User talk:Tayaravaknin

WP:ARBPIA3
Under the terms of an Arbitration Committee decision, typically referred to as WP:ARBPIA3, editors (like you) who have made fewer than 500 edits, editors who are unregistered, and editors who have not been registered for 30 days may not edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Any edits you make to such articles may be reverted. For more information, please click on the blue link above. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it very strange to find that this decision was made, particularly since it stifles people like me with academic credentials who are posting valid and sourced information on a subject. Why was this put into place, and why are users allowed to deny the credibility of a source as happened to me blatantly because they did not like it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayaravaknin (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * To see why the restrictions were put into place, read WP:ARBPIA3. As far as "deny[ing] the credibility of a source", come now. You may (or may not) have academic credentials, as you claim, but you cited hasbara published by NGO Monitor and the Jewish Virtual Library, not reliable sources published by academic presses. And you deleted material you didn't like, claiming it wasn't mentioned in the source. (It is.) Remind me: who's denying the credibility of a source because they didn't like it? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is precisely why I believe that you are not credible and qualified, despite attacking me for not having "enough edits". Not only does the "academic source" cited on the page include false studies that get basic information wrong, you criticize sources you do not like as "hasbara". You should be ashamed. What's worse is, you believe that cited information in NGO Monitor is somehow not trustworthy and that Jewish Virtual Library is wrong, but you clearly did not read either, because the "Jewish Virtual Library" source was a hosted report compiled by the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University, which IS an academic source. Your attempt to downplay the source by blatantly misrepresenting it while not actually reading it is shameful. You should be ashamed. When did Wikipedia's standards turn to be so hateful and poor? While you disagree with an academic source because of the website hosting it, you support the "Palestinian Hydrology Group" (Palsbara source, by your hateful definition) and the Palestinian Water Authority (also a blatantly biased source) without a single Israeli source? Why? You ought be ashamed, but you also ought to be reported for such blatant bias. You are not credible and should not be editing pages you clearly know nothing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayaravaknin (talk • contribs) 07:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't "attack" you for not having enough edits—I merely stated the obvious.
 * Look at the first sentence of NGO Monitor: "NGO Monitor (Non-governmental Organization Monitor) is a non-governmental organization based in Jerusalem, who analyzes and reports on the output of the international NGO community from a pro-Israel perspective." Look at the first sentence of Jewish Virtual Library: "The Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) is an online encyclopedia published by the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), one of whose 'principal objectives is to enhance Israel's image by publicizing novel Israeli approaches to problems common to both our nations and illustrating how Americans can learn from these innovations.'" Now tell me who's calling them hasbara.
 * I apologize for not looking at the academic paper you cited from the Jewish Virtual Library. You should try to cite original publication, if possible. See Citing sources. "Accuracy can be assumed when the hosting website appears reliable." Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case with the Jewish Virtual Library. The Begin-Sadat Center would have been a much better source to cite from. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * They are not "hasbara". Being pro-Israel does not make one "hasbara", nor does having that perspective. Selby's paper is clearly anti-Israel, but not labeled as such despite clear evidence from the very title, and Selby's history. Attacking a source as "hasbara" distracts from the actual legitimacy of the source. If I were to go through Wikipedia and label pages "Palsbara" based on their leaning, would that be acceptable? Likely not.

(1) It is 1000% obvious that the Rabin assassination had everything to do with the I/P conflict. Therefore, you are forbidden to edit the article on it. (2) The two YouTube videos appear to be captures of Israeli TV and are presumed copyright violations until proven otherwise. See WP:COPYVIOEL for our policy on that, which says we are not allowed to link to them. They wouldn't be allowed anyway under the verifiability rule, as there is no indication of who edited them and no reason we should trust them to show a balanced summary of the facts. (3) Statements of opinion by officials or persons with a conflict of interest can only be used with attribution. So the best you can hope for regarding a letter from an Israeli ambassador is a sentence starting "According to...". Zerotalk 08:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not 1000% obvious. The assassination may have occurred as a result of policies on the I/P conflict, but the rule is not to edit pages related to the I/P conflict. This page is about an event related to the I/P conflict, but the page is not. It would be like saying you couldn't edit a page on Sudan-Israel relations because those relations are influenced by I/P, even though the page is not about the I/P conflict. But let's set that aside: even if you want to leave out the YouTube video over "copyright" concerns, that doesn't change that you also removed a news article linking to the very same information. So you should reinstitute that, as well as the quote from the Netanyahu advisor, in the interest of accuracy. Doing otherwise would be to remove an adequate link and quote.


 * The rule says "all Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted" and in the first half of the article the great majority of sentences refer explicitly to the I/P conflict. You can take it to an administrative noticeboard if you like, but I advise you that there is no chance and you would be wasting your time. Regarding the newspaper article, in my judgement it is not reliable for a claim the journalist is repeating from somewhere else about an event that occured when the reporter was a teenager living in another country. Others may disagree. If you can find a contemporary report, such as the Haaretz story Bibi's advisor mentions, it would be better than the advisor's letter and could replace it. Zerotalk 23:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)