Palestine Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Procedural suggestion
Hmm. It seems like there are a series of changes under consideration. I'd like to see you all avoid reverts, and going back and forth on multiple changes at once. So, perhaps you folks could agree on a version to keep intact (on the disputed article) during the discussion here? In another dispute over multiple sections, each side got to keep some of their favored versions intact and then they hashed it out in Talk. Would you all agree to such a process?
If so, then the next step would be to identify the disputed points/sections and divvy up the favored versions.
The sections at stake seem to include:
- Lead paragraph
- Background (elements could be further divided betw your sides)
- Catalyzing events and consequences (could be divided further)
- Whether Hawatmeh quote goes in Catalyzing or an "Arab views" section
So, do you like the idea of splitting up the online version during the discussion here? If so, how should the sections be split up among you? Thanks, hope this is helpful, HG | Talk 13:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- HG, I would like to begin working from the version currently in place, since as I have noted above, it is the version which incorporates some of Jaakbou's additions, restores sourced material wthat was deleted without garnering consensus, and which removes information whose relevance to this event are not borne out by the sources cited. The points I have raised in the section above refer to scholarly works that contain material currently missing from the article that I would like to see included. Responses to each of those points are what I am waiting for from interested editors. If you would like to help in organizing those points into the framework you have proposed, I would appreciate that help. Otherwise, I would ask that editors simply respond below each point above as to whether they feel it is relevant, well-sourced, and where it might go in the article. The editing pace will be tediously slow like this or that, but we have all become used to that it the I-P sphere, no? Tiamuttalk 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your idea of a point-by-point procedure would work, too. I'd like to know what Jaakobou thinks about section vs point approach and if he can proceed from the current version. HG | Talk 13:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- By the way HG, about point #4, I do not understand why there should be a separate "Arab views" section at all. There is no section on "Jewish views" being proposed for the article, nor should there be. The views of Ori Nir in Haaretz or Orly Halpern in the Jerusalem Post are no less tainted by bias than the view of Hawatmeh in Al-Ahram. Why create a separate section for Arab views (and just for Hawatmeh)? What exactly is wrong with placing all the views regarding catalyzing events together in one section with each view attributed to its author (as it is now)? How is it that we are even considering characterizing views by their authors' ethnicities in the case of one ethnicity only and not another? Isn't that kind of racist? Tiamuttalk 13:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- And PS, please also note that the quote from Hawatmeh is echoed in the works by David Newman and Oren Yiftachel above, so it is not an exclusively Arab view at all. Tiamuttalk 13:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- From an editorial standpoint, I would also be inclined against the separate section, perhaps not for Tiamut's same reasons. First, it's only a sentence long. Second, it is a view about how to describe the catalyzing events. At this juncture, if we need "views" sections at all (preferably not), I'd rather they be views about Land Day itself. Anyway, you all can probably figure out a way to balance competing descriptions of the various aspects within each section. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- comment removedPRtalk 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- The previous comment is a personal attack and should be removed. As noted above, this article is subject to discretionary sanctions so it is especially unwise (and possibly actionable) to make such uncivil comments. HG | Talk 02:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- comment removedPRtalk 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- From an editorial standpoint, I would also be inclined against the separate section, perhaps not for Tiamut's same reasons. First, it's only a sentence long. Second, it is a view about how to describe the catalyzing events. At this juncture, if we need "views" sections at all (preferably not), I'd rather they be views about Land Day itself. Anyway, you all can probably figure out a way to balance competing descriptions of the various aspects within each section. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Balance
I gave it a bit of time to see if an attempt for balance would be made but havn't seen any advancements in the direction. Decided to include a note about the (larger) Jewish exodus, which was also an issue for land allocation and removed the "al-nakba" nickname from the background. Original "Nakba" was the separation of the Syrian Wilayah to a French and British Mandates (in 1920). The reuse of this title is just poor taste and, pardon the phrasing but its true, propaganda. I mean, if a community of 600K is displaced because they back up a genocide attempt, why is there no similar title for the (larger) Jewish exodus or the similar sized exodus from Kuwait following their (ill-advised) support of the Saddam invasion in the early 1990s? Anyways, the nickname could be used but the previous usage was point-of-view-ish and suggestive. Also note that words like "rupture" and "upheavals" can't be directed simply at one displaced community when there's a larger one created by the same actions.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is a false balance you are trying to impose, the Jewish exodus from Arab lands has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Your removal of the term al-Nakba is, forgive me, an act of propaganda. Beyond your obvious soapboxing, on which I make no comment, your changes to the background section introduces unrelated things to the background of this article and your removal of the term is founded in a fallacious argument. nableezy - 23:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note to Nableezy's POV revert. Displacing 850K Jews from their homes is most certainly relevant to any land related discussions/articles and, certainly, it fits into a background section that already mentions that refugees were settled in previously Arab land - it gives the answer to the most basic question of "who were those refugees". Anyways, I took the extra step of adding a note that they were both from Europe and from Arab lands.
- p.s. I'm open for a reasonable implementation of the term "al-Nakba" but I can't tolerate it used to enhance a "poor man's" narrative.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 00:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is ridicolous, how is the displacement of whatever number of Jews in Arab countries related to "an annual day of commemoration for Palestinians, of the events of that date in 1976." Only in your own mind where everything has to be traced back to the Arabs are antisemites. You are combining separate issues to POV-push material that does not belong in this article. Wikipedia is not the place for your own feelings on these things, take them elsewhere like a blog where you can expound on the genocidal nature of the Arabs. nableezy - 01:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- As Tiamut told you about a year ago you cannot just relate the issues because you feel like it, provide a source connecting Land Day to the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. nableezy - 01:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Heyo Nableezy,
I'd appreciate a note on what you believe Israel did with the land it took from the displaced Palestinian-Arabs. I'm hoping that you agree it was used (among other things) to settle 250,000 Jewish refugees, many of them displaced from Arab lands.[1] Are we in agreement on this historical note?
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 04:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Greetings Jaakabou. Just to inform you, Nableezy has been blocked for a short while for
violating 3RRedit-warring. Concerning agreement on this "historical note", I know a lot of the lands of the displaced Arabs were used to settle those Jewish refugees, but do you have a source that supports that the land that was confiscated in 1976 was specifically for those Jewish refugees? The various sources in the article support a variety of purposes, namely security/military, expanding existing Arab towns, Jewish settlements, and to increase the Jewish population in the area. As for the above-mentioned Jewish settlements, were they particularly for Jewish refugees from Arab countries? Also, on a slightly separate note, I don't honestly think having the line "referred to by Palestinians as al-Nakba," is needed. It's just unnecessary detail. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I noticed that Jaakobou tried to add the controversial material to the background section, which is not a violation of policy because the background should be used to describe the general situation/background at the time. It therefore seems appropriate to describe the Jewish refugee situation in Israel, which created a severe housing crisis and required a lot of immediate construction. In light of that, it seems also appropriate to link to the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, which brough the largest volume of Jewish refugees to Israel; however, if the link isn't included, that's fine, as long as the Jewish refugee situation is mentioned.
On a side note, I fully expect Jaakobou not to make controversial edits to this article while Nableezy is blocked. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Currently, the Jewish refugee situation is mentioned in the background. I think it would help NPOV in the article to also mention the housing crisis caused by the Jewish refugees (with a source of course), but the Jewish exodus from Arab lands doesn't need to be mentioned. It's better to keep the Background section tight with the topic information on the background to Land Day, and not excess info like the Jewish exodus and the term Palestinians use to refer to their own exodus (which I just removed by the way). --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is an acceptable compromise. At the moment however, the article says nothing of Jewish refugees except talking about the Law of Return, which is just part of the story. Would you like to add more details? I'm not really personally interested in this article and happenned to come across it because I watch Nableezy's talk page, so it would be great if you could add the information (or Jaakobou or Nableezy, after the block expired). I believe sources for this simple fact are available online, which is preferrable to my offline sources anyway. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is fine too, but there needs to be a source relating that housing crisis and its cause with the confiscations. nableezy - 01:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Of course. I might sound like an ass, but I have to be honest and say I'm most likely not going look for one at least not in a while. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
An excercize at "writing for the emeny" for Tiamut/Nableezy - I offer these sources on the events:
- http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/101179
- http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1206632368987
I'd be interested in how you would incorporate the extra content in these sources into the article.
Don't dissappoint me, JaakobouChalk Talk 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Israel National News, the internet arm of Arutz Sheva, is not a reliable source. Zerotalk 02:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your noted perspective, but they are most certainly a reliable source in accordance to wikipedia standards (certainly as reliable as The Guardian or other neutral "internet arms" that we use here) - mind you, this is not Al-Manar or Al-Jazeera reporting on Israel, but an Israeli news source reporting on Israeli issues. Is there any special reason other than a possible dislike of Arutz Sheva's readership that makes you say this source is not a reliable news source? Anyways, sticking to the issue, is there anything in the given article that seems wrong? I'm sure it could be corroborated by other sources that you deem more wiki-worthy... just let me know if you're interested in looking up some of the "unreliable" claims made in the source and writing them into the article for the "enemy".
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- In my time in Wikipedia I have seen many instances where reports on INN turned out to be factually wrong. This is not surprising, since they are just a small propaganda organization with little news-gathering capacity of their own. Comparing them with newspapers like the Guardian is a joke, sorry. Mostly INN pick up stuff from other places and republish it with their own spin. And they publish opinion pieces. The item you linked to is an opinion piece dressed up as a report. It could be of interest as a summary of the settlers' take on Land Day. Actually INN can be treated as we would Al-Hayat Al-Jadeedah (PLO newspaper): as a source for the opinion of one interest group. Zerotalk 03:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- LOL. Let's not get into Palestinian newspapers please since my notes on them might displease a few editors. I can accept someone writing INN notes as "settler's perspective" if you insist (though I believe it can all be corroborated). I mostly care about getting some facts into this piece that are not based solely on left-wing journalists with selective memories. As example, there's far more input in the JPOST I gave in contrast with the one currently in use on the article.
- Warm regards Zero, JaakobouChalk Talk 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC) clarify comment 03:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- p.s. I'd very much appreciate it if you add some content from the JPOST source I suggested here. I'd hate to be reverted by Nableezy yet again for daring to edit wikipedia with "a questionable POV". JaakobouChalk Talk 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- In my time in Wikipedia I have seen many instances where reports on INN turned out to be factually wrong. This is not surprising, since they are just a small propaganda organization with little news-gathering capacity of their own. Comparing them with newspapers like the Guardian is a joke, sorry. Mostly INN pick up stuff from other places and republish it with their own spin. And they publish opinion pieces. The item you linked to is an opinion piece dressed up as a report. It could be of interest as a summary of the settlers' take on Land Day. Actually INN can be treated as we would Al-Hayat Al-Jadeedah (PLO newspaper): as a source for the opinion of one interest group. Zerotalk 03:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy, I can't say I follow this edit and it feels as though you're back to just reverting me on any edit I make for the sake of fun. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Im not. In fact it feels as though you exploit the rules of the "game" to continually push a questionable POV. But thats just me. As you say you cannot follow the edit, I will explain it for you. Palestinian, after 48, is synonymous with Arab of Palestine, and there is no need to add Arab as a qualifier to Palestinian. The one substantive change you made I kept, so I do not know why you are crying. nableezy - 03:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd hate to bother you with detail, but I'd appreciate a source based note on the year in which Palestinian-Arabs became just "Palestinians". Once you come up with an official source, we can discuss the value (or lack-there-of) of a clarifying note that we're talking about the Arab-Palestinian refugees and not the Jewish-Palestinian refugees of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
- p.s. while we're talking about this one, I'd also appreciate a note on the great value of the word "upheavals" and the name of the person saying land was important to these people.
- Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly believe we shouldn't include Arutz Sheva here (I agree with Zero000's comparison), but JPOST is certainly acceptable. What in particular do you think we should incorporate into the article? As for the reverts, the Laurie King-Irani quote seems relevant because it describes the importance of land to the Palestinians. If you want to replace "rupture", you could find a more neutral synonym. And as for the issue of Palestinians/Palestinian-Arab, I thought it was common knowledge that after 1948 the overwhelming majority of the Jews of Palestine considered themselves Israelis. It doesn't matter that much to me whether we label the post-1948 Arabs of Palestine "Palestinians" or "Palestinian-Arabs," but I don't think the argument of including the ending "-Arab" should have anything to do with the identity of "Jewish Palestinians," who, as I already stated, most likely considered themselves Israelis after the declaration of the state of Israel. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have made a number of additions to the article using books (of which there were none cited previously! I hadn't yet discovered Google books when I started writing the article years ago.) I think the new additions have introduced much relevant information reflecting a broad spectrum of views. I did try to find information on the connection between Land Day and the absorption of Jewish refugees, but nothing came up in my online searches. I also tried to open the Jpost article Jaakobou linked to, but it won't open for me. As for Arutz Sheva, I agree with Al Ameer Son, Nableezy and Zero that its use as a source here would be neither useful nor wise.
- I am hoping to be able to remove the POV tag which has been in place for over a year now. Unless specific issues regarding POV can be identified, I will remove it in the days to come. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk 08:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Its really not a matter of the sources. I mean, Al-Ahram Weekly Online is used as if its reliable no?
- p.s. can we get over our collective's narratives and clean up the quotes from the riots part and add quotes to the "unarmed" bit? One writer making a mistake doesn't make them right. Might be good to remove other ridiculous narratives from the page as well if you want the neutrality tag removed (e.g. "their brothers"). This entire article is written like a manifesto rather than an encyclopedic entry, heck, there's not even a mention of the Israeli people who were hurt in these violent riots.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not your editor by proxy Jaakobou. Get off your high horse and do some reading and writing of your own. Tiamuttalk 18:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- And by the way, searches for "Israeli wounded" + "Land Day" or "Israeli casualties" + "Land Day" bring up absolutely nothing.
- Conversely, searches for "unarmed" + "Land Day" produce (besides what is cited in the article) the following:
- "the date on which six unarmed Palestinians were shot dead by Israeli security forces"
- "The origins of Land Day The Committee for Defence of Arab Lands was created ... forces killing 6 unarmed civilians, injuring 96 and arresting other 3003."
- "On Land Day (commemorating anti-expropriation demonstrations in 1976, during which 6 unarmed Palestinians were killed and many injured by the police)"
- in one of three gatherings commemorating Land Day. In which 6 unarmed Arabs were shot dead by police and many wounded,
- But no one denies that the “security forces” wound up killing six unarmed citizens and wounding many more—some seriously. Land Day has come down in the ...
- So please, before opining as to what is and is not a mistake, try actually researching and reading the sources. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that nothing that portrays Israelis in a reasonable light must be inserted by editors not named Tiamut. To put this in the context of this current (bogus) reasoning to not insert new content into the article article, explain to me how come you used Al-Ahram Weekly (Egiptian media as a reliable on Israeli matters?) and now you're acting high and mighty on a reasonable (and wiki-reliable) Israeli source/content? The source is an active newsmedia with a reasonable outlook into historical events and you can also verify its content quite easily - certainly its more reliable than anything Egyptian published (no offense, Nableezy, but your media is not exactly highly ranked on the free media lists - and don't get me started on Arab media and Israeli issues).
- p.s. why is it (violent riots) portrayed in the text as if several Israeli papers lied saying this in order to instigate unwarrented violence against the peaceful "protesters"? The current style is absurdly biased/suggestive to Israeli propaganda. Why did you remove notes about commemorations and removed/do not include anything about riots and violence and Hamas/Hezbollah flag raising that this (one among many) "I hate Israel" day instigates?
- p.p.s. I rewrote the background of this article to normative levels a while back but after 20 reverts and another month or two of almost pointless debates you accepted 2% of the historical background needed to balance this page (always an uphill battle where you get your friends involved). Don't send me to write something you will revert immediately - that's insincere and lacks in basic civility. If you and Nableezy (a new fan of my works) agree to leave content/style changes in and discuss to achieve consensus (rather than blatently revert regardless if you're right or wrong - remember your Fedayeen translation reverts on me?), I'd be happy to bring content in but as this doesn't seem like the norm, you'll excuse me if I make a suggestion that Nableezy or another of the editors who feel like reverts are fun to give a look to some material that is currently not on the page. I make the effort to give your perspective and discuss things with civility as well but reciprocation would be a nice change... hopefully, Nableezy won't insist on words like "RUPTURE" and "UPHEAVALS" to promote misery narratives and agree that the name of the person who wrote that land is important to Palestinians is not mandatory (was he the only one to say this?!).
- p.p.p.s. why did you join this discussion (titled "Balance") anyways if you don't intend on making any contributions towards balancing the page?
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Adding "warm regards" or "respectfully" does not make your comments warm or respectful. I dont care about you, so no I am not a "new fan of [your] works". And you really do not know a whole lot about Egyptian media if you think al-Ahram is the best they have (but it is a WP:RS). If you want something in the article put it in your damn self. I am sorry if you feel that writing bullshit is fun and should not be reverted, but I assure you I take no pleasure in running into you on this or any other article. For as many times as you say "comment on content, not on the editor" my username appears quite often in your rant above. So how about this; keep my name out of your mouth (or away from your fingers as the case may be) and Ill do the same. nableezy - 23:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto. Tiamuttalk 07:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- How about, instead of waiting 4 days for some conversation about how certain editors who contribute to this page like al-Ahram and hate IsraelNationalNews (hmmmmm), explain to me the value of the word "upheavals" or the mention of a certain name when saying Paletinians consider land to be important?
- p.s. I'd be happy yo not mention your username, Nableezy, if you stop reverting edits on spurious grounds to the point where you rewrite it to say something differnt than the used source. Even people not mistaken with pro-Israeli perspectives have agreed with several of my changes here.
- Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 10:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto. Tiamuttalk 07:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Adding "warm regards" or "respectfully" does not make your comments warm or respectful. I dont care about you, so no I am not a "new fan of [your] works". And you really do not know a whole lot about Egyptian media if you think al-Ahram is the best they have (but it is a WP:RS). If you want something in the article put it in your damn self. I am sorry if you feel that writing bullshit is fun and should not be reverted, but I assure you I take no pleasure in running into you on this or any other article. For as many times as you say "comment on content, not on the editor" my username appears quite often in your rant above. So how about this; keep my name out of your mouth (or away from your fingers as the case may be) and Ill do the same. nableezy - 23:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- So please, before opining as to what is and is not a mistake, try actually researching and reading the sources. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've added the Arutz Sheva link to the External Links section. While four of us don't think its an WP:RS, one of us is unwilling to let it go, so I hope this satisfies him.
I've futher found a replacement source for the information on the 1000 square km that have been confiscated from Arabs between 1948 and 2003. The original info comes fromm Salman Abu Sitta, so I added text attributing this estimate to him. The Al Ahram link one of us has a problem with is now used only in two places: 1) to provide additional detail on the percentage of Palestinians that were farmers (the other source cited says "largely agrarian" but gives no figure. I think retaining the figure is a nice detail); 2) for a brief explanation of the centrality of land to the Palestinians in Israel. While the latter was always attributed to the author, Laurie King-Irani, I also added that she was writing in Al Ahram. While I have no doubt that Al Ahram is an WP:RS, I thought it best to minimize its use due to the objections of the one editor. Cheers. Tiamuttalk 11:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Putting a link as an external one doesn't fix all the POV narrative issues. If Al-Ahram, an Egyptian paper (please!(1)(2)(3)), is to be considered reliable for Israeli matters (did you see "Blaming The Jews"?), we might as well add Al-Manar into the mix as well. Lookup WP:NPOV and please make an effort to suggest you're trying to follow it. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did you just google "criticism egyptian media" or did you actually read the links provided? Because those links seem to suggest that there may be issue with using Egyptian media for information on the state of Egypt and matters pertaining to criticism of Hosni Mubarak. (And al-Ahram is not mentioned in either of the external links provided) nableezy - 20:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Review the links fully before making broad statements, please. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- p.s. for goodness sakes, could you add the 1948 Arab-Israeli war link to the "that became Israel in 1948". The way its written suggests Israel decided to one up without any UN backing or Arab instigation. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did read them, the hrw source is focused on the jailing of a reporter for violating the law prohibiting "insulting the President" the eohr source is focused on a draft law (as of 2006) that amends publication laws. Second point, that is not how it reads, it reads that the people who were expelled from areas that became the modern state of Israel. nableezy - 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. (A) Did you look up the 3rd link? (B) I wasn't aware that a place where 20,000 people are known to be imprisoned on the fault of "insulting the president" is a place for reliable news. Certainly everything they put out should be prefectly neutral and reliable when discussing a long-time nemesis (not!). Could you care to comment on the neutrality value of refusing the inclusion of the Arab "upheavals" from the background? JaakobouChalk Talk 17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clarify I'm talking about your removal of the Arab-Israeli conflict linkage. Loss of land was not created in a vacuum you know. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- The land that was lost was in what became the state of Israel. Doesnt seem too complicated to me. nableezy - 19:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- The third link is a wikipedia article, and I have long said that anybody who uses Wikipedia as a reference for the least controversial of topics is an idiot, so no I did not look at the third link. And are you telling me that ynet or the JPost are neutral in their coverage? Neutrality is not a part of reliability. nableezy - 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heyo Nableezy,
- That link puts Egypt at number 154 on freeedom of press. Regardles,, Egyptian press is not (and never has been) reliable on Israeli-Palestinian matters, YNET and JPOST are. I know you're a vested party in this debate but you're expected to make an effort to follow NPOV.
- With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am a "vested party"? NPOV means representing all significant point of views, and for you to come here and say we should ignore all press from a nation in the name of NPOV is actually kind of funny. If you were trying to make me laugh then I thank you for that. nableezy - 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no objection to saying that "Egyptian press reported that...". Portrayal of that press as reliable while insisting that Israeli press is not -- on Israeli matters! -- is not funny at all. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- p.s. it hasn't eluded me that you've yet to answer a single content related answer to the reverts you've made. It also hasn't escaped me that several editors, who are no mistaken to be pro-Israelis, have went against you on most of those edits. I'm still waiting for an explanation on the immense value of the name of the person writing that Palestinians find land to be valuable to their community. You've edit-warred over that one about 5 times without answering the question once. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, nobody said Israeli media is unreliable, people said israelnationalnews.com is not. You are trying to disqualify an entire nations press, that is what is not funny, though it becomes funny when you say you do it in the name of NPOV. And which of my edits has anybody other than yourself removed? As far as I can tell the same OR you tried pushing in a year ago and that you tried pushing in recently remains unsourced and not in the article. You havent asked me a real question, or a question I think is worth the time answering. Come with a substantial objection besides you dont like what the words say and Ill answer. Dont and I wont. nableezy - 08:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting on an answer to the question. What made a single person important enough to be named in reference to the Palestinian ties to land? Please clarify that revert and we'll discuss the (complete lack of) value for Egyptian gov. press on Israeli matters. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Neither of those topics is pertinent to article improvement. Tiamuttalk 17:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Your friend never really cared about the article, he just came over to revert me. Its made fairly clear when you look into the content of the reverts and the style of recent interactions... from ANI to a block to continued more reverts to ignoring basic questions on the talk page and having friends try to change the subject for him. Putting it back in the context the the article, the Egyptian source mentioned was used because of a light-hearted approach towards sources that mention Israel (in a bad way), but the moment that an Israeli source portrays Palestinians (as anything but soft spoken people) an outcry of non-reliability and "propaganda" was unleashed. This is certainly germane to the article in question no?
- I'm trying to start a new atmosphere of collaboration with you, Tiamut, but if your intention is to jeer and cheer for a buddy of yours who has not been a good-faith contributor here, then it would be a difficult task.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 05:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- First, when has Tiamut jeered or cheered? I see a rather consistent message of trying to get you to get to the point instead of reading your personal views on the qualities of the voice of the settler movement or the inadequacies of the lowly Egyptian press. Or trying to get you to provide a source for your repeated attempts to insert OR into the article. Or trying to get you to stop trying to suppress whatever information you find personally objectionable. I really dont care what you think about me or my efforts here, your intentions at this article are shown in your edits. I dont need to make an unsupported accusation of bad faith editing to you, all someone has to do is look at at the article history and the talk page to see who has been acting in bad faith here. And to repeat, for the nth time, nobody said Israeli media is unreliable. People have said that israelnationalnews is not. You may perhaps want to pick up on that sometime in the future. It may make these conversations easier for all involved if you actually paid attention to what people have written. Tiamut has included plenty of Israeli sources in this article, she even included the one you have been harping about this entire time. At this point you are simply arguing against using a major news organization because you dont like them. I very much interested to see how you plan on collaborating here, I would suggest heeding Xavexgoem advice below and actually try collaborating rather than continually crying about how hard you are trying. Your whole beef with me here started with the Jewish exodus in the background. I note you have still failed to provide a single source that supports the connection between the topics. Tiamut has below asked you to highlight specific issues and sources that demonstrate that whatever you think is an issue actually is somewhere other than in your own mind. Try and comply with that request. nableezy - 06:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting on an answer to the question. What made a single person important enough to be named in reference to the Palestinian ties to land? Please clarify that revert and we'll discuss the (complete lack of) value for Egyptian gov. press on Israeli matters (i.e. why I say Al-Ahram's usage for writing "facts" was inappropriate). JaakobouChalk Talk 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reposted+tweak at 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think I already answered the questions that matter. I will not be discussing your feelings about the press of an entire nation. It is sufficient to say your opinions dont mean anything so there is no point discussing it. The author is not named in the article so I do not know why you are still harping over that. While it may be enjoyable for you to continue playing this game I would prefer to move on to things that actually matter. nableezy - 17:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting on an answer to the question. What made a single person important enough to be named in reference to the Palestinian ties to land? Please clarify that revert and we'll discuss the (complete lack of) value for Egyptian gov. press on Israeli matters (i.e. why I say Al-Ahram's usage for writing "facts" was inappropriate). JaakobouChalk Talk 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reposted+tweak at 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- First, when has Tiamut jeered or cheered? I see a rather consistent message of trying to get you to get to the point instead of reading your personal views on the qualities of the voice of the settler movement or the inadequacies of the lowly Egyptian press. Or trying to get you to provide a source for your repeated attempts to insert OR into the article. Or trying to get you to stop trying to suppress whatever information you find personally objectionable. I really dont care what you think about me or my efforts here, your intentions at this article are shown in your edits. I dont need to make an unsupported accusation of bad faith editing to you, all someone has to do is look at at the article history and the talk page to see who has been acting in bad faith here. And to repeat, for the nth time, nobody said Israeli media is unreliable. People have said that israelnationalnews is not. You may perhaps want to pick up on that sometime in the future. It may make these conversations easier for all involved if you actually paid attention to what people have written. Tiamut has included plenty of Israeli sources in this article, she even included the one you have been harping about this entire time. At this point you are simply arguing against using a major news organization because you dont like them. I very much interested to see how you plan on collaborating here, I would suggest heeding Xavexgoem advice below and actually try collaborating rather than continually crying about how hard you are trying. Your whole beef with me here started with the Jewish exodus in the background. I note you have still failed to provide a single source that supports the connection between the topics. Tiamut has below asked you to highlight specific issues and sources that demonstrate that whatever you think is an issue actually is somewhere other than in your own mind. Try and comply with that request. nableezy - 06:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Neither of those topics is pertinent to article improvement. Tiamuttalk 17:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting on an answer to the question. What made a single person important enough to be named in reference to the Palestinian ties to land? Please clarify that revert and we'll discuss the (complete lack of) value for Egyptian gov. press on Israeli matters. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, nobody said Israeli media is unreliable, people said israelnationalnews.com is not. You are trying to disqualify an entire nations press, that is what is not funny, though it becomes funny when you say you do it in the name of NPOV. And which of my edits has anybody other than yourself removed? As far as I can tell the same OR you tried pushing in a year ago and that you tried pushing in recently remains unsourced and not in the article. You havent asked me a real question, or a question I think is worth the time answering. Come with a substantial objection besides you dont like what the words say and Ill answer. Dont and I wont. nableezy - 08:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am a "vested party"? NPOV means representing all significant point of views, and for you to come here and say we should ignore all press from a nation in the name of NPOV is actually kind of funny. If you were trying to make me laugh then I thank you for that. nableezy - 23:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did read them, the hrw source is focused on the jailing of a reporter for violating the law prohibiting "insulting the President" the eohr source is focused on a draft law (as of 2006) that amends publication laws. Second point, that is not how it reads, it reads that the people who were expelled from areas that became the modern state of Israel. nableezy - 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Did you just google "criticism egyptian media" or did you actually read the links provided? Because those links seem to suggest that there may be issue with using Egyptian media for information on the state of Egypt and matters pertaining to criticism of Hosni Mubarak. (And al-Ahram is not mentioned in either of the external links provided) nableezy - 20:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Peace Now advocacy is not a neutral study
While we're on the subject of rejecting Israeli right wing sources on the claim that they are equal to an antisemitic publication (Al Hayat), I'd be interested in an explanation to why Peace Now activism/"study" is cited as "Israeli media coverage". JaakobouChalk Talk 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The two studies are by Alina Koren (1994) and professors Wolfsfeld, Avraham and Aburaiya (2000). Which one of them is with Peace Now? Tiamuttalk 17:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I only see a single reference in the tagged section and its got differnt names. Are we really portraying Israeli media by a criticism advocacy piece/"study" now? Btw, can you stop putting quotes on non-pro-Palestinian sources? JaakobouChalk Talk 20:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The authors of the book cited are Professors Daniel Bar-Tal [2] and Yoina Teichman [3] of Tel Aviv University. The studies they quote from are the two I listed above: one from 1994 and from 2000, also by Israeli academics. I don't see the problem.
- And about your bad-faith accusation, any material that uses provocative language and/or expresses an opinion unique to it, is what I put in quotes. I had Laurie King-Irani's material in quotes until a) you insisted we remove her name and change the text b) and we found other sources that said the same thing. Anything else? Or are you just stonewalling so that the NPOV tag stays up for another year? Tiamuttalk 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Said professor states on his own account that he is a Peace Now activist and has worked for them for decades, seeing himself as being on a mission to shift public opinion. Credentials aside, he should also be attributed for his advocacy status. Pretty clear no? JaakobouChalk Talk 00:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- p.s. I'm not the one making excuses for not including relevant content. JaakobouChalk Talk 00:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which professor is a Peace Now activist? Koren, who wrote the 1994 study, Wolfsfeld, Avraham or Aburaiya, who wrote the 2000, or Bar-Tal or Teichmann who wrote the book that referenced both of these studies? How is one of them being a Peace Now activist at all relevant to this discussion? What is your point Jaakobou? Tiamuttalk 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Bar-Tal is the only one I looked into. If he's not the writer of the study, then the study should be attributed to its writer and not to an advocacy piece of "scholarship". If we are to include Bar-Tal as a contributor, his decades-long affiliation with the extremist "Peace Now" group should be noted. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which professor is a Peace Now activist? Koren, who wrote the 1994 study, Wolfsfeld, Avraham or Aburaiya, who wrote the 2000, or Bar-Tal or Teichmann who wrote the book that referenced both of these studies? How is one of them being a Peace Now activist at all relevant to this discussion? What is your point Jaakobou? Tiamuttalk 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- A remarkably large fraction of Israeli academics in the history and politics fields have political involvement of their own. If we use that as a reason to discard their academic writings, it would be a purge worthy of Uncle Joe himself. Let's not start. Zerotalk 01:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Re-read my attribution note. Only purging I've seen suggested here was about an Israeli source that is perfectly reliable to wiki-standards; certainly more-so than several of the other sources used in the article at the time I gave a link to it. Btw, I'm still waiting on the addition of content from JPOST. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The material is attributed to its authors. I'm not going to append a Peace Now label to it simply because one of the six people involved in crafting and disseminating the information does activism for them on the side.
- What content do you want to add from JPOST? Please be more specific. We cannot serve your every command if you are not clear in your requests. Tiamuttalk 03:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let's postpone the discussion to this source a bit and remove, first, the "tanks" from the lead. I'll raise more issues in a timely manner in a new section on a later date.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 04:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Re-read my attribution note. Only purging I've seen suggested here was about an Israeli source that is perfectly reliable to wiki-standards; certainly more-so than several of the other sources used in the article at the time I gave a link to it. Btw, I'm still waiting on the addition of content from JPOST. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- A remarkably large fraction of Israeli academics in the history and politics fields have political involvement of their own. If we use that as a reason to discard their academic writings, it would be a purge worthy of Uncle Joe himself. Let's not start. Zerotalk 01:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's a new request. Why would we remove mention of the deployment of tanks and artillery from the lead. Its in this article from the Jerusalem Post which has been used a source in the article for almost two years. It says clearly: "The next morning, the Arab citizens organized a general strike as wells as marches through the Arab towns, from the Galilee to the Negev. The government sent in the army and police with tanks and heavy artillery who shot and killed six unarmed citizens. Dozens more were wounded." What's wrong with including this information? Does anyone deny that tanks were deployed? Tiamuttalk 09:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The lead should note the topic and its claim to notability. i.e. How many of the Land Day articles you've read mention tanks exactly? I believe less than the number who mention violent riots. Yes/No/Pink? Being neutral is easy if you try. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's a new request. Why would we remove mention of the deployment of tanks and artillery from the lead. Its in this article from the Jerusalem Post which has been used a source in the article for almost two years. It says clearly: "The next morning, the Arab citizens organized a general strike as wells as marches through the Arab towns, from the Galilee to the Negev. The government sent in the army and police with tanks and heavy artillery who shot and killed six unarmed citizens. Dozens more were wounded." What's wrong with including this information? Does anyone deny that tanks were deployed? Tiamuttalk 09:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Its not about quantity Jaakobou, its about quality. We have a high quality source from the Jerusalem Post (an Israeli newspaper) mentioning the use of tanks and I just added another high quality source from Nahla Abdo (a Palestinian acadmic) also mentioning the use of tanks and how it was "unprecedented". I think the fact that people from both sides of the political spectrum find that fact worth mentioning is significant. No Palestinian source I know uses the word "riots". But if you can find one, I'd be willing to consider including it in the introduction.
- Also if you are in fact serious about wanting to create a more collegiate editing environment, you might consider not saying things like "Being neutral is easy if you try." I'm not a child and I don't like being patronized. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 15:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that there's serious soapboxing on the article and picking and choosing the content into the lead section or a criticism section masked as if it were a neutral presentation of Israeli media. There's absolutely no extra value in adding "tanks" to the lead if not for the purpose of suggesting protesters were being attacked by these tanks. On a similar non-conservative construction in the lead, I would not expect a mention of Syrian and Hezbollah flag usage. Imagine this was an article about the 1929 Hebron Massacre. Would it be fair if the lead included "stabbings, burnings and mutilations" as truthful embellishments? You need to take a step away from your subjective perspective on this annual event and try to write a neutral article. Citing one Israeli article and a Palestinian academic is not exactly reasoning to embellish the lead section in a suggestive manner.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is no WP:SOAPBOXing in the article. Everything sentence is sourced and cited and opinions are attributed to their holders. Including a mention of tanks in the lead was (initially) a way of staying faithful to the source used (The Jerusalem Post) who saw it fit to mention that information in their own article on the day. It certainly was not "for the purpose of suggesting protestors were being attacked by these tanks." Please try to assume good faith.
- "Embellishments" are a kind of lie. There is no such thing as a "truthful embellishment". It is true that tanks and armoured vehicles were deployed throughout Galilee villages Land Day. More than the two sources already cited in the article mention that, and so it is also verifiable. "You need to take a step away from your subjective perspective on this annual event [...]" and try to respond substantively to my requests that you a) focus on content not contributors, b) clearly itemize your issues with this article (without unnecessary speculative commentary regarding my or other editors' intentions). If you cannot do this, we cannot make any progress towards removing the NPOV tag which has been in place for almost year now. Tiamuttalk 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sources are, by nature, not 100% neutral and can easily used -- if a strong desire exists -- to soapbox. I'll refrain from giving out further examples to the one given above (17:59, 26 July 2009) and reiterate my note that the text about tanks needs to be removed from the lead. This is a basic issue about encyclopedic style and removal of suggestive misuse of the source. Currently, the text implies tanks were used to either fire at civilians or at the very least to try and run them over. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it need to be removed? Multiple sources have been given backing that piece of text, could you please explain why the text "needs to be removed"? How is this "suggestive misuse of the source"? What implication is the text here giving that the source does not? nableezy - 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Were the tanks used to harm the people? JaakobouChalk Talk 06:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- As a show of force and an implied threat of use. I think it is significant. However, maybe the wording can be chosen so that nobody infers that the tanks were firing at the protestors. Maybe the word "deploy" will help? Zerotalk 08:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've changed the wording slightly adding more detail about where the tanks were deployed from Nahla Abdo. By the way Zero, your edit changing "and" to "or" for the the hundreds of jailed and wounded, I'm not so sure that's right. About 100 were wounded and hundreds were jailed according to the sources we have cited, so I'd prefer if we kept the "and", if that's okay with you. Tiamuttalk 08:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- (I wonder what the record is for indentation on Talk pages.) The reason I didn't like "and" was that it sounded like the same people were both wounded and jailed (nobody wounded but not jailed, or jailed but not wounded). But no matter, I'm a mathematician and we use words like "and" and "or" in our own idiosyncratic way. Zerotalk 09:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ahhh, I see. Perhaps we could peruse the sources for stats on arrested alone and wounded alone. From my readings, I've seen "about 100" as a figure for wounded. "Hundreds" for "arrrested and wounded". We could write "about 100 were wounded and hundreds more arrested." Tiamuttalk 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- We could say xor. not really, I think Tiamut's wording above is good nableezy - 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The lead has just gotten even more ridiculous. Nice work. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Describing the product of collaboration between you fellow editors as "ridiculous" and being sarcastic about it ("Nice work") indicaes that you are not very serious about fostering a collegiate editing environment, despite your protestations to the contrary. Tiamuttalk 08:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please re-read how you phrased the jailed and injured bit and tell me how it translates?[4] (hint: Zero was correct to change it). JaakobouChalk Talk 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please hold your horses? I had not yet changed the wording to respond to Zero's concern. Have you read the discussion above? I suggested something and was waiting for input. I got some from Nableezy and was waiting for Zero. But since you've gotten your panties all up in a bunch over it, I've changed it to the new wording. Happy now? Tiamuttalk 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please re-read how you phrased the jailed and injured bit and tell me how it translates?[4] (hint: Zero was correct to change it). JaakobouChalk Talk 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Describing the product of collaboration between you fellow editors as "ridiculous" and being sarcastic about it ("Nice work") indicaes that you are not very serious about fostering a collegiate editing environment, despite your protestations to the contrary. Tiamuttalk 08:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The lead has just gotten even more ridiculous. Nice work. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- We could say xor. not really, I think Tiamut's wording above is good nableezy - 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ahhh, I see. Perhaps we could peruse the sources for stats on arrested alone and wounded alone. From my readings, I've seen "about 100" as a figure for wounded. "Hundreds" for "arrrested and wounded". We could write "about 100 were wounded and hundreds more arrested." Tiamuttalk 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- (I wonder what the record is for indentation on Talk pages.) The reason I didn't like "and" was that it sounded like the same people were both wounded and jailed (nobody wounded but not jailed, or jailed but not wounded). But no matter, I'm a mathematician and we use words like "and" and "or" in our own idiosyncratic way. Zerotalk 09:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Were the tanks used to harm the people? JaakobouChalk Talk 06:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why does it need to be removed? Multiple sources have been given backing that piece of text, could you please explain why the text "needs to be removed"? How is this "suggestive misuse of the source"? What implication is the text here giving that the source does not? nableezy - 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sources are, by nature, not 100% neutral and can easily used -- if a strong desire exists -- to soapbox. I'll refrain from giving out further examples to the one given above (17:59, 26 July 2009) and reiterate my note that the text about tanks needs to be removed from the lead. This is a basic issue about encyclopedic style and removal of suggestive misuse of the source. Currently, the text implies tanks were used to either fire at civilians or at the very least to try and run them over. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
NPOV tag
Its been up now for almost a year, defacing this page. I'd to like to remove it. Any objections? Tiamuttalk 16:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Check the section above. Thanks.
- p.s. its been "defacing" the page because a few editors have been holding the page up, rejecting non-Palestinian narratives.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please be more specific and clearly list and itemize your issues with the article, providing them numbers so we can deal with them one by one and strike them off when they have been dealt with. Try to avoid soapboxing and be precise about what it is that you would like to see changed. Tiamuttalk 17:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Tiamut,
- So of all people, you (a) refuse to write for the enemy (read: try to adhere to WP:NPOV), and (b) accuse me of soapboxing after you compare a (right wing) Israeli news-source with Al-Hayat Al-Jadeedah !!! (a paper that has crosswords puzzles with the reply "Treacherousness" for the question "The Jewish trait"). The entire article, much of which you are responsible for, is filled with "embellishments". I keep listing things but you and Nableezy side-track the concerns with legalities and near-blind reverts. e.g. the comment above about the Arab-Israeli clashes revert. To put it bluntly, my notes should be treated with dignity rather than indignation and things would go far smoother and we may even get rid of the "defacing" tag if the article comes close to reasonable levels.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be a happy camper if we start by noting the usage of Hamas/Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad flags and violent poetry in the Land Day commemorations every year. I'd be interested in the addition of the Arabic name for the (always inspiring) little girl who reads out in these commemoration days. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was a very simple request Jaakobou, and I'd appreciate a simple response without soapboxing and denigration of my people. I'll restate: Could you please be specific and clearly and concisely list your issues with the article, providing them numbers so we can deal with them one by one and strike them off when they have been dealt with? Tiamuttalk
- There's really too many of them to list down on a single go and you've shown little to no interest in resolving article issues up to now so you'll excuse me if I prefer to list small issues rather than make a comprehensive list that will become outdated faster than I write it. I've made a clear request above in regards to content that is needed into the article - the way the commemorations are played out. There's also the issue of adding content mentioned in the two sources I provided earlier (INN and JPOST) that is missing from the article.
- p.s. my apologies that you take nationalistic offense by any mention of the way people commemorate Land Day. Perhaps you have too much of a conflict of interests to edit this article to neutral levels if you pick and choose the content of this subject and take offense by mention of Palestinian actions, which occur on a yearly basis, that you disagree with. I have no intention of holding these actions against you but they certainly belong in the article.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- This source cites the usage of Syrian flags.[5] Nice. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not following you at all. Comment on content, not contributors.
- Four editors here have said the INN source is not reliable, so I'm not going to go against consensus and include information from it in the article.
- About the Jpost article, what specifically would like to see added?
- About the Haaretz article you just provided a link to (its in Hebrew which I don't read), is it that you want to add a sentence about people carrying Syrian flags in the demonstrations? That's the only specific recommendation I can garner from your comments. Tiamuttalk 18:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please add content about the way the "commemorations" are used to issue yearly anti-Israeli/Jewish challenges. Clear enough? JaakobouChalk Talk 20:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which source say that? Because that sounds like someone's interpretation which should be attributed to its author. Tiamuttalk 09:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Just like the "unarmed" bit should be attributed? Let's start by clarifying if Haaretz is wiki-reliable for Israeli-Palestinian issues (heck, some people call it anti-Zinoist but Zero doesn't seem to care). JaakobouChalk Talk 11:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Would you like to attribute it to all six sources I provided you using that terminology? Tiamuttalk 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, some people "commemorate". But what about those who riot? And as for "commemorations".. What about the ceremonies with little girls that read poetry? You've yet to tell me the name of that role in ceremonies, I would be interested in having it in the article. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Riots are mentioned in the article. About the rest of your comment, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop trying to mock the commemorations of the dead of Land Day. It's not nice. Tiamuttalk 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- There's improvement with (very) recent edits but there's several issues that still need resolution before the article comes close to true neutral and encyclopedic tone. I apologize that you take offense with mentions of the non-peaceful activities made during these days (such as the usage of Syrian/other flags and chanting of inflammatory sloganeering) but the mere mention of them is hardly mockery towards anyone. I would not be making note of them being amiss from the article if they were included. That you find their mention offensive is not remotely as offensive as their existance is to a person who hears these slogans (like "in blood and spirit we will redeem thee Filasteen") on a yearly basis. Sticking to the article, I think it is important to add folklore from these commemorations and I'd be interested in the Arabic term for the little girl that reads poetry in public ceremonies. I gather that you don't know Arabic well enough to give me this information? JaakobouChalk Talk 21:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Would you like to attribute it to all six sources I provided you using that terminology? Tiamuttalk 11:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Just like the "unarmed" bit should be attributed? Let's start by clarifying if Haaretz is wiki-reliable for Israeli-Palestinian issues (heck, some people call it anti-Zinoist but Zero doesn't seem to care). JaakobouChalk Talk 11:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which source say that? Because that sounds like someone's interpretation which should be attributed to its author. Tiamuttalk 09:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please add content about the way the "commemorations" are used to issue yearly anti-Israeli/Jewish challenges. Clear enough? JaakobouChalk Talk 20:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Stop it Jaakobou. You're being a WP:DICK. Not a single thing in your comment above has to do with article improvement. Tiamuttalk 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- It would improve the article to have some reference to all notable aspects of how Palestinian commemorations are conducted. Apparently, mention of this makes me an ass in your eyes. Perhaps its an issue of sensitiveity by both of us as I'm still quite offended, though I haven't made a huge deal out of it, with the earlier comparison between Israelnationalnews and the antisemitic Al-Hayat. Perhaps I should have responded with wiki-love to the suggestion that Haaretz is a propaganda news-source, but it feels as though I am raising important issues in a very hostile environment that places a blind eye on common knowledge occurrences as well as basic neutrality. e.g. I'd be happy to not mention commemorations anymore if the article content reflects the full nature of the annual commemoration days (paraphrasing has been over-used btw). As a side note, I'd like to add that mention of tanks in the lead seems to suggest civilians were attacked by artillery fire or at the very least run over. This usage is suggestive to a fault and is non encyclopedic. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Stop it Jaakobou. You're being a WP:DICK. Not a single thing in your comment above has to do with article improvement. Tiamuttalk 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Notice: I'd like to start fresh, Tiamut, and try to discuss issues on a less "loaded" atmosphere. Let's stop making comments on this sub-section and create a new one where we deal with issues in a more collegiate manner. Agreed? JaakobouChalk Talk 04:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please open a new sub-section clearly outlining your issues with your article, as per my earlier request to you at the top of this section. Tiamuttalk 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I have seen several claims that people carried Syrian flags at Land Day demonstrations, but all of them fail to mention Palestinian flags. You can look at hundreds of photos of Land Day demonstrations at images.google.com and see that Palestinian flags are everywhere (and I couldn't find any Syrian flags, can you?). Example [6]. This doesn't make the sources look good; actually it suggests they are propagandising. On the other hand, there is a place where I would expect to see some Syrian flags: on the Golan. Most of the Arab residents there are Syrian citizens and for them to wave Syrian flags at Land Day demonstrations would be no surprise at all. So what I suspect (this is OR, don't bother pointing it out) is that reports from the Golan were relayed without identifying the location. Another place to expect Syrian flags would be at Palestinian refugee camps in Syria. Zerotalk 10:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think your pick and choose attitude towards content doesn't look good. Haaretz does not do pro-Israeli propaganda, quite to the contrary. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Jaakobou, its quite priceless for you to accuse Zero of a "pick and choose attitude". I managed to get someone else to translate wht the Haaretz article says: it mentions that the demonstrators were carrying Palestinian and Syrian flags. Strangely, you did not mention the Palestinian flags, even ater Zero said it was strange that they would not be mentioned. Tiamuttalk 11:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: Let's get over ourselves here. Instead of picking and choosing at the likes/dislikes of sources (I wouldn't want Haaretz to be compared with the PLO Al-Ayat as well), I give you a free hand in finding sources that clarify what happens in "commemorations" held by Hamas and in PLO schools. You find the sources you like... I'd prefer Arabic actually. Tiamut, you don't know Hebrew, but how is your Arabic? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- No one is comparing Haaretz to the PLO Al-Ayat but you. It's very strange for you to claim Arab media sources are unreliable and then ask me to go digging around for information from them on how Land Day is commemorated "by Hamas and in PLO schools". I don't see why I should look for information in Arabic when we have a tonne of English language sources already cited in the article that provide information on how it is commemorated. Tiamuttalk 11:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The mainstream Israeli press like Haaretz, Yediot and Maariv are Reliable Sources by Wikipedia standards. Incidentally here is a Palestinian-press report of a demonstration in Jerusalem with both Palestinian and Syrian flags in evidence. It isn't Land Day but there is no reason the same thing couldn't happen in a Land Day demonstration. The explanation is given right in the headline: "Syrians from occupied Golan join nonviolent protest at Al Aqsa...". So I am quite prepared to believe the Haaretz report about Syrian flags, but we should try to get the context correct. That is more likely to be available in Arabic sources. Zerotalk 12:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Arabic newspapers are unlikely to provide context for the waving of Syrian flags alongside Palestinian ones because their readership doesn't need those explanations. Often its done to show solidarity with those under occupation in the Golan Heights, and could also be due to pan-Arabist or Greater Syria loyalties. It could also be because Syria is one of the few Arab countries left that defends the Palestinian cause.
- For the purposes of this article, we could add a sentence about how at one demonstration in 2001, people waved Palestinian and Syrian flags, without any additional commentary. Do you want to do it? I don't see why its particularly relevant, but whatever. Tiamuttalk 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Very well then,
- I'm glad Haaretz is no longer accused of anti-Palestinian propaganda. This is certainly a step back from TE/IDONTLIKEIT behavior exhibited here thus far. The next step would be to allow wiki-reliable Israeli sources that are right-wing as well as anti-Zionist ones without rejecting the information on bogus propaganda charges - what matters is the reliability of the information and not ridiculous comparisons between a legitimate news source and an antisemitic publication (did you hear the story they published about Jewish enhanced rats?). Also, the current section on "Israeli media" is basically a criticism article made about Israeli media - this should be retitled as "criticism of Israeli media" with a clear note on who conducted the study and on who's behalf did they conduct it. Also, I find it odd that the only place that mentions riots and stone throwing is the criticism section.
- Tiamut, make me proud and fix it while we work on the "single (yet yearly) event" of raising Hezbollah/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/etc. flags. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a quote from Arutz Sheva expressing that author's opinion that riots began the night before and intensified the next day. Anyone editing here is free to revert it or add some kind of qualifying statement after Arutz Sheva (like "voice of the settlers" or something like that). They really do represent a WP:Fringe opinion in this debate. But since Jaakobou won't remove the tags unless he gets his way on this, I've gone ahead and compromised WP:RS in an attempt to forge a new WP:CONSENSUS (if you will all agree).
- I've also attributed the information in the two separate studies to their authors more explicitly. Tiamuttalk 17:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Notice: I'd like to start fresh, Tiamut, and try to discuss issues on a less "loaded" atmosphere. Let's stop making comments on this sub-section and create a new one where we deal with issues in a more collegiate manner. Agreed? JaakobouChalk Talk 04:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Jaakobou, at the top of the section, I asked: "Could you please be more specific and clearly list and itemize your issues with the article, providing them numbers so we can deal with them one by one and strike them off when they have been dealt with." You did not do that. Instead, you have jumped from subject to subject, offering your opinions about various issues that have little to do with the article's improvement. If you are in fact serious about discussing these issues in a collegiate manner, you would begin by honouring my request. Please open a new sub-section and draft a numbered list of the items you feel are POV with specific sugggestions on how to change them (citing useful sources) so that they accord with NPOV. This is the only way we can actually make progress and not end up waiting another year before the NPOV tag is removed. Tiamuttalk 10:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've made mention of a few very valid points that should be addressed. Your collaborative spirit (per "little to do with the article's improvement") is seriously lacking. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- A collaborative spirit encourages other to collaborate with you, not to get them to find something else wrong with your comments. You have asked to start fresh, and were asked to itemize your issues.
- The alternative at this point is for this to go around in circles. Collaboration involves helping someone by doing what they asked, and assuming in good faith that what is being asked is not used to stall the issue. Work from there; you're focusing on behavior. Doesn't work. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heyo Xavexgoem,
- A while back I've taken a long time out and itemized numerous issues. Sadly, though, they were ignored on the large scale and treated on a micro scale with lack of respect. This is why I'm not inclined to make another long list. I've raised a few points now and I will try to make a shift in the interaction style of everyone, starting with myself. Content-wise, it seems like a simple issue to deal/discuss and (hopefully) resolve the lead-soapboxing "tanks" usage. I'm hoping 2 examples of possible counter embellishments (enemy flags/mutilations) were enough to clarify the problem so I've avoided, in the attempt to scale things down, a mention of more examples.
- You are right (off course) that I'm still a little over-focused on behavior, so I appreciate the mention and will try (in upcoming comments) to ignore the drama and direct the discussion to focus on the actual issues of the article content.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 06:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've made mention of a few very valid points that should be addressed. Your collaborative spirit (per "little to do with the article's improvement") is seriously lacking. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Several issues that need to be resolved
Short list
Here's a short list of issues with the article:
- Lead does not mention the rioting at all and doesn't clarify how the police's inability to control these riots brought about the deployment of military personnel.
Tanks were not an active participant and are irrelevant hyperbole for the lead and as such should be removed - basically the same treatment as with detail of the rioting style (i.e. road blocking, Molotov cocktails, setting woods on fire, destruction of public property, Palestinian and other flag raising, anti-Israel chanting etc.).(fixed issue stricken) I think it would be a preferred treatment to minimize the "and military" layout which suggests the army was sent in to shoot people rather than to help police be able to contain the violence from becoming a full blown catastrophe.- I've just tried to minimize this issue to be almost fully dealt with, IMHO, but it will take a little while to see if the edit sticks or if its reverted.[7] - Update: it was.[8]
- Clarify current main issue with the lead: it needs a rephrase so that the "and military" layout no longer suggests the army was sent in to shoot people rather than the historically viable note that soldiers were used to help police be able to contain the violence from becoming a full blown catastrophe. I would prefer a version that writes this down as "clashes with authorities" rather then a version that mentions Arab violence and Army units being deployed to counter that violence. If there is something historically unclear with my noting this, let me know. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
p.s. I'd like it added also that 16 policemen and soldiers were injured on top of the 69 Palestinian injured. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Clarify current main issue with the lead: it needs a rephrase so that the "and military" layout no longer suggests the army was sent in to shoot people rather than the historically viable note that soldiers were used to help police be able to contain the violence from becoming a full blown catastrophe. I would prefer a version that writes this down as "clashes with authorities" rather then a version that mentions Arab violence and Army units being deployed to counter that violence. If there is something historically unclear with my noting this, let me know. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've just tried to minimize this issue to be almost fully dealt with, IMHO, but it will take a little while to see if the edit sticks or if its reverted.[7] - Update: it was.[8]
- Israeli media section needs a rewrite and retitling. Currently, its still very much a manifesto piece presented as "the media" rather than as a analysis of media "prejudices" from a left wing perspective. I'm not even sure that this content is relevant for this article and not some other article about social analysis of Israeli-Arab conflicts which includes notes from other opinionated organizations like MEMRI and honestreporting.
- Article requires a section about the yearly protests which includes major notable activities. This should not be written as "Israeli media claims that..." or "Israeli government claims that..." which is unfair treatment for Israeli reliable sources and stands in clear contrast with less reliable journalists and activists used in the article.
- Al-Ahram, a politically motivated Egyptian publication, is treated with more respect than wiki-reliable sources. This needs to be corrected.
That's it for now, JaakobouChalk Talk 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC) +1 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC) St,++ 10:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC) +edit 11:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Replies
- 1. What rioting are you talking about, are you talking about riots in 76 or in past years commemoration of Land Day? If you are talking about the events of 76, can you provide some sources that describe those events as a riot? I have so far seen one, but the vast majority of the sources say it was a strike and a protest. If you are saying there were riots in past commemorations, again, please proivde a source saying so. Really, for everything you just said, please provide sources. You have done little convincing that the deployment of tanks should not be mentioned when multiple reliable sources saw fit to explicitly detail that.
- 2. Much of the discussion in the Israeli media section is based off a book published by Cambridge University Press by 2 professors at the University at Tel-Aviv. The part in the book referenced is dealing specifically with a study investigating "the reports about Land Day of the Arab citizens of the state Israel in seven major Israeli newspapers" and another study that analyzed how Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronot cover the events over 20 years. That you read it as a manifesto piece presented as "the media" rather than as a analysis of media "prejudices" is contradicted by a reliable source.
- 3. Sources please. nableezy - 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- 1. Agree with Nableezy that it would be better for you to bring sources that discuss the issue of rioting. While the New York Times source mentions "riots" in passing, it does not say that "the police's inability to control these riots brought about the deployment of military personnel." The other source mentioning the rioting is Arutz Sheva, which most editors here do not view as a WP:RS. While I have no problem using Arutz Sheva as a source as long as info is attributed directly to it, I cannot support including information from them in the lead. If you have reliable sources detailing "the rioting style (i.e. road blocking, Molotov cocktails, setting woods on fire, destruction of public property, Palestinian and other flag raising, anti-Israel chanting etc.)," please provide them so that we can discuss where and how to include them.
- 2. Agree with Nableezy here too. An academic study by two Israeli professors is not comparable to the work produced by advocacy organizations like MEMRI and honestreporting.
- 3. Regaring the "major notable activities" that take place in yearly protests, we have a section dealing with that entitled "Legacy". If you have sources mentioning activities that are not currrently described in that section, please present the sources and indicate exactly what it is that you would like to add. Tiamuttalk 08:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The mention of tanks has been removed from the lead. This should be stricken from your list.Tiamuttalk 15:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to censor information from our readers.Tiamuttalk 15:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is such a section. Please be more specific. You've been asked for this many times. Tiamuttalk 15:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Al-Ahram is now used for two statements only, one directly attributed to its author. Please strike this. Tiamuttalk 15:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I call bs on the addition of number 4 here after we already responded to everything else. And Al-Ahram is a reliable source, regardless of what Jaakobou says about the Egyptian media. You cannot disqualify all Egyptian media in the name of NPOV. Especially when you have been pushing Arutz Sheva over and over. nableezy - 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- It will not stick when you don't bother to respect the wording forged by consensus on the numbers of arrested or wounded. Nor will it stick when you try to minimize the involvement of the army, which all sources agree was a major feature of the events that day. The fact is that the army and police were sent in and six people were killed. You cannot change the facts.
- Also, I notice that you still have not stricken the first part of point one. Am I to understnad that you want to include mention of the riots in the lead even after mention of the tanks and artillery being deployed was removed? That's not balanced Jaakobou and I will not agree to that. Sorry. Tiamuttalk 11:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- It will not stick when you don't bother to respect the wording forged by consensus on the numbers of arrested or wounded. Nor will it stick when you try to minimize the involvement of the army, which all sources agree was a major feature of the events that day. The fact is that the army and police were sent in and six people were killed. You cannot change the facts.
- Firstly, I'd like -- for example -- that the non-neutral "confiscate" be replaced with "expropriate", which is the neutral term. Honestly, Tiamut, I'm not interested in anything that common sense and NPOV would have us write. I feel accused of "minimizing" and other stuff, and this is not right. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Done. What else? Tiamuttalk 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Replies to second list
1. What source says that the soldiers were used to help the police contain the violence? The sources I have seen mention that an IDF unit was deployed in Arab villages, along the roads, etc. And some of them say clearly this preceded any rioting. (See the hidden note in our article from Yosef Goell in the Jerusalem Post for eg.) Also what source says that "16 policemen and soldiers were injured on top of the 69 Palestinian injured." We have sources attesting to "about 100" injuries among Palestinians and two others that mention Israeli security forces injuries without providing figures. Where did you get those figures?
2. I'd ask that you please stop using the term "manifesto piece", I find it very insulting. I've offered a different title option for that section below. If you feel the section needs balancing it can be done by finding reliable sources that say something else about Israeli media coverage or challenge the findings presented in these studies. I faithfully represented the contents of the source, if the conclusions are POV that's only natural given that all studies present a POV. The solution is to find counter POVs (if any) and include them. If there are none, then the section is NPOV because it represents all significant minority viewpoints on the issue.
3. I've asked you a number of times for exactly what you would like to include regarding the yearly protests. You have pointed me to a source, but have not answered my questions below for specifically which sentences/information you want to see there. Please do and we can move forward.
4. This last point is highly dubious to me. No other editor has problems with Al-Ahram. Its used for exactly two sentences (I cut out all the rest to cater to your concerns). We use Arutz Sheva because you insisted we do, even though others thought it was not WP:RS and we use all kinds of other Israeli media sources without qualifications. So I fail to see why you keep repeating this point. It should have been stricken out long ago.
Please respond to these points directly below Jaakobou. This discussion is very disjointed because you are organizing your problems at the top of this section and obliging us to respond below. Please be precise. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Further discussion
- To Nableezy:
- I'm talking about both the 76 events as well as the annual ones. Here's a sample source of high quality for the 1976 part.[9]
- If you're unconvinced that a minimized version (i.e. which doesn't hyperbole the unused tanks), should be in the lead, I'm ok with a lengthened version that includes all the detail on the style of rioting. We can't however hyperbole one narrative and censor the other. Personally, I'd prefer a simple conservatively written encyclopedic version that sticks to the most important things (such as "escalation in the clashes lead to 6 Palestinian casualties") which is how the WP:LEAD should work anyways. Current phrasing, esp. with this recent change,[10] is down right silly in the way it portrays Israel and it requires reworking.
- Source was written by a, decades long, activist in the fringe left-wing group "Peace Now" who has stated himself that his life-long project has been active pursuit of changing public opinions. The used source is an 'Israelis use stereotypes that enhance the conflict' type of psycho-babble "thesis" and its certainly not a neutral analysis of the media events by an historian. We could include it here as some type of criticism section but current usage is over-done and misleading. Also, regardless of how its listed down, the source's writer should also be attributed for his advocacy status.
- p.s. The publisher isn't the issue here and the content is indeed wiki-reliable (despite its bias), though not entirely connected to the type of sources proffered (i.e. by historians, not behavior-science publications).
- I gave a few. Lets start with those and work our way up a few others. Just so it won't be necessary to look them up in this page... [11][12][13]
- I'm talking about both the 76 events as well as the annual ones. Here's a sample source of high quality for the 1976 part.[9]
- To Tiamut:
- See reply to Nableezy.
- Their translations (MEMRI) are considered reliable and their interpretations and analysis on those interpretations are of the same quality as (or higher than) any other published behavioral-science professor out there. In fact, the used research (by Bar-Tal) is of less value since MEMRI uses professionals that are not actively working an extremist group ("Peace Now") for decades saying they dedicated themselves to changing people's opinions (see also my note to Nableezy on this matter).
- I've mentioned a few of the missing bits in past comments. I'd be interested in the more Nationalistic content such as the poetry used and the symbolism as well as the less peaceful activities that occur on a yearly basis. Some of it has extended reasoning that is not directly related to the 76 events, which should also be added.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- To Jaakobou
- You gave us a source in Hebrew, which you know neither of us can read. So sorry, can't help you there. Source is no goo fo us.
- I don't care about MEMRI. They are not relevant to this discussion. The studies analyzing media in Israel were authored by respectable Israeli academics. They are RS'. End of story.
- Of the three articles you linked to, one is already used in the article (Artuz Sheva; which I added info from despite the objections of other editors re: it is not an RS. I'm not going to use it for anything else because of that.) One is in Hebrew (again, not useful to me sorry). And the other, I'm unclear as to what you wish to add. Are you talking about these slogans?: "Do not worry, mother of martyr, your son did not die in vain," "We are with the youths who throw rocks," and "We do not fear Israel, the terrorist state." [...] In Hebrew, marchers chanted slogans against Defense Minister Ehud Barak, shouting, "Barak, how many children did you murder today? Tiamuttalk 18:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Tiamut, here is a translated version of that source, though it only translates a portion of the text (I have no idea why google translate is so finicky). But that is an Israeli government source, so not really a "reliable" source to be used for statements of fact. Jaak, MEMRI is reliable for translations, not for interpretations. And the studies are specifically about the Israeli media's coverage of these events, so it is relevant, it is reliable, and it should be included. Of the 3 sources you provided 1 is reliable, another not so much but still used in the article, and the last a government source that can be used only to source the opinions of the Israeli government. nableezy - 18:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Its wiki-(and factually)-reliable and supports everything I've mentioned. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- p.s. Tiamut, certainly, a story doesn't end if a source is wiki-reliable if that source is made by an advocacy piece. The question is not reliability of what they say Israeli media said, but the nature of their social-studies analysis. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I can't read the government source Jaakobou. The translated part has one sentence on Land Day and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take your word that it "supports everthing" you've mentioned. What exactly? Where? Can you translate the section in question?
- p.s. About the academic media studies, you are not an expert on "the nature of their social-studies analysis", so your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. If you have a source critiquing the studies, that would be more than welcome. Sources please Jaakobou, and preferably ones in English. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which one is reliable? The government source? No it is not, it cannot be used to say "x happened" only to say "the Israeli government maintains that x happened". And your opinion of what an advocacy piece is worthless, we have an academic study used in a book published by a university press by two Israeli professors. Also, the way you broke up this section is
retardedunwise, could you restore it how it was? nableezy - 18:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)modified by Nableezy at 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC) - And "their social-studies analysis" is reliably sourced and you have not provided a source that contradicts it. That you do not like the conclusions is not sufficient reason to remove it. nableezy - 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Tiamut, here is a translated version of that source, though it only translates a portion of the text (I have no idea why google translate is so finicky). But that is an Israeli government source, so not really a "reliable" source to be used for statements of fact. Jaak, MEMRI is reliable for translations, not for interpretations. And the studies are specifically about the Israeli media's coverage of these events, so it is relevant, it is reliable, and it should be included. Of the 3 sources you provided 1 is reliable, another not so much but still used in the article, and the last a government source that can be used only to source the opinions of the Israeli government. nableezy - 18:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Believe not the obfuscators! A government source is primary; there are probably secondary sources that back it up. And don't call people or their actions retarded, please (btw, Nableezy, I'll drop you an e-mail. I have some explaining to do... might hit you today or tomorrow) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Unless I'm missing something; sometimes government sources seem primary because the content is seen as an endorsement, when in fact it itself is references something secondary *gasps for air*
- Fair enough (though it was just the action and not the person I called retarded). nableezy - 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you're in the states... "the police acted stupidly" ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- But they did, though I am not all that sympathetic to he who was stupidly arrested [14] (though much like that line, no matter how true, this only will serve to change the topic that matters) nableezy - 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just small light-hearted banter :-) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) my point being that whether it's an adjective describing a person, or an adverb describing their actions, it tends cause offense.
- All good, was more concerned that my link would be what would change the topic, not your initial comment. And you are right on that, so I will try and bite my tongue (or my fingers) nableezy - 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just small light-hearted banter :-) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) my point being that whether it's an adjective describing a person, or an adverb describing their actions, it tends cause offense.
- But they did, though I am not all that sympathetic to he who was stupidly arrested [14] (though much like that line, no matter how true, this only will serve to change the topic that matters) nableezy - 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you're in the states... "the police acted stupidly" ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- And if it is a primary source it should only be used to relay the opinion of whoever produced the source, right? Is there something wrong with 'it cannot be used to say "x happened" only to say "the Israeli government maintains that x happened"'? nableezy - 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Primary sources aren't great to begin with, but when sourced should be directly attributed; "says" is better wording than "maintains", even if this is about a back-and-forth between two sources, since I/P articles -- and other contentious areas -- should be as equal in tone as possible... and "maintains" might cause problems on its own. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I just used "maintains", dont think it really matters if "says", "states", "proclaims", "believes" or whatever is used. nableezy - 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fine with all that, but I can't add anything from that source unless someone can translate what it says. Anyone? Tiamuttalk 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- A decent translation is available here. Google still didnt get everything and some words are still in Hebrew, others transliterated into English, but we should be able to find out what most of it is saying now. nableezy - 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Nableezy. It is a still a little hard to understand, but I think I get the jist. I will add something from the report, attributed to its authors, soon. Tiamuttalk 09:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- A decent translation is available here. Google still didnt get everything and some words are still in Hebrew, others transliterated into English, but we should be able to find out what most of it is saying now. nableezy - 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fine with all that, but I can't add anything from that source unless someone can translate what it says. Anyone? Tiamuttalk 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I just used "maintains", dont think it really matters if "says", "states", "proclaims", "believes" or whatever is used. nableezy - 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Primary sources aren't great to begin with, but when sourced should be directly attributed; "says" is better wording than "maintains", even if this is about a back-and-forth between two sources, since I/P articles -- and other contentious areas -- should be as equal in tone as possible... and "maintains" might cause problems on its own. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, so the relevant paragraph is this one:
117. Broke into the events after the Israeli government announced the expropriation of about 20,000 acres for expansion of settlements in the Galilee - 80% of them Jewish communities. Lands were in part a state land and some private land - some of them -6.300 acres privately owned by Arabs (approximately -4.400 D were Jewish-owned). Committees were established in the Arab action to protest against the expropriations, and against the very principle of "Iyahud Galilee", a general strike was declared a day השלושים March. Already on bail the same day, broke into hundreds of conflicts between demonstrators and security forces Vsh Jenin, Deir Barava Hna - villages that were among the victims of expropriations. Arab public figures tried to limit the demonstrations, but have lost control over events. The demonstrators הבעירו tires, blocked roads stone throwing Molotov cocktails. Security forces, including even a single IDF ית, entered the curfew imposed by the villages. Those killed in clashes Arava resident and injured several of the animal by the security forces. The next day, the day the strike, the demonstrations spread to many Arabs in the Galilee Triangle. Serious clashes lasted all that day by security personnel Five other people were killed. Yes many were wounded on both sides.
- Okay, so the relevant paragraph is this one:
- But I can't really understand it that well to be honest. Could someone provide a better translation? I don't want to assume things that are not in there, and because we are going to attribute it to its authors, that's especially true. Sorry for the trouble, but I just want to get this right. Tiamuttalk 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ynhockey, since you are now actively editing this article, would you mind offering a better translation of the above paragraph and/or including relevant information in the body of the article? That would help to address another of Jaakobou's concerns. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 10:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Here:
- 117. The events started after the Israeli government announced the expropriation of about 20,000 dunams in order to expand towns in the Galilee—80% of them Jewish towns. The lands were partly state lands, and partly private lands—about 6,300 dunams of them privately owned by Arabs (about 4,400 dunams were owned by Jews). Action committees were founded in the Arab towns in order to protest against the expropriations, and against the very idea of "Judaizing the Galilee", and a general strike was organized for March 30. Already during that day, clashes occurred between hundreds of protestors and the security forces in Sakhnin, Arraba and Deir Hana—villages that were some of those hurt by the expropriations. Arab public figures tried to limit the protests, but lost control over the events. The protestors burnt tires, blocked roads, and threw rocks and molotov cocktails. The security forces, among them one IDF unit, entered the villages and imposed a curfew. In these clashes a resident of Arraba was killed, and several were wounded. The next day, the protests spread to more Arab villages in the Galilee and the Triangle. Severe clashes developed during that day, and five more people were killed by the security forces. Many were also injured, on both sides.
- These events had great impact in Israel and abroad, and were a milestone in the history of the Arab minority in Israel. This was the first time the Arab residents organized violently against a government decision, and the first such event to have casualties. For many in the Arab minority, this was a life-forming and constitutive experience. The events was related to the most painful issue for the Arab minority—the land—and were a symbol for steadfast resistance. From that day, "Land Day" was marked annually with demonstrations, that occurred in various degrees of disorderly conduct. As such, the demonstration model of 1976, i.e. demonstrations that descended into violence and clashes with police, turned into a source of admiration for future demonstrations for Arab-Israeli community.
Honestly, this short account gives a much better view of the event and its aftermath than anything written in this lengthy article. Wikipedia editors should learn a lesson or two from the Israeli government, and write shortly and concisely, without bloat.
To Tiamut: Your recent revert was unjustified. It basically said what I said, only with worse English and poorer sentence structure. Please also keep in mind that the lead is meant to summarize the article, not vice versa. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the translation Ynhockey. I will be including the information from this source in my next edit to the article, attributed to its authors, the government of Israel. Note that the information there contradicts other sources we have.
First, it says five, not six people were killed.Second, it says the curfews were declared in response to rioting, whereas other sources indicate that the demonstrations were declared illegal before they even began. There are other things too, but I will include the information attributed to its source and let the reader decide for themselves. - About my recent "revert" ... Your changes included a sentence fragment that was grammatically incorrect and nonsenscial. They also removed a formulation on how to discuss the wounded and arrested that was forged out of a discussion between four editors above (which you did not participate in). Further, while you claim my lead is "bloated", its all of two paragraphs one of which is one sentence. This is remarkably brief for a lead which can comprise up to four paragraphs.
- Thanks again for the translation and happy editing. Tiamuttalk 11:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it is not a contradiction. The government source does not say anything about the legality of the demonstrations, and actually implies that they were declared illegal from the start (why were there security forces at hand? Obviously because demonstrations were expected). The curfew came later, as a response to the violence, but this has nothing to do with the legality of the demonstrations. Saying so would be WP:SYNTH.
- Finally, I would be very interested to know which part of my lead was grammatically incorrect or "nonsencial". On the contrary, I thought it was much more well-written than the version you reverted to (one long incoherent sentence), but the problems seem to have been mostly resolved by now. I might add however that it would help if you examined the edits before blanket-reverting; for example, in this case you removed a small WP:HE fix which my previous edit also included. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry about missing the Hebrew fix (in my defense, Ha'adama being changed to HaAdama is kind of hard to see, but you're right I should be more careful). About what was wrong grammatically with your version, I've bolded the problematic sentence :
Land Day' (Arabic: يوم الأرض, Yom al-Ard; Hebrew: יום האדמה, Yom HaAdama), is an annual Palestinian day of commemoration, held on March 30. On that date in 1976, an Israeli plan to expropriate 21 square kilometers of lands owned by Arabs. This became a catalyst for clashes between Arab citizens of Israel and government authorities, leading to the death of 6 protesters as well as the injuring over 100 and imprisonment of many others.
Does that sound grammatically correct to you? Tiamuttalk 23:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is also this section that another user translated for me:
nableezy - 13:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)131. The Land Day – March 2000. The follow-up committee decided to concentrate (coordinate) the protest demonstrations on the 24th Land Day in 5 places, primarily in those that symbolize the struggle for the lands – Sakhnin, Mouaviya-Al-Rucha and unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev. The committee spokespersons stressed in the press-conference that the event's agenda will be "restoration of the confiscated lands and not merely preserving what's left of them". The day of the general strike and the processions on March 30th proceeded relatively calmly, excluding Sakhnin, where hundreds of youngsters who participated in the massive gathering that was held there moved on towards military base adjacent to the village houses in the west, uprooted the fences, penetrated into the base and waved there the Palestinian flag. Public figures (some of who were deprived from making a speech because of this unrest) attempted to retract the rioters, but were warded off in disgrace and with beatings. Border police forces that arrived to reinforce the base defenders were received with rain of stones and several veiled persons set the woods there on fire. Police forces started using tear gas and rubber rounds and following hard fighting succeeded in pushing the rioters away, but the collisions continued for prolonged time on the main road. Muhammad Zidan, the Head of the Superior Follow-up Council, was among the wounded in the clashes. The Follow-up committee claimed that 72-year old woman, resident of Sakhnin, who deceased in the hospital, was injured from inhaling the (tear)gas.
- There is also this section that another user translated for me:
- Thanks Nableezy. That's also very useful in providing a lot of detail we haven't yet seen in many of the articles on the event. I'll try to incorporate some soon. You feel free to also take a stab. The section on the events of the day is kind of quote heavy right now. I was thinking of trying to paraphrase and place the quotes pertaining to each paraphrase in footnotes. But that's a lot of work and I'm swamped, literally swamped right now. Anyway, I do appreciate your efforts. Tiamuttalk 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also one note on the above translation, I think the term Arab-Israeli is actually either "Arab citizens of Israel", "the Arab minority" or "the Arab sector" based on note paragraph 2 of the document. Not sure though. nableezy - 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Nableezy. That's also very useful in providing a lot of detail we haven't yet seen in many of the articles on the event. I'll try to incorporate some soon. You feel free to also take a stab. The section on the events of the day is kind of quote heavy right now. I was thinking of trying to paraphrase and place the quotes pertaining to each paraphrase in footnotes. But that's a lot of work and I'm swamped, literally swamped right now. Anyway, I do appreciate your efforts. Tiamuttalk 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Mention of tanks in lead removed
I've taken it out now, since Ynhockey made an edit removing it too. Since he had not participated in the discussion on this, I wasn't aware he too had a problem with it. So it's now out, given that its three editors for its inclusion and two against. I hope that resolves one of the issues raised by Jaakobou. Are we any closer to having this POV tag removed? Tiamuttalk 10:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've removed the POV tag at the top of the article and left the one on the media section for now. I'd ask that it not be restored at the top of the page again. If Jaakobou still thinks that there are POV issues in the Legacy section because there is still no mention of "nationalistic" acts (or whatever it is he wants to include) in there, he can re-append it there. I'd ask though that the restoration be accompanied by a clear explanation of exactly which material he wants to include from the Jpost article he provided. I asked for this above but never got it. I'm more than willing to include material from it, I'd just like the request to be specific so that I don't play guessing games, waste my time and miss the mark. Tiamuttalk 12:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- The tag is there to say that the article is, in general, very much slanted. I fail the reasoning of removing the tag in order to resolve the article issues. I'd ask (a fourth or possibly even a fifth time) that it not be removed right after you make a revert. Thanks. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- You continue to disruptively tag this article despite my many many efforts to addres your concerns. I did revert all of your changes while restoring the tag because:
- You ignored the discussion that reached consensus wording on how to describe the number of arrested and wounded.
- You inverted the order of events placing the call for a curfew after the annoucement of the general strike and marches when the sources indicate it was the other way around.
- You restored British Mandate Palestine even though the sources use Palestine, full-stop.
- You deleted this sentence without any explanation: "The government declared all demonstrations illegal and threatened to fire 'agitators', such as schoolteachers who encouraged their students to participate, from their jobs."
- Please try to gain consensus for your changes before making them. And do try to respect the consensus formulations forged by discussions between multiple editors. Tiamuttalk 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- PS. I would like you to again respond to my questions above regarding what specifically still needs to be done to achieve NPOV in your eyes. Specifically, please isolate the material you want to see included from Jpost. The mention of tanks was removed from the lead per your request. Besides that, the only outstanding issue remains the media section, which you have yet to provide a decent rationale for tagging. If you fail to respond, I will remove the tag and if you continue to re-tag this article without responding to these concerns, I will report you to WP:AE for WP:DE. Tiamuttalk 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, if you cannot provide a source that disputes what the studies cited in the media coverage says I will be removing that NPOV tag again. You not liking what RSs said does not give you cause to tag the section. That section is well-sourced to academic works. There is no cause for the tag. nableezy - 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Nableezy,
- If you have no intention on working in a collaborative spirit, then why are you here on this website? To battle it out with pro-Israelis and be abusive? Honestly, a source, regardless of its social-study credentials, is not a scientific fact if it is written by a known extremist activist. Social study scholars have a history of making judgment calls and this one has taken a further step towards propagandist. I have no problem with his (Bar-Tal) study being listed, but it cannot be addressed as if this is a neutral and encyclopedic presentation of what Israeli media is all about - which according to the source, its blind propaganda. At the very least, the section should be retitled to "criticism of Israeli media".
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Jaakobou,
- Stop using your personal opinions on the worthiness of academic studies to continue to hold up removing the NPOV tag. Also do not make further insinuations as to my motives. If I were to say "why are you here? So you can continue to propagandize and distort every article you come across?" you might be upset with that. So I dont ask you that question or make the insinuation. I ask you do the same.
- Warm regards, nableezy - 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you keep attributing the information in the two separate studies authored by four different professors and cited in the book by Bar-Tal and Teichman solely to Bar-Tal? You ar misrepresenting the sources when you do that. Please stop it. It is impossible to collaborate in good faith when you ignore the reality of who authored the studies to serve your own end of having this information removed or incorrectly qualified. Tiamuttalk 11:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll give this issue a second look a little later and see how big is the improvement. From what I've seen, though, at the very least, the section should be retitled to "criticism of Israeli media". JaakobouChalk Talk 11:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would be willing to go with "Studies of Israeli media coverage." More neutral. Tiamuttalk 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Al-Ahram (latest addition #4 in the short list)
Jaakobou latest complaint is that Al-Ahram is overused in the article. As a result, I've found replacement refs for much of the material previously cited to Al-Ahram. I want to make clear that I do not share his opinion regarding Al-Ahram not qualifying as a RS. It most certinaly is an RS. But given his insistence on maintaining the NPOV tag until all of his concerns are catered to, I've gone ahead and made this move. Now, Al-Ahram is used to support two statements in the article. One is the opinion of Nawef Hawatmeh (the author of the article in Al-Ahram) on what the goal of the confiscations was and it is attributed directly to him. Two, it is used to support the statement that this is a national day of commemoration for Palestinian everywhere, something Hawatmeh, as a Palestinian, is more than qualified to comment on. I expect that Jaakobou will concede that this concern of his has been addressed and strike it from his list. Tiamuttalk 15:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll find time to review what uses the activist who was published on Al-Ahram (reliable source???) at a later time, and if the issue is fixed, I assure you I will remove the issue from the list.
- Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what the NPOV dispute is about, but just one point about Al-Ahram. It is a reliable source, one of the most respected newspapers in the area. The NPOV tag shouldn't be used as leverage to remove reliable sources that one party doesn't like. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Heya SlimVirgin,
- I believe you've been misnotified of the issue in this discussion as the Al-Ahram dispute is about the "secretary-general of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestinian" being noted as an actual historical account rather than as a Palestinian perspective. On the flip-side of things, Israeli sources were deemed unreliable in that very discussion. Surely you can understand how such a double-standard would cause an alarm.
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Surely you understand by this point you are purposefully misrepresenting the position of other editors. One Israeli source was disputed. Arutz Sheva was disputed, but because of your persistence Tiamut put that in as a source. Can you stop making these misrepresentations over and over? Tiamut has put in a number of Israeli sources. You provided another one in Hebrew and refused to provide translations of the relevant section, so I went and asked others to translate the needed portions so we could use it in the article. And you have been consistently arguing that al-Ahram is not a reliable source. It is. It is a major news media source in Egypt and widely read across the world. You have yet to say you dispute the reliability because of who wrote it, instead saying things like al-Ahram has antisemitic crossword puzzle answers. nableezy - 16:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Jaakobou, you never mentioned Hawatmeh until now. Your focus was that Al-Ahram is not reliable because it is anti-Semitic among other things. Now you are saying that Hawatmeh is the problem? Please stop shifting the goalpost. Hawatmeh is used for two things: one, to express his opinion (attributed to him) as to what the goal of the expropriations was. Per NPOV, we should represent all significant viewpoints and a Palestinian political leaders viewpoints on the issue are indeed relevant. Two, he is used as a source for the statement regarding the importance of land day commemorations to all Palestinians. Again, as a Palestinian political leader, he is a valid source for that information. There is no problem here. Please concede that your initial concerns on this issue have been addressed and the new ones you have raised are rather unfair. Tiamuttalk 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- The point about the NPOV tag is that it mustn't be used as a bargaining chip to force material out of the article. It should be used only when all else fails, and the reader needs to be alerted about serious problems that no one is managing to fix. That's not the case here. All of these minor points can be dealt with through discussion and compromise. There's no need for the article to be defaced.
- Regarding Al-Ahram, there's no question that it's a reliable source. As for Hawatmeh in particular, his views constitute a valid perspective, and you can use in-text attribution for anything contentious. And by the way, Jaakobou, no one notified or misnotified me. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Belated reply, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would use Al-Ahram as the sole/main source for learning about Israeli history. Egyptian press is not only government controlled and ranks extremely low on press freedom charts, but it is also antisemitic for the most part. I suggest the documentary "Blaming the Jews" if you want a sample on how low they can get and the validation that high officials give to my statement here. Regardless, opinions written in it can be used as a "XXX perspective is that..."
- Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Limited time, and things to change
My time is a tad limited, but I'm still interested in changes in this article, which is still heavily POV but I'll wait to make a more serious review and inspect how the collaboration process works out before deciding on whether or not a dispute tag is truly necessary again (there have been some real improvements). I would go ahead and be bold with changes myslef, but as I took a break and as this article induces a lot of emotions, I figured it be better to first lay out desired changes/queries on the talk page. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
List of issues
- "from the Galilee to the Negev" - lead paragraph lists this down and links it to the JPost narrative article. I don't see the special value of listing down the Galilee and the Negev in the lead - these are just fluff terms and it would be better to replace it with a more generic, non enhancing, descriptive from the same article - i.e. "around the country". I think it would also be better to use a more historical source than a problematic journalist (who's been caught of making up anti-'Jewish-Settlers' content and putting it to publication).[16]
Done text, source not yet replaced. 10:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree about the Halpern source, and good job on finding another one. In that light, I don't understand the revert made by Nableezy. For the record, the problematic article is here, and the retraction is here. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yn, you reintroduced spelling and grammatical errors with your revert, kindly clean up the mess you brought back. About the substance, you say '"sent in army and police" is inaccurate because the police was always there, no one "send it in"', if that was the issue why did you not just remove the police from the sentence, why remove the whole sentence? There are multiple sources in the article that describe the catalyzing event of the violence as being the display of force, not just that the protests became violent for no apparent reason as the article currently says and then, tragically of course, those violent protests became confrontations with security forces (funny how when the word army disappears the words "security forces" have much less meaning). You want to remove the source fine, but it does not justify removing content that is easily sourced to multiple other sources that are already in the article. But I dont want to deal with this for now, so if you want to correct the issues you reintroduced feel free. If you just want to provide backup reflecting a certain users pov feel free. nableezy - 06:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've restored Nableezy's edit, seeing nothing wrong with it at all. On the other hand, Jaakobou and Ynhockey seem to want to erase all mention of the actions of the Israeli police and army in this affair, which is strange given that multiple reliable sources indicate that they day is notable because of the massive deployment of Israeli forces against its Arab citizens. We already agreed to removing mention of "tanks and armoured vehicles" from the lead. I don't see why we should whitewash out any mention of the deployment of forces and pretend that events just "degenerated into violence" on their own. Tiamuttalk 09:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- PS. Ynhockey, what are you linking to above? I don't recall using that article in ours here. The Halpern article is from the Jerusalem Post and not Forward. What's the relevance of what you link above to what we are discussing? Tiamuttalk 09:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tiamut, please stop looking for ulterior motives in other peoples' edits. If you don't like the edit, discuss it, not the editor. If I have time, I will look further into this matter, although the wording "sent in army and police" misleads the reader as to what happenned. The chronology is simple: Protestors and police were at the scene > protests turned violent > police turned violent (and an army unit was sent). This is not what "sent in army and police" conveys. In regards to sources, personally I'd like to see more use of academic sources in the article and less reliance on the mass media. The event happenned in 1976, there's no reason to use the mass media at all actually, with the rich bibliography we have.
- About the link, you can clearly see that I was posting it in support of Jaakobou's argument that using this author as a source should be avoided. The author does not work for the Jerusalem Post or The Forward, as far as I can tell. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yn, you reintroduced spelling and grammatical errors with your revert, kindly clean up the mess you brought back. About the substance, you say '"sent in army and police" is inaccurate because the police was always there, no one "send it in"', if that was the issue why did you not just remove the police from the sentence, why remove the whole sentence? There are multiple sources in the article that describe the catalyzing event of the violence as being the display of force, not just that the protests became violent for no apparent reason as the article currently says and then, tragically of course, those violent protests became confrontations with security forces (funny how when the word army disappears the words "security forces" have much less meaning). You want to remove the source fine, but it does not justify removing content that is easily sourced to multiple other sources that are already in the article. But I dont want to deal with this for now, so if you want to correct the issues you reintroduced feel free. If you just want to provide backup reflecting a certain users pov feel free. nableezy - 06:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree about the Halpern source, and good job on finding another one. In that light, I don't understand the revert made by Nableezy. For the record, the problematic article is here, and the retraction is here. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)