User talk:Makeandtoss

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism
As previously mentioned,my article specifically addresses the importance of olive trees and their fruits in Jewish history. The olive tree is one of the most important trees in Judaism and is the national tree of the State of Israel. It played a key role in both Israelite Kingdoms and was planted from biblical times up to the arrival of Jews during the First Aliyah. How does it not fulfill WP:Notability? With all due respect, olives in the land of israel have roughly 8 thousand of cultivation, and 3+ thousand years of Israelite and later judean history. None of the information that is available on my page is on Agriculture in Israel. What exactly is the problem? AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As a non-confirmed user you’re not allowed to edit in this topic area yet. Also please do not leave further messages on my talk page about articles, and rather keep your contributions to the article’s talk page where you are limited to making edit requests. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Makeandtoss, as far as I can tell that article doesn't relate to the Israel-Arab conflict? BilledMammal (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And why do you think so? The topic of olive trees in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories features heavily in the conflict . “Broadly construed” fits this definition as far as my understanding goes. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the article makes no mention of the conflict, and primarily deals with events that occurred thousands of years ago? There are aspects of the topic that would relate to the conflict, but the topic as a whole does not.
 * Could you clarify this for us? BilledMammal (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The scope of the article (from its title) includes the modern-day state of Israel. Also, if it makes no mention of the conflict despite significant coverage through the lens of the conflict, then that shows a POV problem. No need for the article to mention the conflict anyway, based on my understanding of the WP:Broadly construed explanatory essay: “In particular, if there is any plausible dispute over whether particular content is covered by the scope of a contentious topic (for example, definitional disputes: whether a particular issue counts as a type of American political issue, whether a particular practice counts as a type of alternative medicine, etc), that is normally taken to mean that it does.” Makeandtoss (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not everything related to the modern-day state of Israel is related to the conflict. Israel Railways, for example. I don't see a plausible claim that the entire topic is covered by the restrictions.
 * Regarding the significant coverage through the lens of the conflict, your deletion nomination says there isn't significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Israel Railways should be considered part of the IP conflict under the broadly construed definition:
 * As I said, there is significant coverage in RS (WP:Notability) about the role of olive trees in the IP conflict, which would justify a standalone article named Olive trees in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no significant coverage that would justify a standalone article for olive trees in Israel and Judaism specifically however, meaning such content is better off at Agriculture in Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of the conflict or strong tie to it at this time, and everything related to Israel or Palestine isn't covered by ECR.
 * Makeandtoss, is there part of the article that makes you think it would be covered? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally think it’s not much about the current content as much as it is about the scope of the article. As seen from the BBC article above, controversy surrounding olive trees play a significant role in the IP conflict, so it would inevitably come to include mentions of the conflict. Also the current lack of mention of the conflict itself is problematic given the extensive coverage in RS. To further quote from that explanatory essay: “ If there's problems in topic area A, we don't want people to move on to "related topic B" and continuing.” Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There would have to be a significant section of the article dedicated to the Arab/Israel conflict, or disruptive editing on the topic, for the entire article to get protected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an example where an article on a topic with important connections to the A/I conflict is artificially kept away from the conflict simply by failing to mention those aspects. For example, it doesn't mention that many of the current Israeli olive plantations were owned and managed by Palestinians for centuries before 1948. Nor does it mention that destruction of Palestinian olive trees and interference with the harvest by Israeli settlers in the West Bank is something that happens almost daily. Nor, more generally, does it mention the deep significance of olive trees (often the same trees) in Palestinian culture. The article belongs to the genre of Zionist literature that emphasises the Jewish connection to the land without mentioning the natives. The article is open about the Zionist aspect ("They symbolize Jewish rootedness to their historic homeland") and the failure to mention the natives is also stark ("Within Israel’s olive plantations, some olive trees have stood for centuries." — how did those trees get there?). In order to maintain a status of being unrelated to the conflict, it has to be an endless NPOV violation. I agree with you that the article in its present form does not strongly proclaim the relevance of the conflict, but as soon as editors start to balance the POV the relevance will become obvious. Whether it deserves CT status already is less clear. Zerotalk 04:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was searching to see similar cases in Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and noticed you participated in a lot of these discussions over the years. Do you think this question could be better clarified there? This is all the more important now since I am seeing more similar articles being created by very new users; articles that are being linked to PIA articles, which are subpar in the extensiveness of their coverage about the supposedly historic topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ARCA is more concerned with matters of principle than with classification of particular articles. Also, no matter how the definition of ARBPIA is written, there will be articles close to the boundary. In this case I suggest you add material to the article like I mentioned, with good sources obviously. When the content includes explicit ARBPIA-related material, it will be easy to classify the article as ARBPIA. Zerotalk 12:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)