Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel

This Talk page is dedicated to matters related to WikiProject Israel.
For general discussions, see Wikipedia:Notice board for Israel-related topics (shortcut: WP:WNBI)

Unit 101

I am not part of the project but while browsing wikipedia I came upon the Israeli Unit 101. The article was strangely worded so i went to the discussion page and to my surprise found it was under the WikiProject Palestine and not WikiProject Israel. I found that odd since it was talking about an Israeli unit. --Hadees 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth

Hi, I'm not part of the project but I was looking in Google Earth and see that there is an option to ad links to wikipedia there, and saw that Israel is very underrepresented in this aspect. does someone know more about this? do other people want to participate? it seems that if you put in coordinates in the wikipedia article, google once in a while adds it to the google earth/map. Moblid 09:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Rating/Review System

I started a rating system sub-page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/Assessment. The template needs to be edited to allow for the relevant changes, and is beyond my Wiki knowledge. Please help edit and complete this page to begin rating articles. We should have a large number of quality articles on Israel, and should work together to achieve more of them. --יהושועEric 03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the template to allow for classification. I would like to add one of those grids to the project page saying how many articles we have in each category. If you know how, please go ahead and add it. I do not know how, but will try to research it if no one works on it. --יהושועEric 06:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured out all of the technical stuff and the system is working. However, there are more than 525 Israel articles on Wikipedia. Please help tag them all! --יהושועEric 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Binational solution

I made a big addition under the premise that the situation under the british mandate was basically a "binational solution" without a state. I'm guessing it's likely to be challenged. Please check it out, --Urthogie 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

India-Israel relations

Seems to be a revert war brewing on that page.Bakaman 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

In being a frequent editor to the politics section, I am troubled by the amount of links to Arutz Sheva and Israel National News pieces being used as references by a small but persistant group of editors, particularly noticeable in the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan article. My opinion is that they definitely aren't credible sources - they're right wing propaganda tools of the settlers (one article for instance claims 250,000 at a protest march, whilst Ynet puts it at 70,000).

Perhaps we should draw up a list of reliable sources on Israeli affairs. To begin with, I suggest:

• Haaretz
• CNN
• Jerusalem Post
• Ynet
• International Herald Tribune
• Reuters
• Associated Press
• BBC
• Washington Post.

However, there is also a problem with JPost and Haaretz articles that they disappear quite quickly - all the ones I checked from the disengagement article were broken. It's also shame that Ma'ariv don't have an English version. Number 57 12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not to arbitrarily list reliable sources because such a list would imply that all sources that are not on the list are unreliable on all aspects of Israeli affairs, which is simply not true. --GHcool 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva is no more biased than Ha'Aretz. I think its safe to say that all media outlets in Israel are biased in one direction or another. And most are government controlled. Therefore the only way to allow ballance is to include them all, including those that function independent of state control.--Divina SJ 09:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Both positions (for and against a reliable list) prove problematic in a vacuum... Having a list of "reliable" sources creates two problems:

1. Reliable sources not on the list become perceived as unreliable due to not appearing on the list, as stated by Divina.

2. Sources on the list may be taken for granted as reliable even though they, too, may err on occassion (e.g. see Photo Fraud in Lebanon).

On the other hand, absent a list of "trusted" sources one can never write any statement as fact because, in most cases, at least two sources not on the "trusted" list will contradict each other (e.g. Arutz-7 and Electronic Intifada).

I propose we adopt a list of "core," "trusted," or "reliable" sources as well as a list of "untrusted," "deceitful," or "unreliable sources, as well as adopt the following rules to govern their use:

1. Any fact agreed upon by at least two of the "trusted" sources and not disputed by the remaining "trusted" sources shall be considered factual and should be stated as fact with citation.

2. Any fact agreed upon by the majority of the "trusted" sources but disputed by one or two sources shall be considered fact and should be stated as fact with citation, but should also contain an acknowledgement of the contradicting statement.

3. Any fact disagreed upon by the majority of the "trusted" sources shall be considerd totally disputed, and all contradicting statements must be listed with explicit attribution and citation.

4. Any fact not contradicted by the "reliable" sources may appear as a statement of fact with citation from a source not on the "unreliable" list.

5. Any fact given in a "trusted" source contradicted by an external source not on the "unreliable" list shall be considered "disputed" only when the contradicting external sources outnumber the "trusted" sources by 3:2.

I propose the the following list of "untrusted" sources (please add):

* Electronic Intifada

* Arutz-7

^^^^ Michael Safyan 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I stated that "[r]eliable sources not on the list become perceived as unreliable due to not appearing on the list," not Divina. Secondly, I still strongly believe and support that statement and no matter how many lists or eligibility rules for getting put on each lists we have on WikiProject Israel, it still is problematic. The only kind of list I would accept would be a recommended source list. This list would include all of the publications in the above proposed reliable source list as well as several encyclopedias, history books, commentary books, academic publications, etc. --GHcool 05:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass addition of wikiproject templates

If anyone finds the time, I believe it would be useful to closely review the Contributions of a bot I just blocked for inserting en mass the wikiproject template in what appears to be less than accurate manner. (more details available here). בברכה, El_C 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked the bot owner to insert the template on every page in category Israel and all of the subcategories. There are too many pages to do it manually, and I think it would be easier to remove the bad ones than add them all ourselves. --יהושועEric 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the bot did an excellent job and am puzzled as to why El_C reverted its edits. It probably made some mistakes (even though I haven't personally noticed any), but I agree with Eric that it's much easier to remove a few mistakes than manually adding all the templates to the appropriate pages. I have asked El_C about the reverts, and he has replied with:

Now that I look at it, t'was 35-minutes of non-stop rollbacking. I am so great, G-R-E-T (& S-M-R-T., too). I hope that answers your question! בברכה, El_C 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we will get a more satisfactory answer soon. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I know for definate there was some mis-taggings. Some bad categorisation it seems - ie articles in sub categories of Israel, that shouldnt be there... Hence the bad tagging. El_C's reverts should have removed the bad tags, aswell as some correct ones, i noticed he has left some that must've been obviously correct.

No matter, i am prepared to retag all the necessary pages after someone has checked out the categories for me. I'd rather not do another mass tagging spree to cause loads of problems again. Im proposing, to start with, just doing Category:Israel stubs, i can automatically tag them as a stub, and reduce some of the assessment workload.

If people can post categories they know are ok, i shall get on with tagging them for you. Reedy Boy 00:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

From the sample I did, about 10-to-20 percent of talkpages were mis-tagged, which out of ~1,500 amounts to ... a lot. I think it made much more sense, then (as I wrote directly above Ynhockey's note — I'm surprised he overlooked it and thought my whimsical comment was the explanation!), to undo everything and let the bot redo it from scratch, with the issues which caused the mis-tagging resolved (I saw a good explanation as to why it happned, but I'm unable to find it now). Basically, doing all of this automatically saves everyone a lot of time and energy. I'm confident that Reedy Boy's ongoing (revised) effort will address the concerns which currently plague both our talk pages. Please be patient and give him and his bot some time; he is re-tagging as we speak. Many thanks. בברכה, El_C 00:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Quality - Colaboration of the Week/Month?

Hi Everyone, I was looking at the WP Israel Statistics and noticed that we don't have any articles with a quality higher than B-class. That makes me sad. I was thinking that a collaboration (similar to the Orthodox Rabbi of the Week at WP Judaism) is in order. Do people support this? Would you help? Should it be weekly, biweekly, monthly? Speak your opinion here. I will make a template and subpage for it if that is the consensus.

At the moment I will make a weekly template. After more people chime in I will change it if needed. --יהושועEric 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The new article is going to be picked tomorrow. Please add articles and vote! --יהושועEric 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• I support a weekly collaboration picked from a nominations list. --יהושועEric 00:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support a monthly collaboration picked from a nominations list. --GHcool 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I support a biweekly collaboration picked from a nominations list. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• I support a biweekly collaboration Derwig 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion?

Elie Yossef (6 hits on google), Karma Feinstein-Cohen (18 hits) and Yehuda HaKohen. The latter is ridiculously overdetailed for such a minor personality, suggesting it is either self-written or produced by an associate. They seem to be springing from overpromotion of the Magshimey Herut and the Zionist Freedom Alliance, two organisations I have never heard of despite a pretty detailed knowledge of the Israeli political scene.

As I have not nominated an article for deletion before, I thought I'd seek some opinions whether it's an appropriate course for these. Number 57 14:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Jerusalem

Some input from members of WikiProject Israel is requested in regards to a peer review for the Jerusalem article:

Jerusalem

I have been working on this article for the past three months and I'm hoping to put this up for featured article status sometime in the near future. Essentially, I'm looking for a critique of the article and suggestions for things that might need to be rectified prior to submitting it for a featured article candidacy.

• I was a bit worried about the length of the article, but I personally feel it is okay since much of the kilobyte-age comes from the large number of sources rather than from over-the-top text. However, if you disagree, please do offer up suggestions for shortening the article.
• Because I know the Jerusalem article is (somewhat) controversial, I want to make sure any issues with neutrality (especially in regards to the capital issue) are squared away before making a final submittal. I believe I did a good job, but perhaps something is subtly biased that I did not notice.
• A good look at the prose would be great. I just finished writing the last section, so I haven't gotten the chance to do a thorough proofread; I'll proceed to do that this week while this peer review takes place, but by all means chip in.
• I want to ensure the facts are correct. I have never been to Jerusalem, so my writing comes exclusively from extensive research. If something looks factually incorrect, please fix it or make a note of it (although please use caution if the change will conflict with a source). If a source was misinterpreted, please please fix it or make a note of it.
• I want to ensure foreign-language words are used and/or translated properly, since I'm not knowledgeable in Hebrew or Arabic.
• I'm not sure what to say about local, city, or municipal government in Jerusalem. I may have to keep it short, but if anyone can think of any ideas, that would be great.

You are, of course, welcome to assist in other areas as well. Thanks in advance for any help you may provide. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of more citations from the Holy Scriptures? WikiNew 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you believe additional citations from religious texts would be useful? -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks great overall; I have a few POV issues, but I'm sure these are just oversights, and I certainly do not make any accusations as to your opinions or anything like that; we must work together to make these sorts of things as objective as possible, and it's a tough business. I just have a few minor stylistic questions. Rather than go in and mess with your wording myself, I thought I should let you work on your own project.
  1. "and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre among different sects of Christians." -- different from what? would this be better as "some sects" or "various sects"?
  2. "while majority Palestinian areas dominate the north, east and south of the Old City" I think I get what you mean - "areas where there is a Palestinian majority" rather than "the majority of areas which are Palestinian/ majority of Palestinian areas" - but this is a bit ambiguous as it reads now.
  3. The section on The Temple Periods ends by saying that for over 18 centuries Jerusalem was not the capital of any independent state; I like this. It's accurate, it's dramatic, and it's an interesting historical fact. But I think that as this could be taken as a political (i.e. POV biased) statement, it should perhaps be balanced by a brief description of the fact that no independent state called Palestine has ever existed and/or of the Greco-Roman origins of the word.
  4. The last few sentences of the State of Israel section in the history also seems to be a bit tilted. Perhaps a slight expansion would be pertinent on the problems with the city being split, and the causes of the Six-Day War. As it stands right now, I feel it reads as though Israel's capture of East Jerusalem was entirely selfish and vicious, and that its rule/sovereignty over the united city is somehow unfair or unjust.
  5. A more explicit mention of the Three Hills (Mount of Olives, Mount Zion, and Temple Mount) and Three Valleys might be good in the geography section.
  6. In the Capital section, "only two members of the United Nations — Costa Rica and El Salvador — have their embassies located within the city limits of Jerusalem...and several consulates within the city itself." Are these consulates of Costa Rica and Ecuador, or consulates of other nations? Seems unclear from the wording.

Thanks for your hard work. I truly do apologize for introducing POV issues into this, but I think a few minor changes here and there would be good to ensure the objectivity of the article's message. LordAmeth 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'll get back to you on a couple of these points, but it may be best for you to address a few yourself because I don't see the ambiguity with some of them, particularly with your second point. I added the number of consulates in regards to your second point, but I didn't specifically mention that those consulates did not include Costa Rica and El Salvador (since it wouldn't make sense for a country to have an embassy and a consulate in the same city). I fixed the first point, but take issue with doing something about the third point (because mentioning Palestine rather superfluously might sound like a subtle desire for a nation-state by the name of Palestine). -- tariqabjotu 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've eliminated the ambiguity I had perceived in the "majority areas" phrase. As for the thing about Jerusalem not being the capital for 18 centuries, all I'm saying is that inclusion of this fact could be interpreted as an argument against the legitimacy of Jewish/Israeli claims on it as their capital. By explaining that there has never been an independent state called Palestine, you discount their claims on it as well, balancing the POV. That's my thought. LordAmeth 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would shorten the religious significance section. The sub pages should be sufficient for most of what is there. That would help with the length issue. I might also link to category: neighborhoods of Jerusalem somewhere. --יהושועEric 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree on the point regarding shortening the Religious Significance section. In comparison to the five articles on the religious significance of Jerusalem, the section is quite short, only touching upon the most basic facts about the significance of the city in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I'm thinking that perhaps the History section could be cut down, but Jerusalem does indeed have a very long history; the summary in the Jerusalem article is much shorter than the full piece at History of Jerusalem. However, I encourage you to make whatever changes you feel are necessary to cut down on the length. At some later date, I'll calculate how much readable prose is in the article (so we can compare the article with WP:LENGTH), but I'm rather confident there won't be a tremendous issues since there are a heck of a lot of sources that do not count toward the readable prose total. For comparison, this is 63kB of prose. As long as this article is less than 50-55kB of prose (WP:LENGTH actually says less than 60kB), any objection based on length alone would not be warranted. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I determined that the article in its current state is 34 kB of readable prose, well within the limits of WP:LENGTH. See User:Tariqabjotu/Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 04:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)\

It is important to distingush between the Old City and the New or West and East Jerusalem. Fbc215 18:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem on WP:FAC

Jerusalem is currently undergoing a featured article candidacy. The FAC page is transcluded below (feel free to remove it from this page if the FAC gets too long):

Why has Jerusalem not been added to the category of FA status Israel articles? I suspect it's a problem with the template. nadav 04:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Israeli people vs. Jewish people categories

I am concerned about how all the Category:Israeli people by occupation subcategories are also contained in Category:Jews by occupation. What of the many non-Jews living in Israel. This is an incrorrect and unfair classification. nadav 02:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Should a template be created for members of Knesset (like the one in the hebrew Wikipedia)?Chocom 10:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the MK infobox? If so, it would be a good idea, though I would get rid of the "Governments" section, and just have a list of Knessets (for which we have almost a complete article set). Perhaps the Government number could be appended to positions in the section for major roles? Number 57 10:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll get something started. Stay tuned. Chocom 10:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shimon Peres

The Shimon Peres article is currently undergoing a peer review at Wikiproject Biography and is also a good article candidate. I have personally stated that although the article is well written, it suffers from recentism and is not ready for GA status yet.--Oneworld25 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Merkava important rating

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but I feel that this article is worthy of a medium rating. It is an admirable and concrete expression of Israel's independence from the rest of the world as well as demonstrating the ingenuity and perseverance of the Israeli state. I think that an article about a piece of technology that managed to demonstrate Israel's capabilities to the Western world is kind of important, so I ask that anyone tasked with rating importance consider reviewing and reconsidering its importance to Israel's image abroad. // 3R1C 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Some new Israel/terrorism related articles

I've been writing some articles related to terrorism and Israel. I would appreciate any help you guys can offer. The articles (so far) are:

• Mehola Junction bombing
• Afula Bus massacre
• Hadera central station massacre
• Tel Aviv bus 5 massacre
• House demolition

In the near future, look for:

• Ramat Gan bus 20 bombing
• Jerusalem bus 26 bombing
• Beit Lid massacre

The common thread is that they are all linked from Yahya Ayyash, an article I'm looking to get up to FA status (I've been doing some big expansion here recently). Raul654 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ding - check off one (Beit Lid). Raul654 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, but when you apply for FA, who closes the FAC? nadav 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do. The last time I did, there were complaints of conflict-of-interest, but I generally tend to ignore those. Nobody has yet found any substantive issue with any decision for me to promote an article of mine. (Usually they are pretty cut and dry) Raul654 03:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

DING! -> Egged bus 36 bombing Raul654 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Strike off another one - Ramat Gan bus 20 bombing.This one's pretty small but the book I'm using didn't have much on it. Raul654 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Help Needed - Graphic Needs To Be Fixed

Could someone plese fix the first map on the Hizbollah page. It calls the Golan Heights part of Syria, which is disputed and untrue. Could someone fix it to take that line out? --יהושועEric 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The image is at this location: Image:BlueLine.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric1985 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

The map is based on a UN map which says the area is Syrian, not even mentioning that it is Israeli-occupied. Anyway, what is the problem with the labelling of "Syria (Golan Heights, occupied by Israel)"? Arguably it is no different to the CIA Map of Syria which denotes the Golan Heights as part of the country. Claims that the map is disputed/untrue are wrong; the only country that disputes the Golan's status is Israel (thus making it POV), whilst the rest of the world recognises them as legally being part of Syria. Number 57 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right of course. However, for the purposes of illustrating that page, I do think the map should emphasize more that the whole area where the label appears is being held by Israel. The current design might be confusing to someone unfamiliar with the Golan Heights. nadav 22:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded my version, Image:BlueLine2.jpg, which I think clarifies the Golan's status better. I also used the same font Blomberg chose for the Shebaa Farms. nadav 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

straw poll at controversial article

See Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid#A_quick_straw_poll for a present initiative to rename the page.--Urthogie 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing Inactive Members

Hi WikiProject Israelers, I noticed that some users are inactive, such as the second user on the list who claims to be retired on his user page. Is there support to remove such users? --יהושועEric 01:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason to do that. Just leave em be, or at most add (retired) next to their names. nadav 02:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some WikiProjects sort of categorize their users with headings (e.g. ==Active== *user1 *user2). I don't think it would hurt to do the same here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One "member" with the name of Pco has been working against all that this WikiProject stands for. Click here for more information. I don't see any reason why not to delete her name. --GHcool 05:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Israeli currency

There's a discussion over the naming of "Israeli lira" or "Israeli pound". See Talk:Israeli lira#Requested move. -Will Beback · † · 05:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One small step for wiki projects...

...one giant leap for Jewish domination of media. Anyone know if there is a WikiProject USSR dedicated to fair treatment of information pertaining to the USSR or Stalin?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.137.228 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact there is: WP:USSR. There's also one for China, Japan, Iraq, and the United States, along with a great many other countries (and former countries) of the world. There's even a WikiProject for Palestine. If there are any others in particular you're looking for, they're all listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject. LordAmeth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Winograd Commission

Shalom guys, How about some updates for the Winograd Commission? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New project page format

I like the old layout better. It had everything you needed on one organized page, which was not overly long. nadav 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too --Cramer 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What about all of the other info, such as To Do, Assessment Statistics, etc. You should probably have taken a vote before doing this. And you removed a lot of hard work. --יהושועEric 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Very true. I am reverting for now, and also suggest a vote here. nadav 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Israel FA Candidate: Ben Gurion International Airport

Please support Ben Gurion International Airport's Featured Article Candidacy Here! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric1985 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

2007 Israeli Student Strikes

Shalom YaIsraelis. I have been watching the Israeli students strike over the last few weeks. When Israelis start getting the same brutal treatment from the Magav usually reserved for Arabs, then something important is happening in Israeli society. There is a fair amount of material in the Israeli media: eg. [1] [2] [3] (unfortunately I can not read well enough to make sense of the hebrew). Amazingly there is absolutely nothing about this on Wikipedia. Is there anyone who reads hebrew (or even participates in the demonstrations) who is prepared to write something here? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been on the front pages for a while I guess, but this is the kind of topic which I think would more appropriatly appear as part of something larger, eg Higher education in Israel, say. That kind of article would be able to give all the context about financial cutbacks in universities and the gradual decline in quality which if left to itself will most certainly bring ruin upon our country. Or at least that's what I hear. nadav 06:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And after that maybe we could work on Education in Israel, which has a lot of room for expansion. nadav 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created a stub 2007 Israeli student strike. I some of you guys will take a break from telling us how well we are treated, or arguing about Deir Yassin, and help write about what is really going on in the streets of Israel right now. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Palestine Biases

I have already seen several anti-Israel and seemingly anti-Semetic edits come about from the new WP Palestine group. Keep your eyes open. --יהושועEric 04:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind wikirivalry we should avoid on Wikipedia. I much prefer Timeshifter, GHcool, and Tiamut's (and others) approach instead. Both projects have a shared goal; both avowedly embrace NPOV etc. Instead of unfairly speaking out against the whole group, you could just cite specific edits and articles you don't like. nadav 06:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nadav. I was going to ask for the same thing myself. I am a member of all three projects because the subject matter they deal with often overlaps (one day it might be nice to change the name of Arab-Israeli conflict WikiProject to the Palestinian-Israeli common ground forum and coordinate activities there between the two, where there is overlap). Are there any examples that Eric can provide for these quite serious allegations? (I take charges of anti-Semitism very seriously being a die-hard anti-racist myself.)Tiamut 08:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also was thinking that the name "Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict" needed to be changed. The name is a kind of self-fulfilling prediction. How about this instead: "Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli relationship." --Timeshifter 21:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Nadav and Tiamut and urge people to join both projects. The most deficient articles in Wikipedia tend to be those with fewer editors. --Ian Pitchford 11:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

One example I noticed last night was an AWB changing pre-state Israel to Palestine. Seeing as Palestine was not a country, I see that as POV pushing. British Mandate of Palestine is not POV, just calling it Palestine is POV. --יהושועEric 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or just simpler. But how is that anti-Semitic or anti-Israel exactly? Tiamut 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That one is anti-Israel POV. Calling it "Palestine" is misinforming, and creating a false pretense that Palestine was a country and delegitimizing Israel to those not familiar with the matter. By creating an anti-Israel sentimate, though false information, those edits remove the Jewish claim to Israel, hence anti-Semetic. --יהושועEric 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Eric. But I think you've gone a little overboard. Besides the logical leaps of judgement, you are failing to WP:AGF. When Palestine was under the British Mandate, a lot of people called it simply Palestine. This is a historical fact and it doesn't have anything to do with Israel or any anti-Israel agenda per se. The term and its use stand on their own. With respect. Tiamut 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't think this is a case of anti-Semitism or even anti-Zionism, I agree with Eric that "British Mandate of Palestine" is the best name for the article for the same reason that "British Mandate of Mesopotamia" is not listed as "Mesopotamia" or "British India" is not listed as "India." --GHcool 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with changing it to British Mandate of Palestine for clarity. However, among historians (including Jewish and Israeli ones) Palestine has long been an accepted label for referring to the land of Israel without the transjordan. nadav 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, Palestine (meaning the Land of Israel) is not the same as British Mandate of Palestine (meaning the 1920-1948 British rule of modern day Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Territories). Similarly, Mesopotamia (meaning the geographic area now known as Iraq and parts of its surrounding countries) is not the same as British Mandate of Mesopotamia (meaning the 1920s British rule of modern day Iraq). --GHcool 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are repeating this? Obviously I agree with you. nadav 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry Nadav. I misunderstood and thought you were disagreeing. --GHcool 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Anti-semitism is a magic wand, and it is used against the Christians. We should not refer to anti-semitism, but as an insult as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.92.39 (talk • contribs)

Request for comment filed

• Wikipedia: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 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu FAR

Mordechai Vanunu has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Pioneer" & 1881

Hello, all. Two problems someone can help with:

1. I was just working on the Pioneer disambig page. One of the meanings listed is a Jew in Israel in 1881-1947. I need a good page for this to link to, but I can't find one. In particular, the term "pioneer" gets very little mention in any page I've seen on the history of Israel, Zionism, etc. The previous version of Pioneer linked to "Halutz", which doesn't sound too bad, except that is actually a redirect to Dan Halutz, which is hardly what we want. Any suggestions?
2. Why "1881"? Something important happened then, but Wikipedia doesn't say what it is. The various pages on the history of Israel say nothing about 1881. The Zionism article mentions "the chain of events between 1881 and 1945", but it doesn't say what happened in 1881. The 1881 article says nothing about Israel, Zionism, or Jews. The same goes for 1880, except that it mentions the death of Joseph Trumpeldor. Whatever happened in 1881 needs to be in Wikipedia. Can someone work on this (not me, I'm afraid; I'm seriously non-expert in these matters)?

--Tugbug 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On the top of my head this comes to mind. Rishon LeZion was established in 1881. Petach Tikvah was already established in 1879. So Rishon LeZion is probably what they have in mind. Anyway a lot of pioneering activity took place in those years. Itzse 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More info: This page says, "The Jews began to return to Israel in 1881 ...." --Tugbug 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an important topic that doesn't currently have Wikipedia coverage. Halutzim is a red link at the Aliyah article, and there doesn't seem to be a general article on the pioneering agriculture, swamp drainage etc. I guess Aliyah would do for now though if you need a link. nadav 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Jews began to return to Israel in 1881 in great numbers. Until then there was quite a sizable amount of Jews who lived in the holyland; but due to many factors including the pogroms in Zarist Russia that started in 1881; a great wave of Russian Jews emigrated to the United States and to Israel, they were mostly the Chalutzim. Itzse 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Six-Day War needs your help

If any editors who are good with their history and have a lot of time on their hands for editing could please take a look at the lopsided POV in the high-importance Six-Day War article. Their's been a lot of discussion on the talk page there but little action. In honor of the war's 40th anniversary this week (on the Jewish calender), I am adding the task of NPOV balancing to the project to-do list.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New Template: IsraeliNobelLaureates

I just created this navigation box, since someone requested Template:IsraeliNobelPrizeWinners on the to-do list. If anyone wants to comment on this template, it's very basic and I haven't put it anywhere yet. And if we do use it, Israel will be the first counrty to have a navbox for its laureates.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the addition of the Israeli flag might be a good idea. Also, for such a small box, perhaps having the show/hide option isn't really worthwhile, so the v-d-e could be moved to the top right corner. Good work anyway, Number 57 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out how to remove the hide option, it comes standard. Anyway, the other Nobel templates have the standard v-d-e in the left corner and show/hide in the right corner, so this format would look more consistent next to them.  —Rafi Neal |T/C 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, before I add the template to the articles, now is a good time to discuss inconsistency with "Prize Winner"/"Laureate".  —Rafi Neal |T/C 17:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime I have redirected the template to Template:Israeli Nobel Laureates and categorized the template under Category:Awards navigational boxes. I'm also considering reordering the laureates by date, not name. Agnon wouldn't be offended, he's still first :)  —Rafi Neal |T/C 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great News - Israel article is now GA Status

Just got news back - we seem to have loads of articles around a high - b class so i think its a priority to get these promoted. Flymeoutofhere 08:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Music of Israel

I have just embarked on a major rewrite of the category Music of Israel. This article is rated as Start, and rightly so - it's pretty superficial.

It will take me a few weeks to finish it and post it to the pedia. If anyone else is working on this, I would like to know. If anyone wants to see what I have done so far, you can read it on my page, User:Ravpapa/My Drafts --Ravpapa 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

IDF article naming

I am proposing a mass-move of many Israel Defense Forces-related articles and therefore felt that the discussion should be posted here (and in other major pages) instead of the individual article pages. Basically IDF section articles are all titled Israel ___________ (e.g. Israeli Military Police, Israeli Armored Corps). I think this is contrary to Wiipedia's naming conventions and isn't factually accurate because the official names for these things do not have an 'Israeli' prefix. Also they shouldn't be capitalized. An existing article name which I almost support is Aman (IDF) (still, should be renamed to Intelligence directorate (IDF) IMO). I think all relevant articles should be named in such a way: Armored corps (IDF), Military police (IDF), Artillery corps (IDF), Infantry corps (IDF) etc. Please state your opinions. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak to what the official names are in Hebrew or in English, but I think that this type of format does in fact go along with Wikipedia naming conventions, and with more general terms used. United States Air Force, Japan Self-Defense Forces, British Army, Royal Thai Air Force, and Indian Navy all use the national descriptor in front of the name of the branch of service. I think that some standard form should be kept, such as "Israeli Armored Corps" or "Armored Corps of Israel". The Hebrew names for the organizations would at least be accurate, but the form you suggest just doesn't sit with me. It sounds less formal, less official, to say "Military police (IDF)" than "Israeli Defense Force Military Police" or "Military Police of Israel", and also comes across to me more as a sort of general definition of the term 'military police' within the IDF context, rather than describing a formal organization. LordAmeth 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically what Shuki said in the comment below summarized my thoughts. The Japan Self-Defense Forces, USAF, and IDF for that matter, are all full names of what they represent. Probably IAF too. Not so less known corps which are never called 'Israeli Human Resources Directorate', etc. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, virtually on all counts. Please see Category:Corps of the United States Army, Category:British field corps, Category:Corps of France for accepted convention. The way I see it is that examples above by LordAmeth are more 'branding' - USAF, FDNY, NYPD, LAPD, and larger units encompassing many smaller corps. 'Israel Air Force' might pass though, maybe the navy too, but not the seperate units. --Shuki 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I misunderstood what we were talking about. Yes, for smaller corps, it's obvious the standard format is what was suggested - e.g. XVIII Airborne Corps (United States). Should not the titles still be capitalised, though? "Armored Corps", not "Armored corps"? LordAmeth 07:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As the author of virtually every single one of these, I don't really care either way, but you only renamed some, so that (inconsistency) is a problem. El_C 17:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Page move

Whilst trawling around the politics categories, I came across Security minister of Israel. I have requested that it be moved to Defense Minister of Israel. Please add your comments here. Also, if it is moved I may merge the List of Defense Ministers of Israel article into it, as it is not too long at present (and can be done with split columns). Thanks, Number 57 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew Speaker

The El Al article is a FA candidate and in order to fulful the neccessary tasks to bring it up to this standard there are a number of tasks outlined on the talk page which need the attention of a hebrew speaking editor. Any help would be much appreciated. -- Flymeoutofhere 09:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything more to be done? nadav (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Just one thing - does this link [4] have the shareholder breakdown of El Al, and if so, what is it? Thanks.-- Flymeoutofhere 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They're the latest reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. El_C 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Significance of Tzippori

In the article on Tzippori, the statement that it is "the site of one of the oldest Jewish communities to be uncovered by archaeologists, and one of the richest in what has been found there" was first tagged and then removed as an uncited statement some time ago. I have been told something to this effect multiple times, on guided tours to the site. I am not surprised to be unable to find a source for such a statement in the scholarly record, as I get the impression that formal historians and archaeologists rarely make such broad-ranging statements, choosing instead a somewhat less impressive, but perhaps more professional tack, and writing something such as "It is the site of a rich and diverse historical and architectural legacy..."

I am positive that Tzippori is not simply yet another archaeological site in Israel, but has some truly major significance. Is there anyone out there who can help me find a source for its unique importance, please? LordAmeth 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any sforim with me but this is what I remember. Here are a few bits of information from the Talmud.

The Talmud in Shabbos 33 tells us the story of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochoi and Rebbi Yehuda bar Iloyi and Rebbi Yossi ben Rebbi Chalafta where Reebi Shimon went into hiding Rebbi Yehuda bar Iloyi became Rosh hamadabrim (first to speak) and Rebbi Yossi was banished to Tzipori.

The Talmud enumerates which are the best Beth Dins to go; and says "after Rebbi Yossi to Tzipori" so it must have been an important place.

The Talmud tells us that Rebbi lived in Beth She'orim but his burial was in Tzipori (Ketubeth).

Tzipori is mentioned a lot in the Talmud and the Talmud says it is named Tzipori "Sh'oimed berosh hohor ketzipor" (that it is situated on the top of a hill (mountain) like a tzipor a bird). Itzse 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea the location was important in the Talmud; thanks for pointing that out. I was really looking for archaeological importance, though. Is this the oldest Jewish community ever uncovered? The most intact/complete? The oldest post-70AD synagogue? LordAmeth 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely not the oldest uncovered. The city became a major Jewish center after the destruction of Jerusalem when the Galilee became the main Jewish area in Palestine. Some of the most intact mosaics in Israel were found there, including the remains of an ancient synagogue. The Sanhedrin is known to have settled there for a while under the leadership of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasih. There were was also a large non-Jewish community that eventually settled there and the two mixed. All this is from the top of my head from my visit there a couple summers ago. I am sure you can also find stuff on the Internet somewhere. nadav (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian history denial

Please offer views regarding my dispute with Malik Shabazz concerning the quoting of Ilan Pappe as a neutral reliable source on the article Israeli-Palestinian history denial. I feel that his view should be preceded by a slight note on his background (as an extreme anti-Zionist, member of the 'Communisty Party of Israel', who said that he supported Hamas), or it should be deleted altogether. This is like calling Daniel Pipes a reliable, neutral source on Islam. Ridiculus. Your views are appreciated. --Rabbeinu 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, the question isn't whether Pappe is a neutral reliable source. The article is full of POV: Palestinian POV about Israelis, and Israeli POV about Palestinians. None of the quotes are intended to be NPOV or reliable sources — they all deny one another's history.

The real issue is that you want to identify Pappe with this POV introduction, which you wrote and does not belong in the article:

Highly controversial historian Ilan Pappe, who affiliates with the Communist Party of Israel and has said that he 'supports Hamas in its resistance against the Israeli occupation, though I disagree with their political ideology.' He has also supported boycotts of Israel and has called for unconditionally granting Palestinian refugees the right of return to what is now Israel.

That's not a "slight note" (as you call it), that's POV-pushing. If you want to identify him as a professor, do so. You don't need to write about his political views, his support of Hamas, his association with the Communist Party, or your POV label "highly controversial". His name is Wikilinked and readers can read his biography for themselves. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, but it seems logical that without any introduction, readers may assume his quote is representative of mainstream Israeli public opinion. While the article should present the POV of both sides, it should be careful to note to what degree each of expressed opinions is representative. nadav (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if we consider Pappe to be a reliable source (an one could reasonably argue that he is), the Pappe quote does not support the conclusion that "Nakba denial" is a belief that exists in Israeli society (at least not in the same sense that Holocaust denial exists in Palestinian society). At best, it supports a kind of "Nakba amnesia" or "Nakba ignorance." Even the most die hard hawks would not deny that such an event ever took place in the same way that Hamas denies that the Holocaust exists. My feeling is that unless a reliable source can be found that states that a promiment group of Israelis believe that the Palestinian exodus did not occur in the way that mainstream historians describe it, then I would propose that the entire subsection be deleted on grounds of WP:OR. --GHcool 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that Ilan Pappe claims that Israel commits "symbolic genocide" -- whatever that means -- against the Palestinians, I see no problem with introducing it in this way. ← Michael Safyan 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Such an article really ought to be Israeli-Palestinian history controversy not denial, since both sides dispute the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. ← Michael Safyan 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That title is too ambiguous to be useful. Everything about the topic is controversial. nadav (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nadav. Although much of the article seems grounded in fact, the way it stands now, I would probably support its deletion if it were ever put up to a vote. There's some pretty heavy OR in the article that drowns out the nuggets of usefulness and objectivity. --GHcool 05:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

antizionists

i'm somewhat worried by the number of antizionists supposedly supporting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. it's quite obvious that antizionists' main goal is to destroy israel, so i'm curious to the thoughts of the community about such blatent interventions. Jaakobou 12:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly? Almost all the bias I have seen written in the Israel-related articles I deal with is from pro-settler right-wingers - these people are much more of a concern. Number 57 12:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

obviously it would be improper to name names, regardless of "settler bias", i don't see them joining the 'wikipedia palestine' project and trying to make destructive contributions to "palestine". Jaakobou 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are not fan clubs; they are merely meant to coordinate tasks among people that contribute a lot to a certain topic. All wikipedia editors may join as long as they agree to contribute in an NPOV fashion. nadav (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is the reason for my concern. surely an article about "house demolishion" would not be about israel... but oops, there it is House demolition... and here's a ridiculous conversation relating to it.

another thing is what i've said about people with the goal to destroy israel "contributing" to israel related articles, i'd name a few, but i think it would be improper. Jaakobou 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is improper. Everyone is allowed to contribute unless they are currently blocked for disruption or have an arbcom ruling preventing them from doing so. nadav (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with having a House demolition article? As far as I'm aware Israel is the only country that repeatedly demolishes homes as a punishment. Likewise, there is an article on Operation Murambatsvina, the Zimbabwean home demolition drive so its hardly picking on Israel. Number 57 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Number 57, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an article dedicated to the usage of house demolition by israel in the battle against "resistance jihad"... there's also nothing wrong with similar articles about "resistance jihad" and "indoctrinations" and "suicide bombers" in the arab battle against Israel and non muslims... we'll make sure to call these articles by the names i gave and make sure to link them also to every "Palestine" related article by following the wikiproject palestine... get my point? Jaakobou 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I would remind you to be civil and assume good faith. First, anti-Zionists aren't necessarily intent on the destruction of the State of Israel. Second, unless somebody has stated that he or she is an anti-Zionist, or that her or his goal is the demise of the State, the fact is that you don't know what that person's motives are. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) Your reminder for me is somewhat uncivil considering i do keep it civil.

(2) I'd appreciate you explaining how anti-Zionists don't necessarily intent on the destruction of the State of Israel.

(3) oh, some of these "contributors" have stated it explicitly... so that their motives would be unambiguous. Jaakobou 19:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I, might be your answer. I'm not a Zionist but I do not want G-d forbid the destruction of Israel by the hands of the Arabs. I am hoping and waiting for the Messiah to bring in the era of peace; as history has proven that people or countries cannot guarantee peace; only G-d can. Nevertheless some of my contributions might be considered pro-Zionist, because when they are right, not on the dogma but on a particular historical fact, I will not shy away from it. I take the truth where I find it. Itzse 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I should add that anti-Zionists like the Neturei Karte similar to those Arabs who are anti-Zionists have no problem with slanting the truth; and some do try to taint the articles to their POV. So your concern is well founded. The answer to the problem is more of us, within the rules of WP should incorporate another POV if it's missing. Itzse 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "civil" about referring to "contributors" and their "contributions" with "quotes" around "them." — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into a political debate on Zionism and the meaning of the word "Zionist." That's surely a dead end. nadav (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm sorry I raised the subject. I've removed my comments on the issue. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Guideline on red lines

The only benefit of being a member of this project is just that, being a member. I suggest that we come up with a clear guidelines defining an unacceptable behavior for a member of this project, and then publish it at the project's main page. As a first iteration, let me propose that promotion of the destruction of Israel as a Jewish nation-state is incompatible with this project. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no ideological criteria for making contributions to Wikipedia. WikiProjects have no special status and should have no special rules. WikiProjects are designed to focus editors' attention in order to improve the quality of a specific set of articles; nothing more. In my view it will be very disruptive to encourage editors to talk about their ideological predispositions and/or policy views. --Ian Pitchford 11:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the project's members should be limited ideologically, however, IMO there should be another limit, namely, making it clear that every project member who joined for political reasons only will not be allowed. There's really more to Israel than the Arab-Israeli conflict, and those who wish to only participate in those article are welcome to start a new WikiProject (doesn't it already exist?). I think it's harmful for the project if half its members will never edit pages like Rabin Medical Center, ZAKA or F.C. Ashdod. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ian Pitchord here. Imagine if there was a WikiProject Turkey that said that members are only welcome that support a secular Turkey. I imagine many potentially good members would be turned away unfairly. Although I strongly disagree with the opinions of Tony Judt, I imagine he would be a very good member of WikiProject Israel because he is a competant writer and researcher.

On the other hand, there should be general guidelines for membership in WikiProject Israel and that is agreement with the stated "Goals" on the project's page. I have seen a handful of Wikipedia editors join WikiProject Israel and then create and unsuccessfully maintain unfair, biased, and even false information on Israel's history, culture, and geography. Such members are usually bad at researching and break Wikipedia's general rules such as NPOV, OR, and RS. Because they clearly join as wolves in sheeps' clothing ready to pick a fight, I would recommend that these members that don't take this project or Wikipedia in general seriously should be erased from the membership list. --GHcool 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to any proposal to limit membership either to people who share a particular ideology or have no political views at all. In any event, if such a proposal were adopted I wonder how it would be enforced. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal politics should be kept strictly separated from editing. Everyone who is in good standing in terms of blocks, arbcom rulings, etc. should be allowed to edit any article they choose. The goal of the wikiproject should be kept to the minimum of coordinating tasks among editors that happen to edit the same group of articles. There are no entry exams or background checks. nadav (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above two statements, but I would like to see editors that join this project take the stated goal of creating and maintaining "fair and unbiased information on Israel, including history, culture, and geography" seriously. Abiding by this goal has nothing to do with political ideology because no matter which direction one leans on any particular issue, they should be able to make a good faith effort to abide by this goal if they are willing to add themselves to the members list. To put it another way, would anyone accept a member of this project that actively and continually creates and maintains unfair and biased "information on Israel, including history, culture, and geography" with no regard for WP:RS, WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR? --GHcool 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is more or less what I was trying to say in my comment, sorry if it didn't come out that way. The only difference is that I do support removing users who do not abide by this stated goal. Basically I think everyone in this project should be serious about the goal, not only be a member wishing to delegitimize Israel's existence at every turn. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously members are supposed to abide by Wikipedia policies. My assumption is that if they don't, then they will face sanctions elsewhere. We're not going to set up our own little court system to decide who is and isn't making good faith efforts to abide by policies. If someone has been banned, then obviously we can cross him off the list, but there's not much more we can do besides that. nadav (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fair and unbiased" should mean exactly what it says - writing without undue bias towards Israel as well as against it. People often make the mistake of thinking that NPOV means eliminating biased viewpoints completely, or (even worse) eliminating viewpoints that don't agree with your own. That's not how it works; to quote WP:NPOV, the goal is to "represent fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". Concerns about "legitimising" or "delegitimising" a particular POV are pretty much irrelevant. You don't have to like the point of view being documented, but you do have to make sure that you treat it fairly. (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy".) That's really all that's required. -- ChrisO 01:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How can it be expected to treat fairly, Holocaust denial, Ancient Israel denial? Denial that Jews are descendants of the original Jews with an uninterrupted history, and made instead to descend from the Khazars? How do you treat such nonsense that there was a Palestinian people and the Jews came from Poland and stole "their" land? (See the famous interview Arafat gave claiming that the Jews never had any connection to the Holyland)

All of these Pov's if you can call it so, are actually published in books by so called scholars. Yes, they might be scholars, but even scholars can deliberately turn fiction into fact, if they have a need for it. It even has the backing of the Arab countries who with a straight face say so (for blood libel, see the interview given in Egypt regarding Toaf's blunder). Holocaust denial even has the backing of a country, Iran.

So the question is how do you treat these and many others? How can you treat it fairly? I typically leave the falsehoods in, but add the correct facts hoping that at least the truth and fiction should be side by side. What should be the right approach? Is there at all a right approach? Itzse 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line, how do we treat nonsense? Do we just play along? Itzse 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As many of you already know, I deal with bad faith, deliberate fiction and nonsense head on in my user page. Luckily, most Wikipedia editors play by the rules, or at least make an attempt to. As for the specific issues Itzse raises:

• I have never seen a Wikipedia editor try to directly deny the Holocaust. However, I have gotten into arguments with people that present Holocaust denial as a legitimate form of research. I can't remember a time when I haven't eventually won this kind of argument.
• I am currently somewhat involved with an issue of ancient Israel denial, but as of this writing, I am winning that argument as well.
• I haven't gotten into any arguments regarding Jewish history and geneology, but I imagine this would be a more difficult argument to win decisively than the above two because of Khazar conversions, Cossak rapes, and the who is a Jew issue. Of course, this is neither here nor there when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict and it is an established fact that a large majority of Jews are decendents of the ancient Israelites.
• Most Middle Eastern scholars seem to agree that the Palestinian national identity is a recent phenomenon which became defined as such roughly around 1964, when the PLO was established. To win an argument with someone who disagrees, all one has to do is ask for reliable sources stating an opposing view. Even if such a source exists (and I haven't heard of many), it will probably be drowned out by the avalanche of evidence to the contrary.
• The claim that Zionists came from eastern Europe and stole land away from Palestinians is a true claim from a very superficial point of view, so one must be careful how one proceeds with this line of reasoning. Instead of disagreeing with this statement (i.e. go about proving the opposite), I would clarify and refine the statement. Yes, Zionists came from eastern Europe and eventually gained control of the land, but did they steal the land? Much of the land was bought fairly from absentee Turkish landlords and when tensions rose between the Arab and Jewish populations, the Jews agreed twice to two partition plans, while the Arabs rejected them and called for violence. Furthermore, the Jews did not "conquer Palestine from the Palestinians" as the United State conquered California from the Mexicans. Rather, Israel declared independence after the British controlled Mandate for Palestine fell.

In short, false claims should be treated like the charlatan acts that they are. They should be exposed, debunked, and corrected at every turn. No need to get emotionally involved with charlatans, just calmly and carefully make them eat crow. You'd be amazed at how often arguments from history and by analogy works. --GHcool 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

GHcool, Nadav, Jayjg and other participants; you deserve a thanks for your tremendous work. But to do all that GHcool has outlined above requires a constant vigilance. Do we have an endless supply of guys like you, and do you guys have an endless amount of time?

Who is to guarantee that after all the effort, someone in the future armed with truckloads of books and sources with enough time on his hands will claim that his sources are reliable and make us sweat it out to restore balance here, or worse actually carry the day, and all our work will go down the drain.

GHcool seems to have an optimistic view, and he might very well be right, but I don't have much faith in mankind and who knows who will pull the strings here in the future as more articles are created and more articles are developed.

I'm bringing this up because this boggles my mind and sometimes I wonder if I'm not wasting precious time here. As this is the WikiProject Israel page, I think that these and similar concerns need to be aired and discussed here to allay the fears of its participants. Itzse 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On this topic, I'm somewhat shocked to see bad-faith allegations from one member of this Wikiproject against other members Leifern, Ynhockey, and Nadav1 (It seems that many of the editors who have commented so far are some of the more POV-oriented ones from Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. I consider myself a WP:NPOV member of that project.). Tewfik^Talk 16:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing new. I am a member of this project, and have suffered bad faith allegations from other members on many occasions. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia corps tag is the most hilarious thing

In the History of EVER.

--AceMyth 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Music of Israel

I have just finished a complete rewrite of the Music of Israel. For user msh210: it includes a section on Hassidic rock, which I think is what you mean by Shiny Shoe Music. Everyone is invited to review, correct, add salient info, and in general behave in the wiki spirit.

In particular, those of you who are Israeli rock afficionados might have what to add on that subject. I also think the category needs sections on The Music of Israeli Arabs and Other Minorities, and perhaps on Children's Songs.

I think we need to go for reassessment of this article. I am aiming for FA, and one of those ridiculous corps tags.

Tnx for your cooperation,

--Ravpapa 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Great effort. The article has definite potential, but it seems to be currently sufferring from a significant lack of references and seems quite OR. --Shuki 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Political navigation box(es)

I would like to create one or more navigation boxes for Israeli political parties (there are now articles on most parties, thanks for Number 57). However, there's a structural problem: if there's just one navigation box for all parties, past and present, then it will be huge and difficult to read. However, if there is a separate box for each election, it will create unnecessary clutter and a lot of very similar templates. Any suggestions? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it's needed - all political articles have the Politics of Israel box, which links to an article on political parties, plus they are all in the Category:Political parties in Israel. Plus, as you say, so many parties would make it difficult to make a decent sized box. Number 57 12:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I use Wikipedia more and more, I come to expect relevant navigation boxes in almost every article. They are certainly useful, and I daresay loads more useful than the huge right-aligned general topic boxes, such as Politics of Israel (which doesn't directly link to any useful articles). This is also a good supplement (and sometimes alternative) to a See also section. I think it would be useful to be able to go straight from Kadima to Ale Yarok to Ra'am-Ta'al, and see no major reason why such a navigation box should not be created. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it would be possible to create a decent sized template for this, especially if you want to include those that didn't make it into the Knesset. The whole point of categories is for navigation such as this. Number 57 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, how about a category for parties which made it to the Knesset? Or the opposite, parties which did not make it? I think a division needs to made because the category is large and not easy to navigate. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories should probably be employed either way, but it would be possible to make a template with collapsing fields and very small text, though I question the utility of the setup. Tewfik^Talk 01:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think categorising parties that didn't make it into the Knesset would not be a great idea, as there have been many tiny parties that were in the Knesset (due to breakaways from large parties) but relatively large parties (e.g. The Greens or Ale Yarok) that have never made it. I think the navigation is fine as it is - people can go through the elections to see what parties were in the Knesset (which is also shown in the List of political parties in Israel page). Number 57 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Israeli settlements

I've copied a message and my response from my Talk to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel to get greater input Tewfik^Talk 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've readded all the settlements in the subcats back to the top one too - I think it's important to have them all listed in one place too.

Also, I have been removing them from the ... in Israel categories as they are not in Israel. Number 57 10:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorisation is just that, a method of organisation, and it shouldn't be confused with content. All of the Israeli settlements are labelled as such in their leads, and are already in subcategories of Category:Israeli settlements. Furthermore, removing them all from Israeli local government hierarchy is quite unhelpful, as regardless of their international status, they are officially and practically part of Israeli local government, and not some fictional West Bank or Golan Heights local government. Again, this is a matter of organisation, and not content, and so I've reverted the changes until further discussion (the changes have in the past also been contested by Eliyak and DLand). Tewfik^Talk 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, in the light of this reasoning, perhaps you will reverse your longstanding and in my view quite unreasonable objection to the inclusion of East Jerusalem settlements in Category:Israeli settlements (as a result of which, incidentally, your contention here that "All of the Israeli settlements are labelled as such in their leads, and are already in subcategories of Category:Israeli settlements" is incorrect)? That, too, would seem to be a pretty straightforward question of "organization, not content". Palmiro | Talk 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your point, as I've consistently said this is about the practical organisation: Israel officially and practically administers Israeli settlements within its local government, and Israel officially and practically administers the areas variously defined as East Jerusalem as part of its Jerusalem municipality, and not as Israeli settlements. Tewfik^Talk 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet User:Number 57 is correctly pointing out that these are not, in fact, in Israel. You are saying that despite that, they should be included in the "villages" category for consistency in categorization. Fair enough, but then that argument applies a fortiori to settlements in East Jerusalem which are generally agreed to be, indeed, settlements - while the West Bank settlements are certainly not generally agreed to be in Israel. Palmiro | Talk 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated previously, I think it's helpful to have all Israeli settlements listed in the top category as well as their subcategories so you can see a list of all the settlements in one place. It is confusing to have to go down 2 more subcategories to get to more lists of settlements (which is the case for those in Gush Etzion).

The "Villages in Israel" etc categories really don't apply to them - they are not in Israel (I left the Golan Heights out of it as those settlements are at least in territory which Israel regards as part of itself even if no-one else does), which is why they are in the Israeli settlement category in the first place.

As for the "Religious villages in Israel" category, I suggest creating a new category "Religious Israeli settlements" for them. Number 57 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the crux of Tewfik's argument - they are officially part of Israel, bottom line. It smacks very strongly of a politically charged WP:POINT to de-categorize them as such.--DLand^TALK 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is you who has misunderstood - they are not part of Israel (they have never been annexed!), though they are part of the local government system. To say that Betar Illit is a "City in Israel" is much more politicised than saying it is an Israeli settlement. Number 57 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

They are however administered as Israeli cities, councils, etc. That they are settlements is prominently relayed in the lead, and they are all in the Category:Israeli settlements hierarchy. Tewfik^Talk 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, how do you expect anyone to take these arguments seriously when at the same time you are willing to make this sort of edit? Palmiro | Talk 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't appreciate your mischaracterising my edit. It was a reversion of your edit of less than two hours previous, on a subject which had been discussed previously. Making it look like I was sneaking in some POV edit is absolutely uncalled for and unprofessional. Tewfik^Talk 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I mischaracterized your edit. You made a revert which was totally inconsistent with the argument you are making here. The subject had indeed been discussed previously and there had been no consensus whatsoever in favour of the removal of the category. I and other users had just got tired of edit-warring over it. However, seeing your stance here, I had hoped that you had changed your view on how such issues should be approached. Palmiro | Talk 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take you at your word, but I suggest you phrase them more clearly in the future. Tewfik^Talk 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect to list these places as "in Israel". We can't have this kind of thing in a reliable encyclopedia. Number 57 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'in Israel' is problematic. Aren't there other examples in the world where a country administers territory but that territory is not 'in ____'? Maybe 'villages of Israel' is better because they are nonetheless adminstered by Israel and I don't know how that can be denied? I can't stand when people think that Israel is 'special' for everything. W/R to the category issue, redundant categorising is just messy. I don't like it when it's about companies or other entities, why should Israel settlements be different? 57, I understand your opinion, but your blanket 'boldness' has merely increased antagonism on the discussion. Palmiro, there is no contradiction in Tewfik's edit. Har Homa is not a seperate settlement enitity, though 'settlement' might also be viewed as any residence in post67 territory. Anyway, a standard consensus should be discussed rather than these piecemeal discussions that repeat themselves every few months. --Shuki 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal world they would be "Israeli cities" instead of "Cities of Israel", but like Shuki said, there is no reason for us to start creating a unique categorisation system for just one topic in Wikipedia. They are all linked in the lead to Israeli settlement, and it is entirely reasonable to expect that anyone interested in the complicated legal and other issues will click on it. Tewfik^Talk 20:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why they need to be in "Village in Israel" if they are also under "Israeli settlement" - the two are self-contradictory. Why shouldn't there be a unique categorisation for this - it is a unique situation in the world.

Also, I stick by my guns about all settlements going in the top level category as well as sub cats for clarity purposes. Number 57 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction; a settlement can be a village or even a city if it grows sufficiently large. Technically, the word "settlement" merely denotes the fact that the community is located on the land administered, but not annexed by Israel. Beit Or 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is a contradiction. A "Village in Israel" is by definition in Israel. An "Israeli settlement" is by definition not in Israel. Number 57 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the entire category is near worthless due to the ideological determination which results in a few users insisting that one of its most important sub-elements, the East Jerusalem settlements, cannot be included in it. A category which leaves out such an enormous proportion of what belongs in it, for political reasons, and without any explicit statement of what is being done, is unhelpful to users and indeed potentially highly misleading. Palmiro | Talk 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest the following solution:

• All settlements in the West Bank go into Category:Israeli settlements and a relevant sub-category (e.g. Shomron/Gush Etzion Regional Council). They do not go into any "in Israel" category.
• All settlements in Gaza and Sinai and evacuated West Bank settlements go into Category:Former Israeli settlements (a sub cat of Israeli settlements). They do not go into any "in Israel" category.
• Religious settlements from both the West Bank and Gaza go into Category:Religious Israeli settlements (a sub cat of Israeli settlements).
• Settlements in annexed areas, i.e. the Golan and East Jerusalem, go into both Category:Israeli settlements and the relevant "in Israel" category as they can be considered both settlements and in Israel.
• Category:Local councils in Israel and Category:Regional councils in Israel get renamed Category:Israeli local councils and Category:Israeli regional councils as they are unique cases of not all being in the country.

Thoughts? Number 57 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems very reasonable. However, with regard to the first point, maybe it would address some of the points raised by other people to adopt the logic of the last point so that e.g. Ariel or Ma'ale Adumim could go into an "Israeli cities" category or suchlike. I appreciate the remarks made by Shuki further up. In my view, we shouldn't impose a general method of naming categories where it doesn't fit the particular circumstances that are of relevance, and I made the same point in relation to categories such as "Political parties in Palestine" which Tewfik quite rightly suggested some time ago could be better named. Palmiro | Talk 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Any renaming of the existing categories will disrupt the existing "xxx by country" categorization and is thus unlikely to gain consensus. Beit Or

I think if it was put across that Israel is a special case where the categories do not fit then it would be possible. In fact I shall ask a categories expert to come and give an opinion. Number 57 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(in reply to Beit Or, after edit conflict)Not necessarily. Some Palestinian categories were successfully moved for similar reasons. Palmiro | Talk 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no such country as Palestine. Since there seems to be an agreement that settlements may also be included in categories mentioning both Israel and village/town, it's better to keep current category names, but add appropriate clarifications on the category pages. Beit Or 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this might be a direction: All current settlements divided into either *Category:Religious Israeli settlements *Category:Non-Religious Israeli settlements or Category:Mixed Israeli settlements (all sub cats of Israeli settlements, not in both the super and sub cats) and other cats like regional council).

The local government cats seem to stray away from the wp consensus 'in ___', but it might avoid any POV claims.

Thanks 57 for the beginning of a 'standard'. In any case, I would hope to get more input from more editors over more time, not just a couple of us. --Shuki 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's one case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_9#Category:Political_parties_in_Palestine . Tewfik proposed quite a few other changes around the same time; AFAIR some were agreed and others weren't, but there seemed to be consensus that it was not necessary to maintain absolute consistency with category naming conventions that didn't work in the case in point. I can't immedistely find the other discussions. Palmiro | Talk 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: [[5]] is another, larger Palestinian category discussion. Palmiro | Talk 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not AFAICT enact any changes to the naming conventions. The issue, which is not parallel to this one, is that things were being mislabeled as "x of Palestine", when they in fact referred to "x of the Palestinian territories" or "x of the Palestinian Authority", and in any event, I modified my position in later naming schemes as I became more aware of the conventions. Regardless, the entries being categorised as part of Israel's local government are in fact part of Israel's local government. I'll clarify what I said above, which is that in theory, changing "x in Israel" to "Israeli x" would make the issue moot, but I don't believe that creating alternate hierarchies just for this topic is appropriate, especially as the 'status' issues are prominently mentioned on the lead of every entry in question. Tewfik^Talk 03:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like the political parties one at any rate is a clear parallel, insofar as these exist both in and outside Palestine and indeed have in some cases been most active in the diaspora; and the renaming (which you proposed) reflects that by departing from the convention for "Political parties in X". Palmiro | Talk 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But the settlements operate within the "Israel" system, not an external government etc. (imagine Nazareth was administered by the Palestinian Authority, assuming their institutions were administrated in the same way as those in Jenin, I would imagine those institutions would be categorised in a similar manner). Tewfik^Talk 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but within the Israeli system is not the same as "in Israel" - it's a fundamental difference and a good reason to rename the categories. Number 57 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the renaming the the local/regional council cats. Standard wp convention is 'XXX in country. The settlement local/regional councils are a tiny majority in each list, and as tewfik is arguing, part of local government in Israel. --Shuki 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But, as has happened with Palestinian article, categories can deviate from the standard if there is a need. Here there is clearly a need as including a settlement in an "in Israel" category is a very clear violation of NPOV as only a supporter of "Greater Israel" would say they are. Number 57 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice way to take this discussion, delegitimize editors who disagree with you as 'Greater Israel' supporters. Relax, take it easy and leave your assumptions somewhere else. I already said that it is problematic to describe a geographical as in 'Israel', but political entity/organization that works under the framework of 'regular' Israeli local government is another issue. --Shuki 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not delegitimising anyone; to my knowledge no-one in this discussion has tried to claim the settlements are in Israel. I am just pointing out that to put them in the "in Israel" categories is leaning towards this POV. Number 57 21:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So, back to the question, do people agree or disagree with the proposal mentioned above? Number 57 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree on the condition that all "X in Palestine" categories are moved to the appropriate "in the Palestinian territories" or "of the Palestinian Authority" categories. The idea that the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan are not "in Israel" is just pandering to political correctness and leftwing sensibilities. Until the day that "Palestine" becomes a full-fledged and widely recognized country (a situation which, for the record, I am not at all opposed to), these are all "in Israel". That's the geographic and political fact of the matter. LordAmeth 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They already have been (see Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories). So I take it that it's now a yes? :) Number 57 16:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. This is not my chief field of contributions, so I apologize for not being fully informed on the category structures, etc. (And just to be clear, I am being genuine, not sarcastic in saying this.) Thank you. LordAmeth 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have created Category:Religious Israeli settlements and populated it with religious settlements from the Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel. The new category is a sub-cat of Category:Israeli settlements, but not of Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel (as they are not in Israel), but it is there as a "See also". Number 57 09:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If they're not in Israel, where are they? Are we talking about settlements in the US and UK? Or settlements in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, or Jordan? LordAmeth 12:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They are in the Palestinian territories. Number 57 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

57, there is not one Israeli settlement in the 'Palestinian Territories'. You seem to be either uninformed or very biased toward NPOV. Please read up on the Oslo process and how the West Bank and Gaza had been divided up into Area A B C. --Shuki 22:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? The last time I looked there were plenty of settlements in the West Bank. You must be referring to the minority POV that only PNA-controlled areas are part of the territories. Your repeated accusations of POV against anyone who dares disagree with you are becoming very tiresome. Number 57 07:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] At least you concede that your view is also only a POV, not the objective truth. Please consider that when you discuss these issues and certainly when you edit.--DLand^TALK 13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly everything related to Israel is seemingly POV as there is generally a very vocal minority that claims anything that goes against their pro-Israel mentality is POV. I pride myself on being objective on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but sadly I feel that there are a significant number of members of WikiProject Israel who are not. Some are more subtle than others, but it generally takes the form of removing facts that portray Israel in a bad light citing POV or OR, or by obsessively editing and expanding articles that portray the Palestinians in a bad light. Those people would do well to remember that this is not "WikiProject Defend Israel". I'm sorry if some of you are offended by that as there are some genuinely excellent project members, but this has been bugging me for a while and I feel it is necessary to get it off my chest. Number 57 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I mostly support the proposal. Just one point bothers me, about the religious settlements - there's no such thing as a religious settlement and the only religious municipality in Israel is El'ad, which is not a settlement. Sure, some settlements are religious in nature, like Immanuel, but they are no:t officially religious, therefore calling them religious would not be fit for an encyclopedia. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that, factually? I am certain that many settlements are 100% dati in population, and I was under the impression that, for these places, religious observance (at least an affirmation of such) is a prerequisite for joining the community.--DLand^TALK 17:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have heard claims that you need to be religious to join certain communities (yishuv kehilati) in Israel, but haven't found any basis for them. For example, if you want to purchase a home and/or live in Immanuel, you may do so freely - there are no checks whatsoever whether you're religious. For all I know, you don't even have to be Jewish. Even so, Immanuel has a 100% religious population, by far most of which is Haredi. I think the burden of proof about religious settlements lies with those who claim that they exist, because it's easier to find proof for one settlement being religious than it is to prove that all of them have no religion-based prerequisite. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of seconds of googling turned up this page, where it talks about the religious strictures in Matityahu.--DLand^TALK 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, although it still does not imply that you must be religious in order to live in Matityahu (legally, that is). On the other hand, I'd like to know how they enforce the no TV/video rule. Maybe they don't have the necessarly infrastructure for cable/satellite TV? What about computers? Strange. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

57, please drop that baseless claim that I make 'repeated accusations of POV' because it simply ain't true. I very rarely accuse editors of POV, if you have time, see for yourself.

As for 'religious settlements', I agree with what Ynhockey says, but most villages are homogeneous and can be in fact classified either way (non-religious) as well. There are 'welcoming committees' for most of them to ensure many things, not only that 'like-people' move in but part of the consideration is that families will contribute to the community. Many communities need to be cohesive units in order to get past the beginning stage in a healthy way. After a few hundred families reside in a place, then it's harder to implement anyway. Even Ariel had a non-religious 'welcoming committee' at the beginning, but it was to filter out people who would not be able to stand the very hard conditions when they first placed tents on a barren hilltop in the middle of nowhere. As for assuring a no tv policy, it is a simple lifestyle choice not dependant on inadequate infrastructure. Most people who would want to move to a place like that don't have a tv in the first place and after living without one for a while, many people don't miss it either. --Shuki 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion reopened

Tewfik has now taken it upon himself to remove all the articles from Category:Religious Israeli settlements and put them into various Religious XXX in Israel categories, despite the fact that they have also been removed from Category:Israeli settlements. Do we have to start this discussion from the start again? Number 57 09:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that consensus on this discussion came out against your categorisation, the burden is on you, not me, with all due respect. I'll be glad to continue discussion with you, but I don't appreciate your framing this in a way that looks like I was sneaking some POV in, when this was all clearly explained above as doubly categorising the entries (and I see now that the new scheme has also sacrificed some detail), and I am thus returning everything to the position supported by that discussion until a new consensus arises. Tewfik^Talk 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read the comments above, the majority (5-3) was for the creation of the Religious Settlements category; it was supported by myself, Shuki, Palmiro, Ynhockey and LordAmeth. You, Beit Or and DLand are the only ones who objected. And how on earth am I framing you for POV? Number 57 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Al-Karamah Battle

I have just come across this article (Al-Karamah Battle), and find its contents quite hard to believe. Even if the core facts are true, they are surely represented in a highly biased fashion. I am no expert on such matters, but I hope that someone here who is can take the necessary steps to rectify this situation and rewrite this article to better reflect the truth. Todah rabah. LordAmeth 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No need. It's already covered at Karameh; the new article should be has been redirected there. Palmiro | Talk 23:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks. LordAmeth 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kibbutz Gal On

I created an article for Kibbutz Gal On. Since it is in the scope of your Wikiproject, I added your template to it. Hope you like it, and hopefully I will be able to create articles for more kibbutzim in the future. Notecardforfree 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, please add new articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/New articles --Shuki 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. Notecardforfree 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Main page: Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict § Unprotection

User:Suicup is trying to push some of his/her own POV on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page by claiming that "Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are a key obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict" (emphasis added). All fair-minded Wikipedia editors with a working knowledge of WP:NPOV have agreed that a more neutral word (such as "a factor" rather than "a key obstacle") would be more appropriate. Suicup claims to be unbiased in this matter, and yet in the debate, he/she accused those that challenged him to be "a clique of pro-Israeli contributors," implying that (1) Suicup is anti-Israel and therefore the lone voice of reason and (2) that there is a Jewish conspiracy on Wikipedia. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. Thanks. --GHcool 06:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with him. Places like Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim are indeed a key obstacle to a peace agreement as if they are left it damages a Palestinian state's territorial contiguity, whilst removing them is very difficult given their size. Number 57 10:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And as I have written on that discussion page, there are reliable sources which state the same (this Haaretz editorial actually calls them the main obstacle). Number 57 10:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As written, the statement appears to be an opinion of the author. Why not rewrite it something like this: "Many analysts—including many Israelis—consider the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem 'a key obstacle'<ref>whoever is quoted (the Haaretz article, eg)</ref> to a peaceful resolution of the conflict."

Put the controversy in someone else's mouth, giving at least the pleasant disguise of NPOV.

--Ravpapa 14:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well how about this Jerusalem Post article which states "The US and other foreign governments do not recognize the settlements, and consider settlement construction an obstacle to Mideast peace." (and the post is right wing!) Number 57 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how about this and this and what Alan Dershowitz wrote in The Case for Israel? If we say "many analysts ... consider Israeli settlements to be a key obstacle," we must also say that "many analystst do not consider Israeli settlements to be a key obstacle!" Why don't we just avoid the POV all together and write in neutral terms? --GHcool 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"US and other governments" are not analysts. They are officially recognised international bodies. Hardly POV! I guess you could say "Every country in the world considers them a key obstacle, apart from Israel" but it seems a bit silly when it's put like that, doesn't it? Number 57 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you apply the same logic and standards to Hezbollah's status as a "terrorist" or "resistance" organization? --GHcool 19:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. However, only six countries recognise it as such (as opposed to almost all countries with the settlement thing) so it's difficult to get it listed as its main characteristic, especially as the case is complicated by the fact that they are also a legal political party (unlike, say, the IRA, who were solely a terrorist organisation). If you want a mirror for this situation, see Kach and Kahane Chai (an article I totally rewrote); both are now listed as terrorist organisations, but again by only a few countries. Number 57 20:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Countries have no friends’ only interests" is a famous saying attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. Therefore what difference does it make what countries think. Whatever position they take on Israeli settlements is only based on their interests not on anything even close to the truth. Anyhow do you really think that removing Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim will solve the problem? Leaving Lebanon and Gaza should at least throw into question the assumption that leaving the territories would solve the problem. Even those that thought that Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim was the obstacle now don't believe so anymore. I think Wikipedia should reflect the newspaper analysis of today not the wishful thinking of ten years ago by countries with interests. Itzse 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are misrepresenting the facts; the Haaretz and Jerusalem Post articles saying the settlements are obstacles were both written within the last year, so it's not exactly "wishful thinking of ten years ago". And yes, I really think that removing all the settlements, including Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim would go someway to improving relations, especially if they were left standing for Palestinians to move into. Number 57 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Itzse's comment epitomizes the problem with this article. The article throughout - not just the section on settlements - tries to describe what the dispute is about, instead of saying what people say the dispute is about. "Israel says" is a fundamentally wrong thing to say: countries can't talk, only people can talk. Israeli government positions (of today - they change, you know) should be presented as direct quotes from position papers or from government spokesmen. Opposing views should also be direct quotes.

I wonder, for example, what the official Israeli position is on the question of settlements as an obstacle to peace. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall an Israeli spokesman saying "Israeli settlements are not an obstacle to peace," in so many words. Foreign ministers are wily, cagey, and mendastic, and they don't like to make clear statements of policy. Unofficially, both views have been stated clearly and emphatically by people of importance, and they should be directly quoted.

As long as we try to describe what the conflict is about, rather than what people say about the conflict, we will be caught in the kind of endless polemic that our friend Itzse presents. --Ravpapa 04:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Put the controversy in someone else's mouth, giving at least the pleasant disguise of NPOV. writes --Ravpapa 14:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC) in this section. Well, thank you for improving Wikipedia, and the minds of the wikipedians. -DePiep 17:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's quite understandable why "Number 57" thinks that Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim is a key obstacle to peace, and maybe if I were living in Israel and in your shoes, I would want to believe so too. It is no more then another opinion. Therefore to use the word "factor" is more then enough as many people are of the opinion that it isn't even a factor; the problem lies elsewhere. Itzse 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetisation of israeli names

Hi.. does anyone know what is the correct way to alphabetise Israeli last names.. Do David ben Gurion and Simon bar Kochba go under 'B' or under 'G' and 'K' respectively? What about arabic names e.g. 'Osama bin Laden'? Zargulon 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just asked the librarian at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, the Jewish synagogue famous for having David Wolpe as its head rabbi. She says that American English library standards, David Ben Gurion, Simon Bar Kochba, and Osama Bin Laden would all be alphabetized under the letter B. She did not know if Hebrew, Arabic, or British English cataloging protocol is different. --GHcool 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble! I'm glad to know the answer. Zargulon 00:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe British English also sorts them under B. I would be interested to know if Arabic sorts names such as el Sana under E or S though! Number 57 07:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In Hebrew, they would also be alphabetized under "B" (well, Bet, actually), so English is consistent with the Hebrew practice. --Ravpapa 05:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs versus Palestinian People

Stand up and be counted. Following is the reasoning that I gave for the article name change, and waited for any objections. When none were forthcoming I made the name change.

But as you can expect those wishing to have the old name because it pushes their POV, reverted my change. Let's do it the right way, and for that I need your help. Itzse 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the explanation given in that talk page:

---Let's rename the article before we discuss the introduction---

Tiamat has suggested that we discuss the intro which has been a bone of contention.

Before we discuss what the content of the intro should be, we need to first go to the root of the problem; then I think everything will fall into place.

The problem is that the name of the article in and of itself is patently wrong, misleading and POV; which forces us to craft the intro to correct what it wrongly insinuates; otherwise the reader of the article will walk away thinking that a "Palestinian people" is a fact and there are no other opinions on the matter.

Let me explain if it still needs explaining. There is an article called Palestine which refers to the region called Palestine. Rightly or wrongly, it’s a fact. Then we have an article Palestinian Jews which talks about the Jews living in Palestine. Now for the Arabs living in Palestine we should have an article called Palestinian Arabs; instead, lo and behold "Palestinian Arabs" gets redirected to "Palestinian people"; which means that Wikipedia becomes an accomplice to pushing a one-sided POV and de-facto creating a "Palestinian people" which never existed. This is totally unfair to say the least.

Yes, there were Arabs living in Palestine just as there were Jews living there who were identified together as “Palestinians”, or as "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinian Jews" when identified individually. But after the establishment of the State of Israel, those Arabs who didn't want to be called "Israeli Arabs" were left without an identity, so by default they were called "Palestinians”. But that's a far cry from calling them "Palestinian People" which is a brand new creation for a political agenda.

At its best even if you don't agree with me; "Palestinian People" as it stands is POV, and it should be renamed to "Palestinian Arabs" which will automatically link directly numerous redirects. Itzse 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your request, but the article name policy is to generally stick with the most common English name, which I think you will agree is "Palestinians" in this case. Indeed, I propose renaming this article to "Palestinians." nadav (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinians" is a great improvement over "Palestinian people" as far as POV is concerned and would rectify most of the POV injustice, but it will still leave some vagueness; as the Neturei Karta consider themselves "Palestinians" and for the rights to Palestine the Israelis haven't relinquished their claim as Palestinians. So by renaming this article to "Palestinians" we would still need some clarification in the intro to explain the nuances.

Therefore I propose to rename the article to "Palestinian Arabs" with "Palestinians" redirected to it, so that when "Palestinian" is mentioned in the context of Arabs it will rightly link to "Palestinian Arabs" and when "Palestinian" refers to "Palestinian Jews" it will link to "Palestinian Jew" as it actually does in some articles. As to "Palestinian people" it should become a paragraph name in the "Palestinian Arabs" article, explaining the term, usage and history and all opinions about it.

As far as the most common English name; "Palestinians" is commonly used as short for "Palestinian Arabs" and both are equally commonly used. So in our case where the term "Palestinians" has a POV innuendo and needs clarification, it's better to use the unvague and precise term "Palestinian Arabs" which leaves no question as to what is talked about. Itzse 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I did some research and found that the article was renamed on January 5, 2006 from "Palestinian" to "Palestinian people" by Khoikhoi; and for a reason he gives: "Moved Palestinian to Palestinian people to avoid confusion". Little did he know that he would create more confusion. On July 29, 2006 Khoikhoi finished off the cycle by redirecting "Palestinian Arabs" to "Palestinian people".

So here you have it; we can either go on the old tracks that didn't work or we can go on new tracks which are accurate. Itzse 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: "Palestinian People" is POV, "Palestinian" was tried and found to be ambiguous and confusing. Therefore its time to try the correct term which is "Palestinian Arab".

As there are no objections, “Palestinian People” is being renamed to “Palestinian Arab” as per WP:Article naming policy, specifically WP:Precise. I hope that this will clear up any confusion.

As I don’t have much technical experience; if I botch up, please fix whatever needs to be fixed. Thanks everybody. Itzse 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Its been about a month now and there hasn't been much progress. It appears that a majority of editors feel that "Palestinians" is the better article title, but whenever we have come close to a consensus on this, someone scuttles the debate by asserting that Palestinians are a people by using the logic that "group of people" and "people" mean the same thing. I'm having trouble finding the will to continue the debate dispite how many times I've previously won it. I'm asking for some help and if I do not get it, I fear I will have to quit. If this happens, this will be the first Wikipedia debate I ever lost or come to no consensus on. --GHcool 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear disagreement

There is currently a disagreement here over whether the first sentence of Nuclear weapons and Israel should be "Israel was the sixth country in the world to develop nuclear weapons..." I would appreciate any input. -- Joshdboz 11:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversial page moves

Please comment on User:Number 57's moving of Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim to their respective English translations. The user has done so without consensus and subsequently undid my reverts - and I'm not prepared to get into a move war. Thank you, DLand^TALK 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Add Yom Hazikaron to that list.--DLand^TALK 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not support these unilteral moves by 57. At least this one is going through properly Yom HaShoah. Please comment either way here, but preferably on each page. --Shuki 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia...ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that changing these to the English name subtracts from their cultural context. These holidays are unique entities unto themselves, and not simply the Israeli version of an independence day, memorial day, etc. Or should we start renaming the religious holidays too, to English equivalents? LordAmeth 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly hope Number 57 doesn't move Yom HaShoah to "Holocaust Day!" I suppose he/she would move Cinco de Mayo to "Fifth of May" as well? --GHcool 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu Ali wrote:"This is English Wikipedia". Yes it is, Father of Ali. :-) Despite it being English Wikipedia, we have articles about Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, not "Jewish New Year" and "Jewish Day of Atonement". On the other hand, we do have Passover, which is a very widely-used English name for Pesach. "Independence Day" and "Jerusalem Day" may be used in the English-language Israeli media, but the names "Yom Ha'atzmaut" and "Yom Yerushalayim" are much more common — even among English-speakers who may not know much Hebrew (in the United States, for example). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then - preliminary consensus established. Let's move them back.--DLand^TALK 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, we do not call Bastille Day "Fête Nationale" so why should it be different for these holidays? No-one ever used the Hebrew words for these events when speaking to me in English, and the evidence from the English language press in Israel is overwhelmingly in favour of the English use (I believe the only hits for Yom HaShoah on the Haaretz website were actually on the talkback). It is a Wikipedia policy to use both the common name and the English name. Number 57 08:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that we can find examples that go both ways - true, some things like Bastille Day and Chinese New Years' are known by an English name. But many other holidays are not - Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur have already been mentioned, and the same goes for pretty much every other Jewish holiday - just look at Template:Jewish holidays and you'll see that most are titled by their Hebrew names here on Wikipedia. You make a very good point that WP:COMMONNAME dictates that we use the most common name for things - it just so happens that for most if not all Jewish holidays with the exception of Passover, the Hebrew name (or Yiddish, I suppose) is the most common. I find it very interesting that you say that, living in Israel, you've always heard these terms in English when being spoken to in English; I would not have expected that. Still, in my experience, living in New York (the second-largest Jewish community outside of Israel), it is very uncommon for people in everyday reallife conversation to use the English names for these things. LordAmeth 08:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Yom Kippur and Rosh HaShanah are religious holidays, and English tends to retain the "native" word for religious events. However, the ones we are dealing with now are secular Israeli holidays which were invented in the last 60 years. Number 57 08:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

57, as posted on a few other talk pages, there is no consensus. FWIW, by your logic, all the Israeli national days you refered to are celebrated on the Hebrew date and they all have a semi-religious status in Israel and in Jewish communities. For Orhtodox Jews, Yom Haatzmaut is a special religous day. Also, ignorance is not an excuse and neither is being embarrassed about one's ethnicity (not accusing you, but rather the Israeli English media). If a non-Jew learns that Jews call the day commemorating the independance of Israel as Yom Haatzmaut, then they will respect that. There's no reason to water down the culture. --Shuki 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But as I have pointed out, no Jew I have spoken to has ever referred to these holidays by their Hebrew names when speaking in English. In addition to the Israeli media, all the foreign media (BBC etc.) use the English names too. Using English language on Wikipedia is why we have an article on Labor Party (Israel) rather than Avoda, Jerusalem rather than Yerushalayim (if you insist Yom Yerushalayim is correct, shouldn't you be enforcing this change too?) and Israel national football team rather than Nivheret Yisrael. Why should holidays be any different? Number 57 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 57, it should be pointed out that your personal experience ("no Jew I have spoken to...") has no bearing in this discussion. My personal experience is just the opposite.--DLand^TALK 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Having lived in Israel, I would say my experience is important in determining how Israeli holidays are rendered in English. Number 57 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Image from Yad Vashem.

I once heard a story that either a Danish fishing boat or a monument resembling such a boat is located near the Yad Vashem. If anybody has a picture of it, it would be a great addition to the rescue of the Danish Jews article. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight in "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus" article

There are two editors currently trying to keep the status quo of violating WP:Undue weight in the Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus article. I first tried asking them to cut their criticisms of the endorsemnt to flight theory down and when they refused, I told them I would add whatever I could find to make the claims section as long as the criticisms section. Now they're trying to censor the new stuff I added, mostly with flimsy excuses such as that The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East doesn't exist. I'd appreciate some help. The most relevent section of the talk page is here. --GHcool 17:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI. Jerusalem categorization

Please see discussion at

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring and POV pushing Category:Jerusalem. --Timeshifter 11:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is now archived here: [6]. --Timeshifter 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor, but stupid point

I spotted a doublet: Mitzpe Ramon Airfield (formerly referenced as an 'airfield' without mention of the fact that it is an airbase, not an airport) and Ramon Airbase. One should be deleted and the other cleaned up (please, see Ramon Airbase talk page), but I sure won't take the risk to be called a vandal and, then, won't do anything. Sorry for that, but I'm fed up with quick accusations and snipers… — Іван Коренюк ψ Ivan Korenyuk 14:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected Mitzpe Ramon Airfield to Ramon Airbase as that is how it's better known. Number 57 15:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually they are different air bases if you read this article. Number 57 15:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another deletion attempt concerning various "Palestinian territories" categories

Please see Category:Palestinian territories and:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7. --Timeshifter 00:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Israel

I have put forth a peer review for the Israel article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Israel. Comments are welcome there (and on Talk:Israel, if you prefer). -- tariqabjotu 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom case

At this moment, a massive conflict is breaking out at the following page, in an arbitration proceeding: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop, a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Allegations_of_apartheid.

A group of editors has been developing an article entitled Alegations of Israeli apartheid."

In response, a group of more even-handed editors attempted to build a set of article detailing and highlighting alleged "apartheid" in other countries.

In response the editors of the Israel-apartheid article are now accusing the editors who worked on articles about all the other countries of POV, when it is the editors of the Israel article who are most guilty of a warped unfair POV focus on one country to the exclusion of others.

Currently, the ArbCom case has degenenerated to accusation and counter-accusation. This was inevitable, sicne ArbCom refuses to address cointent dispute, and only addresses user conduct, forcing even well-meaning, goodfaith editors to level accusations at each other.

Your help is vitally needed. Please go to this proceeding and insert your comments indicating support for those who seek to preserve balance at Wikipedia by applying this method of inquiry equally, by applying the "aparetheid" analigy to a variety of countries equally, instead of only to Israel.

If you wish, you may also demand that ArbCom or some other body address content disputes, so that this cycle of accusation and counter-accusation will not remaion the only real means of addressing disputes.

Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)