Talk:Bil'in

Bot vandalization?
I found this reference in the article:

The protests often end in stonethrowing and rioting in which both protesters and soldiers have been injured. http://archive.kosher.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Article_ID=4148 Kosher.com - kosher bakery, kosher grocery, your everything kosher superstore!

Is that a bot vandalization or what? -- Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Category
I just added this article to category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which is admittedly very vague and general. I am doing so because I'm cleaning up the list Nonviolent resistance. If there were a category for nonviolent protests in Palestine, then I would move it there, but I'm not aware of any category that fits that bill. &mdash; Sebastian 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pollak passage swapped for similar
As I was adding refs to be able to appropriately restore a helpful passage that was deleted previously, I found I had to remove the following text: "Jonathan Pollak of Anarchists Against the Wall, a regular at the protests, has been injured several times . On April 3, 2005, Pollak was shot in the head with a teargas canister causing internal brain hemorrhages and a wound requiring 23 stitches(broken link in the original)"

The first ref in the passage above, to The Guardian, doesn't say anything about Pollack being injured multiple times. I don't doubt that he has been, but if the source doesn't support the statement, the statement has to go. ( This ref would be relevant for an article on similar protests that evidently occur in the village of Ni'ilin, near Ramallah, though, if we have such an article. But all it really says about Pollack - they write "Pollock" - is that he was a regular at the protests there, in Ni'ilin, as of July, 2008. )

Similarly, the second ref points to a non-existent page, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=560981. I presume this is just due to so-called "link rot", because the report can now be found at here, at Haaretz's site. But it doesn't really fully corroborate the language used in the our article, either. It doesn't say Pollack was "shot in the head", exactly, and it says nothing at all about brain hemorrages; also it says he needed stitches, but not "23 stitches".Other editors may disagree with this decision, but rather than try to salvage the Pollack passage, I think it's better scrapped, and replaced with another source I found in an NPR article:"The regular clashes here recently received international attention when Tristan Anderson, an American peace activist, was struck in the head by an Israeli tear gas canister. The 38-year-old suffered massive damage to the frontal lobe of his brain, as well as an eye. Despite several brain surgeries, Anderson remains in a medically induced coma at a Tel Aviv hospital." Followed by the previously-in-place sentence about an Israeli soldier having lost an eye from a thrown stone, this swap comes fairly close representing the intensity of the aggression and violence on both sides, which is certainly my intention here. – OhioStandard  (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In making that swap, for which this (talk page) section is titled, I also ended up making additional changes as I went, mostly to try to improve continuity. – OhioStandard  (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw your edits and the only thing that really struck me (no pun intended) was that looking at the statement "Although the demonstrations are described as non-violent, they often end in violence in which both protesters and soldiers have been injured" and a bunch of refs it's not immediately clear that it isn't WP:SYNTH. It's the secondary source that supports that statement that is the important one and the only one that provides WP:V compliance for the statement i.e. articles with examples of people injured/violence etc don't provide support for that statement because the statement has to come from secondary source rather than us providing examples. The refs dont hurt either though. I wondered if maybe adding a quote from a source in the citation would make it clearer that it's not synth. Inevitably I've forgotten which one it was...having a look now.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the quote to the ref. Feel free to revert/use a better quote or not etc.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no wish to revert or modify at all. On the contrary, I'm grateful for your having added the quote - I'd forgotten one could do that in a ref - and for your other corrections and improvements. I appreciate the exacting care you exercised in making them, as well - few editors are as careful to comply with both the letter and the spirit of our policies, and I really like that. If you have the time or interest, please feel free to make any other improvements or corrections that come to mind for you: be bold! :-) I have no emotional stake in preserving anything I've written here, I just want to see the article and encyclopedia improved, and you've done that very happily. Thanks, very nice work indeed! Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Adjacent?
The article says "It is adjacent to the Israeli West Bank barrier and the Israeli settlement of Modi'in Illit." Could we make this more precise? Does the barrier separate Modi'in and Bil'in? Or are both on the Israeli side of the barrier? --91.115.57.15 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jawaher Abu Rahmah's location during protest
There has been debate over the phrasing of the disputed reports of the location of Jawaher Abu Rahmah during the 31 December protest in the Weekly protests section. User:138.134.102.15 cites refname=pnn asserting that Abu Rahmah's brother claimed Abu Rahmah was at home during the protest. The article says that she was at home, but there is no mention of her brother making that claim as far as I can tell. Please discuss below. -Intlaware (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To say the accounts is "disputed" its OR as RS don't use this word we just should bring the conflicting statements and the reader should decide for himself.79.177.51.180 (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't really understand exactly what you're saying but I agree that the conflicting statements should be included. -Intlaware (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Separate article
Given the media coverage the death of Abu Ramah has received, we should split weekly protests into a separate article.VR talk  03:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree This section has grown so large that it accounts for nearly half the article. -Intlaware (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Isn't this subject researched precisely because of the weekly protests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.233.91 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The photo on the ostensible 'riot'.
Click and you read; "January 7, 2011.This picture captures only a few of the 300 rioters at Bil'in today. Rioters are seen here hurling rocks at security forces, who responded using riot dispersal means.Weekly demonstrations held at regular sites in the West Bank such as Bil'in and Ni'lin often escalate into violent riots, where rioters hurl rocks and firebombs at IDF and Border Police forces who respond using tear gas and similar means to disperse the rioters."

300 'rioters'. I assume this is an IDF handout, Is that what we are supposed to do, get photos and text donated by the IDF to wikipedia with the IDF construction of the scene attached? The photo has one person with a gas-protection handkerchief, it does not portray a 'riot'. The rubric itself is thus deeply questionable. Poor work, and it should be eliminated, or at the least rephrased NPOV ASAP.Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

untitled
This claim mentioned in the article is patently false, and the cited source makes no mention of the claim itself:

"Several Jewish Israelis in Tel Aviv who were protesting against the IDF's presumed involvement with the death were arrested by Israeli police on 1 January 2011 outside Israel's Defense Ministry]" — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Gideonaa (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The source supports the content. It says
 * "Scores of Israeli activists had actually joined the Dec. 31 demonstration, and they challenged the IDF claim that tear gas was fired only after stones were thrown by protesters. The news that Abu Rahmah had died brought hundreds of Israeli Jews to a protest in Tel Aviv on the night of Jan. 1 outside Israel's Defense Ministry, where a handful were arrested. More were held later by the police after 25 protesters converged on the residence of the U.S. ambassador to Israel and allegedly threw some of the U.S.-made tear-gas canisters collected in Bil'in onto his lawn."
 *  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Name of the barrier
I changed what the Israelis call the barrier because it was incorrect. The Western media calls it the separation barrier, the Muslim media calls it the Apartheid Wall, and the Israelis call it the security fence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.200.251.13 (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * We should go by what WP:RS say, and there should be one there. I was too busy to fix. BBC says "barrier"; NY Times says separation barrier. There is no article for Israeli security fence, but there is one for Israeli separation barrier. This is one of view types of article one can use that phrase and find verification. And we can mention what sources say Bil'in Palestinians/protesters call it. Will fix soon. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 22:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Another sock of user:Paul Bedson. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling...Of it could be my buddy boy Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. 05:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Jawaher Abu Rahmah OD'd. She died from a drug overdose caused by palestinian doctors.
It's time to stop blaming Israel for this one. The woman wasn't even at the protest, no photos of her being there exist. It has been confirmed that she died from a drug OD administered by palestinian doctors

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/wap/Item.aspx?type=0&item=171781 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1013:B009:E915:236:C9AC:466A:5455 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * An unidentified "investigation" mentioned in the settlers' newspaper is worthless. Zerotalk 01:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User reverting edit deleting non-reliable source
I deleted  footnote #3 because it was a group blog, a non-reliable source, a group blog called +972 Magazine. User:Huldra reverted my deletion, suggesting that I take discussion to RS noticeboard. +972 has been on that board many times. It is a group blog, not a reliable source. Should User:Huldra, who appears to have been editing on Palestine for a full decade, have checked out the source before reverting my deletion. (I stated that it is a blog, +972 Magazine states that it is a group blog, +972's own home page, self-describes as a blog free of the kind of editorial process that separates news sources form blogs.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of our rules is to keep bad stuff out of articles, not to trim stuff out that one might dislike, as here. Anyone with the faintest knowledge of the Bil'in gentleman would know instantly that what +972 reported was correct. It might not be your optimal high-grade source (a book), but +972 gives coverage to much material that the Israeli mainstream press glozes over or ignores. It's a nasty habit by obvious POV-pushing deleters, to challenge a source that is saying something both patently attested, and easily googled for confirmation, instead of actually checking round for wider confirmation. It took me 2 seconds to get the sources I added, much less time than it took you to write the above complaint. The standard signature of POV-pushing deleters is that they never get off their arses to check the validity of a statement in a source, but just remove the source at sight. So please desist, and try to approach the area constructively.
 * +972 is not a WP:RS for facts. period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your view, period. I showed in a twinkling the report was correct. The issue is your going round mechanically removing material on RS excuses, without taking 5 seconds to check whether it is independently confirmed. That is unconscionable practice, deplorably introduced here by one of your fellow editors. It's lazy and POV-driven.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * +972 is a blog, and, as such, should be treated as a primary source, not cited on facts. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a simple fact, although I suspect that many editors who have cited +972 were deceived into thinking that it is a news source by the fact that this group blog calls itself "magazine".  This does not alter the fact that it is a blog.  Facts cited to blogs can and should be tagged for sourcing, and removed if they cannot be sourced elsewhere.  Nor is it the responsibility of an editor who comes upon an unreliably sourced fact to hunt down a reliable source.  They may, or course, do so.  To do so is commendable, but it is not a duty.  Editors may, as I did, simply remove the blog as unreliable, and tag the sentence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Being productive on this encyclopedia doesn't mean picking up the bad habit of (a) never reading a page (b) never clicking through all sources to see if the links are working (b) never troubling oneself to seek, when in doubt about RS status, alternative RS that provide the information one might otherwise be tempted to elide. Not doing this is the signature of  POV pushing, programmatic deletion of selective material from one side, while showing a  total indifference to the other POV's sourcing quality. In this sense, your edit and the edit summary was incompetent, inept. You complain of a blog, and there is an IDF blog on that page, sitting there. The link doesn't work either ("Security Fence Path Near Bil’in Relocated". Israel Defense Forces. 26 June 2011. Retrieved 27 June 2011.) but of course, that, one presumes, is not what worries you. Your eye is focused on 'blog' plus Palestinians, and ignores 'blog' plus Israelis. I don't mind POV pushers, some are very competent, and constructive. But those who edit mechanically to remove 'stuff' without getting off their butts, or rolling up their sleeves to fix problems, are a bane, aside from being lazy.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, are you going to remove the link to +972?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure,....*if* we also remove all links to obvious activist sources like CAMERA, NGO-monitor, etc. +972 is as reliable as any of those. Either remove all,..or none. (It becomes absurd with edits like this; which removes refs. to named persons writing in Electronic Intifada, and insert refs. to the anonymous blog (!) Elder of Ziyon. -Huldra (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't commit the fallacy of conflating blogs an NGOs. Blogs are not WP:RS. And NGO, however, may be cited:  "According to B'Tselem...", or "According to CAMERA..." Even though B'Tselem and CAMERA are both partisan.  My argument is that a fact cannot be cited to a blog, although when a blog like Elder of Ziyon or +972 is cited in a proper newspaper, the newspaper can be cited for whatever it says about what the blog says.  Huldra, it is not constructive to attribute arguments I did not make to me, nor is it constructive to argue using false analogy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CAMERA and B'tselem as equals lol. And while we are on the subject, as NGO Monitor and CAMERA were brought up, both have a reputation of publishing false information, as far as I know +972 has no such reputation. I realize +972 isnt the best of sources, and when its cited the reliability should be based on the author as individual blogs may in fact be reliable (quoting WP:RS: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.), and here I think it may be borderline. But this what I say goes and I say its a blog and thus unreliable shtick isnt supported by the actual guideline.  nableezy  - 22:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Take this to RS noticeboard. Duplication of effort.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I´ve been notified twice today; once for this page by User:E.M.Gregory, and once when an editor reverted my above removal of an anon blog as ref. Both are basically about the same thing: what can be used in a reference. Therefor I mentioned it here: E.M.Gregory: I never meant to imply that it was your edit. Then to the issue at hand: E.M.Gregory state that it is a “fact” that +972  should not be referred too, however,  it has been discussed again and again over at WP:RSN….which to me is a sign that this is not such a “fact” after all. In fact, it is being discussed right now, and it has been said that E.M.Gregory is  “sherry-picking the comments with which you agree.” To me, it looks as if the “outsiders” to the I/P area, (i.e., the regulars on  WP:RSN), have distinct different opinion about this; I certainly cannot see any consensus among them for removing links to +972. Huldra (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Take this to RS:noticeboard.  just fyi, it's spelled  WP:CHERRYPICKING,.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually spelled cherry picking, words actually mean something outside of Wikipedia essays.  nableezy  - 04:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found reason at Skunk (weapon) to include a source that I personally regard as not-RS because the information was rare, underreported and considered important by the opposed editor, Ashtul. I did that after discussion, though technically I could have hammered away at the WP:RS argument. Unless editors drop their ideological battle mentality, and stop using in a partisan fashion their highly selective instrumental uses of policy to out stuff they appear to dislike, this place will remain a cesspit. Outside input on +973, is, as noted, mixed. There is no clear guideline, and we need commonsense, Gregory.Nishidani (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Take this to RS:noticeboard and explain why +972 should not simply be treated as a blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bil'in. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DZOQ92zN to http://oscar.go.com/nominees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bil'in. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210081942/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://oscar.go.com/nominees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bil'in. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060408035828/http://www.bilin-village.org/village_en.php to http://www.bilin-village.org/village_en.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2023
Towards the end of the article, after discussing the prison sentence for the founder of the Popular Committee of Bil'in, please add the phrase: The The Popular Committee of Bil’in received in 2011 the Paul K. Feyerabend Award-- a World of Solidarity is Possible https://www.pkfeyerabend.org/en/2013/05/20/le-comite-populaire-de-bilin-laureat-ex-aequo-du-prix-paul-k-feyerabend-2011/ Gbfoverlake2023 (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  SSSB (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)