User talk:PalestineRemembered/Archives/2008/May

Created 20080513

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Oct 2007, Nov 2007, Dec 2007, Feb 2008, Apr 2008, May 2008, Jun 2008, Jul 2008,

Mentor
Per. Please consult your mentor before reverting other editors.

Taking a break from Wikipedia, does not mean that you are allowed to edit mentor free in the Israeli-Palestinian category.

With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. your recent use of JewsAgainstZionism.com has not gone unnoticed and the community has already discussed this issue. If you will not self-revert on this, matters could very well escalate.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Using a second editor to revert for you really put things in new perspective on your intentions. I've decided to report the edit war approach.
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Cordially,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

blocked
You have been blocked for a period of 1 week. Please refer to this AN/I thread. --  FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  12:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Damaged RfC
That's completely not relevant. Haaretz may choose to review one book or the other, that doesn't even assert the notability of the book itself. Much less of Shlomo Sand or the material that he presents. Interestingly, the review also states that Sand is an expert on 20th Century history, and not on 2000-year-old history. Also, while I don't really know about Haaretz, in Ynet for example, reviews like this are generally user-submitted (this one likely is as well), so it's kind of like citing Wikipedia. But again, even if 100% of the Haaretz article is correct, it still has no shred of an assertion of notability for Sand or the other unnamed professors (I'd honestly like to know who they are - please find another source). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Need guidance please on questioning
In my view, there's a distinction between asking about actions (e.g. "Did you send these emails?" or "Did you recruit meatpuppets?") and asking about allegiance (e.g. "Are you now or were you ever a member of group X?"), and it's the latter mode of questioning that I'm particularly concerned about (and which Hypnosadist was engaged in).

Mere membership in some outside group is not, generally speaking, a violation of Wikipedia policy unless one actually does something. I don't think it's a good idea to countenance people demanding answers to such queries. Kirill (prof) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism Mediation
I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:


 * Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
 * Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
 * If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.


 * PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence on C68-FM-SV
Regarding Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence, I have restored FT2s request, and I have replied here User_talk:FT2

In short, provide diffs, or your Evidence section will be removed. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed your section, as that page is not a place for people to leave opinions. You are more than welcome to add evidence to that page, but you must accompany any assertions with diffs.  This is not a whitewashing; anyone can submit evidence, and if they feel too intimidated to be able to comfortable post the evidence on-wiki, they can submit it via email to the arbitration committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the evidence deemed inadequate and removed

 * This case, more than most, concerns personal integrity. I know people are under pressure, I know they have real trolls to deal with, but what we're seeing from some quarters is not good enough.
 * Questions swirl around SlimVirgin in this respect - as they've done for a long time. Internal and external observers must be surprised she remains an administrator.
 * Similarly, experience suggests serious concerns about Felonious Monk. His one-month opening block on me was collusive and disproportionate - not to say partisan and perverse. Look carefully at the timings, the way "my "critics" arrived very quickly whereas "my supporters" only much later after the deed was done. I'd not been around long enough to even recognize "my defenders", let alone have formed alliances against this sectarian assassination. Watch how "my defenders" are treated - this was a rail-roading with community involvement stamped upon. It is not open-editing recognizable to fair-minded people. PRtalk 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - this removal is in keeping with the policy at ArbCom deliberations where favored admins have even been removed from consideration and potential sanction, and anyone attempting to re-introduce consideration of these people threatened with sanctions. (If I can find the diff). In that case and this one, the admins in question involve themselves heavily in the Israel-Palestine topic with a strongly pro-Israel leaning. There are no admins openly operating an open pro-Palestinian leaning - in at least one case, the ArbCom sided with an editor later proved to be a cheat when he set on and drove off an administrator suspected of pro-Palestinian leanings.
 * Another concern at this ArbCom must be the name it's been given, apparently concealing the identities of the accused. PRtalk 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I take extreme offense at the way you have interpreted this. I removed your section only because you didnt provide any diffs, which is the primary requirement.  The evidence page is for Evidence; not opinions.!  I have no opinion regarding the case; I am a clerk.  My role is to ensure that the Evidence page is full of good quality evidence.  I have also been giving Dtobias a hard time, but thankfully he has started to flesh out this evidence section with links.  On the other hand, you removed large chucks of your own evidence section, which made it even less like evidence, so I removed it.  I encourage you to read up on how Evidence is usually submitted, and to provide good quality evidence.  Only poorly composed evidence will be disregarded.  If you want your evidence to stick, write good quality evidence.  The onus is on you!  If you write good evidence, with diffs to underpin your assertions, I will ensure it is not tampered with.
 * I understand your concerns regarding the naming of the case; another user had similar concerns. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop for more details - the naming was arbitary.  Please AGF. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Having been extensively reviled at numerous vindictive (and sometimes fraudulent) disciplinaries notable for their almost total lack of evidence, I find it extraordinary that the statement "His one-month opening block on me was collusive and disproportionate - not to say partisan and perverse. Look carefully at the timings etc" is considered inadequate.
 * The analysis of my evidence would read something like this, but it's better (and less space-consuming in the Evidence page) if people work it out for themselves: "The block on me was apparently decided by User:FeloniousMonk, (the subject of this new ArbCom) in just 9 minutes from the first report. There was a further pile-on of highly partisan editors wanting me drummed from the project in the next few hours. It took 24 hours before anyone concerned enough to protest arrived - and their protest (and another one later) was slapped down with prejudice."
 * I am confident that the ArbCom is fully capable of accepting or rejecting the point I'm making (ie that FM is guilty of rail-roading), and are probably grateful that I kept my comments as brief as I could. It is less clear that I'm being fair to SlimVirgin, but her name is bound to be prominent in any discussion about the personal integrity of WP admins, for reasons nobody wants me to spell out. When I've been targeted by non-AGF the whole of my time here, and suffered such an enormous amount of trouble for fights set up by others (details if anyone wants them) it is bizarre indeed that suspected POV cheats get this heavy duty protection, with brief, proven and relevant evidence such as mine either heavily discouraged or actively removed.
 * However, if you are simply clerking this case in a new and pro-active fashion, then some of my objections are greatly mollified. And I've been shocked in the past by an absurd lack of evidence, including outright smears the perpetrators must have known were false (I can think of at least one concerning people in this case), so if you're really tightening up then you have my whole-hearted support. PRtalk 11:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I clerk each case a bit differently; in some I let poor quality evidence in, especially when it is from the parties themselves, and the parties are not regular contributors to Wikipedia. In this case, because I expect that the case will be quite large, I am trying to ensure that all the evidence is well presented.  If you dont have the time to present quality evidence, I assume that someone else will.  I did not ask you to remove your evidence; I asked you to flesh it out and add diffs, otherwise I would remove it.  You choose to not improve your evidence; you choose to remove parts of your evidence.  By all means, please continue to draft your evidence, adding lots of diffs, and then add it again when it is ready. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. I will have to see what specific evidence I can bring. It might consist of cases where people in this ArbCom have joyfully resorted to smear with no evidence whatsoever - or even been in denial of cast-iron evidence that they had to have been aware of. As I keep saying, it's personal integrity that is the biggest problem in this case. I'm disturbed that you've removed this quite significant discussion from your own page - any border-line personal attack was certainly not intended. PRtalk 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
I'm sorry PR, but I've blocked you for 72 hours because you've continued to add sources into articles that are not reliabel, despte being told quite clearly that they weren't (here is the edit). You know full well that you shouldn't be using these kinds of sources to push your POV in an article and I expect you not to do this again when you return from your block.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So when are we going to start blocking the editors who insist on citing Israel: Myths and Facts, Zionism On the Web, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc etc? Or does WP:RS only apply to anti-Zionists? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, even though a man from Brooklyn by that name was a survivor of the attack (per the NYT article the following day), lending the story some credence, no one anywhere has picked this up as even a passing factoid. Not a single scholar, not a single journalist, not even an editorial pundit. It's extremely dubious information. -- Kendrick7talk 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should apologise for using a site that some people have a problem with, but the information I was adding (to a section I created myself and has stood with no further editing) is totally non-surprising and there was no reason to delve more deeply. The information/interview I provided is 100% genuine, also appearing on the web-sites of those other devout Jews, the Neturei Karta.
 * Hence I request the block be lifted. PRtalk 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for PalestineRemembered, the Neturei Karta website is just as unreliable a source as the ridiculous Jews Against Zionism website (both sites may even be ran by the same people). Eleland's suggestion that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is an unreliable source on Israeli foreign affairs is ridiculous on its face.  --GHcool (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Palestine, I have suspended your unblock request, whilst I conduct a thorough review. Thanks for your patience, Anthøny  19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Handled. Anthøny  19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PR et al, I argued for PR on Ryan's page. Other material of interest?: This is the interview translated into German at another, similar group's site. Rather better is this, English translation here by an Italian / international human rights group "Secondo Protocollo" cf Cittadini italiani detenuti all'estero for info on it. This comments on the Kaplan interview, citing the JAZ site. Considering Kaplan's POV the author, Diego Ianiro,  comments it was "quite natural that [he] prefer to "blame" the Zionists rather than the Arabs."John Z (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with sourcing all my citations - and I'm a notable (even lonely) campaigner against using hate-sites as references. If "Jews Against Zionism" in New York are really "extreme" or practice "hatespeech" then I'd not dream of using them. Ditto Neturei Karta in Jerusalem and a whole string of other bodies carrying a mass of overwhelmingly impressive information/evidence.
 * The problem I have is that the editors who have announced this blanket ban have no recognised status within the community - even when they're joined by others who do, there has never been any attempt to back their assertions. I'm confident all editors will feel as I do, stigmatising a persecuted minority as "extreme" in this fashion without really good evidence is totally unacceptable. PRtalk 11:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not just that Jews Against Zionism and Neturei Karta are extreme (although they are). They also violate WP:RS and WP:Fringe and the way that PalestineRemembered has tried to integrate them into articles violates WP:Undue weight.  --GHcool (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well, you have a point. I suppose I could see how including a mention of this would be OK, as long as it wasn't given WP:UNDUE weight, and it was explicitly mentioned that these two groups are sources for the information in the text of the article. Giving this more than a sentence or two is a slippery slope into WP:SOAP. -- Kendrick7talk 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The quality of an article (particularly on this emotive topic) depends crucially on the sensitivity of the editors contributing, the standard of references, the care taken fact-checking, and the judgement of the administrators who oversee what's going on.
 * I've checked the "Jews Against Zionism" as best I can, and it's obvious they're a high quality resource and nothing remotely like a blog. Russel Waxman appears (appeared?) to be the editor, Reuven Waxman, Jacob Dershowitz, Leizer Fishberg, Hersh Lowenthal make detailed contributions, speaking for the their community, their religion, and their resource. Hersh Lowenthal has a letter/right of reply in Arutz Sheva's IsraelNationalNews.com.
 * JAZ.com entitle themselves the "True Torah Jews Against Zionism". They're part of the Satmar community (Haredi? not sure) of Brooklyn NY, and they list 11 Rabbis, from LA to Brisk, Eastern Europe with the somewhat dubious "gave their endorsements to various books published by Jews Against Zionism. Their endorsements do not necessarily mean that they approve of everything published on this website". (It's wishy-washy but certainly proves this is a not a blog, which nobody looking at it would think anyway.)
 * User:Yidisheryid (still editing occasionally) told us on 10 October 2007 that JAZ "... is indeed run by the satmar coummuntiy and endorsed by all its rabbis, there was 2 newspaper clippings from the 2 satamr official newspapers staing this. what else do u need, that the times should tell you this, why isn't a satmar official newspaper enough verifiable to be leave him when he says openly we as the movement take responsibility for that site?" (this was a deletion review now missing - I believe there is a second editor from this community who has contributed).
 * I cannot see any problem (and considerable benefit) in providing the part of the story that says this murderous riot erupted totally without warning (and from the villagers, not from Hebronites), since that's apparently what each of the survivor sources tell us. Relations between Arabs and the established Jews in Hebron in 1929 are all said to be excellent. We have access to one carefully worded compilation, and we have access to this one-off account, which is a bit more pungent but certainly not lacking in significance or credibility as a result. I've added the compilation with no problem whatsoever, there should be absolutely no problem with adding Rabbi Kaplan. Incidentally, I only discovered him because others wanted his account included before I ever arrived.
 * I really feel that this block should be lifted and I should be free to edit with my good-faith totally un-impugned. It must be obvious by now that the objections to JAZ, while heartfelt, are pretty much baseless. By their works shall ye know them. PRtalk 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because JAZ is ran by Satmar rabbis doesn't mean that they are a reliable source on Judaism or Zionism. They certainly aren't a reliable source on world affairs.  Using JAZ as a source on Judaism and Zionism is just as awkward as using Jews for Jesus as a source on Judaism or Jesus.  --GHcool (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Yidisheryid identifies with the group, and looking at his history, it can be seen that he is in the extreme fringe minority on these issues, besides for displaying a long-term and consistent disregard for wiki policy. Using him as a reference is absurd. JAZ is not endorsed by any Statmar rabbis that I know of at all. If anything, they are covered in the general rebuke issued by the Satmar community against JAZ/NKUSA and whomever else visited Iran. See Satmar court slams Neturei Karta. It is self-evident and undeniable that JAZ is tiny fringe group like NK, and should not be used for anything outside of their own article, similar to rense.com. -- Avi (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've come across this, so I'll put in my two cents.
 * As a religious Jew who is not a Zionist, I can attest to the fact that the Neturei Karta and Satmar are not one and the same. While there are Satmar Chasidim who are very vocal and extreme and consider themselves part of Satmar; nevertheless they are not supported by the leadership or its Rebbe's, who have made it clear many times that Neturei Karta doesn't represent them. As a matter of fact; the Satmar Rebbe (Rabbi Joel Teitlebaum) writes that "there are those who are worse then the Zionists - and they are the Neturei Karta". When Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum was alive the Neturei Karta once issued a leaflet (pashkevill) saying that "Rabeinu suri min haderech" (The Rabbi has gone off the path!!!) It is also known that the Satmar Rebbe (RJT) threw the Neturei Karta-nikers out of Satmar.
 * Let it be known once and for all, that the great Satmar Rebbe, The holy Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum who was a real anti-Zionist, nevertheless saw the Neturei Karta as fringe and wicked. I hope it is now clear to everyone. Itzse (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am grateful to my fellow editors for reminding me that the very devout followers of Judaism are rent by ferocious ideological splits and fusions (rather like, if more extreme than, newspapers and other RS).
 * Fortunately, I don't have to take sides between them. And since I don't intend to lower myself to bigotry and prejudice against this minority, then unless and until I see a case made that these religious Jews are fantasists, liars, racists or prone to gross historical fabrications then I propose we continue to treat their work objectively according to procedure and according to its apparent quality. Which, as best I can tell, and lacking any contrary information, is rather good. Certainly perfectly adequate for the non-surprising use proposed here.
 * Otherwise, we're in grave danger of repeating the situation that arose here with the allegation "unreliable source at best and a malicious one at worst" but no attempt ever made to justify any part of it in a process that I think stretched from August until February. PRtalk 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the news article I brought you where even Satmar denounces NK? Regardless, PR, the preponderance of evidence is undeniable. Further, the assumption of good faith does not entail the denial of bad faith. It is conclusive that JAZ and NK are unreliable sources for anything other than the Neturei Karta article, or articlesabout their members. Continued disregard of WP:RS may result in further measures taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read that account. The headline indeed says "Satmar slams Neturei Karta" but the text only says (and suggests) that the problem is with 7 people from the group. It will not be news to you that headlines regularly have this problem, as you persuaded me of it here "Diplomats suspected Entebbe hijacking was an Israeli plot to discredit the PLO.". (I was cooperative and withdrew).
 * You're inviting me to accept that a) these 7 people are top NK people and that b) the NK group itself is a haven for serious nutters. Thankyou, you've not proved your thesis, but you would have taken a worthwhile step towards doing so if I was open to distrust the integrity (rather than the judgement) of a very few devout Jews.
 * Very few? Well, yes, because as I delve further, I discover that NK is much smaller than Satmar and not the same thing. They're only confused because they're both anti-Zionist (thats according to our own article on NK which you've edited). Furthermore, according to our own article (which I think we can trust in this respect), NK itself is split, with the smaller Iran-loving portion seen as a quite serious embarrassment to the bigger portion.
 * I now see ancient allegations of violence (in Jerusalem) but it is not political, and on nothing like the scale of other groups that we quote even in this very same 1929 Hebron Massacre article. Political violence is confined to victimisation of the NK by Zionists according to members of the NK in London). Mature NK adherents themselves come across as gentle people, their views may be "extreme" but it seems worryingly prejudicial to call them "extremists". (In fact, you seem to have been one of those wanting to excise the word extreme from the Neturei Karta article and to have helped remove every such reference!). I wonder why you're leading me to think that Satmar and the NK are the same thing?
 * The more I look into this, the more I discover what I expected to find, serious splits and fusions but not a scrap of evidence for the main body of devout Jews being unreliable. Or even the minor portion of the minor portion being unreliable. More than that, their apparently bitter rivalry is a good indicator that they have to be they have to be ultra-careful. They both use and accept the Rabbi Kaplan evidence - which doesn't mean we can close the case, but if two groups with this degree of competition agree about a source, it's certainly confidence building. With the NK formally created in 1935, it must be unlikely their joint acceptance of Kaplan is for dishonest, factional reasons.
 * Your Ynet story does have a useful purpose, however, since it makes clear that the Satmar are "the biggest" Orthodox group (at 120,000) and very anti-Zionist - both factors making JAZ's own calculation of their significance look either reasonable or possibly conservative. In addition to the anti-Zionist Jews (that they claim to speak for, and I think we can accept they do), they claim there are 1 million non-Zionist devout followers of Judaism in the world. I had no intention of making myself an expert on any religion, in fact I rather resent being forced into it. But the more I look into this one, the happier I am on their likely factual reliability. The Mormons (surely a more reviled group than the Jews) are the uncontested world leaders in genealogy, it looks as if Satmar and the JAZ are (amongst the) world-leaders in documenting the factual side of opposing Zionism. PRtalk 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again to throw in my two cents. PR, if you're not convinced that Satmar doesn't sanction the Neturei Karta's activities; then tell me so, and I'll quote you chapter and verse. As to the nuttiness of the NK, I have already told you that even Satmar (who are anti-Zionist) consider them crazy, and to all religious non-Zionists, they are considered real nuts. Religious Zionists make no distinction between them because to them, both Satmar and the NK want the same thing, namely the destruction of the State of Israel; but there is a major difference between the two, and that is that Satmar "prays" for the State of Israel to come to an end and that the Messiah should come and straighten out the situation without any bloodshed; whereas the NK wants the destruction of the State of Israel NOW at any cost, Messiah or no Messiah; and the loss of Jewish lives is not foremost on their mind. This difference in mindset sets apart these two groups and translates directly in how they approach reality. A real Satmar Chosid would cry when hearing that Israeli soldiers were killed, as would the Satmar Rebbe himself who was described by the "Hamodea" (when he passed away) as "Ohev Yisroel Vesoine Medinas Yisroel" (Loved the Children of Israel and hated the State of Israel); whereas a Neturei Kartanik can dance for joy on hearing of the death of Israeli soldiers (seen it with my own eyes). Let me share an anecdote with you. I once asked a NK-nik: if you saw Rabin and Arafat drowning, whom would you save first? He replied; I would only save Arafat!!! So let me ask you (PR); aren't they nuts?
 * For the sake of fairness let me say that how I described NK doesn't apply to all NK-nikers; there are execeptions, but extreme and nuts (a.k.a. fringe) they remain.


 * Now to the words of Rabbi Kaplan. That he was an anti-Zionist, that is clear; but I just wonder if he really said all those words. If I would have time; I would dissect it and comment on his words line by line; unfortunately I do not have now the time for it; but suffice it to say that I have already detected some doctoring of his words, which is impossible for him to have said. One of them is calling them Palestinians; which I have no doubt in my mind that he called them "Araber" which is Yiddish for Arab; but the NK to cater to the Arab world, put the word "Palestinian" in Rabbi Kaplan's mouth and gave a doctored translation. Rabbi Kaplan was probably more in tune with Satmar ideology then with NK ideology, with the NK making use of his words (after doctoring it) for propaganda purposes. I wouldn't trust anything that the Neturei Karta published. Itzse (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, the mediation PalestineRemembered referenced involved a debate about the source's reliability followed by a one-sided attempt by me to compromise, which resulted in failure because the other editor did not understand the meaning of the word or did not show any interest in compromise. The JAZ is not only a "minority," as PalestineRemembered puts it.  They are also a fringe group, as even the Satmars admit.  --GHcool (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I now agree that the weight of the evidence is against inclusion. This increasingly seems like some legend passed back and forth among a few fringe entities. Until some scholar or journalist investigates this and discovers it's true (and for all we know, they have and discovered it's false, and simply didn't bother to publisher such a s finding) I would just leave this be. -- Kendrick7talk 00:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Satmar, at 120,000 is still smaller than the non-Hasidic Haredi contingent, PR. Regardless, you have been both warned about and sanctioned due to using JAZ, NK, and other such unreliable sources in articles. Further disregard for wikipedia policy may be met with appropriate responses to protect the integrity of the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Defensive Shield damage
PR, I was the one who wrote that sentence: ""the Palestinian Authority did not manage to fully address damaged infrastructure for approximately two years after the invasions." Note that I did not say 'failed,' but rather, 'did not manage.' My intent there was not to imply that the PA did not try to fix the damage (sometimes it tried and sometimes it did not, depending on the town, the state of finances, the interests of the PA members, etc.)but rather that the damage was so extensive that, in light of the lack of a tax base, the PA couldn't fully address the damage for two years. As there is no citable evidence saying that the PA was incapable of repairing the extent of the damage, I tried to write it in such a way that it could be interpreted however one likes. Regardless of one's political orientation and interpretations, the fact remains that the damage took years to address. Is it possible you are jumping to conclusions, assuming bad faith, too quickly? Or upon further reflection do you still think it's unclearly written/recommend I go in an edit is so the message is more overt? If it is, I would be happy to. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that this treatment of the situation is misleading. The PA was virtually wiped out as a functioning administration, throughout the West Bank, with all records destroyed and everything smashed. Rebuilding of the refugee camps was hampered by several further incursions and a large number of killings of UN workers, including the British head of UNWRA reconstruction, shot dead inside a UN compound in Jenin. An allegation included with the UN report alleged that this camp was mined by the departing Israelis, and the EU reported that bomb-disposal teams were refused entry, during which time at least two more people were killed. UN investigators were never able to visit.
 * I can't be sure whether the time-scale of this article on the Operation needs or should extend to the aftermath of re-building, but I am concerned at an impression left that Israeli interference ceased and that the PA was somehow left in control. PRtalk 21:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you raise a good set of points, and if you can cite the above assertions, should definitely include them. I think that what you argue here makes it even clearer to me that, yes, the rebuilding should be mentioned. If there is a paragraph on the violence leading up to the operation (all of it currently about attacks on Israelis) then certainly one would think that a short section on the aftermath would be relevant. After all, the physical damage was considerable; it is thus a major aspect of the operation.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Question of Palestinian Refugees
I was a little tired, but looking back, i think it should indeed be reprhased. The main reason for this is that the article states "Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state, their return into Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state". In my opinion, this is misleading, and you are right, since the paragraph starts talking about Palestine and then goes on to say about the return to Israel. Do you have any suggestions on how the paragraph should be rephrased? Sufitul (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)