Talk:Iyad Burnat

Objection to deletion
A deletion flag was placed this week on this page with complete disregard for proper Wikipedia grounds for deletion. The cause: "Nothing but an advertisement for a terrorist written by a single-purpose-only account" It's a statement of naked contempt and bears no foundation in reality. There is no advertisement for a product and
 * Oxford Dictionary:
 * terrorism
 * The use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Iyad Burnat is obviously not a terrorist as, thus far known, he does not use nor does he promote the use of violence or intimidation to pursue political aims. If you have a credible source that confirms your libel, I'd like to see it. It's not an advertisement as there is no use of information to advance a particular agenda, nor is there a suggestion made to the reader. The only problem I see is an uncited source in the early life and education section, a couple of sentences in an otherwise pithy article.

I don't even need to explain my objection as the cause for deletion is so profoundly ridiculous. And yes I will be flagging the account/IP that issued the deletion flag. --Xerces1492 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoever you are, I did a whois on both IP addresses. You probably didn't know that was possible. If you use an IP, you are no longer anonymous and can be easily attacked by hackers. Stop trolling the page and be smart and get a legitimate handle for your health not mine. Also, I believe an editing lock is in order since this is a controversial subject and is a biography of a living person. Is there an admin in the house? --Xerces1492 (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur. Another objection to deletion. The person is using multiple IP addresses and accounts to blank the article and then nominate it for deletion. This constitutes vandalism of a page. Editing lock is very much necessaryReformation32 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Since Sooism put up an AfD I recommend you opine on his comments there. Articles_for_deletion/Iyad_Burnat. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 18:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

user:reformation's edits and reverts
reformation -you are in violation of several wiki policies on this and a few other pages. the main one, which will get you blocked, is WP:1RR, not here, but, i suggest you self-revert your recent edits here, at the other sjp/bds page and the sjp page. as for why the revisions were made: as i stated with each edit, there is an edit summary. you can follow it there. for the most part, you were putting material in which wsa not sourced to a WP:RS. please read the policy carefully. also you were writing in what is called 'wikipedia's voice' about things which were not the case - see WP:NPOV. if you have specific questions about specific edits, please ask. but you can not do wholesale revisions. sorry. Soosim (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confused. The edits that were done were vandalism.. This page has had several instances of vandalism in the past several days. Please look at the type of edits that were done. It was not at all proper. Reformation32 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * no, they were not vandalism. i am not sure how to say it again. you have been in violation of 1RR on some of the pages you have edited today. i will place a note on your talk page as well. if you choose not to self-revert, you will be blocked. Soosim (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis has been very active the past year in the I-P area vandalizing articles like this as both multiple Anonymous IPs and multipled newly created sockpuppet accounts. Questionable edits, especially if done repeatedly, by various Anon IPs or new accounts very well may be him or a sock of one of the other vandals who remove and material critical of Israel.  I think this issue has to be taken into account in any defense of 1RR charges on these articles and editors given the benefit of the doubt. Editors should not be allowing these abuses to be an excuse to keep articles sanitized or to support their POV. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 18:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To be specific, his first revert was of actual vandalism. Your removing all that info with the very general edit summary  (removed all non-RS and POV material. will try to find better material. not sure if iyad is even notable) certainly could look like vandalism. While a couple of the WP:RS look shaky and some of the info looks shaky, tagging it first or listing the problems on the talk page so it can be fixed or discussed is the collaborative way to work.  Your editing is disruptive and edit warring in the general sense if not the 1RR sense. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 07:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for your wise words carol. i am glad you think that the sources "look shaky" - nice way to say they are not RS.....or to cover yourself and say that they are RS? so not clear. please help me understand. appreciate it. Soosim (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct quote of me "a couple of the WP:RS look shaky ". I gave some much better ones below. I'm not putting a lot more time into this except to say: Go to WP:RSN if there's a disagreement between the two of you and see what third parties say. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 07:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS info on Iyad Burnat

 * BBC 2005
 * Christian Science Monitor Sept 2007
 * Washington Times Sept 2007
 * Israel National News March 2010
 * YnetNews April 2010
 * Maan News Dec 2010
 * LA Times Dec 2010
 * Spokesman Review Jan 2013
 * Mondoweiss ref for fact he is brother of Emad Burnat. Took me 15 seconds to find that. Another 20 seconds to find this one from WMNF radio. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 02:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

soosim's last series of edits
i see that sean edited in between my first and the rest of my edits. sorry about that sean, but i didn't see you editing when i was. please review all of my further edits and i am happy to self-revert anything which is not acceptable. also not clear to me if we each violated 1RR this time or not? you edited at 16:27, me at 17:11, you at 17:14, me at 17:15 and more. what to do? Soosim (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying to add content and improve sourcing, so my only revert was this. My edit in between yours possibly means that your sequence is a technical violation but since it wasn't intentional and it wasn't edit warring I don't see why it would matter. I think the stated aims of Friends of Freedom and Justice should probably be restored, but not to the lead. The lead could just say that he's the head of it. The article needs restructuring. There isn't an article about the FFJ organization so this article seems the appropriate place and I'm not comfortable selecting one stated aim and not the rest.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Soosim is continuing his WP:edit warring behavior (and as I told you on three articles, it's not just a matter of 1RR) with following:
 * Removal of Mondoweiss ref; Mondoweiss is a professional journalist and editor of the site which is used a lot on Wikipedia.
 * Removal of source info for POV reasons (protecting reputation of Israeli Defense Forces while smearing Burnat.
 * Removal of fact the wall is built on Palestinian land; other materials that support his contention have been removed previously by you or another editor who seems to have a pro-Palestine POV.
 * POV deletion of info that IS in sources, i.e., farmers is sourced and Pipe Dream (newspaper) is a reliable source for that story.
 * I think anyone should feel free to put that material back and may do so myself. Edit warring on an article you have up for deletion is particularly questionable. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 19:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * hi carol - thanks for the accusation. (wp:agf). anyway, just a couple of points for you: mondoweiss is not RS, whatever your opinion of them is. (and i am pretty sure you know that, but maybe not. hard to see from your wiki experience.) and no need to have 'facts' in an article about something else. (that is why we have wikilinks - but i thought you knew that, too!). and again, thanks for jumping to 'edit warring'. why not agf and see it as proper editing since it included removal of many non-RS statements, and many POV statements? how about "nice job soosim, but you also removed some questionable items that i would like to discuss with you"? Soosim (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Mondoweiss has been found WP:RS for some opinions and facts depending on who is writing about what, per past WP:RSN discussions which you have participated in. I haven't reviewed what was taken out yet. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)