Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Archive 2

Greeting
Hi HG. this page looks great. just want to say thanks for setting it up. I hope to keep an eye on things here as things go forward. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

السلام عليكم - שָׁלוֹם עֲלֵיכֶם I am so happy that this project has been set up and wish you success with all my heart! How can I become a member? &mdash; Sebastian 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your kind words. For now, how about if your just add your name to the list of members and the section below? I would anticipate that the WikiProject may need to establish some membership criteria (as did you with Sri Lanka?), but I won't presume to propose criteria yet. Cheers, HG | Talk 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not joining for now, only because I don't want to join and then not actively contribute, if i then don't have time to do so. however, i do hope to join discussions here, as they may come up, periodically. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, i've decided to join, since joining can simply mean we support this idea, and are willing to be open to discussion on various issues. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidents
Um, are you sure we should have an "Incidents" section? i thought the idea here was to promote amicable resolution. Perhaps we could provide a section for inter-editor issues, where people could mention problems, conflicts, issues, etc, before they become incidents? how does that sound? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's important for folks to be able to track ongoing incidents. As you will see from the Sri Lanka effort, they also worked on incidents and would then mark them as Resolved. But yes, I like the idea of people using this page to talk about, or at least give a heads up, about heated editing/discussions as they begin to develop. I suppose "Incidents" sounds more like an AN/I approach. Suggest an alternative heading? Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 17:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Splitting the SL talk page into issues and incidents was a singlehanded decision by me, and probably more tolerated than supported by the other members. I wanted to give more prominence to content discussions (=issues), but allowing for the need to address incidents, such as "Editor X violated policy Y", as well. But for the time being, you could just delete that headline, and only insert it when the talk page gets too full. &mdash; Sebastian 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that our readers would like to be informed about user conduct incidents. It's not inconceivable that we, as individuals or a Project, might want to get involved in how incidents are resolved, esp when they touch upon more widespread conduct or content matters. For this reason, I'll post an incident on the Project page. However, I'm assuming that discussion of incident should take place at the noticeboard -- not here. Here, perhaps, we can discuss the project's role more. Thanks very much for addressing this issue. HG | Talk 09:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mission and membership
We're slightly underway and have a few 27 participants, it's still important to tackle some key questions.

1. What is our long-term mission and our short-term emphasis? In what ways might we adopt or revise the provisional Goals listed? (Bear in mind that our contribution would presumably differ from either the Isr/Pales WikiProjects or the usual WP:DR mechanisms.)


 * I'm thinking that our chief aim is to make the topic area a more hospitable working environment, less of a battleground. In the short-term, we might "adopt" a few articles to model collaboration (e.g., Palestinian costumes) or to assign a few uninvolved "peacekeepers" to hotspots for a good cop/bad cop approach. HG | Talk 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Who would we want to join us as members here? Is membership open, invited, and/or subject to review?


 * We may be best off using this Project to attract uninvolved people, discuss strategies, and intervene/moderate in disputed articles. Toward this end, it would help to get buy-in and collaboration from key users from various "sides." However, it won't help if only one POV side joins the Project, which would then be perceived as one-sided. How do we ensure balance here? I'd guess we'd need to invite/encourage both sides to be represented in a limited manner, as we strive for a critical mass of uninvolved editors.

I welcome your comments. Feel free to place comments after each question, or below. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've archived some previous comments, please check to avoid duplication. Let's leave these questions as open thread for now. HG | Talk 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars already
I don't know how to deal with this, but Jaakobou has already started edit-warring in this collaboration! He has twice reverted my inclusion of him in the list of "Editors blocked for 3RR five or more times", arguing that some of the blocks were not justified.

As I understand it, the list is not meant to be a further punishment, but rather to show how much the project as a whole has been damaged by the constant edit-warring. No stigma is attached to inclusion. But it's necessary to be accurate if the list is to have any use, and the fact is, as I detailed in the talk page, that Jaakobou has been blocked five times.

Continually reverting the collaboration project sub-page is not a good start to this project. I would appreciate comments and input from other editors here. Thanks. RolandR (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I would highly recommend that neither of you make any further reverts. You could continue your discussion on the statistics Talk page -- since only two of you are involved, why not get a WP:3PO? Also, you can bring this matter up with Durova, his mentor, at User talk:Durova. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to tone down the introduction to that a bit? It sounds a bit tongue in cheek - probably an inappropriate use of humor.  Durova Charge! 07:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Introduction has been changed. Thanks for your input again. HG | Talk 08:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's consider this thread closed and the issue resolved. Thanks to everyone! HG | Talk 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this has been resolved. At the talk page, you wrote to Jaakobou: "As a courtesy, I would ask that you undo your latest revert and try to settle this issue here through discussion". He ignored this request. I have not restored my original edit, keeping to the spirit of 1RR, although I think that my version was correct and Jaakobou's is deliberately misleading. So I cannot consider this matter resolved. Am I permitted to remove the "Resolved" tag, or would that be a breach of some policy? RolandR (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the mistake. Let's keep working on this issue. Sorry. HG | Talk 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why monitor the battleground?
Hi. i hope my suggestion doesn;'t sound counter-productive, but I would suggest that we NOT keep track of 3RR, edit vblocks, edit practices, or anything contentious here. I see this page differently. we should not use it to track edit wars or any aspect of any user's conduct, but should use it simply for discussing issues. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the monitoring data subpage is to provide transparency and tracking of the battleground edit wars in the area. Sunshine is good. As in many regulatory schemes (real world), monitoring data gives feedback to those in non-compliance and it gives the rest of us a chance to see how things are going and where we want to intervene. ARticles on the list should get attention. People will want to avoid being on this list (as we see already). Perhaps we can refine the list as an incentive -- for instance, if we break it down by Last 12 Months and then Last 3 Months, people can be proud if they have a clean slate in the recent period, and the Project can notice the progress, too. I want uninvolved admins (and ArbCom) to know how bad it's been, and to be able to track factually whether improvements are taking place. (For mere discussing issues, your lounge and the regular WikiProject talk pages are now in place.) Thanks for your input. HG | Talk 14:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is of course some good in sunshine. But when I compare this project with WP:SLR, there is striking difference in this regard: For many active months WP:SLR did not have any such list. The reason is simple: Since we're a wiki, all relevant information is already visible to everyone. Only recently did we start to accumulate one small table to keep track of warnings (to make it easier to be fair with blocks). By comparison, your project already has WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/I-P editing battleground statistics, a list that is much longer - before you even started resolving any dispute. I don't know your situation well enough to say the way you're doing it is wrong. All I'm saying is that I can see no need for this peculiar level of detail. As WP:SLR shows, it certainly is possible to resolve disputes without it. &mdash; Sebastian 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

''Note: (Yes, it's a bit self-serving, I'm excerpting 2 of Leifern's ideas here:
 * 2. Escalations we all want to avoid - Arbcom, bans, mediation, etc. (These items are monitored in battleground stats page and sections of the Project page)
 * 3. Can we find a common way, perhaps a protocol, to succinctly and fairly describe a controversy? (See this discussion.)

''(Of course, Leifern is welcome to move these again. Cheers, HG | Talk 11:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Goals and Interim Agreement
I noticed that the goals of your project are much more general than WP:SLR's goals, replacing our specific definition with the sweeping "all aspects relating to Israel, Palestine, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Why is that? &mdash; Sebastian 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Won't try to justify it, since I agree it is too broad. I'll try to replace it with a more narrow focus and let folks edit it on the page, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being bold, I've modified the WikiProject Goals and added an Interim Agreement. Please look esp at the Agreement, which spells out expectations for member conduct (including a 1RR pledge) and balanced representation. The expectations are based on SLDRA and balancing our need for new members with our need for a successful Project trajectory. What do you all think? Thanks for looking at this! HG | Talk 07:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Goals and agreement look generally good. I have one concern, though: In several places, uninvolved editors seem to receive preferential treatment over involved ones, such as when only involved editors are asked to pledge 1RR. I feel that a project like this depends on being accepted by involved editors, and that this discrimination may discourage involved editors from joining. Moreover, it goes against my understanding of WP:NPOV, which states: "All editors and all sources have biases - what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." Facilitating this collaboration is what I see as the core competency of a project like this. Therefore, I hope that this project will not discourage involved editors, but, to the contrary, help everybody, including Wikipedia as a whole, by reconciling their needs with Wikipedia's needs. This requires true respect for involved editors. &mdash; Sebastian 08:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, Sebastian. I revised the agreement to put all editors on the same footing. Let me know if you think the revisions are adequate. Any other suggestions would be welcome, thanks.


 * Thank you, that addresses my concerns! But you know, I don't really know this conflict well enough; so I should really hold back. Such requests should come from the members and from those who you would like to win as members. See also my reply to you on my talk page in that regard. Fortunately, I have to disengage for almost a day - I need to sleep now and then work. :-]  &mdash; Sebastian 09:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mild accomplishments

 * Helped arrive at consensus on "a people" for lede at Palestinian people (Jan 20)
 * Developed annual report and other ways to track the I-P battleground (~Jan 20)
 * Helped improve Palestinian costumes on way to GA (Jan 24)
 * Responded to concerns at State Terrorism (Jan 25)
 * Clarified archiving and agreed to moderation, for this Talk page. (Feb 3)
 * Agreed to an IPCOLL Content issues task (Feb 3)
 * Agreed to an IPCOLL Sources classification task (Feb 1)
 * Helped arrive at a consensus on 'occupied' terminology for a sentence at Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Feb 3)

Talk guidelines
To help keep the Project in focus, and again inspired by WP:SLR and other WikiProjects, I've posted some draft Guidelines for this Talk page. The basic premise is that we use this page for key Project-related topics, such as our goals, Membership or other expectations, and our activities. Off-topic discussions can be move to the Community Lounge (or elsewhere). While we aren't trying to replace the existing noticeboards (e.g., for Israel and Palestine), it's ok to discuss here how we might help smooth out disputes at specific articles. If we can resolve disputes, great, if not, then discussions can be archived or reconvened at the article itself. For now, I'll volunteer to do some of this maintenance and would appreciate another fairly uninvolved co-volunteer. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea on how to make guidelines clearer: It's frustrating enough to have to work on even two articles with issues, but then trying to even half keep track of the 3 to 6 related admin type pages makes it hard to remember which is which. So it might help if the top of this page started like this - in bold with new addition - the rest the same. Just a thought. Talk Page Guidelines: Here are guidelines (proposed) for this page. (These guidelines may be discussed below.)
 * Please stay on topic. Our topic here is to discuss how to edit the WikiProject page and, concomitantly, the project's objectives and activities. To lay out different views and ideas in an open-ended manner about how to deal with these issues go to Community Lounge Carol Moore 01:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Great changes. You know if you could somehow put it in a blue or yellow box people also might pay more attention since people often glance at format and think it's just someone's opinion, not "official". (mea culpa) 18:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I gave it some color/emphasis and welcome graphics design help. HG | Talk 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

IPCOLL Collaboration of the Week
Well, after some discussion and proposals, let me suggest that folks express their interest in collaborating on specific articles. Here's all that's required. Listed below are options noted above. Put down you name for as many articles as you'd be willing to help with. Rank them if you want. If you don't see one you'd like, feel free to add more choices. But please don't denigrate any options. If we get a sufficient number on at least one choice, then we'll be able to move forward. Thanks! HG | Talk 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Sesame Street or to be more specific: Rechov Sumsum and Shara'a Simsim.
 * 2) A cultural figure such as Chava Alberstein or Fadwa Toukan
 * 3) A place such as Holon, or Sakhnin
 * 4) Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis
 * 5) Israeli Supreme Court Opinions on the West Bank Barrier
 * 6) United Nations Conciliation Commission
 * 7) Economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority followed by Economic and political boycotts of Israel
 * 8) Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
 * 9) Palestinian people -- high tension
 * 10) Battle of Jenin -- high tension
 * 11) Second Intifada -- high tension
 * 12) Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- high tension
 * 13) Saeb Erekat -- high tension
 * 14) Semitic -- to expand on the Semitic peoples aka "Semites" (see thread below)


 * I'd be happy to help out with #1 thru 10, 14, and 11-12 w/an uninvolved admin. My top choices are 8,4,7,3,10. HG | Talk 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My top choice is 12, since it's an overview of the subject and would be a great learning experience for all involved to be exposed to the meta-narratives of the "other". 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are my next choices, all on par with one another. As for the rest, I'm not much personally interested in them (with the exception of course of 9, which I personally feel doesn't really belong in the suggested choices since it's about a people, not the conflict), but if other editors do want to work collaboratively on them, all the power to them.  T i a m u t talk 15:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good lord HG, this is like asking for Armageddon to arrive. Why can't we leave well-enough alone? Do you honestly think that what will happen here will in any way stop or hinder energetic and POV editors from taking shots at these topics as they have been doing since time-immemorial? By all means, let admins be more on the alert, but are you truly asking for editors to stick their heads into the fire? and then even if they do, there will always be those who have not joined or honestly don't know anything about this project or have not agreed to be part of this project who will simply not abide and will ambush what is said. Paradoxically, it is that selfsame very "high tension" that is also an indication of the REQUIRED "creative energy" that spurs the growth and perfection of such articles. Opposing editors must be allowed to have a first crack, or many shots, at expressing themselves, and if and when articles improve over time then sure try to edit them for "featured" status, but how in heavens name is that going to be possible when you are dealing with a real WAR between the Palestinians and the Israelis that is still on the boil? This has current and controversial and TotallyDisputed plastered all over it. Like trying to get editors from opposing sides together to write a calm definitive history of World War Two during 1943 when noone knew when the war would end, how it would turn out and with the war at its height! I can't wait to see how this all works out. It's gonna be fun watching, that I know! IZAK (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll chalk this up to no specific choice, but fun watching. Thanks for sharing. HG | Talk 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I support this effort, but right now I prefer to not vote on this right now, and to wait and see what emerges here. thanks for the input and for the great ideas. Also, if people want to post some individual ideas here on ways to address some specific issues within some of these articles, that also seems like it might be another helpful way to approach this. so that's my feeling. By the way, one hope which i sort of have for this collaboration is that it might also a place for discussion, in addition to perhaps launching entirely new efforts. So i appreciate the ideas here. thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IPCOLL Content issues task
I suggest that all content issues on any topic related to this project be discussed in one and unique place where everybody can give his analysis (not his mind...) on this issue :
 * That could be here : WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Content Issues.

The process would be similar to the one used on Pages for deletion and the debate closed by uninvolved admin, Elder or Elders Committee. Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a "centralized discussion" involving potentially dozens of articles, related only by a connection to the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict (a big topic area on Wikipedia), would quickly become confusing and disorganized, and perhaps chaotic. I think discussions of content issues are best handled on the individual article's talk page.  (There have been exceptions, like the "Apartheid" centralized discussion pages, but those involved between five and 10 articles with a much closer connection than what you are talking about here.)  I also think that having admins "close debates" on content discussions is contrary to how talk pages work on Wikipedia.  I don't think the Arbitration Committee intended for administrators (whether "involved" or "uninvolved") to have an increased role in "deciding" content issues, as opposed to conduct issues. Theoretically at least, admins do not decide content disputes, any more than the ArbCom does.  6SJ7 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6SJ7, thanks very much for your input. I agree. Perhaps we could attempt a content related discussion of a narrow set of cross-cutting issues, such as the appropriate wording for concepts used widely in this area. Such discussions could build upon consensus reached in single articles. For instance, we discuss the applicability of the recent consensus pertaining to Palestinians as "a people" for editing in the topic area. What do you think? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are some issues that come up over and over, such as the applicability of the term "Occupied" to the West Bank, or the validity of the term "Palestinian" as used to refer to an Arab nationality. My impression is that while broad, open, and fair discussions of these issues always come up with the same results, they tend to get raised and re-raised on every possible page (asking the other parent) in the most frustrating way.
 * That said, I think it would be antithetical to the wiki-tao to try and enforce a centralized "fiat consensus" over all pages for all time. However, it doesn't have to be a firmly enforced rule; it's enough to enter one of these circular discussions with a comment along the lines of, "Hey, you might not be aware, but this issue was discussed by 20 veteran Israel/Palestine editors over two weeks, and we concluded that XYZ is the best compromise — perhaps your dispute here would be more quickly resolved if you considered the points already laid out over there?"
 * This is of course distinct from the time-honoured tradition of claiming that consensus is on your side without actually explaining where and when the consensus formed (or by flat-out lying about it.) Some type of semi-formal process would be necessary to prevent that old shenanigan. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that we should develop a "recommendation" that can be adopted (or not) in individual article situations. Also, it sounds like you agree that it might be useful to do so. Could you folks generate a list of key terms, concepts, etc that have been disputed around? Can you point to where they've been (somewhat) settled issues? Thanks. HG | Talk 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A centralized discussion looks sensible. Looks like there's a macroproblem of NPOV terminology that manifests in microproblems at numerous articles.  Rather than engaging in repetitive debates as if each were fresh and unique, take on the issue in a more general sense.  That could be a good solution as long as you're careful to define its limitations: any cookie cutter approach leaves some dough on the counter, but that can be all right if you anticipate where the leftover dough will be and how to work with it.  Durova Charge! 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would go something like the following. Note that this is only a proposed, experimental process and not intended to adjudicate anything anywhere.

Here is Eleland's suggested format for developing recommendations on area-wide content. HG | Talk 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Key questions 
 * Sample question


 * Neutral summary of the question
 * Consensus / near-consensus / no consensus (pick one)
 * Result demonstrated at page
 * Summary of result arrived at
 * Signature

Comments

 * Eleland, I like what you're trying to accomplish here. I gather that the "Sample question" is a format by which we'd develop our recommendations. Let's not try to deal with the "Palestinians" question quite yet, ok? Let's first talk about the process, get of list of plausible questions to handle, also -- should we set up a project subpage to handle all this? (Or a "centralized discussion" kind of page?) Thanks. HG | Talk 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've blanked the "Palestinians" question section, since we should work out a suitable format and process first. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, ok, hope you don't mind (and you can save it for future use). Also --
 * Sounds all right. Durova Charge! 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Three people (at least) like this idea and no objections. I'd say that after 3-4 days w/o objections, we could move forward to the next step with this idea. Thanks. HG 03:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Upgraded to a task. HG | Talk 10:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Leifern seems to speak to this task when he suggests (Leifern moved from "Skeptical" thread):
 * ''1. Identify common sources of edit conflicts and list them. Maybe they can't be resolved, but let's try to agree what they are. Some that come to mind are:
 * 1. Common terminology - e.g., "Israel" rather than "Zionist entity", "Palestinian" rather than "Arab," etc. It's going to be a long list...
 * 2. Acceptable article types - how to best treat political rhetoric, allegations, neologisms, concepts, in articles - what is the threshold for overcoming POV forks, coathangers, etc.
 * 4. How do we deal with assertions that are self-evident truths to one party but offensive allegations by others?''
 * (A response to Leifern:)    Your #1.1 The words that are immediately are on my list right now happen to be a general over-use of overly-POV Land of Israel when Eretz Israel is technically more accurate in a political (post-Begin) sense; and I’ve seen some when just Israel is specifically correct. My objection comes from this simple term in English with Biblical roots which is now POV’d so that it sounds perfectly correct and a normal reader won’t see the difference, nor know what the specific geographic and political differences.
 * To me, it also seems to be pandering to Christian Zionists, which happens to be my second word. Historically there have been many Zionists of Christian faith, Woodrow Wilson, what’s his name Balfour, etc. I understand that, but the current POV trend is to make every historical instance of that into a blued Christian Zionist with the, let’s say, post-Jerry Falwell, Bible –banging, evangelical fervor that it currently tends to entail. Pres. Wilson would turn over in his grave. Come to think of it, 1948 Palestine war is one that I tangled with twice last week. It might be OK as a new concept for future better understanding and description of events, but I can’t see it when it is the broader 1948 Arab-Israel war that normal readers understand.
 * This is copy of response by CasualObserver'48. Thanks. HG | Talk


 * (Thanks. HG | Talk 10:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

IPCOLL Sources classification task

 * Ok, we have proximate support for a sources classification effort, along the lines of WP:SLR, with some caveats (e.g., delineate purpose carefully), from Sebastian, Ceedjee, Malik, Durova and yours truly. (Steve has concerns but I'm hoping that he'd be willing to get those addressed partly as we implement the proposal, ok Steve?) Thanks. 
 * ''Note: Prior discussion of this task is archived here and here. HG | Talk


 * Maybe next step is to identify some examples of I-P-specific sources (not complaints about their misuse, pleeez!) that we would want to address. Let me start the ball rolling. Feel free to add to list here, comments below. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * List of sources related to Isr-Pal issues, to be classified: CAMERA, AK Press, WRMEA Efraim Karsh, fabricating Israel History - Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict; Samuel Katz, Battleground or Ilan Pappé, Ethnic cleansing of Palestine. ..., ..., ...
 * WRMEA or alternatively, collaboratively review both WRMEA and CAMERA. We might be able to end up with two informative articles, rather than the current bunk in both. I've never heard of AK Press.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest once again that we discuss the principles before we apply them to specific cases because else, the discussion will be fruitless. And I suggest once we have agreed on the principles, nobody come back on them because the consequences do not fulfil his own expectations. Ceedjee (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest we classify all the sources used in all the articles ! At each times a new one will be used, it is analysed based on our principles (that must fulfill other wp criteria. Just be stronger)
 * If we analyse case by case, good luck to decide about Efraim Karsh, fabricating Israel History - Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict; Samuel Katz, Battleground or Ilan Pappé, Ethnic cleansing of Palestine. In fact, the simple fact of giving these 4 exemples and putting them at the same level should generate comments... Ceedjee (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention, by the way, that I'm not sure what authority we might have to come to findings which exclude any sources which would necessarily be binding on anyone. However if you want to have discussions just to examine certain issues, i guess that could be ok. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right that we don't have any authority and cannot enforce any decision. And I don't  have much faith in our capability of solving the whole issue.
 * I think nevertheless that it could work if we agree to defend any decision taken by the group even if we don't fully share this...
 * Another problem is that if we don't take distance with our own opinion, it is not even worth starting.
 * Finally, we will have to learn to write for the enemy as suggested somewhere in a WP:principle.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of hammering out strong principles. Also, Ceedjee's #2 above, if that's about how to attribute/use the "questionable" (SLR) sources. Yes, our authority is as unofficial normative force, building partly on our relationships and the breadth of our consensus. Steve, thanks for yr reply. (I/we can move ideas to list above.) Thanks. Ceedjee, et al., which principles would you suggest to add on to ordinary WP:RS? Look forward to yr ideas. HG | Talk 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RS Principles - draft ideas
Focus : historical articles Just some ideas to discuss. I would distinguish WP:RS levels (eg A-B-C-D-...). Each level would determine the way to introduce the material presented. (I don't discuss the requirement to source - everything must be sourced). We would have such a structure (to be discussed - as it is, it is not good) : Ceedjee (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS-A : do not need to be attributed in the text
 * WP:RS-B : need to be attributed in the text
 * WP:RS-C : must be attributed and minority pov pointed out
 * WP:RS-D : can only be given in special sections dedicated to controversies
 * Scholars having a chair of History are WP:RS-A for facts.
 * Scholars having a chair of History are WP:RS-A for analysis if not controversed
 * Scholars having a chair of History are WP:RS-B for controversed analysis
 * An analysis or a fact is controversed only if there is a disagreement between Scholars having a chair of History.
 * Scholars having a chair but not of History are WP:RS-A for facts if not controversed.
 * Scholars having a chair but not of History are WP:RS-A for analysis if not controversed
 * Scholars having a chair but not of History are WP:RS-C for facts or analysis if not controversed by scholars having a chair of History.
 * Scholars having a chair but not of History are WP:RS-B for facts or analysis if controversed by scholars having a chair of History (they just pursue an analysis).
 * Scholars having a chair but not of History are WP:RS-D for facts if controversed
 * What exactly do you mean "Scholars having a chair of history"? In the U.S. where I hail from, that seems to imply the topmost professor of a university history department.  If that's what you mean, then why just departmental chairmen and not other faculty?  And if that isn't what you mean, then what establishes your definition of scholar?  Durova Charge! 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant a Professor of History from the University. Ceedjee (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't take this suggestion very seriously. Although members of academia have big advantages when it comes to both research and presentation, to suggest that they're of a higher standard of reliability than many well-published authors is dubious indeed. And dangerous, since we know that academics with all the trade-marks of "scholarly writing" have been hounded from their jobs and even countries by sinister-looking methods, sometimes by fellow academics with apparently much poorer work. PRtalk 08:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(r to Ceedjee) I don't think we should ever report a scholar's analysis without attribution, unless it is clear that the analysis is widely held by all scholars across partisan lines. It is widely held that two analyses, competing, seemingly contradictory, and yet ultimately both valid, are at work in the Isr-Pal conflict. So it would only lead to havoc to admit unattributed analysis.

Also, there's no reason to limit it to history. Isr-Pal conflict touches on history, political science, comparative religion, military science, sociology, ethnography, law, even genetics and economics. The guiding principle should be the usual one - how is the author's work generally regarded among other experts in the field?

I agree that we should work with scholarly sources to the greatest extent possible. The media are fond of false controversy, but we don't write our pages on (say) global warming or intelligent design to assign equal weight to yahoos and scholars. Actually, I should say "scholarly sources," not "scholars," because there are a number of "celebrity scholars" who write mass-market books which are not scholarly.

The Case for Israel was published by Wiley, who do a lot of academic stuff but also political tracts. Beyond Chutzpah was published by UC press. Dershowitz's book sold a lot of copies (so did Left Behind, not to mention Quotations from Chairman Mao) but Finkelstein's was praised by academics like Kimmerling and Gordon. However, a lot of people would seem to prefer Dershowitz over Finkelstein, on the basis (roughly) that Dershowitz is a big shot and Finkelstein isn't. I don't accept this, and I believe WP:RS agrees, it's the reputation for accuracy that matters, and the publisher's reputation, not the personal career-path of the scholar.

More later I think. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 11:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand properly what you say, I agree with this.
 * Here, I was starting by an easy issue, the one concerning historical articles.
 * Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Moderation
On top of WT:SLR, we have a note that says "Members can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links." This may not work as well for you since anybody can become a member. How about if members of this project agreed on moderators who are allowed to remove such contributions? There needs to be consensus, which means that nobody can become a moderator if there are any reasonable objections. Let me begin with the nominations by nominating HG. Any objections? &mdash; Sebastian 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We have the same on wp:fr. Any member can "moderate" comments made by others and that are not linked with the subject discussed or that are not WP:CIVIL. The text is not removed be cannot be read any more with a special model (see eg here) Ceedjee (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I fully agree and anyway he already did. Ceedjee (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there have been no objections, I will add a "Moderators" section on the project page and list HG there. &mdash; Sebastian 08:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical view

 * NB This thread has been partly refactored w/Leifern's ok; see archive for full, original thread. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

other idea
What about asking all involved editors to stop editing these articles and the related talk page and to come here to discuss the global issue. If only 1 editor doesn't share our mind, it is enough the disturb the whole process in the future and we are losing our time. Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Could Talk Page Guidelines explain archiving process?
✅ ...and archived. HG | Talk 10:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Balance of participation in IPCOLL
Here's an important question" what level of participation do we need from all sides to assert that we have a community or consensus view? Leifern asked this (above) and CasualObserver says that this question is at the heart of the matter. So, let's open up this for deliberation. Thanks for putting your heads together as we try to put the project on a constructive trajectory. HG | Talk 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Do folks agree that it would be beneficial to keep some balanced participation in IPCOLL and, if so, how will we know that's happening?
 * 2) For which of our specific activities would such balance be most critical?
 * 3) For such activities, what kinds of steps can we take to ensure that the WikiProject can work from a sufficiently balanced or neutral standpoint?
 * (HG also kindly asked if it was ok to split up my points, which of course it is. This is all open-source writing, :->) --Leifern (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My view is that we need to ease into this slowly. I think it's important to use this as a spot to find common ground - at least initially - rather than yet another battleground for opposing views. Whatever principles we iron out, let's start out by not being ambitious. I don't know when I'll have time, but I'll try to draft an initial perspective on the answers I raised myself. --Leifern (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that articles that fall under IPColl because of editing conflicts, and the get the 1RR rule imposed tend to quiet down quite quickly. It sure seems too cool heels of certain editors on both sides. On the other hand, I have met editors here and elsewhere that just don't seem to have 'collaboration' in their vocabulary.   CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pledges
I am very happy that many people wrote pledges next to their name in the member list. To provide an overview over these pledges and to allow for accountability, I started the page WP:Pledges, which lists these and others. Please take a look at that page and edit it if you feel I did not characterize your pledge correctly. I was particularly unsure how the following three can be seen as pledges: NPOV, VRFY and CSB. &mdash; Sebastian 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad note on WP:OR to "How to avoid a revert war"
Something like: If an editor charges your summary of a reliable souce is wp:original research, read that page's guidelines and make sure your material does accurately reflect the source. Such allegations are an ongoing problem with certain editors so good to give some support. Carol Moore 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}