Talk:Land Day/Archive 1

POV Language
Amoruso, please desist from inserting POV language. If you characterize the actions of the demonstrators as "violent", you need to source that, as I explained in earlier edit titles. It is not as widespread an opinion as you make it out to be. I don't share that opinion, nor do the other 20% of population who are citizens of Israel of Palestinian origin, like myself. Also, if you apply that description to the actions of the demonstrators, without characterizing the Israeli security forces response as "violent", the POV insertion becomes even more grave. Killing people is certainly more "violent" than throwing molotov cocktails, blocking roads, and throwing stones. I am also going to qualify the sentence to say "some demonstrators" since not every demonstrator killed, wounded by gunshots and jailed by Israeli security forces were engaged in "violent" behaviour and it is repeatedly mentioned that they were "unarmed". Tiamut 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted you edit Isairg. Please discuss the issue here before changing it again. Thanks. Tiamut 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's just your pov. There's no question that there was an "intifada" that day I remember the day quite well and the history can't be changed. Amoruso 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Just my POV. See this link . Note that this is an Israeli newspaper and it reports that: "Land Day is also a commemoration of the bloody confrontations with state security forces that took place on this day in 1976. Six unarmed Arab citizens were killed and some 100 injured, when they protested the confiscation of thousands of dunams of their land by the government." Notice the term, "unarmed". Further, it says that:

"Land Day demonstrations go back to events thirty years ago today when the Israeli government took a decision to confiscate 20,000 dunams of farmland belonging to Arab Israeli citizens. The land was said to be used for "security purposes," but was actually used to build new Jewish settlements and also a military training camp. The decision, taken in March 1976, included a curfew imposed on the villages of Sakhnin, Arabeh, Der-Hannah, Turhan, Tamra, and Kabul - all in the lower Galilee - which was to be effective from 5 p.m. on March 29, 1976. 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." Unforunately Amoruso, your recollection of events does not constitute WP:RS. Until you can provide with an English language source that contradicts this very credible version from the Jerusalem Post, I am removing the word "violent" and the reference to "riots" and removing any such references from the Arab citizens of Israel article as well. I also ask that you provide an English source that mentions molotov cocktails, road blocks and stone throwing, since this one does not. Further, I will be incorporating this new information into the body of the article, so I ask that you be patient as I edit. Thanks. Tiamut 01:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Isarig, the two sources you provided do not back the assertion about riots. The first, www.palestinefacts.org, is a notorious right-wing pro-Israeli advocacy group and it does not mention molotov cocktails, stone throwing or the blocking of roads. It does mention that the media overwehlemingly protrays Land Day as a peaceful demonstration. In other words, it sems to be a minority viewpoint and I don't think the source passes WP:RS. The second source is the New York Times but it refers to Land Day demonstrations in the 1990s and so is not relevant the sentence you placed it after. I am going to revert your edits. Pelase find appropriate and relevant sources. If you insist on including the palestinefacts source, please preface the remarks with "pro-Israeli advovacy group" Thanks. 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I decided not to revert for now so as not to break 3RR and also give you a chance to find more appropriate refs. I removed the nytimes ref (not relevant to 1976 events) and the palestinefacts ref, which is not a reliable source. I placed a citation needed notation and would appreciate a translation of the relevant sections in the msn.co.il article that prove the molotov cocktail, stone throwing and road blocking allegations. Also, please provide English title for that article for references section. Thanks. Tiamut 18:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to start reading more carefully. The NYT article states "Land Day commemorates the killing of six Arabs by the police in 1976 after riots in the Galilee region in protest over Israeli expropriation of Arab land. ". You are welcome to your personal POV that Palestine Facts is "notrious", but please keep that POV out of the article, and don't confuse partisanship with reliability. I have not called your sources, many of which are explictly pro-Palestinian, "unreliable" - please extend me and other WP editors the same courtesy. The violence and road blocking reference is supported by the Hebrew msn reference, which I am sure you do not dispute. I am sure you are more than capable of reading the Hebrew text, but on the off chance that you can't, a quick translation of the relevant passage is "The demonstartions in the Galilee villages began peacefully, but quickly degraded into violence and road blocking". The view that the riots were violent is not a minority view at all, and there is no need to preface such claims as coming from pro-Israeli sources. Isarig 19:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that Isarig. I missed that one sentence in the NYT article characterizing 1976 events as riots. I think it's a weak source since that's not the focus of the article, but I won't push it for now. Regarding the palestinefacts source, I won't accept that as a NPOV source for the events of Land Day. They are an anti-Palestinian, pro-Israeli lobby group.. You can challenge my sources too if you like, but notice that I mostly use Palestinian srouces to explain why Land Day is relevant to Palestinians. I don't see what other sources would do for that. I ask that if you do remove a source before explaining you objection to it, that you place a note there so that I can find another source, of which there are many. Thanks. Tiamut 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Molotov cocktails
Does anyone has a source for this particluar claim? Histolo2 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Article seems to neglect mention of violence during March 29-30 "protests" (it's also called riots sometimes) and also a background description of recent minor event in 1973 called "Yom Kippur War" where 10,000 Israelis were either injured or killed. Until these initial issues are dealt with, then the article should remain with the POV tag.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proccess notes

 * Ref:

Please provide a source that makes a link between the Yom Kippur war and the events of Land Day. If there is no such source, the link is WP:OR and not the basis for a a neutrality tag to be placed here. Please also provide a source which details the "violence" of which you speak. The killing of six citizens is pretty "violent" and its mentioned without using that adjective. If there is no source detailing the "violence" of protestors, the neturality tag should be removed, since there is no way to address the concerns you are raising.  T i a m u t talk 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed intro

 * The following is an intro section removed in this diff in order to allow reformatting of the article into a neutral and encyclopedic version. Information wich is missing from the body will be readmitted asap.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Land Day (يوم الأرض, Yom al-Ard; יום האדמה, Yom Ha'adama), March 30, commemorates the killing of six Arab citizens of Israel on that date in 1976 by the state security forces during protests over Israeli expropriations of land in the Galilee, with approximately 31 percent of them being Arab-owned.

The most prominent Arab-Israeli political party, Rakah (He:, lit. New Communist List), organized a general strike and marches in Arab towns from the Galilee, the Triangle region and the Negev in response to the government's announcement of a plan that would confiscate thousands of dunums of land in Arab areas. The government sent in the Israeli army and police with tanks and heavy artillery. In the ensuing confrontations, six Arab citizens were killed and hundreds of others were jailed and wounded.

Since then, Land Day has become an annual day of commemoration and demonstrations, held not only by Arab citizens of Israel, but by Palestinians all over the world.

Work version

 * The following is a mid-work version meant to sift out material which is currently in the article with material which might have been removed and should be in the article.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * on that date in 1976 by the state security forces during protests over Israeli expropriations of land in the Galilee, with approximately 31 percent of them being Arab-owned. added.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The most prominent Arab-Israeli political party, Rakah (He:, lit. New Communist List), organized a general strike and marches in Arab towns from the Galilee, the Triangle region and the Negev in response to the government's announcement of a plan that would confiscate thousands of dunums of land in Arab areas.


 * The government sent in the Israeli army and police with tanks and heavy artillery. In the ensuing confrontations, six Arab citizens were killed and hundreds of others were jailed and wounded.


 * Since then, Land Day has become an annual day of commemoration and demonstrations, held not only by Arab citizens of Israel, but by Palestinians all over the world.

To be added to criticism

 * The law was used to confiscate the lands of Arab citizens of Israel who "are present inside the state, yet classified in law as 'absent'." Today, there are an estimated 200,000 "present-absentees" or internally displaced Palestinians from among the estimated 1.2 million Arab citizens of Israel, representing over 16% of the Palestinian Arab population in Israel.
 * Overall, more than a 1000 square kilometres of land were expropriated from Arab citizens of Israel alone between 1948 and 2003.

Comments on the ongoing revisions
Hi Jaakobou, it's always good for me to see an editor making good use of the Talk page to explain their edits, esp if when extensive. Perhaps you're doing this already, so just want to say it'll help if your make revisions to one section at a time, thereby facilitating discussion and editing responses. As noted on your Talk, PR raised some concerns about your revisions at my Talk page. (I've barely glanced at either his comments or your revisions, I'm just relaying.) You might want to consider his comments, respond here, and/or modify your ongoing revisions as appropriate. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article quality has been degraded as a result of Jaakobou's additions. NPOV means presenting all POVs equally. It does not mean creating a separate (apartheid) section in which to place "Arab views" while giving Israeli writers viewpoints authoritative airs by placing their statements as facts. It also does not mean that we have to imagine reasons for Israel's expropriation plans as being related to the Yom Kipppur war, nor do we have to list the number of Israeli dead from that war before mentioning these expropriation plans (what is the relevance? which source is making this claim?) I have restored much of the factual, relevant material deleted by Jaakobou and removed and placed the stuff about the Yom Kippur war below for discussion (if there is a source making the link between it and Land Day, please point it out to me and we can discuss how to reinclude it).  T i a m u t talk 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Background section
I have no idea whether the background section has always been as it is now, or is the result of recent revisions. However, just popping by, and never having visited this page before, I must say its organization makes very little sense at present. We have plenty of other articles dealing with the 1948 War, and I don;t see why it should get more than a wikilink here. What this article is about is a 1976 event, and the commemorations following. If there is any background, it should deal exclusively with land disputes surrounding Land Day and the general phenomenon of land expropriation which it symbolizes. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1948 War resulted in the Jewish exodus, a reason the Israeli government needed to utilize emergency ordinances, formulating definitions for dealing with lands of the absentee Palestinian-Arabs who have now become refugees themselves. Is there a need for a different phrasing to clarify this issue?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  22:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LamaLoLesh about unnecessary allusions to wars in this article. I have removed this material:

Several more wars occurred between Israel and its Arab neighbours in the following years until on October 1973, Syria and Egypt staged, along with Iraq and the Arab coalition, a surprise attack on Israel on the the Jewish day of atonement, Yom Kippur. At first, the Arab forces overwhelmed the Israeli forces (IDF) situated on the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights but later the IDF turned the tide and, eventually, a cease-fire was secured in the backdrop of US–Soviet counter threats to become directly involved.

The heavy costs of the war to Israel -- who had suffered 2656 deaths and 7250 injured -- were a catalyst for the government's decision to strengthen its presence close to the Golan Heights, which borders Syria, and to that purpose a Galilee Development Plan was decided upon.

I don't see which source cited refers to the war's as the reason for the expropriation plans and don't see the relevance to this article. I have also erased the "Arab view" section and placed the opinions of Ori Nir, Orly Halpern and Nawef Hawatmeh on par with one another rather than making the views of Israeli writers authoritative and that of the Arabs merely opinion-based.

I would also like to restore the previous introduction, since this one omits mention of Land Day's signifance as a commemorative day and fails WP:LEAD which should provide a summary for the article as a whole.  T i a m u t talk 16:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hi Tiamut, We sure come at this from different perspectives. If I understand yours, it's about the 'Nakba' and the Palestinian refugees and the land expropriations and the protests. These things don't exist in a vacuum, though. 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab land were a serious catalyst for the laws on using the lands of the absentee Palestinian-Arabs. The 1973 war was a serious catalyst for the Galilee Development Plan of 1975. This content is quite relevant for a person who wants to understand why Israel is doing an act that harms the Palestinians.

Anyways, I don't mind discussing your concerns about the article and finding compromises and also using community input where needed, but please avoid mass edits like this in the future and discuss them first. With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC) clarify. 17:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Better. 18:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Working through your edits I saw the following issues:
 * - Removal of the balance note about the Jewish refugees and extra emphasis on the "purpose and honor" Nakba narrative. This edit is in clear violation of WP:NPOV.
 * - hyperbolic language to how many people's lands were taken and citing it as the law's alleged purpose -- WP:OR/WP:NPOV -- (per "The law was used to confiscate lands belonging to the over 750,000 Palestinian refugees"). The law's purpose was to alleviate the pressure of the Jewish refugees, including the 600,000 who chose to come to Israel from Arab territory who's lands were stolen as well.
 * - removal of the reason for Israel's "plans to expropriate lands in the Galilee" - WP:NPOV. I also don't understand to why you would change the percentage issue to a reporter's claim when it's a fairly clear historical fact.
 * - since when is Land day just about the events of 1976? This edit is a clear error and misunderstanding of the event which is a yearly protest against discrimination in general and in the area of land in particular. The events of '76 are just part of the mythos. There's another problem with the hyperbole phrasing and narrative voice.
 * - I felt the map was very good to illustrate the creation of the problem - both Land without ownership and refugees on both sides. I'm willing to reconsider this addition, but the other edits completely circumvent the reasoning for why things occurred - they don't occur in a vacuum and the encyclopedia needs to list them down.
 * - (A) The "30 years" poster could possibly belong in the Legacy or a future "current events" section and not in the lead due to it's propagandist "flower bleeding on the earth" nature. (B) Much more importantly, to place it to illustrate Land Day is a violation of Wikipedia's non-free media use policy.


 * Jaakobou.


 * Please do not use my name in sub-headings. It goes against the counsel in WP:TALK and I beleive we have discussed it (and your undue emphasis on my actions and edits) before.
 * Please also refrain from characterizing my changes as a "mass edit" when in fact this is an article I have invested considerable time in contributing to, and it is you that came by a few days ago, starting to change what was a longstanding version of the article to your liking.
 * Please also provide a source that ties the events of the Yom Kippur war to the events of Land Day. I asked you for one above, but you have not pointed out where I can find this information in the refs you provided.
 * Please also provide a ref which links the needs of Jewish refugees and the Jewish exodus from Arab lands to the events of Land Day. You cannot make WP:OR links of this kind on your own.
 * And finally, remember it is you that made a "mass edit" removing much well-sourced information and adding a bunch of what appears to be OR links to issues not related to Land Day to this article and I who am challenging your "mass edit" to this article and not the other way around. It is upon you to justify your recent changes by providing sources that make the links you have made therein. So please refrain from mass reverting to your preferred new version without gaining consensus first. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just trying to come to this with a level head, folks — firstly, please remember that no-one owns this article, irrespective of how much you've invested into it. I don't think anyone calling anything a "mass edit" is (a) meaningful or (b) constructive, so perhaps it might be best to drop that term.
 * I think that it would be best to discuss carefully your content changes, ideally before making them. That applies to everyone equally (-: Remember it is for the person making an edit to provide a citation for what they add.
 * The poster currently fails WP:NFCC, at least, and I have tagged it as such. If it is not brought in line with the criteria within 48 hours it will be deleted.
 * Finally, I hope it won't be necessary, but it's necessary that this reverting be replaced with discussion (and please stop trying to have the last word or claim that the other started it, we're not in grade school), failing which blocks for edit warring or page protection are on the cards.
 * Play nice (-: Stifle (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Jaakobou on the fair use issue, mind you. The images don't have a rationale (which is enough to delete them on its own) and probably fail NFCC#8 in that they don't add to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whew. I think Tiamut worked pretty hard to nuance the background section, and while there may have been some debate about the orientation of the intro, it is certainly clear that she did not engage in a "mass edit", she tried to balance out a mass edit. In fact, in the edits made by Jaakabou, as Tiamut pointed out, deleted a good deal of well-sourced information directly related to the event, which is hardly ever justified. As far as the orientation of the intro, the emphasis should be on the commemoration of the day 6 people were killed during demonstrations, as well as the fact that it is a day of protest. There is no contradiction between the two. in the background section, if you can find a well-sourced historian that links Land Day to the 1973 War, at most this should be mentioned in a sentence, not more. Remember, the 1973 War was a war with neighboring Arab countries, and Palestinians with Israeli citizenship did not take part in the 1973 War. Implicitly the attention to the 1973 war suggests a link between the Land Day demonstrations and the war, as if the protests were an extension of the war, or an attenuated act of war. You would be hard-pressed to show a relationship between protest and war-like actions. The Land Day protests themselves, very specifically and very very directly, aimed to draw attention to the land use issue, the disputes over Palestinian 'absentee' property originating in 1948, and were in no way related to 1973. Thus Tiamut's emphasis on 1948 makes a lot of sense. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings. (And hi Tiamut!) Regardless of whether anyone should be faulted for mass edits, it would be a good idea to discuss each disputed edit/text separately. Maybe you all could create subsections, enumerate or other identify the points of dispute? I know this might seem a bit time consuming, but I suspect it would be hard to reach agreement on a multiple set of issues at once. (In any case, please don't proceed by reverting each other's work back and forth. That could be perceived as edit warring, even prior to 3RR, given the ArbCom decision to lower the contentiousness of I-P articles.) Good luck with it. HG | Talk 02:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the helpful and constructive comments above. As it currently stands, I have no major problem with the article's contents, since I have restored most of the material that Jaakbou deleted, married some of what he added with what was there, and removed the material that lacks a source attesting to its relevance to Land Day (i.e. on the Yom Kippur war). I would ask that Jaakabou propose the additions he would like to make to the article here before reinstating them or adding new material, and similarly that he discuss which sourced material he would like to remove and why before doing so again as well. On my part, in the search for new sources and information, I will place them here for discussion prior to adding them to the article so as to reciprocate in kind. Alternatively, I suggest we both use the WP:BRD system when introducing new changes, so that we can be bold, adding them directly to the article, while writing WP:BRD in the edit summary so that our fellow editors know we will not be averse to a reversion, followed by discussion of the issues, point by point. Comments, suggestions, other ideas? (and hi to HG, nice to meet you more intimately LamaLoLesh, and greetings to Stifle and Jaakobou as well).  T i a m u t talk 12:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * About the introduction, I suggest we take our inspiration for how to define the day from the article by Laurie King-Irani . She writes:


 * "On March 30, 1976, Palestinian citizens of Israel coordinated mass demonstrations against the state's ongoing land expropriations in the Galilee. Since that year, Land Day is observed every March 30 to commemorate the six unarmed Palestinian protesters who were shot dead by Israeli internal security forces in the Galilean village of Sakhnin. Each year, Land Day provides Palestinian citizens of Israel with their one and only trans-confessional, national holiday: a day to identify with the land and to show solidarity against the enforced expropriations of communal lands."


 * What is missing from our introduction after I last edited it, is greater emphasis on the importance of Land Day to Arab citizens of Israel as a day of identification with the land and a show of solidarity against land expropriations, both past and present. Also, making explicit that this is a trans-confessional, national holiday for Arab citizens in the lead may be useful to making the article's subject clearer as well.  T i a m u t talk 12:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also useful to this article are pages 69 and 70 of Oren Yiftachel's book, "Ethnocracy", in which he writes about Land Day as it relates to government plans for the "Judaization of the Galilee", as well as how it related to the Palestinian concept of Sumud and the outbreak of the First Intifada. Yiftachel discussion of Land Day occurs within the context of a dialectic of "Jewish expansion" and "Palestinian national resistance", concepts that should be probably be mentioned and discussed in this article if the full context of the events of Land Day and its significance since are to be appreciated by the reader.  T i a m u t talk 12:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See also page 171 of "Redefining Security" which also emphasizes the Israeli government's preoccupation with building new Jewish settlements in between Arab population centers in the Galilee to retain territorial control in an area in which the Arab minority formed a majority. Land Day is mentioned in this context and the author, David Newman, states that:
 * "Land Day has its roots in a government document from 1976 in which the local commissioner proposed the confiscation of lands and the implementation of of Jewish settlement policies as a means of preventing further Arab territorial expansion. This attack on the basic economic mainstay of of the local Arab population was seen as part of a process in which the security of the minority population was threatened."
 * This an important reason for the initial protest in 1976 that is not currently mentioned in our article.  T i a m u t talk 12:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also unmentioned in our article is that 1976 is considered to be a turning point in relations between Arab citizens and the state and in protest patterns by this community, in large part because of Land Day. As noted on page 55 of "Stiff-necked People, Bottle-necked System", "The years 1973-1975 averaged four annual events [of protest by Arabs in Israel] , while in 1976 fifteen were registered, mainly as a result of Land Day ..." On page 57, the Land Day protests are tied to events in the West Bank and Gaza and the need for Arabs in Israel to express solidarity with the struggle there. As the author writes, "It could hardly be considered a coincidence that a mere two months after the serious riots in the West Bank in January 1976 (tied to the U.N.'s debate of the Palestinan problem) Israel's own Arabs exploded on their Land Day commemoration."  T i a m u t talk 12:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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:
 * 1) Lead paragraph
 * 2) Background (elements could be further divided betw your sides)
 * 3) Catalyzing events and consequences (could be divided further)
 * 4) 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?  T i a m u t talk 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?  T i a m u t talk 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.  T i a m u t talk 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 removed PRtalk 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)

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,  Jaakobou Chalk 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,  Jaakobou Chalk 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. Are we in agreement on this historical note? Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  04:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings Jaakabou. Just to inform you, Nableezy has been blocked for a short while for violating 3RR edit-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: I'd be interested in how you would incorporate the extra content in these sources into the article. Don't dissappoint me,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/101179
 * http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1206632368987


 * 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,  Jaakobou Chalk 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,  Jaakobou Chalk 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".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  03:57, 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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.  T i a m u t talk 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,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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.  T i a m u t talk 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.  T i a m u t talk 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,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto.  T i a m u t talk 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,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:02, 22 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.  T i a m u t talk 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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) <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Review the links fully before making broad statements, please.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those topics is pertinent to article improvement.  T i a m u t talk 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,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> 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).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:48, 28 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".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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?  T i a m u t talk 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?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The authors of the book cited are Professors Daniel Bar-Tal and Yoina Teichman  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?  T i a m u t talk 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?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  00:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. I'm not the one making excuses for not including relevant content.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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?  T i a m u t talk 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  03:52, 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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.  T i a m u t talk 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,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  04:20, 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?  T i a m u t talk 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:50, 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.  T i a m u t talk 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,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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.  T i a m u t talk 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.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Were the tanks used to harm the people?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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.  T i a m u t talk 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."  T i a m u t talk 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We could say xor. not really, I think Tiamut's wording above is good <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead has just gotten even more ridiculous. Nice work.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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.  T i a m u t talk 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? (hint: Zero was correct to change it).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk 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?  T i a m u t talk 17:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)