Jump to content

Talk:Land Day/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Several issues that need to be resolved

Short list

Here's a short list of issues with the article:

  1. Lead does not mention the rioting at all and doesn't clarify how the police's inability to control these riots brought about the deployment of military personnel. Tanks were not an active participant and are irrelevant hyperbole for the lead and as such should be removed - basically the same treatment as with detail of the rioting style (i.e. road blocking, Molotov cocktails, setting woods on fire, destruction of public property, Palestinian and other flag raising, anti-Israel chanting etc.). (fixed issue stricken) I think it would be a preferred treatment to minimize the "and military" layout which suggests the army was sent in to shoot people rather than to help police be able to contain the violence from becoming a full blown catastrophe.
    1. I've just tried to minimize this issue to be almost fully dealt with, IMHO, but it will take a little while to see if the edit sticks or if its reverted.[1] - Update: it was.[2]
      1. Clarify current main issue with the lead: it needs a rephrase so that the "and military" layout no longer suggests the army was sent in to shoot people rather than the historically viable note that soldiers were used to help police be able to contain the violence from becoming a full blown catastrophe. I would prefer a version that writes this down as "clashes with authorities" rather then a version that mentions Arab violence and Army units being deployed to counter that violence. If there is something historically unclear with my noting this, let me know. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        p.s. I'd like it added also that 16 policemen and soldiers were injured on top of the 69 Palestinian injured. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Israeli media section needs a rewrite and retitling. Currently, its still very much a manifesto piece presented as "the media" rather than as a analysis of media "prejudices" from a left wing perspective. I'm not even sure that this content is relevant for this article and not some other article about social analysis of Israeli-Arab conflicts which includes notes from other opinionated organizations like MEMRI and honestreporting.
  3. Article requires a section about the yearly protests which includes major notable activities. This should not be written as "Israeli media claims that..." or "Israeli government claims that..." which is unfair treatment for Israeli reliable sources and stands in clear contrast with less reliable journalists and activists used in the article.
  4. Al-Ahram, a politically motivated Egyptian publication, is treated with more respect than wiki-reliable sources. This needs to be corrected.

That's it for now, JaakobouChalk Talk 03:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC) +1 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC) St,++ 10:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC) +edit 11:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Replies

1. What rioting are you talking about, are you talking about riots in 76 or in past years commemoration of Land Day? If you are talking about the events of 76, can you provide some sources that describe those events as a riot? I have so far seen one, but the vast majority of the sources say it was a strike and a protest. If you are saying there were riots in past commemorations, again, please proivde a source saying so. Really, for everything you just said, please provide sources. You have done little convincing that the deployment of tanks should not be mentioned when multiple reliable sources saw fit to explicitly detail that.
2. Much of the discussion in the Israeli media section is based off a book published by Cambridge University Press by 2 professors at the University at Tel-Aviv. The part in the book referenced is dealing specifically with a study investigating "the reports about Land Day of the Arab citizens of the state Israel in seven major Israeli newspapers" and another study that analyzed how Haaretz and Yedioth Ahronot cover the events over 20 years. That you read it as a manifesto piece presented as "the media" rather than as a analysis of media "prejudices" is contradicted by a reliable source.
3. Sources please. nableezy - 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Agree with Nableezy that it would be better for you to bring sources that discuss the issue of rioting. While the New York Times source mentions "riots" in passing, it does not say that "the police's inability to control these riots brought about the deployment of military personnel." The other source mentioning the rioting is Arutz Sheva, which most editors here do not view as a WP:RS. While I have no problem using Arutz Sheva as a source as long as info is attributed directly to it, I cannot support including information from them in the lead. If you have reliable sources detailing "the rioting style (i.e. road blocking, Molotov cocktails, setting woods on fire, destruction of public property, Palestinian and other flag raising, anti-Israel chanting etc.)," please provide them so that we can discuss where and how to include them.
2. Agree with Nableezy here too. An academic study by two Israeli professors is not comparable to the work produced by advocacy organizations like MEMRI and honestreporting.
3. Regaring the "major notable activities" that take place in yearly protests, we have a section dealing with that entitled "Legacy". If you have sources mentioning activities that are not currrently described in that section, please present the sources and indicate exactly what it is that you would like to add. Tiamuttalk 08:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I call bs on the addition of number 4 here after we already responded to everything else. And Al-Ahram is a reliable source, regardless of what Jaakobou says about the Egyptian media. You cannot disqualify all Egyptian media in the name of NPOV. Especially when you have been pushing Arutz Sheva over and over. nableezy - 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It will not stick when you don't bother to respect the wording forged by consensus on the numbers of arrested or wounded. Nor will it stick when you try to minimize the involvement of the army, which all sources agree was a major feature of the events that day. The fact is that the army and police were sent in and six people were killed. You cannot change the facts.
        • Also, I notice that you still have not stricken the first part of point one. Am I to understnad that you want to include mention of the riots in the lead even after mention of the tanks and artillery being deployed was removed? That's not balanced Jaakobou and I will not agree to that. Sorry. Tiamuttalk 11:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Firstly, I'd like -- for example -- that the non-neutral "confiscate" be replaced with "expropriate", which is the neutral term. Honestly, Tiamut, I'm not interested in anything that common sense and NPOV would have us write. I feel accused of "minimizing" and other stuff, and this is not right. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Replies to second list

1. What source says that the soldiers were used to help the police contain the violence? The sources I have seen mention that an IDF unit was deployed in Arab villages, along the roads, etc. And some of them say clearly this preceded any rioting. (See the hidden note in our article from Yosef Goell in the Jerusalem Post for eg.) Also what source says that "16 policemen and soldiers were injured on top of the 69 Palestinian injured." We have sources attesting to "about 100" injuries among Palestinians and two others that mention Israeli security forces injuries without providing figures. Where did you get those figures?

2. I'd ask that you please stop using the term "manifesto piece", I find it very insulting. I've offered a different title option for that section below. If you feel the section needs balancing it can be done by finding reliable sources that say something else about Israeli media coverage or challenge the findings presented in these studies. I faithfully represented the contents of the source, if the conclusions are POV that's only natural given that all studies present a POV. The solution is to find counter POVs (if any) and include them. If there are none, then the section is NPOV because it represents all significant minority viewpoints on the issue.

3. I've asked you a number of times for exactly what you would like to include regarding the yearly protests. You have pointed me to a source, but have not answered my questions below for specifically which sentences/information you want to see there. Please do and we can move forward.

4. This last point is highly dubious to me. No other editor has problems with Al-Ahram. Its used for exactly two sentences (I cut out all the rest to cater to your concerns). We use Arutz Sheva because you insisted we do, even though others thought it was not WP:RS and we use all kinds of other Israeli media sources without qualifications. So I fail to see why you keep repeating this point. It should have been stricken out long ago.

Please respond to these points directly below Jaakobou. This discussion is very disjointed because you are organizing your problems at the top of this section and obliging us to respond below. Please be precise. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

To Nableezy:
  1. I'm talking about both the 76 events as well as the annual ones. Here's a sample source of high quality for the 1976 part.[3]
    1. If you're unconvinced that a minimized version (i.e. which doesn't hyperbole the unused tanks), should be in the lead, I'm ok with a lengthened version that includes all the detail on the style of rioting. We can't however hyperbole one narrative and censor the other. Personally, I'd prefer a simple conservatively written encyclopedic version that sticks to the most important things (such as "escalation in the clashes lead to 6 Palestinian casualties") which is how the WP:LEAD should work anyways. Current phrasing, esp. with this recent change,[4] is down right silly in the way it portrays Israel and it requires reworking.
  2. Source was written by a, decades long, activist in the fringe left-wing group "Peace Now" who has stated himself that his life-long project has been active pursuit of changing public opinions. The used source is an 'Israelis use stereotypes that enhance the conflict' type of psycho-babble "thesis" and its certainly not a neutral analysis of the media events by an historian. We could include it here as some type of criticism section but current usage is over-done and misleading. Also, regardless of how its listed down, the source's writer should also be attributed for his advocacy status.
    1. p.s. The publisher isn't the issue here and the content is indeed wiki-reliable (despite its bias), though not entirely connected to the type of sources proffered (i.e. by historians, not behavior-science publications).
  3. I gave a few. Lets start with those and work our way up a few others. Just so it won't be necessary to look them up in this page... [5][6][7]
To Tiamut:
  1. See reply to Nableezy.
  2. Their translations (MEMRI) are considered reliable and their interpretations and analysis on those interpretations are of the same quality as (or higher than) any other published behavioral-science professor out there. In fact, the used research (by Bar-Tal) is of less value since MEMRI uses professionals that are not actively working an extremist group ("Peace Now") for decades saying they dedicated themselves to changing people's opinions (see also my note to Nableezy on this matter).
  3. I've mentioned a few of the missing bits in past comments. I'd be interested in the more Nationalistic content such as the poetry used and the symbolism as well as the less peaceful activities that occur on a yearly basis. Some of it has extended reasoning that is not directly related to the 76 events, which should also be added.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
To Jaakobou
  1. You gave us a source in Hebrew, which you know neither of us can read. So sorry, can't help you there. Source is no goo fo us.
  2. I don't care about MEMRI. They are not relevant to this discussion. The studies analyzing media in Israel were authored by respectable Israeli academics. They are RS'. End of story.
  3. Of the three articles you linked to, one is already used in the article (Artuz Sheva; which I added info from despite the objections of other editors re: it is not an RS. I'm not going to use it for anything else because of that.) One is in Hebrew (again, not useful to me sorry). And the other, I'm unclear as to what you wish to add. Are you talking about these slogans?: "Do not worry, mother of martyr, your son did not die in vain," "We are with the youths who throw rocks," and "We do not fear Israel, the terrorist state." [...] In Hebrew, marchers chanted slogans against Defense Minister Ehud Barak, shouting, "Barak, how many children did you murder today? Tiamuttalk 18:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Tiamut, here is a translated version of that source, though it only translates a portion of the text (I have no idea why google translate is so finicky). But that is an Israeli government source, so not really a "reliable" source to be used for statements of fact. Jaak, MEMRI is reliable for translations, not for interpretations. And the studies are specifically about the Israeli media's coverage of these events, so it is relevant, it is reliable, and it should be included. Of the 3 sources you provided 1 is reliable, another not so much but still used in the article, and the last a government source that can be used only to source the opinions of the Israeli government. nableezy - 18:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Its wiki-(and factually)-reliable and supports everything I've mentioned. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
p.s. Tiamut, certainly, a story doesn't end if a source is wiki-reliable if that source is made by an advocacy piece. The question is not reliability of what they say Israeli media said, but the nature of their social-studies analysis. JaakobouChalk Talk 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't read the government source Jaakobou. The translated part has one sentence on Land Day and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take your word that it "supports everthing" you've mentioned. What exactly? Where? Can you translate the section in question?
p.s. About the academic media studies, you are not an expert on "the nature of their social-studies analysis", so your opinion on this matter is irrelevant. If you have a source critiquing the studies, that would be more than welcome. Sources please Jaakobou, and preferably ones in English. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Which one is reliable? The government source? No it is not, it cannot be used to say "x happened" only to say "the Israeli government maintains that x happened". And your opinion of what an advocacy piece is worthless, we have an academic study used in a book published by a university press by two Israeli professors. Also, the way you broke up this section is retarded unwise, could you restore it how it was? nableezy - 18:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)modified by Nableezy at 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
And "their social-studies analysis" is reliably sourced and you have not provided a source that contradicts it. That you do not like the conclusions is not sufficient reason to remove it. nableezy - 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe not the obfuscators! A government source is primary; there are probably secondary sources that back it up. And don't call people or their actions retarded, please (btw, Nableezy, I'll drop you an e-mail. I have some explaining to do... might hit you today or tomorrow) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Unless I'm missing something; sometimes government sources seem primary because the content is seen as an endorsement, when in fact it itself is references something secondary *gasps for air*

Fair enough (though it was just the action and not the person I called retarded). nableezy - 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're in the states... "the police acted stupidly" ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
But they did, though I am not all that sympathetic to he who was stupidly arrested [8] (though much like that line, no matter how true, this only will serve to change the topic that matters) nableezy - 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Just small light-hearted banter :-) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) my point being that whether it's an adjective describing a person, or an adverb describing their actions, it tends cause offense.
All good, was more concerned that my link would be what would change the topic, not your initial comment. And you are right on that, so I will try and bite my tongue (or my fingers) nableezy - 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
And if it is a primary source it should only be used to relay the opinion of whoever produced the source, right? Is there something wrong with 'it cannot be used to say "x happened" only to say "the Israeli government maintains that x happened"'? nableezy - 20:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Primary sources aren't great to begin with, but when sourced should be directly attributed; "says" is better wording than "maintains", even if this is about a back-and-forth between two sources, since I/P articles -- and other contentious areas -- should be as equal in tone as possible... and "maintains" might cause problems on its own. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I just used "maintains", dont think it really matters if "says", "states", "proclaims", "believes" or whatever is used. nableezy - 21:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with all that, but I can't add anything from that source unless someone can translate what it says. Anyone? Tiamuttalk 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A decent translation is available here. Google still didnt get everything and some words are still in Hebrew, others transliterated into English, but we should be able to find out what most of it is saying now. nableezy - 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that Nableezy. It is a still a little hard to understand, but I think I get the jist. I will add something from the report, attributed to its authors, soon. Tiamuttalk 09:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so the relevant paragraph is this one:

117. Broke into the events after the Israeli government announced the expropriation of about 20,000 acres for expansion of settlements in the Galilee - 80% of them Jewish communities. Lands were in part a state land and some private land - some of them -6.300 acres privately owned by Arabs (approximately -4.400 D were Jewish-owned). Committees were established in the Arab action to protest against the expropriations, and against the very principle of "Iyahud Galilee", a general strike was declared a day השלושים March. Already on bail the same day, broke into hundreds of conflicts between demonstrators and security forces Vsh Jenin, Deir Barava Hna - villages that were among the victims of expropriations. Arab public figures tried to limit the demonstrations, but have lost control over events. The demonstrators הבעירו tires, blocked roads stone throwing Molotov cocktails. Security forces, including even a single IDF ית, entered the curfew imposed by the villages. Those killed in clashes Arava resident and injured several of the animal by the security forces. The next day, the day the strike, the demonstrations spread to many Arabs in the Galilee Triangle. Serious clashes lasted all that day by security personnel Five other people were killed. Yes many were wounded on both sides.

But I can't really understand it that well to be honest. Could someone provide a better translation? I don't want to assume things that are not in there, and because we are going to attribute it to its authors, that's especially true. Sorry for the trouble, but I just want to get this right. Tiamuttalk 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ynhockey, since you are now actively editing this article, would you mind offering a better translation of the above paragraph and/or including relevant information in the body of the article? That would help to address another of Jaakobou's concerns. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 10:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here:

117. The events started after the Israeli government announced the expropriation of about 20,000 dunams in order to expand towns in the Galilee—80% of them Jewish towns. The lands were partly state lands, and partly private lands—about 6,300 dunams of them privately owned by Arabs (about 4,400 dunams were owned by Jews). Action committees were founded in the Arab towns in order to protest against the expropriations, and against the very idea of "Judaizing the Galilee", and a general strike was organized for March 30. Already during that day, clashes occurred between hundreds of protestors and the security forces in Sakhnin, Arraba and Deir Hana—villages that were some of those hurt by the expropriations. Arab public figures tried to limit the protests, but lost control over the events. The protestors burnt tires, blocked roads, and threw rocks and molotov cocktails. The security forces, among them one IDF unit, entered the villages and imposed a curfew. In these clashes a resident of Arraba was killed, and several were wounded. The next day, the protests spread to more Arab villages in the Galilee and the Triangle. Severe clashes developed during that day, and five more people were killed by the security forces. Many were also injured, on both sides.
These events had great impact in Israel and abroad, and were a milestone in the history of the Arab minority in Israel. This was the first time the Arab residents organized violently against a government decision, and the first such event to have casualties. For many in the Arab minority, this was a life-forming and constitutive experience. The events was related to the most painful issue for the Arab minority—the land—and were a symbol for steadfast resistance. From that day, "Land Day" was marked annually with demonstrations, that occurred in various degrees of disorderly conduct. As such, the demonstration model of 1976, i.e. demonstrations that descended into violence and clashes with police, turned into a source of admiration for future demonstrations for Arab-Israeli community.

Honestly, this short account gives a much better view of the event and its aftermath than anything written in this lengthy article. Wikipedia editors should learn a lesson or two from the Israeli government, and write shortly and concisely, without bloat.

To Tiamut: Your recent revert was unjustified. It basically said what I said, only with worse English and poorer sentence structure. Please also keep in mind that the lead is meant to summarize the article, not vice versa. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation Ynhockey. I will be including the information from this source in my next edit to the article, attributed to its authors, the government of Israel. Note that the information there contradicts other sources we have. First, it says five, not six people were killed. Second, it says the curfews were declared in response to rioting, whereas other sources indicate that the demonstrations were declared illegal before they even began. There are other things too, but I will include the information attributed to its source and let the reader decide for themselves.
About my recent "revert" ... Your changes included a sentence fragment that was grammatically incorrect and nonsenscial. They also removed a formulation on how to discuss the wounded and arrested that was forged out of a discussion between four editors above (which you did not participate in). Further, while you claim my lead is "bloated", its all of two paragraphs one of which is one sentence. This is remarkably brief for a lead which can comprise up to four paragraphs.
Thanks again for the translation and happy editing. Tiamuttalk 11:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually it is not a contradiction. The government source does not say anything about the legality of the demonstrations, and actually implies that they were declared illegal from the start (why were there security forces at hand? Obviously because demonstrations were expected). The curfew came later, as a response to the violence, but this has nothing to do with the legality of the demonstrations. Saying so would be WP:SYNTH.
Finally, I would be very interested to know which part of my lead was grammatically incorrect or "nonsencial". On the contrary, I thought it was much more well-written than the version you reverted to (one long incoherent sentence), but the problems seem to have been mostly resolved by now. I might add however that it would help if you examined the edits before blanket-reverting; for example, in this case you removed a small WP:HE fix which my previous edit also included. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about missing the Hebrew fix (in my defense, Ha'adama being changed to HaAdama is kind of hard to see, but you're right I should be more careful). About what was wrong grammatically with your version, I've bolded the problematic sentence :

Land Day' (Arabic: يوم الأرض, Yom al-Ard; Hebrew: יום האדמה, Yom HaAdama), is an annual Palestinian day of commemoration, held on March 30. On that date in 1976, an Israeli plan to expropriate 21 square kilometers of lands owned by Arabs. This became a catalyst for clashes between Arab citizens of Israel and government authorities, leading to the death of 6 protesters as well as the injuring over 100 and imprisonment of many others.

Does that sound grammatically correct to you? Tiamuttalk 23:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also this section that another user translated for me:

131. The Land Day – March 2000. The follow-up committee decided to concentrate (coordinate) the protest demonstrations on the 24th Land Day in 5 places, primarily in those that symbolize the struggle for the lands – Sakhnin, Mouaviya-Al-Rucha and unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev. The committee spokespersons stressed in the press-conference that the event's agenda will be "restoration of the confiscated lands and not merely preserving what's left of them". The day of the general strike and the processions on March 30th proceeded relatively calmly, excluding Sakhnin, where hundreds of youngsters who participated in the massive gathering that was held there moved on towards military base adjacent to the village houses in the west, uprooted the fences, penetrated into the base and waved there the Palestinian flag. Public figures (some of who were deprived from making a speech because of this unrest) attempted to retract the rioters, but were warded off in disgrace and with beatings. Border police forces that arrived to reinforce the base defenders were received with rain of stones and several veiled persons set the woods there on fire. Police forces started using tear gas and rubber rounds and following hard fighting succeeded in pushing the rioters away, but the collisions continued for prolonged time on the main road. Muhammad Zidan, the Head of the Superior Follow-up Council, was among the wounded in the clashes. The Follow-up committee claimed that 72-year old woman, resident of Sakhnin, who deceased in the hospital, was injured from inhaling the (tear)gas.

nableezy - 13:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nableezy. That's also very useful in providing a lot of detail we haven't yet seen in many of the articles on the event. I'll try to incorporate some soon. You feel free to also take a stab. The section on the events of the day is kind of quote heavy right now. I was thinking of trying to paraphrase and place the quotes pertaining to each paraphrase in footnotes. But that's a lot of work and I'm swamped, literally swamped right now. Anyway, I do appreciate your efforts. Tiamuttalk 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Also one note on the above translation, I think the term Arab-Israeli is actually either "Arab citizens of Israel", "the Arab minority" or "the Arab sector" based on note paragraph 2 of the document. Not sure though. nableezy - 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mention of tanks in lead removed

I've taken it out now, since Ynhockey made an edit removing it too. Since he had not participated in the discussion on this, I wasn't aware he too had a problem with it. So it's now out, given that its three editors for its inclusion and two against. I hope that resolves one of the issues raised by Jaakobou. Are we any closer to having this POV tag removed? Tiamuttalk 10:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag at the top of the article and left the one on the media section for now. I'd ask that it not be restored at the top of the page again. If Jaakobou still thinks that there are POV issues in the Legacy section because there is still no mention of "nationalistic" acts (or whatever it is he wants to include) in there, he can re-append it there. I'd ask though that the restoration be accompanied by a clear explanation of exactly which material he wants to include from the Jpost article he provided. I asked for this above but never got it. I'm more than willing to include material from it, I'd just like the request to be specific so that I don't play guessing games, waste my time and miss the mark. Tiamuttalk 12:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The tag is there to say that the article is, in general, very much slanted. I fail the reasoning of removing the tag in order to resolve the article issues. I'd ask (a fourth or possibly even a fifth time) that it not be removed right after you make a revert. Thanks. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You continue to disruptively tag this article despite my many many efforts to addres your concerns. I did revert all of your changes while restoring the tag [9] because:
  1. You ignored the discussion that reached consensus wording on how to describe the number of arrested and wounded.
  2. You inverted the order of events placing the call for a curfew after the annoucement of the general strike and marches when the sources indicate it was the other way around.
  3. You restored British Mandate Palestine even though the sources use Palestine, full-stop.
  4. You deleted this sentence without any explanation: "The government declared all demonstrations illegal and threatened to fire 'agitators', such as schoolteachers who encouraged their students to participate, from their jobs."
Please try to gain consensus for your changes before making them. And do try to respect the consensus formulations forged by discussions between multiple editors. Tiamuttalk 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. I would like you to again respond to my questions above regarding what specifically still needs to be done to achieve NPOV in your eyes. Specifically, please isolate the material you want to see included from Jpost. The mention of tanks was removed from the lead per your request. Besides that, the only outstanding issue remains the media section, which you have yet to provide a decent rationale for tagging. If you fail to respond, I will remove the tag and if you continue to re-tag this article without responding to these concerns, I will report you to WP:AE for WP:DE. Tiamuttalk 14:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you cannot provide a source that disputes what the studies cited in the media coverage says I will be removing that NPOV tag again. You not liking what RSs said does not give you cause to tag the section. That section is well-sourced to academic works. There is no cause for the tag. nableezy - 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Nableezy,
If you have no intention on working in a collaborative spirit, then why are you here on this website? To battle it out with pro-Israelis and be abusive? Honestly, a source, regardless of its social-study credentials, is not a scientific fact if it is written by a known extremist activist. Social study scholars have a history of making judgment calls and this one has taken a further step towards propagandist. I have no problem with his (Bar-Tal) study being listed, but it cannot be addressed as if this is a neutral and encyclopedic presentation of what Israeli media is all about - which according to the source, its blind propaganda. At the very least, the section should be retitled to "criticism of Israeli media".
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Jaakobou,
Stop using your personal opinions on the worthiness of academic studies to continue to hold up removing the NPOV tag. Also do not make further insinuations as to my motives. If I were to say "why are you here? So you can continue to propagandize and distort every article you come across?" you might be upset with that. So I dont ask you that question or make the insinuation. I ask you do the same.
Warm regards, nableezy - 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep attributing the information in the two separate studies authored by four different professors and cited in the book by Bar-Tal and Teichman solely to Bar-Tal? You ar misrepresenting the sources when you do that. Please stop it. It is impossible to collaborate in good faith when you ignore the reality of who authored the studies to serve your own end of having this information removed or incorrectly qualified. Tiamuttalk 11:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll give this issue a second look a little later and see how big is the improvement. From what I've seen, though, at the very least, the section should be retitled to "criticism of Israeli media". JaakobouChalk Talk 11:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I would be willing to go with "Studies of Israeli media coverage." More neutral. Tiamuttalk 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Al-Ahram (latest addition #4 in the short list)

Jaakobou latest complaint is that Al-Ahram is overused in the article. As a result, I've found replacement refs for much of the material previously cited to Al-Ahram. I want to make clear that I do not share his opinion regarding Al-Ahram not qualifying as a RS. It most certinaly is an RS. But given his insistence on maintaining the NPOV tag until all of his concerns are catered to, I've gone ahead and made this move. Now, Al-Ahram is used to support two statements in the article. One is the opinion of Nawef Hawatmeh (the author of the article in Al-Ahram) on what the goal of the confiscations was and it is attributed directly to him. Two, it is used to support the statement that this is a national day of commemoration for Palestinian everywhere, something Hawatmeh, as a Palestinian, is more than qualified to comment on. I expect that Jaakobou will concede that this concern of his has been addressed and strike it from his list. Tiamuttalk 15:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll find time to review what uses the activist who was published on Al-Ahram (reliable source???) at a later time, and if the issue is fixed, I assure you I will remove the issue from the list.
Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what the NPOV dispute is about, but just one point about Al-Ahram. It is a reliable source, one of the most respected newspapers in the area. The NPOV tag shouldn't be used as leverage to remove reliable sources that one party doesn't like. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Heya SlimVirgin,
I believe you've been misnotified of the issue in this discussion as the Al-Ahram dispute is about the "secretary-general of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestinian" being noted as an actual historical account rather than as a Palestinian perspective. On the flip-side of things, Israeli sources were deemed unreliable in that very discussion. Surely you can understand how such a double-standard would cause an alarm.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Surely you understand by this point you are purposefully misrepresenting the position of other editors. One Israeli source was disputed. Arutz Sheva was disputed, but because of your persistence Tiamut put that in as a source. Can you stop making these misrepresentations over and over? Tiamut has put in a number of Israeli sources. You provided another one in Hebrew and refused to provide translations of the relevant section, so I went and asked others to translate the needed portions so we could use it in the article. And you have been consistently arguing that al-Ahram is not a reliable source. It is. It is a major news media source in Egypt and widely read across the world. You have yet to say you dispute the reliability because of who wrote it, instead saying things like al-Ahram has antisemitic crossword puzzle answers. nableezy - 16:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jaakobou, you never mentioned Hawatmeh until now. Your focus was that Al-Ahram is not reliable because it is anti-Semitic among other things. Now you are saying that Hawatmeh is the problem? Please stop shifting the goalpost. Hawatmeh is used for two things: one, to express his opinion (attributed to him) as to what the goal of the expropriations was. Per NPOV, we should represent all significant viewpoints and a Palestinian political leaders viewpoints on the issue are indeed relevant. Two, he is used as a source for the statement regarding the importance of land day commemorations to all Palestinians. Again, as a Palestinian political leader, he is a valid source for that information. There is no problem here. Please concede that your initial concerns on this issue have been addressed and the new ones you have raised are rather unfair. Tiamuttalk 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The point about the NPOV tag is that it mustn't be used as a bargaining chip to force material out of the article. It should be used only when all else fails, and the reader needs to be alerted about serious problems that no one is managing to fix. That's not the case here. All of these minor points can be dealt with through discussion and compromise. There's no need for the article to be defaced.
Regarding Al-Ahram, there's no question that it's a reliable source. As for Hawatmeh in particular, his views constitute a valid perspective, and you can use in-text attribution for anything contentious. And by the way, Jaakobou, no one notified or misnotified me. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Belated reply, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would use Al-Ahram as the sole/main source for learning about Israeli history. Egyptian press is not only government controlled and ranks extremely low on press freedom charts, but it is also antisemitic for the most part. I suggest the documentary "Blaming the Jews" if you want a sample on how low they can get and the validation that high officials give to my statement here. Regardless, opinions written in it can be used as a "XXX perspective is that..."
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Land_Day/Archive_3&oldid=1255284605"