap between all three projects and some areas distinct to each. The limits are decided by project members via discussion. You are welcome to join any one of them (or all three) and contribute your thoughts on how they should be structured. Tiamuttalk 12:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that this is a Wikiproject, however I'm discussing the usage on this page. It's incorrect to use the term Palestine to discuss the region pre-history, just totally wrong. It would be like writing a book about Germany, and titling it Saxony before the Kaiser. Just inaccurate. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
^The Land of Israel: National Home Or Land of Destiny, By Eliezer Schweid, Translated by Deborah Greniman, Published 1985 Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, ISBN0838632343
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
My mother (according to her birth certificate) was born in Jerusalem Palestine in 1920. Her parents were born in Jerusalem, and so were their parents. We are all Orthdox Jews. My grandmother used to say that there was never any tension between Jew and Muslim under the Ottoman Empire. When the British came, they set brother against brother. I feel a loyalty to Israel and a loyalty to my Palestinian heritage. I have three questions.
1. Am I a Palestinian?
2. Am I eligibile to join this Project?
3. Would I cause anyone embarrassment by joining this Project?
Please answer me on my talk page. Thank you. Phil Burnstein (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposed template update
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, does anyone have any info or links to info relating to the village of Jifna. I want to nominate it for GA, but I think the history section should be expanded and more information on its ancient church would be helpful too. Remember its only a village so it won't have to meet the requirements of a good article on a city or major town. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Overlap of WikiProject Palestine and Wikiproject Israel.
Latest comment: 16 years ago74 comments20 people in discussion
Hello. Al Ameer son and I are having a conversation about the extent of various overlaps between the two projects. The specific articles in question now are Yasser Arafat, Bethlehem, and Ahmed Yassin, but the question can be extended.
Firstly, I very, very much want to forestall any politicalization of wikiproject tags. The purposes of wiki projects is to foster collaboration between editors who share a common interest. various articles attract different groups of editors for different reasons. Which is why I would want to refrain from getting in to a point-by-point, article-by-article discussion about the merits of various project tags, and further destroy any hope of cross-project collaboration that we may have. Specifically, in cases where there is reasonable overlap (and for people such as Yassin and Arafat, who devoted their lives to interaction with the state of Israel, whether you applaud or abhor their tactics) there should be no issue with project overlap. On the contrary, more editors from different backgrounds should enhance conversation (in theory ) and the accuracy and neutrality of the article's prose. Unless the reasoning is overtly disruptive, (placing a WP:Chemistry tag on topology for example), I see no problems or issues with having the articles tagged for multiple projects; which is why we have the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template. Specifically for Palestine and Israel, the overlap is tremendous, and I would posit that more often than not, most articles should be tagged with both.
I'd appreciate any corrections and thoughts, and I am going to invite WP:Israel to discuss this here as well, so that conversation can be localized. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Avi I started the discussion on WP:Israel, but we'll just add a link to this discussion. Again, I see your point in both projects working together, but that could be reserved for Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration which is perfect for your reasoning. I'm sorry for not bringing that up before, I just remembered. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There are places where WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine overlap (such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict), but other places where it is clearly one or the other (such as Israel Central Bureau of Statistics). I think things are good the way they are where things that overlap get both tags and things that don't overlap get one tag from one project. --GHcool (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the question is does Bethlehem, which has a complete Palestinian population, fully controlled by the PNA and culturally representative of the Palestinians, qualify for WP:Israel? Same with Arafat, who is Palestinian (rumors say he is half-Egyptian, yet to hear that he was half-Israeli though), represented Palestine, fought in the name of Palestine, lived in Palestine, led Palestine and was a symbol of Palestine. Just because he used to fight against it and made some sort of peace with it doesn't qualify him for WP:Israel. Is Stalin under WP:America, Richard the Lionhearted under WP:Islam, and so on. Obviously many articles clearly overlap (Nazareth, Second Intifada, Hebron, Oslo Accords for example) but these articles, no way. For these articles where WP:Israel's members want to get make sure are NPOV or maintained, there is the collaboration project. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
For Israel, a simple rule of thumb could be Israeli citizenship. Any person who is/was an Israeli citizen should be tagged Israel. This includes Azmi Bishara, but excludes Ahmed Yassin. Likewise, any settlement under Israeli control and in which Israeli citizens reside. This includes Hebron, but excludes Nablus. Any conflict related article should probably overlap. I guess things might be more complicated for Palestine - One could suggest that any Arab living in Israel be tagged Palestinian and that so should be any settlement in Israel where Arabs live, but that might be too inclusive. What do you think? -- Nudve (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, Nduve. Yassin's and Arafat's actions have had more affect on the lives of Israeli's, as well as the international diplomacy (or lack thereof) and/or military actions of the state of Israel than most of the current sitting politicians in the Knesset, which is why I think that these people are eminently covered by WP:ISRAEL. -- Avi (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think grey area articles such as Yasir Arafat should be decided on a case by case basis and by general consensus. I understand the argument that Arafat was not an Israeli, but I also understand the argument that Arafat has been a huge influence on Israeli politics. This needs to be hashed out on the talk page on that article and should not be a general policy. --GHcool (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
he Arafat-Israel relationship is like that of the Nasser-Most Arab countries, Hitler-Europe, Stalin-America relationships. There must be a line on Project scopes, or there is justification for a WP:Palestine tag on Rabin, Peres, Sharon, Dayan, Meir, Ben-Gurion and other major Israeli politicians who greatly influenced Palestine more than any PNC member. I agree with Nudve, the scope for WP:Palestine is larger than that of Isral, but including all of the Israeli settlements is too inclusive, same with including Israeli figures, who were born in British Mandate Palestine. The point is, articles that clearly do not meet the scope of WP:Israel should not be included in WP:Israel. I saw that Avi added a WP:Jewish history tag to Bethlehem. Thats fine since Bethlehem played a major role in Jewish history. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Avi and Al Ameer son for making this a "central" discussion. My opinion: I can live with either solution (let me call it the wide and the narrow (= Al Ameer son´s) solution)...as long as it has some consistence, that is: if we tag Yasser Arafat, Bethlehem, and Ahmed Yassin with WP:Israel, then we should also tag, say Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and Haifa with WP:Palestine. (Btw, I see that Al Ameer son just removed the WP:Palestine tag from Menachem Begin: he certainly is consistent!).
If anything I tend towards the "narrow" solution: though say, Menachem Begin (or rather: his actions/policies) certainly was important for the Palestinians (probably more important than, say Ahmed Yassin was for the Israelis) ..it isn´t intuitive that he should be included in WP:Palestine: it makes for very "bloated" categories. Regards, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
But I think therein lies the crux of the matter, Huldra, in that I believe that it is a mistake to consider "projects" as "categories". Rather, they indicate that editors who, in general, collaborate with each other on Israeli- or Palestinian-related topics are involved in editing the article in question. -- Avi (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, they are like categories. Yasser Arafat is now in the WikiProject Israel category. I don't want to sound redundant but there must be a limit to how far a project's scope goes. Just because you want to edit an article does not mean you have to add your project tag to it, just edit and discuss it regardless. And, as I have suggested above, we could these articles under WP:Israel-Palestine Collaboration. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I confess I was using "category" and "WPproject" a bit interchangably here. In either case they can become bloated.. Using WP:Israel-Palestine Collaboration is perhaps a practical "working" solution (though not very elegant: just throw anything we disagree about into that "sack"?) Huldra (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nudve - WP:Israel for Israeli citizens and places in Israel (I would extend this to Israeli settlements in Gaza, Golan and the West Bank), and WP:Palestine for Palestinians, places in the West Bank and Gaza, though there are a few examples where I think both projects are relevant (e.g. conflict/peace-related stuff or abandoned Arab/Jewish villages). We wouldn't put Hitler or De Gaulle in WP:UK even though they obviously have had a massive impact on the UK's history. пﮟოьεԻ57 22:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
On the people and WP Jewish history, yes; on the places, no (I was thinking about completely abandoned places like Gush Katif or al-Faluja). пﮟოьεԻ57 22:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This doesn´t sound too bad, but I guess we would need a WP:Palestinian history, in order to get the "symmetry," so to speak. (And the we could also throw all the depopulated Palestinian villages into that WPproject? Together with Haifa, Lod, Ramleh etc) Huldra (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Or, and this may not be so popular, we could create new articles like History of Haifa, History of Ashdod (or in this case, Isdud). Lod and Ramleh are special cases though. Besides the history, don't both cities have mixed populations where the minority (Arabs) represent a fifth of the population? On a separate note, does this give me permission to remove the project tags from the Yasser Arafat and Ahmed Yassin articles? Also, for Bethlehem, I think the WP Judaism and Jewish history tags should remain, but WP Israel removed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Being that this discussion is less than 8 hours old, I would think it would be courtesy to leave it a few days so that others can respond. Have you noticed that I am the only member of WP:Israel to have discussed this here? Do you believe that this is a consensus of all interested parties? I am certain you would want a few days to allow your fellow project members time to see this and discuss it were it merely on WT:Israel; please extend the same courtesy. -- Avi (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Number 57, Nudve, GHcool and I are all members of WP:Israel and the former two are very active there. Don't want to sound mean, but you are the only one here who strongly supports your argument. Nevertheless I won't touch anything until there is a real consensus or a solution. By the way I contacted Flymeoutofhere and will contact Shuki as well. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
To ask a obvious question: Is there any precedence for excluding a topic from a Wikiproject's scope? I've never heard of such a thing? Wikiprojects don't own articles, after all.
Arguably, Wikiproject overlap is a good thing; it enriches the articles and ensures more thorough treatment of the topics.
I can think of no good reason to remove Wikiproject tags and only bad reasons to do so. --Leifern (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly putting an article under a certain project will not guarantee that the project's members (perhaps a member who is interested in the subject) will edit it significantly or at all for that matter. Secondly, if one wants to edit an article, one does not have to post his/her project's tag on that article. Like Huldra said above, it just gets bloated. It beats the purpose of having two separate projects. This is also why projects have scopes. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to argue for merging Wikiproject Palestine and Wikiproject Israel, that's a separate discussion. I don't think bloat is a problem, and certainly removing one certainly won't make a difference. Bethleem has a Hebrew name, it was under Israeli administration for a number of decades, etc., etc. --Leifern (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so do most biblical Palestinian towns and all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip was "under Israeli administration for decades". Most Israeli cities were formerly a part of Palestine or built over a former Palestinian village. By the way, the Hebrew name puts it under WP Judaism and WP Jewish history, not WP Israel. And for what you just said, "removing one... won't make a difference". Who says its just one or two or three articles? These are only examples. Based on your reasoning WP:Israel could put its tag on almost every Palestinian locality and anyone involved with Israel in some way and vice versa with WP Palestine. Lets just keep it simple and return it to the old way. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So this is politically motivated. You're trying to "prove" that Israel has nothing to do with Bethlehem. I don't know what a "biblical Palestinian town" is. "Palestine" isn't mentioned once in any biblical scripture. --Leifern (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I suggested "any settlement under Israeli control and in which Israeli citizens reside", which was supposed to include the Golan heights and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but not every village there. Second, I suggested it all as a rule of thumb, but I'm not that adamant about it. If Avi (or anyone else, for that matter) insists on including particularly notable leaders of the opposition (Sharon, Arafat) in the other project, I wouldn't dismiss it.
For Palestine tag on settlements in Israel, how about this: Any settlement that had an Arab majority before 1948?
I guess there's also the issue of the British Mandate. One could argue for a complete overlap since it was one territory. The 1936-1939 Arab revolt, for example, should overlap, but does that go for The Hunting Season, for example? I'm not sure. Ideas? -- Nudve (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right. The Hunting Season had to do with the British going after underground Israeli militias, so I don't think there should be a WP:Palestine tag since it had nothing to do with Palestinians and had little influence on Palestine. As for the cities with former Arab-majority populations... I think we should reserve that tag for those cities that still have a significant Arab population, so as not be too inclusive. But these cases are tougher to deal with, so I'm fine with any solution for the former Arab cities.
As for the leaders, I have to disagree. Sharon was an Israeli and represented Israel in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and Arafat was a Palestinian representing Palestine.
Israeli side = WP Israel
Palestinian side = WP Palestine
Israeli-Palestinian conflict = WP Israel and WP Palestine --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree about leaders. It's just that this whole discussion is about collaboration, so I wouldn't want to see it develop into an edit war. Besides, I agree with Avi that we should wait awhile for more members of the two projects to take part in this discussion. -- Nudve (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing. I notified two WP Israel members (Shuki and Flymeoutofhere) and Tiamut's opinion is still pending. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In reply to Huldra (about WP Palestinian history) above, and a more general observation, perhaps it would be a good idea to make WP:Palestine the "historical" project, and to create a new one, WP:Palestinians or WP:Palestinian territories (the former is preferable I think, as it allows inclusion of topics like refugee camps abroad), for modern-day topics mentioned above (e.g. Palestinian people (post-1948), places in the WB and Gaza, peace/conflict issues etc).
The reason is that I've always found it a bit strange that the project is called WP:Palestine, as there is no country by this name at the moment (and especially the pic used in it's template makes it look like a historical one), and having such a title could be construed to be slightly POV on the whole Israeli-Palestinian issue. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ57 07:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer that WP:PALESTINE remain the main project for organizing efforts on Palestine-related and Palestinian-related topics. If members feels there is a need to create sub-projects, such as "Palestinian history", that can be considered. I don't think however that "Palestine" is a historical term only. It is still widely used in many senses, either to refer to the region as a geographic entity, or as a potential future political entity as in a Palestinian state.
Regarding the overlap between the projects "Israel" and "Palestine", that's to be expected in many cases, but the interests of project members from each respective project in the article's that are important to both are going to be differently focused. I think this is a good thing and encourages NPOV editing. If WikiProject Israel members feel that Yasser Arafat and Ahmed Yassin fall under the scope of their project, I have no problem with project tags being placed on those pages. I do understand Al Ameer Son's argument (it is a valid one) but in the end, these are not Wikipedia categories, but rather ways for people with an interest in the topic to organize their efforts. So I don't really have a strong opinion of what should or should not be included in the each project's respective scope. It's something that project members should decide based on discussion and agreement over how to organize their efforts. Tiamuttalk 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not find that this project sends out any POV by its name. If a state created out of the Palestinian territories was created today, it would be called Palestine. I also have no problem with replacing the pic of the family with a Palestinian flag and actually favor that. However, this could be discussed later. About the project tags, this word "collaboration" has been central to this discussion. Firstly, members of both projects have collaborated on articles (whether they know it or not) without both project tags present. Not having a WP Israel project tag on a non-Israeli subject will not bar that project's members from editing it. We don't need to include Begin and Sharon in WP Palestine just as we don't need to include Arafat or Yassin in WP Israel. It just makes sense and up until recently, this was like an unwritten rule. Finally, I absolutely agree that collaboration is good, but this could be done regardless. As I have brought up before, there is an entirely separate project dedicated to "collaboration" between the members of the two projects. See, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My understanding of Wikiprojects is that each one gets to decide what articles to tag. Wikiprojects are totally different from categories. They are in the "project" space and therefore are not part of the "content" of the encyclopedia. Unlike categories, which appear in the article itself, mentions of Wikiprojects are seen only on the talk page for the article. So it is pretty much up to each project. I think it is reasonable to require that an article have at least some arguable connection with the subject of the Wikiproject, but that test is easily met in the three examples given at the top of this discussion. The clearest example is Yasser Arafat, whose article mentions Israel (or some derivation of the word) more than 100 times. For reasons that I think should be obvious, there are going to be a number of articles that both projects might want to be involved with. And by the way, to address one of the other examples given above, if the Wikiprojects on the UK or France wanted to tag the article on Hitler, I would have no objection. If they want to work on it as an organized project, what's the difference? 6SJ7 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that articles about Israelis should go under WP:Israel, Palestinians under WP:Palestine. What we do about Arab-Israelis? Maybe in both. I dont think Arafat should be in both - just Palestine. Likewise Israeli towns etc and settlements in West Bank, Gaza etc, under WP:Israel whilst Palestinian towns under WP:Palestine. I dont think the Palestine tag should go onto Israeli cities/towns which had a previous Arab majority because it could end up getting ridiculous - in general the relevence would be a small part of the article in general in the history section, as the relevence is to Romans, Babylonians etc. As Al Ameer Son suggests, we could have seperate articles for the former settlements or it could be combined into the history depending on its importance. With regards to cities such as Nazareth in Israel with Arab majority - they are Israeli cities so should just have the Israel tag. I think if we go wide, we'll end up with two projects with basically the same contents. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right when you say its up to the project's members to decide. So to hurry this discussion along, I think we just have a yes-no consensus from the members of both projects. I think using Huldra's terminology (wide and narrow) is best for voting. Creating sub=projects is something that deserves its own discussion.
Wide per Avi and 6SJ7. the two projects are related but distinct. We do not limit the right of legitimate Wikiprojects to edit whatever articles they see fit based on political considerations. Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib) 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone (a Jew, an Arab, a Hispanic, an African, a European) could edit any article when and how they want, but no need to fill Wikiproject categories with falsely claimed articles and talk-pages with irrelevant project tags. A project tag isn't a pass to edit an article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Narrow - as I've said before in numerous discussions, Ahmed Yassin has no more to do with WP:ISRAEL than Henry Kissinger or George W. Bush, and I don't see anyone suggesting tagging them for WP:ISRAEL. Same with Israeli personalities for WP:PALESTINE (like when someone tagged Avigdor Lieberman). There can be some articles than overlap, but I think in general overlapping should be avoided if the subject is clearly more relevant to one WikiProject or the other. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 18:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm for a wide interpretation of the scope of projects. But I question the value of this discussion and poll. Whatever we decide, we cannot limit the right of members of WP:Israel to place a tag on Yasser Arafat, or even Bethlehem. And nor, of course, could they limit our right to put a WP:Palestine tag on, for instance, Jaffa or Azmi Bishara. If members of any project consider that an article is within their scope, we might disagree -- but the place to debate that would be on the talk page for that project. We really can't be prescriptive here, and I don't think there is anything to be gained by trying to set hard-and-fast rules. RolandR (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Voting is Evil. . More importantly, Al Ameer son, you said “…fill Wikiproject categories with falsely claimed articles and talk-pages…” Again, that is the crux of the issue, why are you describing it as a"false accusation" to tag the Arafat article as relevant to WP:Israel? -- Avi (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
To reply to RolandR, we have already discussed the WP Israel tag in the Bethlehem article and Avi's reason to include it within the project's scope could potentially add every biblical town in the West Bank to Wp Israel's scope. So we have discussed it. I agree with what Ynhockey said, "Ahmed Yassin has no more to do with WP:ISRAEL than Henry Kissinger or George W. Bush, and I don't see anyone suggesting tagging them for WP:ISRAEL." And Jaffa and Azmi Bishara are not like Bethlehem and Arafat. Bishara probably describes himself as a Palestinian Arab and Jaffa has a large Arab population. If Bethlehem had a sizable Israeli population (or any size for that matter) then I support its inclusion in WP Israel. Thats why Hebron could fall under its scope. Adding a WP Israel tag to Arafat and Bethlehem is like adding a WP Palestine tag to Dayan and Tel Aviv. Its ridiculous. This has not been mentioned but, Hamas is also within WP Israel's scope. Does this mean WP Palestine should have a tag for the Israel Defense Forces or Likud? C'mon, lets get real. Hamas is a Palestinian militant group and political party and the latter two are Israeli institutions. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
arbitrary divider
Wide, but if narrow prevails, we're going to have to consider bouncing off Wikiproject Palestine off a number of pages that Israelis might think shouldn't concern Palestinians. Honestly, have you paused to consider that you're setting a very divisive precedence? --Leifern (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine, what articles have you in mind? Its all about consistence. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Its not divisive. We are not calling a ban on WP Israel members editing articles out of their respective scopes and vice versa with WP Palestine members. Again, a project tag is not a pass. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually as I preview them, many have absolutely nothing to with Palestine or Palestinians. BTW these are just stubs and I have not looked into WP Israel's articles. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't put the Wikiproject Israel tag on Bethlehem, and I also wouldn't remove a Wikiproject Palestine tag from the talk pages of any of the articles you mention above. These Wikiprojects are in a parallel universe to the article structures themselves, and I just don't think it is helpful to go nuts over which project is more entitled to one article than the other. There's enough controversy as it is without this getting in the way. You are setting a precedent for someone removing the Wikiproject Palestine tag from Jerusalem, and Haifa, Acre, and Jaffa. --Leifern (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Each of these cases is special. Haifa like most Israeli cities had an Arab past or a past in Palestine, but today it is Israeli with a minimal Palestinian population so not adding the tag is understandable. Acre on the other hand, has retained almost half of its original Arab/Palestinian population so a tag there is justified. Jerusalem, as we all know, is a source od contention and disputed (and has very large Palestinian population) so both tags should be present. Jaffa I'm not sure of. I do not know its demographic situation. This is why Hebron and Nazareth are shared by both projects because there is clear overlap. Bethlehem and Tel Aviv are the opposite. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point and raising other problematic issues. Wikipedia has quite deliberatly avoided guidelines on Wikiproject tagging, and you're inventing your own to suit your agenda. Others could come up with others to suit theirs. The only safe route is to be generous and allow for overlap. The other thing is that "Palestine" as very carefully defined by the article on Palestine refers to a geographical area, whereas "Palestinian" refers to Arabs with a background in that area, unless they're Jewish. This WikiProject Palestine, not WikiProject Palestinians. --Leifern (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, WP Palestine is not like WP Israel or WP Egypt or WP France, etc. It's scope is much larger and is not dedicated to the inexistential state of Palestine but everything that has to do with "Palestine". See the project page. It could tag several WP Israel article but this would bee too inclusive. Do you know how many times I added a WP Palestine tag to Israeli cities? Twice for Haifa and once with Ashdod and all three times it was almost immeditely reverted. I understood, these are modern-day Israeli cities with Israeli populations and Arab history there is not much different than Roman, Byzantine or Turkish history there. No, you are right it is not a guidleine but a rule of thumb as Nudve said. This is not my "agenda", if you've noticed most WP Israel members agree that the narrow definiton is best. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wide, per RolandR, above, (for what it is worth from a project outsider). It also goes along with the hope that there is good faith among the project activists on both sides. Putting one’s tag on what the other side’s activists consider ‘their’ article, indicates a position for whatever reason. There are both good and bad reasons and causes for these overlaps. Over time, and following the likely flurry of initial edits, what articles remain tagged, versus only watched, should be reconsidered. Is there a 'project watchlist'? (It seems others also note this.) Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, and as Flymeoutofhere put it, "if we go wide, we'll end up with two projects with basically the same contents." Lets just keep things the way they were. There is a project dedicated to the collaboration the opposition speaks of and everyone has ignored that suggestion thus far. Its not about good faith or politics, its simply common sense; Israeli city (Tel Aviv), person (Golda Meir), institution (IDF) = WP Israel, Palestinian city (Bethlehem), person(Yasser Arafat), institution (Hamas) = WP Palestine and anything that clearly overlaps (Second Intifada, Nazareth, Hebron etc.) = WP Palestine and WP Israel. For particularly controversial articles like that of Arafat or Sharon in which editors from both projects are concerned is presented fairly, then simply watch them, discuss them, edit them without a project banner. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Al Ameer son, I'm still somewhat in the dark here about your concern. Being that project tags do not imply ownership or anything other than interest, and with the existence of banner-collapsing templates such as {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, what is the concern with the extra banner? It is not taking up excessive space and it has no ramifications to the article itself? -- Avi (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I know it does not imply ownership, its just a talk page. And just for the record, this is not a WP Palestine member saying no WP Israel tags on this "blank" article and its not just my concern. Many active WP Israel members (Number 57, Flymeoutofhere, Nudve and Ynhockey or the majority of the Narrow voters) agree that adding their project tag goes a little over their project's scope boundaries and same with adding WP Palestine tags.
WP Israel's scope is such:
Articles relating to the History of Israel
Articles relating to the Culture of Israel
Articles relating to the Geography of Israel
Articles relating to the Economy of Israel
Articles relating to the People of Israel
Articles relating to the Politics, Government and Law of Israel
Articles relating to Sport in Israel
Other articles clearly related to Israel in another way.
Where would Bethlehem, a Palestinian city fall under? Where would Yassin a Palestinian leader fall? Where would Hamas a governmental institution fall under?
You (and you can be anybody) may have interest in a particular notable article like Bethlehem, but that could be just because Bethlehem is a notable city. Adding a WP Israel tag to it on the other hand means we have to be consistent and add WP Israel tags to Nablus, al-Eizariya, Tulkarm, Yabad, Yatta, Imwas, Beit Ummar, Ramallah, Jericho, al-Jiftlik, Abu Dis, Beit Lahiya, Bani Na'im and the list goes on and on. Each of these localities and every locality in the West Bank experienced the same history with modern-day Israel (not the ancient Land of Israel) that Bethlehem has. They weren't even a part of Israel, they were occupied not annexed like Beit Safafa or Shuafat. Yet there must be a WP Israel tag on Bethlehem. Why... because it is a notable city like London, but that doesn't fall under WP Israel's scope. Bethlehem undoubtedly has Jewish roots and a Jewish history but there are separate projects dedicated to those two subjects. In addition, adding the tag to Bethlehem not only means WP Israel should add tags to all Palestinian cities but, it also requires WP Palestine to add tags to the majority of Israeli cities that have had Arab populations or a history with Palestine (Beisan, Safad, Haifa, Ashdod, Ashkelon and so on). Then there is Hamas. What in the name of God puts Hamas within the WP Israel scope? It is a Palestinian political party and militant group. Should we put a WP Palestine tag on the IDF or Kadima? It just gets ridiculous and the purpose of having two independent projects becomes questionable. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada. Best known for multiple suicide bombings and other attacks[4] directed against civilians and Israeli military and security forces targets, Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in effect) 'calls for the destruction of the State of Israel…
An organization who was founded for the express purpose of the destruction of the state of Israel surely belongs in WP:Israel. Kadima was not founded for the express purpose of either the formation or the destruction of any Palestinian governmental or sovereign entity, so I respectfully disagree with your analogy. -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Almost all of the prominent Palestinian political and militant groups were founded for the purpose of destroying Israel (even though this is not even tangible). These Palestinian groups include Fatah and most of its breakaway groups, the PFLP and its breakaway groups, as-Saiqa, the ALF and some less prominent ones too. The PLO as an umbrella organization was founded for this purpose, but the reality is these are Palestinian institutions that represent Palestine and faintly fit the History portion of WP Israel's scope. Does this mean WP Israel should tag all of these articles too? However, I do agree that my choice of groups to compare is incorrect in this sense. Also, what about the other cases (localities and notables). --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it might notbe that easy. How about this; it seems to put a different light on things.
According to the Israeli weekly Koteret Rashit (October 1987), "The Islamic associations as well as the [Islamic university — founded in 1978 in Gaza] had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority" in charge of the (civilian) administration of the West Bank and Gaza. "They [the Islamic associations and the university] were authorized to receive money payments from abroad." ….. “Thanks to Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad (Israel’s Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks), the Islamists were allowed to reinforce their presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, the members of Fatah (Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine) and the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression”, according to L'Humanité.[1] Indeed Israel supported and encouraged Hamas' early growth in an effort to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat.[2] According to UPI, Israel supported Hamas starting in the late 1970s as a "counterbalance to the Palestine Liberation Organization".[3] At that time, Hamas's focus was on "religious and social work". The grassroots movement concentrated on social issues such as exposing corruption, administration of waqf (trusts) and organizing community projects
Yea that certainly helps its case for inclusion in WP:Israel, but isn't this the same as America's support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s or Syria's support for the Phalangists in the Lebanese Civil War? Besides supporting these groups for a short period of time, Phalangists have nothing to with Syria and many view Syria as an enemy now and the mujahideen have nothing to do America and many of them view America as an enemy now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. Short term goals and loosing sight of more important things; 'losing the forest for the trees,' 'shooting yourself in the foot'. I agree; unfortunately, it is a 'pot and kettle' thing for many governments and the people pay, both others and their own. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Narrow seems to be way too much overlap. YahelGuhan 06:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Remember to look around for what works. A large number of South Asian articles, especially history ones, overlap between the Indian and Pakistani Wikiprojects. There was even an ArbCom case precipitated by itchy trigger fingers on wikiproject templates. (Which is not reassuring, from a Mutually Assured Destruction standpoint.) Things have been settled down by the creation of an additional wikiproject which focuses on the overlap. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wide per Leifern. Palestine is about the region, as well as including history of the area of Israel, Judea and Samaria, Transjordan, and Jordan. Begin is definitely related to Palestine, so is the Jerusalem Post. I understand the rationale behind the suggestion but I prefer tolerance about the overlapping on all sides as opposed to another form of strict categorizing. --Shuki (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I understand WP Palestine's justifications for tagging (just don't want to upset WP Israel members) but what about WP Israel and Bethlehem. Is it really relevant to the project? Isn't the argument include Bethlehem within WP Israel's scope as valid as adding Israel tags to every Palestinian city? There is WP Judaism and WP Jewish history which both have tags on Bethlehem because it fits their scopes perfectly. Jewish history is not the descendant project of WP Israel, if anything its the other way around. Bottom line is: We just think its too much overlapping and thats why there is a project for such things and collaboration between the members of both projects. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'd say that WP:IPCOLL is intended to help smooth out disputes in the topic area. It's not set up to handle efforts to edit, improve, create, etc overlapping articles. Indeed, some disputes concern articles that don't overlap, and some overlapping articles might not be disputed. Anyway, I am intrigued by this discussion and look forward to see how you all resolve it. Since the guidelines for WikiProjects are different than articles, I'm not sure I have much to add at the moment. But, I do wonder, is the dispute less about WP Policy/Guidelines and more about the (complex and shifting) feelings of territoriality that editors feel in relation to the Projects and their names? Thanks. Good luck! HG | Talk 11:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Wide, definitely, per RolandR who expressed it best. I don't see any benefit to getting bogged down in rules and limiting any project's scope a priori. --MPerel 04:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be for the members of WP Palestine to decide whether those articles fall within the project's scope, not WP Israel. I don't think one project should dictate to another which articles fall under its purview. Although, I do think any editor should be able to challenge whether a particular article might really belong. I probably would lean toward a more narrow inclusion on all the articles mentioned in this thread, I just don't think we should make hard and fast rules about it. --MPerel 05:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Is there anything wrong with an article being within the scope of several projects? Is it wrong to let the members of a project decide what the scope of the project is? Does this whole brouhaha exist because Al Ameer son objected to the choice made by WP Israel? If so, is this the proper place to bring the subject up? When any "outsider" objects to the choice of any WP, should it go into arbitration, or should there be a "vote" to see if there is a consensus in the WP? Finally, should that vote be anywhere except in WP Israel? Phil Burnstein (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Narrow, at least when it comes to biographies about politicians/political parties; there is hardly a single Palestinian or Israeli politician/political party on a national level who could not merit both WP:Israel and WP:Palestine. And then, as Flymeoutofhere correctly observed; "we'll end up with two projects with basically the same contents". If we tag Arafat and Hamas with WP:Israel, then surely we can tag Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu with WP:Palestine. When it comes to geography (i.e. place-names) I am more uncertain. For the moment the are fewer alternatives for the Palestinian side; ie., as I mentioned above, the history part must be included in the WP:Palestine, quite unlike WP:Israel, where you have both WP Judaism and Jewish history alternatives. So WP:Palestine is placed on places that are of historical interest for Palestinians (in lack of a WP:Palestinian history), while you really don´t have to use WP:Israel on subjects of an historical interest to Israelis. Finally: I definitely think that those who have argued that a "narrow" policy can be divisive also have a point. I would therefore argue for some tolerance, whatever the outcome of this discussion/vote. Regards, Huldra (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that Arafat and Hamas might actually be more related to WP:I than Palestine. Al Ameer son, I think that your recent suggestions are relevant to WP:P since they existed before 48 and were significant during the mandate period. If we want to avoid the overlapping, then, as previously suggested, a new project should be opened up specifically for Palestinian Arab issues. The use of the term Palestine in any encyclopedia, certainly on WP, cannot negate the Jewish aspect. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Arafat would be more related to WP: than WP Palestine, after all he is the founder of the the Palestinian government and the future State of Palestine, its first president, prime minister and commander-in-chief. He's like Palestine's Ben Gurion. Like Huldra said, "there is hardly a single Palestinian or Israeli politician/political party on a national level who could not merit both WP:Israel and WP:Palestine". Anyway, I'm not sure what my "suggestion" was, could you clarify? And as for this "new" project, would it deal with the history of Palestinians since '20s and then not include such articles as the Battle of Yarmouk, the Crusades or Canaan? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this discussion over? Have we agreed on a solution? Avi has removed the WP Israel tag from Bethlehem stating "consensus" as the reason, and I copy and pasted the history section of Haifa to create a new article (History of Haifa) with both tags present as the projects clearly overlap on the subject. So I guess that takes care of localities, but now we must decide on what to do about personalities and national institutions. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis without overarching rules that will tend to pigeonhole editors from the various projects into unforeseen strictures. -- Avi (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wondered, Avi, do you think it is ok to tag Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu with WP:Palestine? (If so, I propose we´ll throw you and Ynhockey into the ring together and let the two you fight it out ;-D ) Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mercaz HaRav Massacre
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
In the article referring to the Mercaz HaRav Massacre, my reference to the mob violence by right wing Israelis against Palestinian residents of Jebl Mukaber in East Jerusalem after the attack keeps being deleted. I have referenced this from Ha'aretz yet it is being deleted from the portion reporting the Israeli reaction to the incident, leaving a lopsided view resulting in an article showing the average Palestinian as "bloodthirsty" with no mention of Israeli hardliners or intolerance--Orestek (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably because the article itself in Haaretz is a disgusting POV piece itself. But WP rules say that Haaretz is an RS, and the event did happen. Your description is also a bit narrow about the original scope and content of the protest those 'radical right wing Jewish Israelis'. Please report the even properly, perhaps with another reference as well. The protest was led by respectable rabbis and was not directed at the residents of the neighbourhood. The rioting was not planned and was a result (I don't condone) of the police trying to contain the protest. --Shuki (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I added in additional references from the Jerusalem Post while expanding the section a bit. At your suggestion I checked out some other articles on the event but I haven't read anything to substantiate your contention that the protest was led by respectable rabbis (although in all fairness I only checked English language pages since my Hebrew is no good), in fact they claimed the opposite.--Orestek (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvement. I went over a few reports of that event but all are reporting about the rioting and arrests and not the original protest. Only Rabbi Lavnon was quoted in this Hebrew report [5]. So the rioting actually eclipsed the actual protest and now you know why Israelis on the 'right' suspect foul play when stuff like this happens, almost deliberately to negate the peaceful protesting. But that's another issue entirely. --Shuki (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Infobox Former Arab villages in Palestine
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It looks as if somebody has messed around with this infobox, so that those with pictures have gone totally gaga, see Bayt Jibrin, Kafr Bir'im. But I have no idea as to how to edit infoboxes! Could somebody please fix it? Thanks! Huldra (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No, actually this was a problem affecting all of wiki. Just remove the "px" portion. Instead of "250px" just "250". Its only for infoboxes I think. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Huldra (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
New culture articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I noticed Tiamut has created a new article on Hebron glass and recently created one on Nabulsi soap. This is a good trend of creating articles on Palestinian city culture and traditions. This reminded when I was editing Bethlehem; I saw that one of the key factors of its economy is olive-wood and/or mother-of-pearl carvings. Right now I am busy with the Jifna GAN and I'm trying to find more info on Beit Iksa (probably will be busy for the next couple days), so I am requesting an article on Handicrafts in Bethlehem or Bethlehem olive wood carvings or whatever name is suitable. Once the article is started, I'll contribute to them greatly, as there are plenty of sources for the subject area. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested in working on a mother-of-pearl article (it is often mentioned in connection with Palestinian costumes, e.g. Weir notes (p.128, 280,n.30) that "Bethlehem women´s employment in the mother-of-pearl industry goes back at least to the seventeenth century, for it was noted by Pococke, 1745, II:40, who travelled there in 1697".) See also these two articles: [6][7]. I have also just asked Funky if he could upload a couple of pictures on mother-of pearl works. Huldra (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, mother-of-pearl carvings are famous in Bethlehem, and according to the municipality website, "The art of creating mother-of-pearl handicrafts was introduced to Bethlehem by Franciscanfriars from Damascus during the 14th century." [8] These are great sources to get an article started since they establish the art's history in Bethlehem. Are they're any other cities in Palestine that specialize in mother-of-pearl carvings? --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot see that there are any other city in Palestine that specialize in mother-of-pearl carvings, so I have started Mother-of-Pearl carving in Bethlehem. I am not completely happy with the title; if anyone find a shorter/better title: do feel free to move it. Also; I concentrated on including the material from the Weir book (as not everybody has access to a copy of that book.) I have hardly included any of the material in the articles listed. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. Great work on the articles! I've expanded Hebron glass and nominated it for a DYK. I'll try to get to the mother-of-pearly article soon as well. In the meantime, it occurrred to me that it would be beneficial to have a page on Palestinian handicrafts which links to the main articles on each subject and includes information on those for which we don't have enough material for a full article. I've posted a first draft and would appreciate any help in filling in the sections. Where there are main article, a brief summary of the content can be placed in the section for it. Thanks to all again. Tiamuttalk 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is now an article on the new left leaning pro-Israel lobby group J Street. --John Bahrain (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
massacres
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Attention is needed here, there is a group of articles labeled "massacre", like Dolphinarium massacre and Sbarro restaurant massacre, I didn't track all of them however they are listed in Template:Israeli-Palestinian_Conflict. We can't label every single attack in the I-P conflict with civilian casualties a massacre. I believe an agreement was made here that no attack shall be labeled massacre unless it was labeled as so in a RS. Imad marie (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
A debate happened here about this. Imad marie (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think if you want a centralized debate, this isn't the place for it. However, thanks for notifying the readers at Talk:Dolphinarium massacre about it. On the 1948 list, the criterion was actually the number of deaths, I believe. Obviously a reliable source has to call it a massacre, the question is how you select reliable sources. Some of the sources on the 1948 page, while reliable, are clearly pro-Palestinian or at least, anti-Zionist/Israeli. Therefore, I don't understand why you don't accept reliable sources which are generall pro-Israeli. For now, we can continue the debate at Talk:Dolphinarium massacre, where every argument has been given already (no need to repeat it again here). -- Ynhockey(Talk) 07:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I created a new article on Operation Cleaning (Mivtza Nikayon). This was one of the first massacres committed by Israel on innoccent Palestinians, so I thought that is is important that I add it. What do you think about it? I don't know much about it, so feel free to add more information!--Luke (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Cinema of Palestine -proposed move ..for the Nth time (some people never give up!)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can someone review and improve Israeli Apartheid Week since right now it's a completely one sided anti-IAW article? Strongbrow (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Many localities have been boldly renamed to X, 'governate'. There is no WP rule for geographical names, but the above link advises that each country have consistancy. I think the project should be aware of this so that a convention could be widely agreed upon no matter what. --Shuki (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Palestinian Territories has a system. Where there is ambiguity; X, Governorate...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Town/City
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
City status to be as per the PA convention. Area authority and 10,000+
Cities ---------(more than 10,000)
Towns ----------(4,000 to 10,000)
Villages -------(less than 4,000)
See that discussion for more info. I will let others make these decisions. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Not quite; city is an 10k 'and Governorate administrative centre, where as municipal b is only 8k plus. The PA has only 14 "official" cities. I'm making the case that we should stick with the official PA designation.
Firstly, the split is at mund aka Village Council (Palestinian Authority). Secondly, the PNA has a rather confusing rating system for cities and other municipalities. According to the source, Municipalities B could have populations way over 8,000 since in the chart it's written as 8000+ not 8,000-10,000. Cities have to have populations over 10,000 and must be the center of a governorate. For instance, Salfit is a center but it's population has not reached 10,000, therefore it should not be classified as a city. Since the source says there's only 14 cities in the territories, I would be nervous adding Beit Furik, Attil and even Qabatiya, al-Yamun, Dura which have populations of over 15,000 even 20,000. Nonetheless, I added all of those latter articles to the cities category based on their high populations without considering how the PNA classified them. You could go ahead and add Beit Furik now, and we should bring this up at the project talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk).........
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Currently, 586 of the articles assigned to this project, or 26.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Key articles neglected, e.g. Jerusalem
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello all, at several articles I have worked on, requests have been made for more information on 2002 attacks against Palestinians, and Islamic rule in the region, and no one except AlAmeer-son has stepped up to the plate. Please, someone with the requisite knowledge, please make the time!
Most importantly, the Jerusalem section on Islamic rule deals mostly with Muslim treatment of Jews and Christians. No sourced material about Mamluk or Ottoman construction projects, culture, etc. is included. 400 years of rule from the Rashidun onward receive a paragraph (which may be enough, given the sources). However, 250 years of Mamluk rule receives a sentence. 400 years of ottoman rule receive an awkward paragraph, followed by a paragraph on treatment of minorities.
Haifa is similar.
At Operation Defensive Shield the issue is that there is detailed mention of the attacks against Israelis which provoked Operation Defensive Shield (i.e. the Passover Massacre), but no mention of the violence towards Palestinians which provoked attacks on Israelis. Many have complained about this imbalance, but the truth is, in this case the reason that data on attacks on Palestinians before the operation is absent, is that no one has inserted it. Does anyone have well-sourced material on the subject? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The UN report on Jenin notes:
18. From the beginning of March until 7 May, Israel endured approximately 16 bombings, the large majority of which were suicide attacks. More than 100 persons were killed and scores more wounded. Throughout this period, the Government of Israel, and the international community, reiterated previous calls on the Palestinian Authority to take steps to stop terrorist attacks and to arrest the perpetrators of such attacks.
19. During this same period, IDF conducted two waves of military incursions primarily in the West Bank, and air strikes against both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first wave began on 27 February 2002 and ended on approximately 14 March. Those incursions, which Israel stated were in pursuit of Palestinians who had carried out attacks against Israelis, involved the use of ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among civilians.
20. Over the course of two days, 8 and 9 March, 18 Israelis were killed in two separate Palestinian attacks and 48 Palestinians were killed in the Israeli raids that followed.
21. Israeli military retaliation for terrorist attacks was often carried out against Palestinian Authority security forces and installations. This had the effect of severely weakening the Authority's capacity to take effective action against militant groups that launched attacks on Israelis. Militant groups stepped into this growing vacuum and increased their attacks on Israeli civilians. In many cases, the perpetrators of these attacks left messages to the effect that their acts were explicitly in revenge for earlier Israeli acts of retaliation, thus perpetuating and intensifying the cycle of violence, retaliation and revenge.
22. It was against this backdrop that the most extensive Israeli military incursions in a decade, Operation Defensive Shield, were carried out. The proximate cause of the operation was a terrorist attack committed on 27 March in the Israeli city of Netanya...
Thanks, I will get to work as soon as I can inserting the relevant balance. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
About Jerusalem: No surprise, but four editors have aggressively been changing the 1948 War heading to 'War of Independence' and the 1967 War heading to 'Unification.' I have been all alone arguing for "neutral" language. In fact, I have been all alone at Jerusalem recently (and I have a thesis to write!!!!) defending the entry from deletions of mention of Liftaa, Deir Yassin, Silwan etc. I know we;re all busy, but as editors come in every day to edit the Jerusalem as capital sentence, the rest of the article has seen major deletions (which, in my opinion, are more important), and to the 4 aforementioned editors who appear to have endless time to edit wikipedia, it looks like I'm the only one who contests the changes (as ironically amd erroneously I appear to have endless time to 'fight' as well. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Latrun
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I am looking for what happened to the unhabitants of Latrun in 1948.
They "moved" to 'Imwas. But I have read (on the internet) that :
they fled during the fights (because their village was destroyed)
that they were moved by Jordanians after the war.
Does someone have a wp:rs source for this ?
By the way, I am also interested by what "occured" to the unhabitants of :
Deir Mouheizin
Beit Jiz
Beit Susin
Deir Ayoub
Thank you in advance. Ceedjee (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi again,
I found much on the information on palestineremembered.com, which is I think reliable for these information.
Now I am looking for information concerning the historiography of the Latrun battle in the Palestinian narrative. Could someone help ?
Oh geez, it never ends. Prodding Negev Bedouins citing only "Totally Israel POV" was completely ridiculous. <eleland/talkedits> 06:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, even after years of dealing with these issues it's quite shocking.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Mediation re: Jerusalem 1967 War 'Unification' terminology
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Dear all, I have been battling the heading "Division and Unification" for the past few days, and now am bringing the matter to mediation. Sev eral editors have been ok wiuth simply 'Division' and later, '1967 War'. Your input will be greatly needed once the process gets going, as thusfar, I am the only one arguing the point, and eleland has made a very welcome visit, whereas 5 editors are arguing the mainstream Israeli position. I myself am Israeli and it seems a bit odd to be pointing out "Palestinians feel this way" and "Palestinians feel that way" with no Palestinians present. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have requested mediation of the discussion of the 1967 War at Jerusalem here and am currently alone in arguing that the term 'unification' should be paired with 'annexation'. If this does indeed go to arbitration, feedback will be necessary. Until then, post your views at the talk page on 1967 terminology. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to post so many messages about this. I should probably take a break. However I should add that I am not going to go forward with a mediation, seeking changed terminology, unless I get a sense that I will not be the only one (and probably Eleland?) arguing this point. There is no way I can successfully argue this without other voices, the effort will simply fail (people are arguing that I am pushing a point alone, while 'everyone else' feels differently; certainly, almost everyone else on the talkpage does, if not in the public). If this mediation procedure does not go forward, I'm going to back off this issue as it is very taxing to deal with alone (I know Eleland has dealt with it alone in the past, too), and also because it's starting to feel like, indeed, I am representing a Palestinian view which maybe is less vital than I thought? Thus please let me know if you will be visiting the page. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Palestinian War of Independence
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Given the issue : White Paper of 1939. Can the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine be called the "Palestinian War of Independence" ?
The White Paper promised the creation of an Arab independent state on the whole of Palestine and diminished the Jewish immigration quota...
See hereCeedjee (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
As far as I can tell there is still no single page describing Israeli human rights responsibilities and abuses in the Israeli-occupied territories since I first compiled this:
This page 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.
Confirmed. The following users are the same:
) and the accuracy and neutrality of the article's prose. Unless the reasoning is overtly disruptive, (placing a WP:Chemistry tag on topology for example), I see no problems or issues with having the articles tagged for multiple projects; which is why we have the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template. Specifically for Palestine and Israel, the overlap is tremendous, and I would posit that more often than not, most articles should be tagged with both.
. More importantly, Al Ameer son, you said “…fill Wikiproject categories with falsely claimed articles and talk-pages…” Again, that is the crux of the issue, why are you describing it as a"false accusation" to tag the Arafat article as relevant to WP:Israel? -- Avi (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)