Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict/Archive 1

Consensus
It looks like there's a consensus among the following to edit as a cooperative team: Delirium, No-One Jones (talk), OneVoice and Uncle Ed.

I firmly believe that we Team Members will enjoy cooperating with Danny and Viajero. Based on my many talk-page discussions and occasional private e-mails with these two fine contributors, I look forward with hope and confidence that we six can work together harmoniously as a like-minded coalition.

What we all have in common is:
 * interest in the Middle East
 * commitment to NPOV
 * desire to work together cooperatively

--Uncle Ed 14:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Responses
Sign in with 3 tildes, indicationg your response to OneVoice's invitation:
 * Accept and agree to OneVoice's conditions -

Accept but with reservations
Uncle Ed, No-One Jones (talk), Delirium
 * About my "reservation"... I should have said that I just want to make it clear that I'm not pledging to avoid ALL edits to a protected article. Just that, as usual, any edits I make to a protected article would be things I genuinely believed would be likely to cool down an edit war. Certainly not something that got victory for "my side".
 * In any case, if anyone complains that one of my "edits to a protected page" is unfair, I will of course abstain from editing for a due period out of contriteness, not to mention elementary courtesy :-) --Uncle Ed 21:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Accept
OneVoice

Refuse, other (please explain)

 * I think OneVoice's condition are reasonable, but they have an unfortunate flaw: one dissident, either a declining invitee to this project or a new user, could ruin the articles by inserting POV, while those who have taken this reasonable pledge would be essentially powerless to stop it. I would accept OneVoice's pledge only with one caveat: that the pledge not to edit does not apply in the case that someone who has not agreed to the same conditions gets involved in the article. --No-One Jones (talk) 21:06, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to not make a particular pledge, but I'll certainly consider that a strong request and a guide. --Delirium 21:18, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with No-One Jones, indeed it was my intent was that agreement by all edit war participants is required to make the pledge binding. (any one person/country can start a war, all must agree in order to end it?) That some may choose not to participate is possible. I prefer to believe that all the individuals listed seek to resolve the edit wars and will participate. I look forward to the invitees proving this belief to be correct. OneVoice 15:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I too hope that everyone invited will agree to sign on; if nothing else, it will provide some framework besides constant edit wars on which to construct articles. My main worry was that someone like Joe "Let's invade every country on Earth" M or Palestine "Globalize the Intifada" Liberator (or worse, someone more subtle than those two) would show up and start wrecking articles, leaving everyone who had taken the anti-edit war pledge sitting on their hands. I think the pledge not to engage in edit wars on any of the Israeli-Palestinian articles should not be extended to those who haven't taken it; that is, anyone who has signed on to this project could -- but shouldn't, of course -- edit war with anyone who hasn't. --No-One Jones 03:47, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I have refused. I am not convinced that certain individuals on both sides can rise above partisan politics to present an NPOV account of the issues. I am especially concerned by those whose sole contribution to Wikipedia is in this contentious topic. Furthermore, as new people join Wikipedia, I think that any resolutions reached will quickly be eliminated by newer "additions" and "corrections." Danny 04:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Refuse. I found it inappropriate that in the "invitation" contained conditions imposed unilaterally. Furthermore, the fundamental problem is non-partisanship in editing articles on Middle East topics not the specific details of various issues.  Wikipedia's NPOV philosophy is clearly defined on various meta pages, various experienced users -- above all Ed Poor -- are tireless in articulating it, and dozens of users every day demonstrate how it works in practice.  I have little patience for users who are unwilling or unable to adapt themselves to this mode of thinking, and the patience I did have for certain users who edit Middle East pages I have already expended in fruitless discussions on Talk pages.  Users who don't respect Wiki's NPOV philosphy and insist on using Wikipedia's pages to promote their particular political ideology don't belong here, and unless this problem is first adressed, this initiative cannot accomplish anything meaningful. -- Viajero 11:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Refuse. I was asked on my Talk page to "refrain from editting each of the articles that are listed as currently under protection or subject to edit wars on that page till the issues regarding that particular article have been resolved and we have removed that article from the currently under protection or subject to edit wars list". I intend to edit protected pages following protection policy. I believe that direct editing of articles can be an important tool to resolve edit wars, though in most cases discussion is more productive. As such, I consider these requests to be counter-productive. However, I will be happy to observe the progress of this project and see if my concerns are unfounded. Martin 16:04, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Namespace issue
Shouldn't this page be in the Wikipedia namespace? Dori | Talk 16:15, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia:Wikiproject namespace causes hand cramps - thats why I moved that and Wikiproject:Vietnam War to where they are. The "meta" designation of the Wikipedia namespace is not important. (test:Wikiproject) -&#25140;&#30505sv 21:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Well one could create a redirect as in the sorts in WP:WP. So even though it would be in Wikiproject Arab-Israeli conflict you could have Wikiproject:Arab-Israeli conflict and WP:WAIC redirect to it. I just thought that actual articles (and I guess redirects) could be in the main namespace. But if no one else complains, I guess I will leave it be as it is. Dori | Talk 21:25, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think if you look in the database, you'll find that "Wikiproject + colon" article ARE in the Wikipedia namespace. But wherever it is, I hope it's visible in Recent Changes, because I don't have time to check my e-mail, Recent Changes, vFd, Vandalism in Progress, etc. on top of going to a whole nuther web site...

Anyway, I like the idea of banding together to bring some cohesion and neutrality to the Arab-Israeli conflict articles. But let's not raised any false hopes. This has been tried before. It's hard to get more than 2 people to agree on anything.

For starters, let's try to agree on discussion format and reporting methods. How about we discuss everything on this talk page, and then if there's consensus we report on the article page? --Uncle Ed 19:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * This should absolutely not be in the article namespace. I've moved it. I realise that gives it a rather long title, but there are plenty of shortcut redirects to solve that (WP:AIC for example). Angela. 01:06, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I believe at least some of the anti-Semitism related articles should become part of this project, as I've seen them being used for propaganda purposes with regard to this issue. -- Dissident 22:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The following political essay was in an inappropriate article. It also seems like an individual's idosyncratic point of view. Should this essay be moved to a different article? Please find a home for this discussion, if appropriate. JeMa 17:32, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)


 * The US-Israeli relationship, almost since Israel's beginning, had been based a history of trust between the two countries-- dealing materially with the maintaining of Anglo-American oil interests in the region, and unwavering US support for Israel in the UN. The current climate of Christian Jewish reconciliation is seen by people of various political shades, in one respect or another, as being hand-in-hand with their mutually supportive political, military, and economic relationship. But this tenor of reconciliation also presents some political conflicts in light of the War on Terror. Arabs in the USA and Europe have at times expressed a resentment at the strength of the US-Israeli relationship, as a union of powers with the sole purpose of isolating Arabs, Arab human rights causes, and even Islam-- being the sole Abrahamic religion isolated from Judeo-Christian reconciliations. Religion is seen by some Muslims as the final straw-- the final social compact between US and Israeli societies, at the exclusion of Arab Muslims.


 * Yet many Jews and Christians do not see it this way. In fact they express a great deal of sincerity in terms of wanting to see Jewish and Christian relationship further healed, having a very long and terrible history of ethnic hostility between them, which eventually culminated in the Holocaust in the mid 20th century . They hold the view that the political connection between the US and Israel is a side issue-- not bearing on the importance and merit of a growing understanding between Christians and Jews.

Further Discussion
Steveritgo, an example would help me understand your statement:
 * With all fields of study, there are greater contexts above even the enourmous contexts. Similarly the Arab-Israeli conflicts cannot truly be discussed without the an understanding of the greater influence of Western power —this is often the most controversial aspect of discussing the peace process. As academic experts are largeley concerned with details, and laymen are more concerned with generalities, neither academic detail nor layman in fact reflect the facts and human truth of events, and we should be aware of this.

-OneVoice 21:35, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I nixed the part about academics - I tend to write more than needs to be in there, and then whittle down. The main statement is important to start a discussion of the general contexts. Street violence in LA cant be discussed without addressing the issues of poverty, education, entitlement programs, legacy of racism/slavery, etc. Its a common tactic to derail helpful discussion by claiming things are irrellevant to the topic. Topics are narrow, but reality is not, IOW. -&#25140;&#30505sv 22:53, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm....there are at least two levels at which this needs to be addressed. One might call them (i am not attached to the names) "root issues" and "immediate issues". The "root issues" regarding street violence in LA do include poverty, education, entitlement programs, legacy of racism/slavery, without a doubt. These need to be addressed. A couple "immediate issues" are 1. dealing with the immediate aftermath of what could be a shooting (one example of street violence in LA) which includes care for the wounded and burial of the dead 2. investigation to find and prosecute the perparators. In the US, liberals are characterized as focusing excessively on the "root issues" whereas conservatives are characterized as focusing excessively on the  "immediate issues". Both need to be addressed. However progress can be made on each one separately. Solving the big issues is hard, solving the littler ones is easier. Habitat for Humanity for instance tries to address some of the big issues by actions that are rather small scale, at times one house at a time. I dont know if we can address the larger issues here. We may have more success if we agree to address smaller issues first building a basis of success and cooperation before moving to the larger issues...the peace process calls this "confidence building measures". OneVoice 14:17, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your analysis, but the conclusions are backwards (for the Wikipedia anyway) the immediate issues are harder - the bigger issues are easier - not because they are easy, but because theres more interest in the macroscopic issues, and within these, the details can be sorted. The Peace process article should have nice Chomsky quote on it - I encourage everyone to read it - its a genuine altruism. -&#25140;&#30505sv 21:15, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is the main page protected? Please add Anti-Zionism to the list of pages subject to edit wars. OneVoice 18:36, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Status?
Is this still an active project? I am happy to contribute/coordinate, but will obviously not relinquish those privileges I have as an editor. --Leifern 16:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion list
Hi folks,

(is anyone there?)

I just wanted to let you know about a list of deletion debates on articles related to Israel and/or Palestine. You can find it at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel and Palestine.

If you find this list useful, please help to maintain it by adding new items and (if necessary) archiving old ones. Thanks!

Oh, and please feel free to join the project. Help is greatly needed.

Cheers,

-- Visviva 15:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this project active?
Well, is it? If so, I'm a journalist and I'd like to talk to y'all. 24.136.120.12 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This project is now active again. It is now open to everybody. --Timeshifter 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Orthodox Judaism
Welcome WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Please join if you are interested. Thank you. IZAK 08:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC) it is active and they solved the problem by letting ash diddy run da city!!

Jewish WIKIVERSITY
NEW: On Wikiversity there is now a "Jewish Studies School." Will it become a "duplication" of many things on Wikipedia? What should it's goals and functions be? Please add your learned views. Thank you. IZAK 09:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Help requested
I'd appreciate if someone would take a look at the issue I've just raised at Talk:International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict. I believe that part of this article has recently acquired a very strong pro-Israeli government bias.

By the way, as I read the project page, this project appears to be by invitation only; it also appears from the history pages to be pretty moribund. I'd suggest that you might either invite more people or simply allow people to join of their own initiative; it might wake things up. - Jmabel | Talk 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This project is no longer by invitation only. It is now open to everybody. --Timeshifter 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Two weeks later, the imbalance in the article has only increased. - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

New_Historians: Hatchet-job edit
Comments would be welcome at Talk:New_Historians. - Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Operation Summer Rains suboperations
I need some help with the above entry. See the discussion on Talk:Operation Autumn Clouds. Thanks. El_C 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident talk page regarding pictures. --Striver 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject banner to add to article talk pages
This banner uses the generic WikiProject banner code described on these pages:
 * Template talk:WikiProjectNotice
 * Template messages/Talk namespace

Here is the generic code and banner:

Here is the code adapted to this WikiProject:

Just copy and paste this code below to the top of related article talk pages:

 

You don't need the "NoWiki" tags when you copy and paste the code to article talk pages. --Timeshifter 13:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to archive old sections of talk page and main article
If there are no objections I will go ahead and archive any talk sections that have not had any comments in the last few months. Are there any objections?

Also, I will add the old inactive article sections to the archived talk page. This way we can start fresh without the confusion of previous rules and restrictions. I believe we need to let things flow more naturally as things come up in our editing. --Timeshifter 14:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I archived the old talk. I kept the project page intact, and put the old project info after the latest project info. --Timeshifter 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppets for NPOV
Anybody know how to make templates, userboxes, etc.?

I want some with the slogan "Meatpuppets for NPOV!

I think we sometimes have to fight fire with fire. It seems that various groups are recruiting for their "side" or ideology, and just don't understand NPOV. I think some wikiproject pages also act sometimes as recruiters for POV-pushing. --Timeshifter 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1947-48 Palestinian civil war
I have noticed no article on the 1947-48 Palestinian civil war, though the French Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject. Anyone think they would be up to the task of beginning the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Does this article (1948 Arab-Israeli War) cover it? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

straw poll at controversial page
See Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid for a present initiative to rename the page.--Urthogie 13:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Intifada
There is discussion about changing the name of the article. See:
 * Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada --Timeshifter 07:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Incident report filed for United States military aid to Israel
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#United States military aid to Israel

Here is the incident report and replies so far:

Some editors are trying to delete the weapon systems list from this article. It is the main part of this article. Here is the last revision of the intact article:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_military_aid_to_Israel&oldid=127900153

This article already survived a recent AFD, a recent incident report, and a recent DRV.

. See: Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel. The original closing admin (Doc) wrote: "The result was KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages." Another admin deleted that closing improperly, and changed the closing admin comment to "The result was Delete - with a strong suggestion to merge." See: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235. During the DRV, Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26, the original closing admin (Doc) clarified his closing comment and changed it to, "The result was No Consensus = default KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages". The DRV closing admin wrote: "After examining the comments carefully (and ignoring the boldfaces here, which were often confused), there is a ~75% consensus in support of Doc's original closure. Relisting is at editorial option; merge discussions belong on the appropriate talk pages." There are overall articles called United States military aid and Israel-United States military relations. The list of U.S.-supplied weapons systems in the article in question here, United States military aid to Israel, is already too long to merge with those 2 articles. It is also too long to merge with Israel-United States relations. WP:NPOV help is needed to maintain and to fill out this spinout article more. --Timeshifter 08:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Surviving an AfD or DRV doesn't mean the article can't be edited as normal. If you disagree with the edits, you're probably better to discuss them on the talk page, or seek dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached that way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion has already been tried and failed. Dispute resolution suggests protecting the page while further discussion continues. I am also asking other editors and admins who are reading this to come to the talk page. I am also asking those MANY editors and admins who commented on the AFD, DRV, and PREVIOUS incident report to also come to the talk page. I also am asking those who understand better the dispute resolution processes, and incident boards, to take the appropriate actions. I do not know all of them. I have used many of the dispute resolution processes in the past, but I have found that until some admins get involved, genuine discussion frequently does not occur on the talk pages dealing with Arab and/or Israeli articles. But the bottom line is that an attempt to delete the main part of the article is happening YET AGAIN. The weapon systems list is the reason this article can not be merged with other articles, and should not be merged. It is another roundabout deletion without having to go through AFD. I am requesting that the last intact revision be protected, so as not to allow this roundabout deletion to stand. Here is the last revision with the intact article:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_military_aid_to_Israel&oldid=127900153 --Timeshifter 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I copied the above info from the incident report. Please comment there, and below. --Timeshifter 08:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment filed

 * Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex - A request for comment about the Template:Palestinian ethnicity's picture has been filed. Your collective comments are solicted and would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Avi 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)