Talk:Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Merge
Thanks for creating Wikipedia and the 2023 Israel-Palestine war, but I think this could be merged into Wikipedia coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Any opposition? We can decide on the best single page title, but I don't think we need two separate articles at this time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - no need for a separate article (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe Thanks for weighing in. I've proposed a more specific suggestion below, if you're interested in commenting further. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What you're suggesting is a very general topic, but I mean the 2023 war specifically, as we have another example of an article about a specific event, which is Wikipedia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That's why there's a need for a specific article. --Freedom&#39;s Falcon (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest merging Wikipedia and the 2023 Israel-Palestine war into Wikipedia coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, then moving the page to "Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Would this work for you? Also, using "2023 Israel-Palestine war" will be outdated in a few days. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposal sounds good to me now. I agree with merging the articles and renaming the page. --Freedom&#39;s Falcon (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Since the two page authors are in agreement, and there's general support from others, I have been bold and merged and moved to Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I've included a merge template on the talk page for attribution, but please let me know if anything else is needed here. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 07:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: As others have stated, there is no reason to have two articles, especially since both are fairly short. If either or both of the articles were substantial, I may have a different opinion, but there's no issue of undue weight here. Further, Freedom Falcon's point about specificity regarding the 2023 conflict does not quite apply here given that the Wikipedia coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article solely discusses the current conflict. Significa liberdade (she/her)  (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support merge There's no need to have two separate articles; neither of them are big and they're not independently notable. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

For the interested
The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia by World Jewish Congress. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD
Is currently not very well done. The Wales and Harrison stuff is not summaries of article content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Earlier, I moved some of the lead content to the body, and expanded the article significantly with previously-uncited sources. Isi96 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Lead is still not good. As article is currently written, Wales and Harrison don't belong there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång Wasn't arguing with you there, just noting the changes I made. Isi96 (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Tried something: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Refs in arabic
Can be useful per WP:NOENG, but: to aid the reader, they should have a title and publisher in English, and possibly a relevant translated quote, there is a parameter for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Joint Statement on Palestine
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Joint_Statement_on_Palestine


 * lol Arkon (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

TRT-BRD
@BilledMammal Hello, about. I watched the video (it's partisan and gets some details long, but not that bad), I looked at WP:TRT and thought it would be iffy as a source, and it mostly agrees with the article as written anyway. However, I think it makes an ok WP:ELMAYBE #4. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not that bad and it is directly relevant to the article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that the source is unreliable and, as you say, in this instance is biased and inaccurate, I don’t think it’s appropriate to include - it doesn’t help readers seeking neutral and reliable information about the subject to direct them there. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We disagree on that. IMO, it's good enough for inclusion. As media-coverage of WP goes, it's not worse than average, and pretty much any source used on this general topic will be considered biased by someone. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * External links do not have to be either neutral or reliable.
 * I personally dislike video content, but I believe that it's more popular with readers than it is with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD maybe too short template
@Isi96, you added it, what do you think is missing? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång I feel like it could include more information from the body.
 * Not sure how to go about it, though. Isi96 (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Something more specific would be easier to have an opinion on. If you can't think of any key-points missing, the template doesn't really fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång That's fair. I'll remove it. Isi96 (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The edit-filter says I should seek input before editing
Dear Wikipedians. To the paragraph

"As of 2023, English Wikipedia articles on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have "extended confirmed protection", meaning that only registered editor accounts with a certain age and number of edits can edit them. The WJC commented that this "leaves many Israelis unable to edit articles about which they have great knowledge.""

I'd like to add

"Al Mayadeen voiced similar concerns. "

There may be some other usable opinion there (WP:ALMAYADEEN) too, but that can wait. @Isi96@Selfstudier@BilledMammal@WhatamIdoing, other interested, do you have an opinion?

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång It doesn't seem like a good idea to include a quote from a deprecated source unless if the author of the piece is worth quoting. Isi96 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source is deprecated so best not use it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Currently mentioned source-debates other than ADL
Per my reading of the source:

"It’s not the first time that Wikipedia editors have examined the reliability of a Jewish source. In 2021, editors debated coverage of leftwing and Muslim groups by the Jewish Chronicle, a British newspaper, ultimately declaring it generally reliable despite concerns of bias. The same year, Wikipedia editors banned the online encyclopedia Jewish Virtual Library for most uses due to concerns about its accuracy and pro-Israel bias. Earlier this year, they banned NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based pro-Israel advocacy group. "

this (JC and JWL) isn't obviously on-topic for this article. There is no mention this was related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)