This Talk page is dedicated to matters related to WikiProject Israel. Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT
A Gas company does a seismic survey (I think it was Noble Energy) of a gas field off the coast of Haifa. They say there is a lot of gas for the next few decades of energy and some left over for exporting. Lebanon says it's all theirs or the field extends into its own sea territory.
www.smh.com.au/world/israel-warns-lebanon-over-the-rights-to-new-gasfields-20100625-z9me.html
Lebanon going to pass a bill to start offshore drilling: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=116456#axzz0s79VLaI5
Can we get some maps and maybe some analysis over what the exact borders of the Leviathan gas field are? Here is the map on the Ministry of National Infrastructures website: http://www.mni.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/D416D03A-BCA1-49D0-8FF3-8A8A3FC71EC1/0/PetroleumRights25_03_10Geogr.jpg
There was an article on the financial website globes.co.il that had a bunch of international law people describing why it was actually in Israel's territory but it's in the archive now and you can only read it if you are a subscriber. It was entitled "Experts dispute Lebanese claim to gas finds".
Faaaaaaamn (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be a bit premature and WP:CRYSTAL-ish. Seismic was acquired, processed, interpreted and some Tertiary sands prospects were identified in the Rachel (lease 349) and Amit (lease 350) license areas. You can see where the leases are here. They're just prospects at the moment not gas finds, not gas fields with proven reserves. Nothing has been drilled on that prospect yet. The first exploration well won't spud until later this year and they'll need to drill appraisal wells if the initial well finds anything interesting. The exploration leases expire at the end of 2011 so I guess it won't be long. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are Mount Hermon and Gamla actually nature reserves in Israel? Please share your knowledge on this matter here. I would also appreciate any assistance in expanding and improving this important template. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proposal, currently here at Speedy renaming relating to the various categories of Israelis (or Israeli people) of foreign descent. My view is that the word "descent" denotes ethnicity and is generally inappropriate with regards to these Israeli categories. The Israelis in question were not ethnic Bulgarian, Poles, Turks, etc. There were generally Jews whose origins were in Bulgaria, Poland, Turkey, etc. I have opposed the current proposed change and have suggested all these categories be renamed using the basis of "Israeli people of XXXian origin". Comments and possible someone taking the issue to a full cfd discussion would be welcome. Davshul (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All. As I founded this project, I still check in from time to time to see how things are going. I still edit articles occasionally, but I kind of dropped off of the Wiki radar without much explanation, so I thought I would stop in and say hello.
This note was spurred by an article I found about Jewish and Israel Wikipedia topics (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/13/wikipedias-jewish-problem/) Please take the time to read the article, as it explains exactly why I am not here actively editing anymore. Simply put, I was tired of the anti-Semitism.
I sincerely applaud your efforts and fortitude keeping WP Israel going and editing for emet (truth). Keep up the hard work. In case you were wondering, I did not give up internet Israel activities, I started a blog (http://www.israelsituation.com) where I do my online Israel work. Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts.
Mazel tov on all of your sucesses, and b'hatslacha on your future battles. Keep Wikipedia neutral.
--יהושועEric (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A user, Andrensath, removed this message saying that I attacked the group and linked to a "bigot site". They even get in here and remove any questioning of their anti-Semitic motives. I am shocked on that one. A talk page is for talking about the topic, after all. --יהושועEric (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weird, I did not expect that from Andrensath. My litmus test is seeing if certain editors are contributing and adding positive information to other articles or primarily focused on adding negative information to the Israeli articles. I sincerely respect pro-Arab editors who are building Arab-related articles and also collaborate in the I-P area opposing my position, but unfortunately, most (thankfully not all) never contribute anything pro-Arab at all and merely work the anti-Israel part. --Shuki (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the group attack I reverted was the accusation that Wikipedia is anti-semitic, and the bigot site in question was frontpage.org, which also actively accuses wikipedia and its editors of anti-semitism, and is so disconnected from the truth that it seems to believe Barack Obama is a radical. That last is highly offensive, as somebody who actually subscribes to radical politics and knows Obama is not at all radical in his politics. Also, I competely fail to see how removing links to sites that completely fail WP:RS qualifies as 'anti-semitism' (though I am somewhat intoxicated at the moment, so I may be wrong on this.) Finally, I think Eric1985 should retract and apologise for the accusation that I am anti-semitic, as it is a complete and utter breach of WP:Civil. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrensaht you are the one being uncivil by accusing fellow editors of bigotry and peddling propaganda. An editor is cordially expressing his POV without name-calling and personal attacks. Antisemitism among wikipedia editors is not a fringe idea and has been illustrated in numerous AN/Is. Eric, sorry to see you go. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, where did I accuse a fellow editor of bigotry? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: the AN/Is; mea culpa, I was not aware of them. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You inferred the original editor of promoting bigotry because he linked the partisan political site FrontPage Magazine. There was nothing bigoted, racist, or defamatory about the article. In fact you can probably find most of the issues mentioned in the article at Criticisms of Wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No such inferral was meant on my part, and I apologise for not making it explicit that I was accusing the site, and not the editor, of promoting bigotry. However, I disagree that "Wiki has an Israel problem. Wiki has a Jewish problem. Wiki has a kangaroo court problem. Wiki reaches hundreds of millions of people with misinformation about Jews and Israel. We have a problem." isn't defamatory. -- Andrensath ( talk | contribs) 00:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Opinion does not equal defamation. The Israel/Arab genre is the most polarized and corrupt arena on wikipedia. Administrators have designed rules for this area independent of other encyclopedic topics. Clearly there is a problem and to say it exists does not mean one is being defamatory or promoting bigotry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of a problem regarding the Palestine-Israel conflict, and Arbcom sanctions relating to that, does not mean there is a Jewish problem, nor that there is a kangaroo court problem. That said, I'm not sure what the precise definition of defamation is in NZ law, let alone the one used by Florida law. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric1985 says in the comments on that article that "A new group, called Wikiproject Palestine, was created by a group of anti-Semites," which is not exactly a constructive way to discuss a sister WikiProject. Fences&Windows 00:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric1985's battleground mentality and his tendency to accuse those with whom he disagrees of being antisemites are two good reasons to be glad he retired. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a full Cdf discussion here on renaming the approximate 50 subcategories of Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin from "Israeli people of XXXian descent" to "Israeli people of XXXian origin". The word "descent" denotes ethnicity and is, I believe, generally inappropriate with regards to these categories. Comments would be welcome. Davshul (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good day to you all! bringing to your attention that Supreme Deliciousness is renovating on his own that article, the formerly involved editors might want to take a look and have their say in it, cordial greetings, Hope&Act3! (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
שלום, It might be of interest to someone that I started articles on the subject of lighthouses in Israel. Several are stubs, while some have a bit more meat. Of course, any help is appreciated, especially if anyone can dig a major source on the subject. The missing articles are mainly since I'm waiting for approval to use some images, so if anyone has any it would also be appreciated. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some eyes are needed on the Syria and Golan Heights. Template:Nono Pantherskin (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Message repeatedly removed by User:Supreme Deliciousness. Pantherskin (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: I did not retract the message above and I will not. I stand by this message and my summary of what reliable sources say, and by that two editors are demonstrable not interested in NPOV. Pantherskin (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in dire need of a major revision. it is written to support the thesis that Jews lead the Israel lobby in the US. I just made a minor correciton to add Christians United for Israel which is, after all, by far the largest US pro-Israel lobby. But it still needs a lot of work to correspond in any degree to the reality that Christian pro-Israel lobbying in the US predates Jewish pro-Israel lobbying by decades and Christian support has always been the dominant force in shaping American policies towards the Middle East. I'll get back to it, but Please come help.AMuseo (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree - but it's a tough article and I'm afraid to mess with it. "Comparison to other lobbies" and "criticism" sections could easily go or at least be cut in half. They are totally unnecessary and add nothing to the article. Stephen Zunes and the Nation are not the most balanced sources. I know several historians such as Benny Morris were quite upset that American academics used his research to manufacture claims of an insidious "Israel lobby." A recent article in the WS talks about the motivations behind the evangelical movement and its support for Israel in US political system. I think the heavy reliance on John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt is problematic, considering several of their statements are simply false. In background they are cited with saying Israel is the "largest" recipient of annual foreign aid since 1976. they make a comparison to post-WWII reconstruction. According to the DOD the largest recipient of direct military aid are Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, the statement should be clarified explaining how aid is actually delivered, what year it began, and how much received pear year. It gives the impression that the lobby somehow created the movement of government-aid when in reality it was just a part of post-Yom Kippur geopolitics, and practically no Israeli-lobby movement existed until the 1980s. Much of the article's content should be moved to Israel – United States relations because it mixes up state relations with lobby politics. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a major hand in writing, editing, and tempering this article. It used to be much worse before I put it on my watch list. It used to rely almost completely on Mearsheimer and Walt. Now it relies a lot (perhaps too much) on the work of Mitchell Bard. Bard's analysis seems surprisingly sober to me considering how close it comes to the "Israel lobby has too much power" thesis. Bard's "reaching across the aisle" in this respect might actually be a good thing since he is usually associated with the StandWithUs crowd. --GHcool (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't read it before, but it's still pretty bad. The problem is that it reads as though Jews are the Israel Lobby, when in reality support for Israel is very strong among many segments of American opinion. The non-Jewish informal lobby and the informal and formal Christian lobbies need to be far better covered to make a balanced article.AMuseo (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't read it before (AMuseo). Maybe, if you stick to the encyclopedia form, it will be OK. -DePiep (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is currently discussion here on a proposal to delete the article: 2010 Israeli Air Force Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion crash. Davshul (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general note for the future, a better place to notify users of Israel-related AfDs is WP:DISRAEL. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 10:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly off-topic, but I want to point out that I have created several new articles focusing on all the wonderful new recreational facilities that are being built in Gaza. Roots Club, Gaza Mall, As-Sadaka Gaza Olympic Swimming Pool, Crazy Water Park. I do wish that I had photos that could decorate these new pages. Also, I am having trouble at the article Crazy Water Park with a user named RolandR who keeps removing material from a well-sourced article in The Telegraph explaining that these facilities are thought to be being constructed by Hamas to satisfy its cash-flow needs. Advice?AMuseo (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamas business ventures describes several other new for-profit amusement parks that could be made into articles.AMuseo (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the original query, I would recommend asking for photos at WT:PALESTINE. With respect to your dispute with RolandR, you might want to try WP:3O or WP:RfC.
- As a suggestion, if one article suggests Hamas might own a business, you should avoid making vague statements like "is believed to be". Instead, attribute the statement: "According to The Independent..." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About photographs of the places, I second Malik Shabazz's recommendation to go to WP:Palestine, although I am not sure that anyone there is actually from Gaza. Maybe some fair use pictures (I'm sure there are plenty) can be included in the more important instances. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the suggestion of Ynhockey, this issue has been made the subject of a new section. The following are the comments moved down from the previous section: Davshul (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AMuseo had placed at least one of article on Gaza in the New articles page of WikiProject Israel and it had been removed by another user for the reason that it was "not located in Israel". I'm not sure whether it should be a requirement that the subject of articles should be physically situated in Israel (without, at this stage, getting involved in defining the actual boundaries of Israel) for the article to be included on the WikiProject Israel New Articles page, if the matter is of general Israeli interest (as developments is Gaza are). Perhaps others may wish to comment. Davshul (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ynhockey wrote: I have expressed my opinion on this issue time and again, that I do not believe that articles about Gaza and West Bank Palestinians are generally not within the scope of the project. However, other opinions are welcome (please start a new section for this as it's an important issue). —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A bit hypocritical to remove articles listed at WP:ISRAEL, since the same editors claim that Israel still 'occupies' these places. There is a lot of overlap of articles, and there are other things to argue about than this. Am, sorry I can't, I have a location topic ban now. --Shuki (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Shuki. West Bank/Gaza are considered "occupied" by parts of the UN and mainstream rights groups. I don't think topics pertinent to the Israeli presence is out of the scope of this project.Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the question really whether articles can be within scope of more than one WikiProject ? The answer to that one seems pretty obvious. I would question whether it matters. Also, the Israel article (which could be viewed as a scope defining article I suppose) contains information about areas outside of the green line that are regarded as occupied by Israel by many sources (including those pesky people running the Supreme Court of Israel in the case of the West Bank). Western Sahara related articles are supported by both WikiProject Morocco and WikiProject Western Sahara which makes sense at least to me. I think the more important issue that needs addressing is whether editors are capable of contributing to articles about the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the IDF, Hamas etc etc in a policy compliant way or whether their personal views color their edits to such an extent that it becomes a burden for other editors and the project in general. This is the kind of edit + burden for other editors I am referring to. That applies to both sides of the conflict of course and whether an article is within scope of a particular WikiProject won't make any difference. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamas isn't a terrorist organization? Questioning the ability for a collection of editors to follow guidelines before they even edit an article IMO isn't assuming good faith. The same could be said for any member of WikiProject Palestine. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamas are many things according to many sources. One of those many things is that they are a terrorist organization according to X,Y,Z. I question the ability of every single editor (including me) editing in the I-P conflict area everytime I see an edit because it's a messed up battleground with much lameness. And we concur that it applies to both sides of the conflict as I said. It's not a question of good faith. I have no doubt whatsoever that all sorts of policy non-compliant edits are made in good faith from the perspectove of the editor. I don't care whether they are in good faith or not. It doesn't matter. Content matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything has to revolve around politics. It's neither about geography nor about occupation, it's merely about relevance. Locations in the Palestinian territories pertinent to Israel should be in the project, say Joseph's Tomb or Netzarim, but what has the Gaza mall do to with Israel? Israel neither built it nor do Israelis shop there. Just because it is somehow related through possible connections to the Hamas does not require that it appear on WikiProject Israel. Poliocretes (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A mall built with Israeli-supplied concrete and shelved with Israeli-escorted luxury goods? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you know that both the airbases at Ramon and Ovda were built by American funding and American contractors and house nothing but American aircraft types? And yet, both have no place in American wikiprojects. What about all the malls in Israel featuring Italian marble and selling Italian produce? You're casting too wide a net. Poliocretes (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow what you mean Wikifan. Are you saying that Israel is helping to rebuild Gaza at their own expense and therefore it is within scope of this wikiproject ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Polio, hardly a fair analogy. These malls are not being created with resources imported from Israeli companies. The government of Israel is escorting the resources into the heart of Gaza. In fact, Hamas' ability as a government to earn large amounts of cash has been created by Israel's-imposed blockade, enabling the organization to tax materials coming out of the tunnels and then using the funds to buy out private businesses. This is made even easier because Hamas' only real expense are employee salaries, which is totally covered by Iran/Saudi Arabia. And then there is the fact that Gaza is "occupied" by Israel according to the UN. I don't want this to turn into a general discussion - perhaps we should keep the issue on an case-by-case basis. I think most editors know when something Palestine-related (fashion) has squat to do with Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Poliocretes. Every article about Gaza and the West Bank doesn't fall within the scope of this WikiProject, although some do. Gaza Mall is a good example of an article that falls outside the project's scope. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sean, if you take the time to read the original proposal for the 'disengagement', it says that Israel will continue to support the Arabs there and also improve the economy. The disengagement was a lie. --Shuki (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone planning to pop along to take some pictures of the new Anish Kapoor piece Turning the World Upside Down, Jerusalem outside the Israel Museum ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons:Category:Turning the World Upside Down, Jerusalem. Commons is currently having problems creating icons, but the photos are there. Poliocretes (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are great! Thanks very much, much appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unavailable to edit the main page of List of national parks and nature reserves of Israel due to my geography topic ban. Would someone please check this out and the discussion and edit how they see fit. --Shuki (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask for your inputs on the proposed merge of the Yibna and Yavne pages. Please discuss here: Talk:Yavne#Merge --Sreifa (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recent move of the articles below has engendered concern on WP:ANI if the consensus reached was representative of the wider wikipedia project. Therefore, three RfCs have been opened to fully discuss the proper names of the articles, so consensus can be reched. Please visit and opine at the sections listed below.
- Talk:First_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article
- Talk:Second_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article
- Talk:Third_Temple#RfC:Proper_Name_for_this_Article
Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very worrying article in Ha'aretz today. Extra eyes needed on a few articles methinks! пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and by Palestinians
See [1]. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checked the article. I found this [2] and [3] under your article. I want to help Israel. How do I enroll in wikipedia college? General Choomin (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a discussion on the presentation of the Six-Day War at Preemptive war has been started in the talk page to the latter article. Please join in and comment. Thanks! Shoplifter (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Requested_Move and opine as your conscience leads you. -- Avi (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(XPosting to all 3 relevant projects)
From reading the guidelines on article assessment, it seems that anyone can upgrade or downgrade an article's quality rating (short of GA or FA) unless there is a more formal process that the appropriate WikiProject has. From my reading of what constitutes a "start class" article at WP:ASSESS, this one is well, well above that classification. But given the acrimony over this article, one editor simply reassessing on their own will no doubt meet with a revert war. So what do we do, is there a review/evaluation process here? Tarc (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Start class is being generous, but consensus will end with C. I think it's a no-brainer for editors not involved in the article itself. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion ongoing as to the current image illustrating the article on Ahmed Yassin. Should you be interested, your input would be appreciated at Talk:Ahmed Yassin#Better picture?. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm not sure where to go to generate discussion but I'll try here. I'm somewhat concerned with the contents of Category:Anti-Zionism. The subcategories structure looks ok but there are a number of individuals in the category which probably shouldn't be included. In many cases, articles for these people don't even mention Israel or Zionism (for instance Tony Karon). Others, such as Rose Jackson are clearly a stretch and I don't think we should be categorizing people as anti-zionists if they reject the label. Pichpich (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the request for comment at Talk:Ahmed Yassin#RfC: Should the image illustrating Yassin be changed and comment if you feel moved to do so. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Input welcome on a discussion here: Talk:Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan regarding the use of US FRU documents to substantiate the claim that the US recognized the annexation. HupHollandHup (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a page.AMuseo (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there an article on the current Abbas/Netanyahu/Clinton/Obama peace talks?AMuseo (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- an editor just added in the Israeli occupied to this article and to June 2010 West Bank shooting. Is this the correct style for every mention of an event in the West Bank?AMuseo (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys! My photo request for the El Al head office and the Israeli Airports Authority building is still outstanding. Is anyone here visiting Ben Gurion Airport sometime in the future?
- The following map (use Internet Explorer to view) shows the location of the El Al offices. Click "Ben Gurion" and one will see a listing of points on a map, including the location of the El Al offices. - Click on the "Ben Gurion Airport" map and one will see a detailed map of Ben Gurion Airport, including the location of the El Al offices - the offices are adjacent to Terminal 1.
I would recommend going to Terminal 1 and photographing the buildings from within Terminal 1, if the buildings are visible from Terminal 1.
If/when the pictures are posted on the Commons, if the original photographer doesn't post Hebrew and/or Arabic descriptions in addition to the English description, I will make requests for descriptions in Hebrew and/or Arabic if they are not already posted.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Tel Aviv seems to be inactive. Would anyone want to turn this into a task force of WikiProject Israel? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting there are ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The incident that you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting is having a material impact on these talks, in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements [4], [5], but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks [6], [7]. there are dozens more article like these. Citing an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.
- The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting also continues to be in the news. [8], and, significantly, to be cited [9] as an obstacle (or s a reason for obstructing)[10] the peace process. As above, I can cite many recent article similar to these.
- My objection to your deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba is that the title under which the article was deleted was, if I recall correctly, a move from a previous title that, like the article, treated the August rocket attacks as the most recent in a series of rocket attacks that jointly target (and cause destruction in) Aquaba, Jordan, and Eilat, Israel. This is not a trivail topic and, unfortunately, not a transient topic as there have been a seris of such attacks in recent years.
- Single terror attacks, even failed ones, in Europe and the United States are routinely deemed worthy of Wikipedia articles. You bring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to bear. I would argue, rather, that many articles on single incidents over many years have created a defacto Wikipedia standard whereby single incidents of terrorism, even failed terror attacks and incidents, merit articles. 2004 financial buildings plot, Wood Green ricin plot, Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, Qantas Flight 1737, 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot. There are many more Wikipedia articles on individual incidents in which no one was killed, and about terrorism plots which were never were carried out. Wikipedia standards ought to be consistent. Rather than selectively delete terror incidents in Israel, I argue that we ought to accept articles about incidents of terrorism worldwide. How, after all, can we possibly argue that the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is WP notable, while the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting are not?AMuseo (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These three deletions are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13.AMuseo (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree. The rationale for deletion by the admin was dubious. IMO, his residency in Qatar makes any rulings on Israel/Palestine questionable. If he deleted one of the articles, maybe I would understand. But he gunned for all 3 and included the same exact rationale. Honestly, I doubt he even read the AFD. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
