Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Archive 1

message: Proposing as a recommendation for this project:
:If you see a political problem with an article, please demonstrate good faith by first helping to make the article better in an uncontroversial aspect, then offer criticism, and follow up with helping some more in uncontroversial ways.
Sounds good? DurovaCharge! 23:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, it's sound. Durova, would you pls put it on the project page, maybe somewhere under Guidelines? We could have various recommendations of this nature, they needn't be mutually exclusive (logically consistent). thanks muchly, HG | Talk 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, thanks. DurovaCharge! 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Build - criticize - build  

message: Suggesting this as a starting point for the project participants who'd like to work on high tension areas.  I'm mentor to one of the disputants (Jaakobou). DurovaCharge! 21:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A place to help?

message: Tiamut has posed this question a couple of times and it deserves a good answer.  Luck.  A couple of weeks ago Huldra came to my user talk and asked for help cropping an image.  I think that's because I've been doing a lot of photo restorations lately.  She happened to link to the article and I happen to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts.  So I added the textile arts project template to the article talk, gave the article itself a look, and commented that it was already a solid B-class article that might make a good GA drive.  This was before the current Israel-Palestine arbitration opened; the textile arts project is small so I outreach to overlapping projects for article improvements.  The stars must have aligned just right because for some reason people started showing up and pitching in, and it's been a really pleasant collaboration.  Then I received a note that this Israel Palestine Collaboration project had opened, and it seemed like a wonderful idea.  So while we have momentum I'd love to see this thing through to FA. DurovaCharge! 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, it does seem that if a involved editor strongly objects to listing the collaboration, we might want to go along. Tiamut isn't asking to stop the great assistance the article is getting from Durova, only that it be delisted here. On the other hand, regardless of whether we delist, I'd like to understand Tiamut's concerns better. T, while you cite the ArbCom sage counsel about working on "cultural heritage" articles, it strikes me that their advice completely supports this kind of collaboration. Are  you concerned that it would be harmful if this listing drew the attention of "opposing POV" (an ok term?) editors to a currently low-tension cultural article? Frankly, I think that is exactly what I (and Durova?) would welcome -- let some "opposing" editors come and cooperate in a mundane way. Would you be willing to take a bit of a risk, and trust that we all could handle any ratcheting up of tension that might be incurred? This would then improve relationships, not only among e.g. you/Durova/me but also with "opposing" visitors. In sum, I can see delisting this instance, but I'd like to pursue the conversation because Durova's "low tension" idea and ArbCom's counsel seem compatible and promising. What do you both think? Thanks. HG | Talk 00:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiamut is raising some valid concerns to keep in mind. maybe things will not turn out to be problematic. however, she's right that we don;t want this article to be the target of tensions which affact other articles which are more overtly political . maybe we could leave it linked here for now though, and see what happens? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand Tiamut's concerns. When we have, in some other articles, editors denying that there is a Palestinian ethnic identity, or claiming that the very name "Palestine" is artificial and the history manufactured, the last thing that we want is to import this approach into an article on the way to GA status. Of course, if there are editors, from whatever background, who would like to collaborate on this article (or, to pick a random counter-example, Music of Israel), then they should be welcomed and made to feel at home. But we really don't need to widen the sphere of articles subjected to the war of attrition that led to the ArbCom case. RolandR (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I've injured one of my hands, so typing is a bit of a challenge right now, and I won't be able to be as active for a couple of days at least. I just want to say that I have fully appreciated the collaborative efforts at Palestinian costumes and would like to see them continue. Still, I remain concerned about its listing here, for the reasons I've outlined above (and would echo RolandR here as well). The suggestions from HG on alternate articles to consider is welcome. In general, I think we should avoid cultural articles because of the arbcomm recommendation. Tiamuttalk 12:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry to hear about your hand, and I wish you to get well soon. You're needed here! — Sebastian 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Palestinian costumes seems to be a zero-tension article. Of course, collaboration on any articles is good for Wikipedia, and it is understandable that Durova wants many people to participate in an improvement drive. However, the article is already within the scope of three different WikiProjects, so it should be easy to find editors interested in improving it elsewhere. Using a project that has conflict resolution as its objective to recruit editors for work on such a zero-tension article diverts these editors from actualy helping the project towards the goal of conflict resolution. There's work for every temperament, and you need everybody, especially at this early stage! — Sebastian 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've got no particular problem with that.  Bear in mind that as you get closer to the political hot potatoes my own ability to participate at the content level will be curtailed. DurovaCharge! 07:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to rain on anyone's parade or anything, but Palestinian costumes was never a high conflict article. Nor did any of the editors who have difficulty collaborating in other high tension articles participate here (with the exception of myself, of course ;)). While Kudos are due to Durova, HG, Huldra, Funkynusari, and myself for bringing the article to what may be a GA level, it's not an example of succesful collaboration by the parties that this project intends to target. I have to be clear on this for the record. Sorry for the frankness. Tiamuttalk 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that's fair enough. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it's best for the parties to the dispute to find an article or two where they feel comfortable "chilling".  This is mostly for their benefit. DurovaCharge! 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. This is indeed a good use for low-tension, or even zero-tension articles, which didn't occur to me: It would be very beneficial if collaboration at such an article brought editors together, who have not been able to get along with each other before. If you could convince two such editors to collaborate on any article, I would be very happy. — Sebastian 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Durova or others, do you have a suggestion on how parties to disputes might choose such an article? I think it's helpful when an uninvolved party spearheads the effort, as Durova did with our first foray. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why [[Palestinian costumes]]? 

message: Here are several options for a new effort. Do you have other suggestions and/or which would you like to do? Feel free to add to this list and then !vote/comment. thanks, HG | Talk 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's best for the parties to the dispute to find an article or two where they feel comfortable "chilling".  This is mostly for their benefit. DurovaCharge! 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. This is indeed a good use for low-tension, or even zero-tension articles, which didn't occur to me: It would be very beneficial if collaboration at such an article brought editors together, who have not been able to get along with each other before. If you could convince two such editors to collaborate on any article, I would be very happy. — Sebastian 08:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Durova or others, do you have a suggestion on how parties to disputes might choose such an article? I think it's helpful when an uninvolved party spearheads the effort, as Durova did with our first foray. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Low-tension article collaboration

message: To my dear fellow Wikipedians: The entire premise and direction of this project, while very noble and grand, is not practical and realistic. How on Earth can anyone imagine that from this pretty little spot on Wikipedia, editors will come on board and be "re-educated" about how to be nice little boy and girl editors when dealing with such heated and volatile subjects as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Hamas, Jihad and much more. It is so infantalizing and insulting as to defy comprehension! It ain't gonna happen folks. The whole premise and notion driving this effort here is faulty because Wikipedia does not need new ways to teach people right from wrong. I commend the recent decisions of the ArbCom to strengthen Admins' powers to impose more order in situations of out-of-hand edit warring, trolling or wasteful and painful discussions. If anything, let's spend time reviewing the contents of :Category:Wikipedia official policy. 
It is more than clear that the effort should focus on making it very clear that Wikipedia values and will enforce its core policies, see  and  (and by heavens, by now it has more than enough policies and guidelines to fill a library) but the core policies and guidelines remain. Here are approximately ten of the very most important guidelines that must be drummed into editors and users heads and hearts (I know from experience, that they are not easy to learn and practice, so I am not preaching) but each and every editor who has problems must learn these rules of the Wikipedian road:
#WP:NOT in all its details.
#WP:NOR an absolute must for good articles.
#WP:NPOV is a Wikipedia specialty.
#WP:V and WP:CITE verfication and citation as much as possible.
#WP:3RR this must be clear, and now there is even a WP:1RR for editors who don't get it.
#WP:BIO and WP:BLP for biographies.
#WP:SOCKS is so immature.
#WP:NPA is Wikipedia's "love thy neighbor" policy...
#WP:CIVIL can be tough to follow but it cannot be out of sight.
#WP:THREAT no legal threats, ever.
So folks, forget about trying to write "sweet nothing" articles, and focus instead on relearning and ingraining the rules. It takes time but it's worth it. Thank you for your attention. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean, but I think it is quite good having this space where people can bring issues such as the one I raised above without going to a definitely partial page.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you don't want to participate, you don't have to be involved. However, I think this is worth a chance; apparently, it was helpful in defusing disputes in another volatile area. -- tariqabjotu 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tariqabjotu: In spite of my initial desire "not to get involved" with this project, but because a subject relating to Judaism (613 Mitzvot) was dragged into this discussion, I have now de facto been dragged into it, and that being so, I have taken a long hard look of what has been said and hoped for here thus far, and in my humble opinion I now have offered what is my take on the entire raison d'être of this project and I have come to a clear conclusion that it is a total waste of time and that people here would be far better served by focusing upon and internalizing the afforementioned rules and policies that I have enumerated. That is because I strongly believe, and as we all should know, that Wikipedia is not just about "shooting one's mouth off" and writing and saying whatever the hell one wants or pops into one's head, but it is about being part of a milieu (meaning a social environment) that must be learned and practiced, just as one would learn how to drive or the rules of a new job, with its hopes and aspirations best idealized and ultimately embodied in Wikipedia:Wikiquette but without limiting or quashing anyone's creativity and enjoyment of being on Wikipedia to freely and fully express themselves. The question is what "cure" this project wishes to offer to some sort of perceived "malady" and what I am suggesting, indeed recommending, is that many folks here are barking up the wrong tree, when they should be looking "closer to home" by highlighting and re-emphasizing what Wikipedia is about and not by trying to create "lighter" versions of articles that pertain to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (And by the way, why is it called that? why is not called the Palestinian-Israeli conflict when it is the Arabs, who stand behind the Palestinians who promote the conflict much more than Israel does in its attempts to protect its own citizens from all sorts of dangers.) But I am getting off the point. There will never be articles for adults that read like watered-down versions of the truth and of facts. Unless this project wants to be the forerunner of Childrens Wikipedia that would ensure that articles, editors and editors' contribution and interactions with each other pass constant ratings, like movies. Editors must learn to self-monitor themselves and not come to projects like this to learn how to be "good little" editors. So then let adult editors be adult editors and let the chips fall where they may, but please stop telling people to limit their creativity or their spark. Simultaneously, instead, let everyone learn and re-learn Wikipedia's rules and guidelines without resorting to fake and phony Maoist-like "reeducation camps" or "reeducation through labor" that leaves a bitter and infantalizing after-taste because its a regressive and not a progressive step, in my humble view. Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short list of Wikipedia's "10 commandments" is a better focus 

message: As an introduction, I should say that I spent three months touring around Wikipedia before I dared show my face and self-graduate to newbie status; I should also say that my POV-powered vehicle is heavily loaded with a very long (literally geologic) sense of history and historical perspective; I believe that perspective, and others also, can be called truly encyclopedic.  IPCOLL is the first wiki-anything I have joined.  I too believe that the difficult issues should be tackled first; it is synonymous to the Oslo accords and leaving the ‘final status’ issues for later evolutionary work.
Anyway, while on tour, I found one article, or more specifically one non-existent article, that caused dissapointment for my historical POV and pro-peace hopes. I see it as the bedrock foundation upon which everything else has evolved.  Its absence greatly hampers generating the mutual acceptance and understanding necessary for I-P collaboration to work.  Its absence hampers Wiki’s ability to righteously claim to be an NPOV source for ‘everything else’.  The basic facts are not in dispute if AGF is real and I think the RSs are fully accepted by both sides.   So why does the article not exist?
The word is Semite and the fact that this root noun is absent in Wikipedia.  This indisputable, specifically definable root noun is ‘hidden’ and instead, redirected to two adjective usages (linguistics and ethnology), which are then spun in various and specific directions farther and farther from it's Biblical roots.  The ethnological meaning spawns a generational ‘anti’-adjective, yes, I am now talking of anti-semitism.  To complete this thought, I must also add another adjective to arrive at the most recent generational development new anti-semitism.  
That said, I do not, and no honest person can, deny that anti-semitism exists; it has, it does and it is dispicable.  It shows that humans are inhumane and inhuman; it shows the difference between how God told us to be and how some are.  That the word’s adjective meaning is specifically anti-Jewish, diasporic  and originating in the Gentile west of the late 19th century is indisputable.   But it is also a basic fact that the Jewish people were the only prominent semitic minority in Europe at that time and in that geography that experienced this type and level of discrimintion .  But the motivation and results of anti-semitism existed in the west with a broader, more inclusive context long before the word itself existed with this limited definition.  The history of what happened on the way to the First Crusade and events during each of the Crusades indicates a broader, Gentile/non-Gentile, east/west context.  It is likely that other instances in Jewish history indicate this also.  
The newest, 21st century, generational adjective, new antisemitism, is a political (Zionist) mutation; it is a neologism created specifically for political purposes, not ethnological or necessarily religious reasons; it has developed into a radical, political blunt instrument used to bludgeon the honest political motivation of those with differing views, and defame them as well.  It forgets the Biblical root ethnological meaning, uses instead the secondary, non inclusive (but documented) meaning and moves this secondary usage 'back east' to the root geography where it becomes ethnologically and historically invalid.    It is, to an extent, an oxymoron, unless of course, one’s idea is to ‘Nuke ‘em all’.   I leave it there, lest I be accused of ‘interference’ in ‘other things’ at Wikipedia.  
I am asking I-PCOLL to consider creating the stand-alone article, Semite.  I do not think this is a difficult article to tackle; there are no disputes at the root noun.  The follow-on adjective issues must be recognized by all editors interested in collaboration; they must recognize the deep hurt they involve.  Maybe it is not completely accurate, but I see it as being somewhat equivalent to the usage of ‘Zionist Entity’, which raises simialar passion on the other side. I believe only collaboration can repair either or any.  I have a list of other subjects too, maybe later. Shalom, Salaam, Peace.  CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank you for your support, others may thank you similarly.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome the suggestion, CasualObserver'48, and see no reason why we shouldn't give it consideration. Currently, the word 'Semite' is defined in Semitic, an article which also lists more than a dozen Semite peoples, deals with the ethnicity, languages, religions. Perhaps you'd like Semitic to use the word "Semites" more often than "Semitic peoples"? Anyway, it is conceivable that we could expand Semitic to the point where "Semite" gets a spin-out article. (Just like there's enough material now for "French" as language and as people.) I'll add it to the Collaboration options above. Meanwhile, let's not denigrate anybody's suggested options, thanks! HG | Talk 15:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I disagree with this suggestion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your trepidation and rejection, Steve, but we've worked together some, I tend to be reasonable.  All I asked for was consideration; specifically the root noun and with what was already there (oops, I didnt say that).  The rest of what I posted, I felt was needed because I can see both sides (and now know some who can't/won't).  Maybe this  might help, I dunno.  Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A basic foundation question 

message: For now the Palestinian costumes article is a great place to concentrate efforts.  Maybe we could help identify other cultural topics where people can build bridges.  Tossing in a couple of ideas:
*Clothing laws: create parallel articles on Jewish and Muslim clothing laws, with information on observance rates and customs.  Both new articles could be good candidates for Template:Did you know.
*Sesame Street - or to be more specific, Rechov Sumsum and Shara'a Simsim.
DurovaCharge! 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we go with the easier articles within the conflict area itself, we could start with things like Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis. If that's too pollyanna-ish, then maybe (looking at :Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Israeli Supreme Court Opinions on the West Bank Barrier or United Nations Conciliation Commission. Or maybe this pair: Economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority and Economic and political boycotts of Israel. HG | Talk 03:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive collaboration ideas 

message: {{done}
I'm just confused about why some things are archived, and why there is no link to that place. Perhaps Talk Page Guidelines could explain.Carol Moore 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Carol. If you look above, near the first section below the table of contents, you'll see an archive box. It's ok if somebody wants to move it to a more prominent place. Msg my Talk if you have more questions about this, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the archive box alongside the Table of Contents so it's more prominent. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could Talk Page Guidelines explain archiving process 

message: <snip>, as I think I've mentioned, IPCOLL isn't really needed or suitable to deal w/complaints about individuals. See our guidance for Citing and reporting of incidents andWP:DR. You might try starting with the individual editor and taking it to WP:WQA] etc. Meanwhile, it improper for you to air your assumption/opinions that an individual is acting in bad faith (e.g., gaming) in this venue. Please desist. If you have a constructive idea about how to deal w/problematic editors, perhaps we could entertain a general discussion (float your idea in the Lounge), but I'm afraid it would devolve quickly into traded accusations. Respectfully yours, HG | Talk 22:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General user conduct issue 

message: I don't know how many of you have seen User:Michael Safyan/Media Coverage of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. It's a very transparent and scrupulously balanced effort to rewrite a problematic article to high standards. It seems to be much in the vein of this project - I've asked if Michael Safyan might want to sign up. <eleland/talkedits> 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He certainly put a lot of effort in it! I hope he will join; such an editor would be a great asset for this project! — Sebastian 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thread closed. Michael joined, thanks to inviter and invitee! HG | Talk 11:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A positive example 

message: *What is an "Inter-wiki WP:NPOV" and why are you recruiting editors from this project to impose your POV on another? M.Bitton (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter-wiki [[WP:NPOV]] needed on the [[October 2023 Tulkarm incursion]] 

message: *What is an "Inter-wiki WP:NPOV" and why are you recruiting editors from this project to impose your POV on another? M.Bitton (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, if “Israel Occupation Army” is not an WP:NPOV violation (as you are partically indicating), then I could change it right now int he war articles and not have backlash. Obviously, that is not the case because saying “Israel Occupation Army” is a violation of a neutral point of view. That simple. Trying to alert editors who are familiar with the overall war is not “recruiting” and is a show of assuming good faith that someone else will notice the NPOV issue and correct it. I do not speak arabic and I am unable to correct it.  The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please answer the questions. M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please answer my question. Would I not get backlash for changing “Israel Defense Forces” to “Israel Occupation Army”? If the answer is no, then change it. If the answer is yes, then why do you say I am pushing a POV, when clearly it is considered a NPOV violation? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your reply as a refusal to answer a simple question about some rule that you invented to justify the WP:CANVASSING. If no valid explanation is given, I will need to find someone who deals with cross-wiki disruptions. M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Are there not projects/task forces that work between WikiProjects? That is what I assumed this WikiProject was, hence why I called it “Inter-wiki”. That is my answer to that question. The “Why are you recruiting editors” is not a valid question as I am not recruiting anyone, but rather alerting editors to an NPOV issue. Now answer my question please. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually think this is canvassing, then I would WP:STRIKE my comments as canvassing is not intended. But before I would do that, I would at least like my question answered. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no valid reason is forthcoming, I will rightly assume that it doesn't exist and as a consequence, I will do what I have to do. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme Bias on Arabic Wikipedia needs fixed ASAP