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)

The West Bank

Should really this portal deal with items, people or sites in occupied areas? Ofeig (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ex-mossad man wants to join

i am an ex-mossad man. i was in mossad from 1983 till 1987 and i am wanting to become a member of this great project. is that perhaps possible? can i join the wikiproject israel? how do you become a member. how do you join? Shojaijekhi (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just add your name to the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel#Members, and watch this page (click watch on the top right); any updates or issues will appear in your watchlist. If you create any new articles, add them to WP:Israel/New. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is just great. Tanks. Tanks a lot. Shojaijekhi (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Joining

As above visitor noted, The way to join is not obvious at all. Main page should have a JOIN link. Mewnews (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli opinion on al-Wazir

Hi, does anyone here have a reference on the general Israel opinion on Khalil al-Wazir? I assume most Israelis view him as a terrorist but think a source would be approprate. More importantly, does anyone have a much-needed source on al-Wazir's role in the Coastal Road massacre and whether or not he was granted any special status by the Israeli government i.e No. 1, 2 3 terrorist? Any help in finding these sources would be much appreciated. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this help: "As with all Palestinian nationalist leaders during his lifetime, he was viewed by Israel as a terrorist."[1] --GHcool (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am new to editing and seek guidance

I am new to editing and seek guidance but it strikes me that MANY of the "palestine"-related articles here are full of lies, propaganda, and designs made to encourage people to hate Israel and Jews. Is there not a way to counter this? Thanks, No Oven For Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Oven For Me (talk • contribs) 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on verifiable reliable sources. Many articles related to Israel and Palestine are the object of edit-warring between editors with different points of view, including different opinions about which sources are credible and reliable. Welcome. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my user page:

I find that Wikipedia editors are a largely moderate bunch trying to find and publicize verifiable truth. However, there are some bad apples in every bunch who are trying to disseminate disinformation about Israel on talk pages and within articles. Rather than stand idlely by or commit the same straw man, ad hominem, or post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies committed by the people who are abusing this website, I prefer systematically debunking disinformation inspired by two popular books on the subject: Alan M. Dershowitz's The Case for Israel and Mitchell G. Bard's Myths and Facts.

One way that fair-minded Wikipedia editors could help is by not getting emotionally involved in an argument with an anti-Semitic, anti-verifiability, or intellectually dishonest Wikipedia editor. Do not not stoop to their level. As calmly as you can, disect their accusations without resorting to their straw man, ad hominem, and post hoc ergo propter hoc tactics. Lastly, remember that not all criticisms of Israeli policy are anti-Semetic or necessarily wrong. Have enough courage to treat a true claim with respect, even if you do not agree with the claimer's conclusion. And keep informed on Israel and read about her history. --GHcool (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Israel stamps

Greetings. For a brief shining moment, you'll see the new Postage stamps and postal history of Israel‎ as a Did you know... on the Main Page, with a picture. Feel free to contribute to the article. L'hitraot, HG | Talk 11:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

WP Design

I have just spread the content of the project page and saw that there were already some subpages which are orphaned, - does anyone know what the deal is here?--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you've made some changes to the project page. They're generally OK by me, but maybe we should discuss them with other members first. -- Nudve (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - Im happy to revert it in the mean time -Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Remembered.com as source

While it's definitely not a reliable source for disputed material, palestinremembered dot com has been used dozens of times as a source for seemingly neutral 'factual' material, like the dates of Israeli operations against Arab villages. However, a recent find by the Kiryat Yam municipality showed that palestineremembered is wrong even in its basic information. A quick check on this page (click 'View in Google Earth') is proving Kiryat Yam right, that the source didn't come from Google but from palestineremembered (K. Yam is actually suing Google for not replying to requests to remove the false information). I think in light of this information, a major re-examination of this source needs to take place, and each and every Wikipedia page with it as a source should be verified against another source, and if this is not possible, then all info taking data from PR.com should be removed ASAP. Thoughts? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it had already been discredited, and am surprised that any articles were still using it. Also, I updated the Kiryat Yam article regarding the Google controversy earlier today. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there was an attempt by someone a while back to write the narrative of Kiryat Gat according to palestineremembered dot com's unverified version of history. This was shot down at the time. Palestineremembered dot com is a blatant propaganda site with reckless disregard for verifiability. It is not a reliable source in any sense of the word. --GHcool (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the information taken from the Palestine Remembered website can be verified since most of it comes from the sources they list here. The problem for most editors (myself included) is that we don't have access to these books. I relied heavily on the site to start draft articles for destroyed Palestinian villages because of the easy access to information and the detailed references and bibliography section of the site that cites the different types of data to reliable sources. I would be pretty pissed off if editors went around to those articles and deleted the sources and information without asking for new sources first and placing fact tags. I tried to avoid using the site for details beyond straight statistics, looking to other sources for explanations of the reasons for the depopulation of the village, since I found the information on that to be sparse and questionable. I guess what I'm saying is that I would appreciate it if editors would be patient since many of the destroyed villages articles would be deleted outright if the info and sources from PR were automatically deleted. I think too it would be imprudent to proceed that way, since most of the information is not all that controversial, and largely focused on the town's location, size, population, etc. While the original sources would be preferable, it will take time to replace the PR ones with those. I ask that editors show a little patience and understanding when it comes to those articles, in particular. Fact tags and requests for sources should be the first step, and not outright deletion. Tiamut^talk 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't suggested the automatic deletion of all PR.com-based content, but deletion after examination via other sources. I'm sure there are enough people on Wikipedia who have the Benny Morris books, and many sources can be found online. The reason for the suggestion, as outlined above, was the fact that PR.com even got something as simple as the location of a village completely wrong (namely, 'Arab Ghawarina), therefore we don't know how many other very basic things are wrong as well. Also there was evidence of several villages which were not actually depopulated but PR.com claimed that they were (e.g. Sha'ab). With that in mind, I don't see how it's possible to rely on PR.com for anything at all.

Moreover, there is the problem of village populations - the last census was taken in British Palestine in 1931, as was clearly stated on a page/source on PR.com itself. They are posting population figured from 1944 (or 1948) with exact precision (to the last man), which is dubious at best, and ridiculous at worst. I realize that the estimates were contemporary and British, not made up by PR.com, however, especially with the hostilities of 1936-39, I don't see how any population figure after 1936 has any value at all. By comparison, today, the Israeli CBS also estimates population figures for 12 years each time, although the estimate is to the nearest 100 (which is much more believable), and any page which actually has a CBS footnote/ref on Wikipedia, it clearly states that it's an estimate, not a census datum.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are fair points Ynhockey. I will try to make sure that census figures are from 1931 in the articles in question and as I said, will try to find the original sources from which Palestine Remembered claims to take its material. I'm glad you agree that material attributed to them should not be deleted outright. I'd hate to see tens of destroyed village articles go up in smoke. Thanks for your input. Tiamut^talk 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Palstinian Archaeology

An RfC has been opened regarding a proposed merge of a newly created article - Palestinian archaeology - into the existing articles of Biblical archaeology or Archaeology of Israel. Your input is welcome. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Biblical archaeology is a decent article. It also exists in other languages, and is an FA in Spanish and Portuguese. Archaeology of Israel is rather weak, and could benefit from a merge. Maybe Biblical archaeology should stay, while the other two could be merged into "Archaeology of Palestine and Israel" or something like that, to give a historical and political context of archaeology in the region. -- Nudve (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Kiryat Yam and Nakba

I was going to upload info on the Kiryat Yam debacle into a section on disinformation re: the "Nakba" (wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus). Someone has locked it and the talk page indicates that a few administrators are deliberately blocking people who try to fix the article, which has a heavy anti-Israel slant to it.

I also found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani#Racism_on_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fw.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3D1948_Palestinian_exodus.26action.3Dhistory, as well as the admins Riana and Krimpet who appear to be blocking anyone who speaks up opposing their behavior.

Krimpet additionally seems to like placing indefinite or super-long blocks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Krimpet

I'm afraid to edit based on what I am seeing. Is there any way to deal with these people to fix these articles at all?