Talk:Bil'in

Bot vandalization?

I found this reference in the article:

The protests often end in stonethrowing and rioting in which both protesters and soldiers have been injured. http://archive.kosher.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Article_ID=4148 Kosher.com - kosher bakery, kosher grocery, your everything kosher superstore!

Is that a bot vandalization or what? -- Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Category

I just added this article to category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which is admittedly very vague and general. I am doing so because I'm cleaning up the list Nonviolent resistance#Current and recent nonviolent resistance organizations. If there were a category for nonviolent protests in Palestine, then I would move it there, but I'm not aware of any category that fits that bill. — Sebastian 20:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Pollak passage swapped for similar

As I was adding refs to be able to appropriately restore a helpful passage that was deleted previously, I found I had to remove the following text:

Jonathan Pollak of Anarchists Against the Wall, a regular at the protests, has been injured several times [1]. On April 3, 2005, Pollak was shot in the head with a teargas canister causing internal brain hemorrhages and a wound requiring 23 stitches(broken link in the original)

The first ref in the passage above, to The Guardian, doesn't say anything about Pollack being injured multiple times. I don't doubt that he has been, but if the source doesn't support the statement, the statement has to go. ( This ref would be relevant for an article on similar protests that evidently occur in the village of Ni'ilin, near Ramallah, though, if we have such an article. But all it really says about Pollack - they write "Pollock" - is that he was a regular at the protests there, in Ni'ilin, as of July, 2008. )

Similarly, the second ref points to a non-existent page, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=560981. I presume this is just due to so-called "link rot", because the report can now be found at here, at Haaretz's site. But it doesn't really fully corroborate the language used in the our article, either. It doesn't say Pollack was "shot in the head", exactly, and it says nothing at all about brain hemorrages; also it says he needed stitches, but not "23 stitches".Other editors may disagree with this decision, but rather than try to salvage the Pollack passage, I think it's better scrapped, and replaced with another source I found in an NPR article:

The regular clashes here recently received international attention when Tristan Anderson, an American peace activist, was struck in the head by an Israeli tear gas canister. The 38-year-old suffered massive damage to the frontal lobe of his brain, as well as an eye. Despite several brain surgeries, Anderson remains in a medically induced coma at a Tel Aviv hospital.

Followed by the previously-in-place sentence about an Israeli soldier having lost an eye from a thrown stone, this swap comes fairly close representing the intensity of the aggression and violence on both sides, which is certainly my intention here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In making that swap, for which this (talk page) section is titled, I also ended up making additional changes as I went, mostly to try to improve continuity.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw your edits and the only thing that really struck me (no pun intended) was that looking at the statement "Although the demonstrations are described as non-violent, they often end in violence in which both protesters and soldiers have been injured" and a bunch of refs it's not immediately clear that it isn't WP:SYNTH. It's the secondary source that supports that statement that is the important one and the only one that provides WP:V compliance for the statement i.e. articles with examples of people injured/violence etc don't provide support for that statement because the statement has to come from secondary source rather than us providing examples. The refs dont hurt either though. I wondered if maybe adding a quote from a source in the citation would make it clearer that it's not synth. Inevitably I've forgotten which one it was...having a look now. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added the quote to the ref. Feel free to revert/use a better quote or not etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no wish to revert or modify at all. On the contrary, I'm grateful for your having added the quote - I'd forgotten one could do that in a ref - and for your other corrections and improvements. I appreciate the exacting care you exercised in making them, as well - few editors are as careful to comply with both the letter and the spirit of our policies, and I really like that. If you have the time or interest, please feel free to make any other improvements or corrections that come to mind for you: be bold! :-) I have no emotional stake in preserving anything I've written here, I just want to see the article and encyclopedia improved, and you've done that very happily. Thanks, very nice work indeed! Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Adjacent?

The article says "It is adjacent to the Israeli West Bank barrier and the Israeli settlement of Modi'in Illit." Could we make this more precise? Does the barrier separate Modi'in and Bil'in? Or are both on the Israeli side of the barrier? --91.115.57.15 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jawaher Abu Rahmah's location during protest

There has been debate over the phrasing of the disputed reports of the location of Jawaher Abu Rahmah during the 31 December protest in the Weekly protests section. User:138.134.102.15 cites refname=pnn asserting that Abu Rahmah's brother claimed Abu Rahmah was at home during the protest. The article says that she was at home, but there is no mention of her brother making that claim as far as I can tell. Please discuss below. -Intlaware (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To say the accounts is "disputed" its OR as RS don't use this word we just should bring the conflicting statements and the reader should decide for himself.79.177.51.180 (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't really understand exactly what you're saying but I agree that the conflicting statements should be included. -Intlaware (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Separate article

Given the media coverage the death of Abu Ramah has received, we should split weekly protests into a separate article.VR _talk 03:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree This section has grown so large that it accounts for nearly half the article. -Intlaware (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? Isn't this subject researched precisely because of the weekly protests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.233.91 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)