User talk:Huldra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Please leave any new messages on the bottom of this page. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
  • If you start a new section here, I will reply here.

Haftom Zarhum[edit]

I never knew about the lynching of Zarhum until the AfD. After reviewing sources, I see this is treated as a separate event, highlighting the issue of racism. I will create an article on the incident in due time. Thanks for bringing it up at the discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:TheGracefulSlick: well, as I said: There were some extremely ugly pictures surfacing (I think it was the Electronic Intifada that made a detailed analysis as to how many people beat him as he was lying on the floor, unmoving, bleeding to death.) I don't think we should have 2 articles about the event, but Beersheva bus station shooting should definitely be moved to Lynching of Haftom Zarhum (or something similar) (and then expanded). It is the deliberate lynching of an innocent man which is notable about the event, IMO, Huldra (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In an encyclopedia where decisions were based on policies, not POV, that would be the move with the most popularity. The discussion, however, is not making me optimistic since Zarhum’s beating is being described as a “trivial” part of the shooting. We may just have to make due with another article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are possibly correct. At least 9 passersby abused Zarhum (according to Haaretz) while he was dying, only 4 got (ridiculously lenient) "sentences". It is like the Deep South of the US, a hundred years ago, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Terribly disturbing to watch; I even read the actual perpetrator resumed shooting at one point, and they still continued to beat him. Anyways, I will let you know when it is complete in case you want to add anything to it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to self[edit]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ Gott nytt år!

User:K.e.coffman thanks, and same to you! Huldra (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution[edit]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Hunin you included material moved from Margaliot. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you moved the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I noted it in the Margaliot article that I would move it to Hunin (link), then inadvertedly did not mention where it had been moved from in the Hunin article (link), Huldra (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ARBPIA violation[edit]

Please revert your latest edit to Lifta, which is a violation of WP:ARBPIA3. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to your argument: the article is clear enough that the population was evacuated. Of course the decision to evacuate was because of the military situation. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Debresser AFAIK, there is no violation on my part. My latest edits to Lifta was more than 24 hours apart,
Also, discussion about Lifta should go on the talk page of that article, (for the benefit of other interested) Huldra (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might have informed me simply that WP:ARBPIA3 has been annulled here. Debresser (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, don't expect me to do your homework for you, (and I don't keep a list of where to link to) Huldra (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year, Huldra![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! A Happy New Year to you, too! Huldra (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN discussion[edit]

Hi. I’m interested in your comment here. Could you explain which of the edits offered as evidence are not problematic, and why? In the alternative, would you be willing to mentor this user and help them avoid further trouble. You seem to be a competent editor with long experience. I appreciate your efforts to improve articles in a hotly contested area. Jehochman Talk 03:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Jehochman, I do not know the truth about the White Helmets; perhaps they are heroes, perhaps they are villains, perhaps they are a mix of both. But I do believe that “truth” is the first casualty of virtually any war, especially in the Middle East. Therefor we should proceed with great caution, and never bombastically conclude that one side is right...before we have all the evidence.
I remember vividly listening to Nayirah testimony back in 1990 (yeah, I’m that old!!) ......not believing a single word of it, even when President Bush repeated it (ordinary nurses in the Middle East simply did not speak English that fluently back then, as anyone with any knowledge of the area knew: there had to be more to the story than what was published. Which indeed it was.)
And the Nayirah story was peanuts compared to the lies we were told during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If you only read/listen to US news, then you will miss much. I recall after Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, some local papers in Europe said straight out that what he was saying wasn't true, while every single US paper (which I saw) were gushing over about how convincing he had been. And remember the Niger uranium forgeries? Where they used the name of a Niger minister ...who hadn't been in office for 10 years? Lol, still president Bush used it...
These last 30 years have showed us that our Western Government lie, lie, and lie again about the Middle East (link) (and before you accuse me of being Kremlin stooge, or "married to an Arab", or a "Palestinian Muslim", as other editors here have......I'm born and raised, and still live in a NATO country, coming from pure WASP background. It was because I was totally misinformed about the Middle East when I grew up (virtually nothing of what I was taught turned out to be true) ...that I now add to the history of the Middle East.)
To return to the White Helmets: we have virtually no independent coverage of areas where they operated. To quote Peter Hitchens:
"The FO is in a mess over this. It has for years been backing the Islamist rebels against the Syrian government, a policy which involves supporting exactly the sort of people we would arrest if we found them in Birmingham.
Perhaps that is why it claims the ‘White Helmets’ are ‘volunteers’ (they are often paid) and that they have ‘saved over 115,000 lives during the Syrian conflict’ and done ‘brave and selfless work’ to ‘save Syrians on all sides of the conflict.’
When I asked them to provide independent, checkable evidence for these assertions, they came up empty after three days of searching.
This is not surprising, as the ‘White Helmets’ generally operate only in areas controlled by unlovely bodies such as the Al-Nusra Front, until recently an affiliate of Al Qaeda, and the equally charming Jaish al-Islam (Army of Islam), famous for putting captured Syrian Army soldiers in cages and using them as human shields.
Independent Western observers, whether they are diplomats or journalists, can’t really go to these zones, because they are quite likely to end up very dead and probably headless." (in Are we saving Syrian 'heroes'... or just importing more fanatics?, 29 July 2018),
So frankly, I don't find Kiwicherryblossom inserting "alleged" into, say Douma chemical attack inappropriate...when the OPCW has not yet finally concluded that there ever was a chemical attack (all the other sources used are of the same quality that "proved" to the world that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2003...).
Frankly, I think the Syrian War articles are the worst shit-hole on Wikipedia (to use Trumph's language). Articles like Eva Bartlett, White Helmets, all the "chemical attacks" articles (where there is no independent confirmation that it ever even was a chemical attacks) are all totally one sided....anyone who has tried to better the situation over the last year or two have gotten topic banned. There is a varied group of people (I recognise some from the old Eastern European Mailing List love lost for the Russians there) who have had iron control over these articles for years. IOW: I think the wrong person got topic banned (yet again). I try not to get involved (Would you like to dive into a shit-hole? Nah, me neither), Huldra (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My earliest political memories are Watergate and Vietnam. I’ve been around long enough to witness all kinds of official lying. They say news is the rough draft of history. We’re always going to have difficulty covering contentious current events. One strategy is to push for good or featured article status. That can bring in some neutral, quality conscious editors. Jehochman Talk 00:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, my first demo (when I was about 18, or 19) was against the Vietnam war ("USA out of Vietnam!"); I first got interested in the Middle East politics in the 1980s.
The problem with the Syrian articles, as I said, are an assorted group who "owns" them. They have been very, very good at getting topic banned any editor who doesn't agree with them. I tried to get Robert Fisk into an article (see Talk:Douma_chemical_attack/Archive_4)...but since editors who close RfC do look at numbers, Fisk was excluded(!). (My RL friends lost the last bit of respect for WP over that one, when I told them.) Pushing for good or featured article status under such circumstances is totally futile, IMO. (If you want to "survive" in hotly contested areas on wp, you need to know which "edit wars" to walk away from.)
I don't know why it is like this, if it is plain stupidity ("Our government is right!"), or other more nefarious reasons. (But we do know that, say, the British have spend a lot of money on so-called info wars)
Kiwicherryblossom (KCB) is a case in point, they makes a robust defence for using "alleged" here...if anything, those who reverted KCB should have been topic banned. Until that happens, these article will remain the "shit-hole of Wikipedia", Huldra (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Numerous articles in RS talk about the douma chemical attack [1]. The introduction says there is an interim report, and one waits. There are other reports, such as the look at the 'incident' in the New York Times, so it isn't like nothing can be written until the OPCW speak again. The introduction is not , censored, misleads not at all. You see a shit hole but perhaps thats in the eye of the beholder. Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Numerous articles in RS" typically come from the very same sources who produced "Numerous articles in RS" "proving" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, tried to buy uranium from Niger, etc, etc.
Been there, seen that. Huldra (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you've been there , seen that, you must be wary of propaganda, in the widest sense then. Great. WMD , yes, and Katyn Massacre, yes , that too. Propagandists everywhere. Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know a thing about the Katyn Massacre (never said I did), (or much about Eastern Europe, in general). (But yeah, I have been to Syria,) Huldra (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OPCW have been to Syria too. They found sarin with regime signature. To just scream 'But IRAQ Iraq WMD WMd' every time the Assad-Putin regime are caught using CW seems pretty hopeless. You are really on a fringe that wants to implicate the OPCW, and the vast mass of evidence against the Assad regime as all part of a huge conspiracy or something. Its hopeless arguing with true believers though. You support your side whatever. I get itDan the Plumber (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh???? It is precisely because I am not a "true believer" about just about anything, that I would want articles to keeps possibilities open. You don't. I get it.
There is also evidence supporting Assads claims, but all such evidence (say, Robert Fisk) has conveniently been found not WP:RS.
And OPCW never found sarin, at least not at the Douma chemical attack. They found various chlorinate chemicals, (which they would also have found beneath my kitchen sink). Huldra (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The regime however has been found to have used sarin. Which you wouldn't find beneath your kitchen sink. So what you find at your house , and what the Assad regime uses against civilians, are not the same thing whatever your sarcastic rhetoric is meant to convey. I know they found sarin was not used at Douma. The article says that. If Fisk has hard evidence that supports Assad regime narrative at Douma , well you should certainly fight for the inclusion of that information at the article. I really doubt Fisk had any such thing, but fight for that in the article. If he has hard evidence that supports Assad regime denials of their doing anything nefarious at Douma that should be in the article. After the regime is in control of Douma Fisk says 'my earnest questions about gas were met with what seemed genuine perplexity.' Huh????( I think he is a fucking cretin. He doesn't think maybe they are afraid to talk? If his story about the doctor saying they all died of hypoxia isn't anywhere in the article thats maybe an omission. His story is part of the story of the way the attack was reported at least. I think his reflex is always to absolve the regime , I believe he knee jerk decided they didn't use sarin at Ghouta etc? He's obviously got his admirers, including your anonymous journalistic mate one gathers. Well, there we are. (Says he talked to a doctor with a story about how they died who by 'his own admission wasn't an eyewitness'. Seems legit. Fight for this essential information to be included. (You'd mock an article that presented this level of 'evidence' if it were presented by a journalist to push a story that implicate the regime. Be fair, you'd take a story like to the fucking cleaners if the wrong side presented such a story. Instead you call it massively important. Huh??? I'll leave your talk page alone now. We just very different sorts of editors and humans. ) Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please link to where it has been proven that the Syrian regime has used Sarin. (That might be true, I frankly do not know). However, what remains is that OPCW did not find any traces of Sarin at the Douma chemical attack site. What also remains is that US officials used the use of "chemical attack" as an excuse for the 2018 missile strikes against Syria....even though (so far) no proof of any such chemical attack exist.
  • As for censorship: an unemployed ex–finance guy named Eliot Higgins is found to be a WP:RS everywhere on wp...while Robert Fisk is not. LOL! And I did fight to include Fisk's visit to Douma (See Talk:Douma_chemical_attack/Archive_4) ..and lost. Fisk talked to about 20 people (including 1 doctor), without "minders', while Seth Doane spoke to far fewer (AFAIK), still Seth Doane (and Eliot Higgins) are considered RS for the Douma chemical attack article, while Fisk is not. This is censorship, pure and simple, and one reason why this article (and virtually all the rest of the Syrian war articles) really, truly are the "shit-hole of Wikipedia." Huldra (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i don't know but , if you're right about this, how it regards Higgins work as against Fisk, it makes me feel like maybe wikipedia isn't so bad. Dan the Plumber (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh, "You can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink", Huldra (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OPCW on evidence found at Khan Sheikhoun, you know material evidence, (not some vile hack talking to 20 people in a regime controlled area where saying the wrong thing can lead to torture and death [2] etc like Fisk does)

OPCW FFM : “The samples from Khan Shaykhun contain the three types of marker chemicals described above: PF6 [HFP], isopropyl phosphates and isopropyl phosphorofluoridates. Their presence is a strong indicator that the sarin disseminated in Khan Shaykhun was produced from DF from the Syrian Arab Republic stockpile.” Sigh , you're a true believer and you'll just keep denigrating people like Higgins, who look at evidence, and whose work has proven itself over time to be consistent with OPCW findings, and you'll venerate Fisk who conducts interviews with citizens in regime hands having been escorted into the area by his masters. Same at Ghouta, OPCW found the sarin came from the Syrian regime stockpile. You are a conspiracist. The shithole is in your eyes. Dan the Plumber (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't editing the Khan Shaykhun article, but LOL: do you honestly think people had freedom under Jaysh al-Islam???? (They were the ones who were in control over Douma, at the time of the Douma chemical attack). If I had lived in one of their controlled areas, I would probably have ended up one head shorter. Literally. (Being female, and a feminist.)

As to your assertion that Fisk only talked to people under government control.....well, so did Seth Doane, so why is one considered RS, while the other not? It is this double standard which makes the article a shit−hole. (And I would be grateful if you stopped personalising the discussion all the time), Huldra (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i thought the point at issue was whether the OPCW had implicated the regime in chemical weapons attacks , and then you write 'do you think people had freedom under Jaysh al islam'. What the fuck has that to do with whether the regime carried out sarin attacks and the OPCW found evidence, you know hard , chemistry, physics, type evidence, that the regime carried out the attacks. Typical 'divert, dismay, distract' response. Pointless discussing anything with true believers. If you're a feminist the fate of the woman here should concern you.[3] 'Rehab Allawi... The girl from the city Mouhassan in the Deir ez-Zor countryside, was arrested on January 16, 2013. She was a civil activist working in relief, and was a third year civil engineering student at the University of Damascus. "They charged her a fabricated charge of kidnapping an officer, in addition to the financing of terrorist groups. She was transferred to a court martial. On her last day in the cell, Rehab dreamt of wearing a white bridal dress; which increased her hope of obtaining freedom. However, she was called at midnight; which is strange for a woman to be called for interrogation at such a time inside [Security] Branch 215."

Rehab Mohammed Alawi... Killed by the Syrian regime under torture in its prisons.'

It isn't only Jaish al islam who murder women and children. You know the regime and Russia and Iran have killed far , far, far more civilians than Nusra , IS, etc. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if killing women is your measure, Assadists win by a fucking country mile. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two things:
  • first, the OPCW has found no evidence of a chemical attack at Douma..and wp uses a double standard evaluating sources, accepting those sources which support the "official" Western perspective (like Seth Doane), while dismissing those who dont (like Robert Fisk), even when the information was collected under the same circumstances.
  • secondly, I have no illusions about the Assad regime (read, say, Aref Dalila), but there is a HUGE difference between the Assad regime and Jaysh al-Islam: the Assad regime would target you for what you have done (or what they think you have done), Jaysh al-Islam would target you for who you are.

...And I have lived under Assad! Lol, just for a month, and as a tourist some 15−20 years ago, but I felt perfectly safe...visiting Palmyra, Krak des Chevaliers, Apamea, etc, etc. ....But I would not survive a single day under Jaysh al-Islam (A secular, non−Muslim female, who refuse to cover her hair? No way.) ...I have followed various blogs, and twitter users for this last 15−20 years in the Middle East, and what amazes me is the strong support Assad (and Hizbollah!) have gotten these last 5−10 years from the Christians in the area. Read what Nassim Nicholas Taleb (a Christian from Lebanon) writes here: "The Syrian War Condensed: A more Rigorous Way to Look at the Conflict" Or read this: Meeting Middle East Christians is where Western stereotypes go to die...where local Christians claim that 100percent of the Syrian Christians would vote for Assad, if there were free and fair elections in Syria.

That Christian in the Middle East support Assad is one thing which simply isn't reported in the West at all. ('Support' is perhaps a bit strong, but like Taleb: they much prefer Assad to the alternative). Doesn't that make you think? Huldra (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is all travelling a long way out from the fact that you refuse to accept evidence that Assad regime used sarin against civilians as they slept at Ghouta, and have been found to have used it at Khan Sheikhoun and CW multiple times. Douma , there is an interim report, and anyone reading the wp article will not be made to think there was a sarin attack there. It just fucking does not say that. meanwhile multiple RS talk of a chemical attack. You might think your cuddly secular ever so tolerant to bourgeois tourist would never use CW, but RS and much evidence, says otherwise. Taleb is a notorious propagandist for Assad and from what Ive seen of him on twitter an out and out crank. Whether Christians ( and their putative founder was into loving ones enemy, turning the other cheek etc , so you know, how 'Christian ' are the Christians), feel happy to turn blind eyes about CW is for them to decide. You are demonising a whole section of Syrian citizenry as 'head choppers' and exonerating amass murderer , whose regimes rule has been enforced by the ever so tolerant Iranian IRGC, ( you think as a woman you'd have an easy time in Iran), and the Putin regime. Millions are in exile. Millions. They are all head choppers and have had the wrong thoughts? At this moment 'Syria’s football team is currently playing Australia’s in the #AsianCup2019. Missing from the pitch are 15 footballers the Assad regime has murdered for defying it and seven players it is holding in detention.' You and I will have to agree to differ. If you and your 'ideas' and your pov take control of all Syria related articles then indeed, imho, it would be a shithole of all shitholes. Dan the Plumber (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact remains that the US bombed Syria, after claiming that Douma chemical attack was a chemical attack, something for which they had exactly 0 proof.
As for Nassim Nicholas Taleb not being representative: I am not so sure. I have followed Middle East sources (blogs, twitter) for 15−20 years now, and what absolutely amazes me, is the increase in support these last 5−10 years for Assad and Hizbollah among Christians. (Take a look at youtube for some of the live performances of Julia Boutros: some have English subtitles for her praise of Hizbollah). Especially after they retook Maaloula (FYI: Maaloula has a very special place in Christianity in the Middle East, with monasteries dating back 1500 years. They were NOT well treated, when they were under rebel command.) But the Christian support for Assad/Hizbollah is something which simply isn't reported in the West. (Did you read this article, at all?)
Personally, I don't think we are dealing with one white, and one black side in this war. More like various degrees of blackness. But I refuse to support a side which would gladly cut of my head. And I suspect yours, too. I suspect that if we two would live under, say Jaysh al-Islam, we would end up as Raed Fares, Samira Khalil, Razan Zaitouneh, and many, many others: all dead or missing (presumes dead), from Western backed rebel territory, Huldra (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there overwhelming evidence that the Assad regime has repeatedly used CW? Is there overwhelming evidence OPCW verified, that the regime sarin gassed children as they slept. Yes, or no? Zaitouneh and Fares, who represent[ed] every kind of intellectual honesty and courage were enemies of the kind of moral and intellectual abdication that Assadism and its supporters represent I would think. Dan the Plumber (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To your first question: frankly, I have no idea, I have not studied all the attacks, I have only looked into the Douma chemical attack. As for Fares and Zaitouneh representing the opposition to Assad: most definitely. That was why they were in "rebel" territory. Alas, they were still killed.
Btw, you are, so, so wrong when you think only "out and out cranks" among the Christians in the area support Hizbollah/Assad. Here is Julia Boutros in 2016, singing 'Ahibaii' to an extatic audience in Dbayeh (in the Christian heartland of Lebanon) ('Ahibaii' is the letter Hassan Nasrallah sent his Hizbollah fighters in 2006; put into music by Boutros. Still popular. Here is a 2013 performance, with English subtitles (Starts at 3:40)) Not many hijabs among the audience, still they all seem to know the text by heart. Perhaps, because they have learned that the alternative is ending up like Fares and Zaitouneh. (Btw, AFAIK, there were no Christian services while Maaloula was under rebel command, And this: girls and boys dancing dabke together at the feast of Saint Thecla, autumn 2018; would most surely have cost you your life when Maaloula was under rebel command.) Huldra (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community settlements[edit]

Please stop removing Category:Community settlements (Israel) from Israeli settlement articles. It is not an "in Israel" category, it simply has "Israel" in the title as it matches Community settlement (Israel), a specific type of village like a kibbutz or a moshav. The category was moved from its original title of Category:Community settlements in Israel as a result of this discussion specifically to avoid the "in Israel" claim. The category text also explicitly says that it contains villages in both Israel and the West Bank. Thanks, Number 57 10:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but that title is misleading, as is Community settlement (Israel). It should be moved, either to Community settlement, or to Community settlement (Israel and the occupied territories). What do you suggest? Huldra (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely disagree that it's misleading; a community settlement is an Israeli concept and that's what the "(Israel)" represents. Adding "and the occupied territories" would just be a point-scoring exercise.
Nevertheless, I have always favoured the article being at "Community settlement" as it's the primary topic and the redirect goes to the Israel article. Start an WP:RM with that suggestion and I will support it. If the RM closes in favour, the category can be moved as well via the speedy process. Number 57 20:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously it is misleading, as I was mislead! However, I agree with you about the name, not because your argument, but because Community settlement is a heck of lot easier name to remember than Community settlement (Israel and the occupied territories). I will start a WP:RM, Huldra (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tel Yokneam (i.e. Tel Qamun)[edit]

I've been working more on the Tel Yokneam article (which was created out of the Qamun article, that other part of Qira and Qamun). Since my understanding of this place changed several times after finding new and better sources, I may have removed a few sources from the 19th century. Could you run a small check in your sources to see if there are more sources about this site? Currently there are two sources, one by Robinson and one by Van de Velde. On another note, let me know if you are working on something interesting you might need some Hebrew sources for.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh, this is when I really miss Tiamut: she is much, much better than me on this "seriously old stuff". I'll add the bits and pieces I can find, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bolter21: There is also Guerin, Samarie II, 241–244 (pardon my French). And Le Strange, p473 (Kaimun). That article is looking very nice, a definite FA prospect. Zerotalk 03:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you link?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User talk:Bolter21 There are some sources at jstor [4] and google scholar[5] did you check them all? --Shrike (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have something about Tel Qashish? Probably Tell Qasis in your sources.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Bolter21: Not much. It looks as if it is "Tell el Kussis" on SWP map 5, that is SWP I, p. 352, Palmer, 1881, p. 117: "the mound of the (Christian) priest", Huldra (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also:
  • Zuckerman, S. 1996. The Pottery of Tel Kasis and Jezreel Valley in the Early Bronze Age. (M.A. Thesis, Hebrew University). Jerusalem. (Hebrew with English Summary).
  • Wilson, Charles Williams, ed. (c. 1881). Picturesque Palestine, Sinai and Egypt. Vol. 3. New York: D. Appleton. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help) (pp. 93 107)
HHmm, that's unfortunate. Thanks anyways.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To editor Bolter21: I have the final excavation report: Amnon Ben-Tor, Ruhama Bonfil, Sharon Zuckerman. Qedem Reports, Vol. 5, TEL QASHISH: A VILLAGE IN THE JEZREEL VALLEY—Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1978–1987) (2003), pp. I-XLIV, 1-451. It will overlap with what you have but if you want it and can't easily get it, send me mail. Zero[[User_talk
Zero0000|talk]] 01:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I also have it through JSTOR. Thanks anyways.Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bassel al-Araj[edit]

Please note that on Talk:Bassel al-Araj there is a template warning editors to apply a maximum of one revert per 24 hour period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiallesaktion (talkcontribs) 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, User:Antiallesaktion, but 1RR doesn't count when we revert those who shouldn't have edited the article at all. Such as yourself, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mamluk Jerusalem[edit]

الرباط المنصوري

المدرسة الدوادارية



تركان خاتون




دار الست طنشق



المدرسة الأشرفية

User:Makeandtoss shukran! Huldra (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re the effing[edit]

Sorry, Huldra, but I will make no such undertaking, on principle. Because to do so would be to subscribe to a mistaken interpretation of the terms contested. There are deeper reasons. The 'eff' word was first used in my upbringing by my mother, and it had absolutely nothing to do with sexual intercourse or defamation of her sex. To the contrary she was extremely careful to use proper language, and on the occasion she first used it, it fitted the circumstances to a tee:'Oh fuck!' when missing the slops bucket with some greasy dinner residue. Realizing we were present and had laughed out loud in surprise, she turned and threw us a broad beaming smile. A religious person once asked me not to use the remonstrative 'For Chrissake!', esp. since one could relieve one's exasperation with a term lacking any blasphemous connotation, i.e. 'for eff's sake'. Any suggestion that one legislate on language use, or internalize monitors to act as semantic sentinels for any infraction of 'politically correct' or 'proper usage' gets my hackles to rise. For 'eff's sake' has no more sexual innuendo than does 'Uh, cazzo!' (Oh, cock(up)! damn it) occasionally used by my otherwise linguistically purist wife, or putain (prostitute) you'll hear any French person of either sex utter when we might say 'oh,crap'. You'll hear women say 'je m'en fous' (I don't give a fuck) without any awareness that sexual sensitivities are at stake.

I know the netscape's chockablock with foul-mouthed morons with a limited vocabulary, mostly expletive. I also know Wikipedia's prim code, though intended to combat personal invective, actually functions as a tripwire to get rid of editors, on the flimsiest grounds, whom one dislikes. In childhood, if an oversensitive kid weeps or whinges at being hurt by some attitude, pedagogically a teacher's best practice is to feign taking his or her complaint seriously, and then slowly talk them through it, so the child can slowly be reasoned out of what might otherwise strike a teacher as a wimpish tendency leading to a sense of victimhood if flatteringly endorsed. The funny thing about Wikipedia is that it is an adult world which imitates this praxis: one must show sympathy for the apparently aggrieved person's outrage at being the ostensible object of an attack, rather than reason, as adults should, by saying, if the grievance appears to be pretextual, that the claim is ungrounded, and ungrounded claims about other people are frowned on, that Wikipedia is not a place for gaming the odds by continually pettifogging whining in the hope someone you dislike will be 'disappeared'. Everyone knows this, but one can't call a spade a spade. Fine, that's how bureaucracies work. Sometimes, a stern 'pull your finger out' or 'stop wasting time on trivial pursuits', however, would save us massive quires/choirs of endless nagging disputatiousness at forums, esp. when the overarching evidence is that the disputants don't spend much time actually reading encyclopedic matter, editing it in, and building articles. They tweak, revert, and waste swathes of time using talk pages as a social forum to get people onside POV-wise or kill time because they don't have a serious life off-line.

Lastly, for a short period, I tried to imitate the favoured neutered style which is one of the primrose paths to a distinguished wiki life, with disastrous effects on my natural turn of mind. To save my feel for language, I had to chuck the mimicry ('fuck it' in short). I've used that expression perhaps a half a dozen times over 13 years, at times as a personal safety valve to express exasperation, not to 'bully', and will continue, I expect, if I stay in here, to allow myself the liberty to use it. If that is not acceptable, well, 'stiff shit', sorry 'stiff cheddar', or as a Swiss lad once whispered to me, when I asked him to teach me some solid German expletives, Das ist Käse! the strongest term in his vocabulary for expressing the idea of being 'pissed off'. I felt sorry for him. Now, back to Aristophanes. His delightfully inventive foulmouthedness targeted Socrates, who wasn't offended. Plato paints a wonderful picture of their friendship in the Symposium. I need literature to remind me of how grown-ups were once before the gamesmanship of grievance trumpeting took over the world. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani: I am not particularly offended by foul language and there are certain contexts where I will use it; nonetheless, situations where I will use it on Wikipedia are extremely rare [1] because we are supposed to work collegialy and I really struggle to think of a situation where swearing at someone will help to make the atmosphere more collegial and not less. If you are getting to the point where you need to express your frustration in that way, then either that person is editing tendentiously or you have too low a trigger for frustration with people you disagree with. In the latter case, you have some maturing to do. In the former, it will be much easier for you to get admin action against tendentious editing if you're not seen to be inflaming the situation with your language.
[1] I realise that one of these was only a few days ago, though I was quoting another editor. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps the worst example of the mechanism/bureaucracy that our old friend expounds above is the fake and contrived attempt to paint Corbyn as anti-Semitic. I know from personal experience how peace activists operate, so I can be 100% certain that there isn't an anti-Semitic bone in Corbyn's body; that knowledge is strengthened by Corbyn's exemplary record over decades of activism against racism, including anti-Semitism. He's about as far as you can possibly get from real, horrifying anti-Semitism. which is a hatred of Jews merely because they are Jews, a hatred so intense that it can lead, in the extreme case, to genocide. --NSH001 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't let this comment stand without responding. It's apparent you have a bias. Your page makes it clear that you think Fisk and Finkelstein are worthy of opinions to share, but this is going too far. When 85% of British Jews and when the British Chief Rabbi makes a speech in the House of Lords, perhaps it's time to stop ignoring the situation. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and not even a week later and this is leaked: [6] Sir Joseph (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GoldenRing. I would question whether the exclamative 'for fuck's sake' is 'foul language.' I'm known, even by those who militate to get me off Wikipedia, to be extremely particular about fine language distinctions. I never swore at the editor in question. Please note:-
  • (a) Come on, for fuck's sake. Logic please. By no stretch can that be taken as swearing at a person. The exclamative or remonstrative idiom is reflexive, expressing the state of mind or frustration by the person who uses it.'Google books clearly shows that. Expressing frustration is not forbidden by the rules, attacking people is. I'm not telling Debresser to get 'fucked' or 'fuck off'. I am telling him the lack of logic in his edit is frustrating and to try and edit logically.
What Debresser was pleading for is a ban on my use of fuck in any form. Admins can't be expected to have a memory for all the detailed history of interactions and edits. But those who work in this area do. He asked that I be 'outcasted' from Wikipedia for this usage.
What's his own practice? To say 'fuck' when it suits him as with his recent dispute with Huldra, and, after it was pointed out that what he finds unacceptable in myself is something he himself arrogates as a right he replies that in his unique case he was being humorous.
I.e. in this peculiar logic, I should be permabanned for using a word the plaintiff allows himself to use remonstratively with another editor. The Talmud covers everything, even this. At Kiddushin 70, we have the phrase: kol haposel bemumo hu posel), usually translated as a case of the pot calling the kettle black, (alternatively see Reuven Agushevits, Principles of Philosophy,' KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 2008 p.52
As to your point about collegiality, I’d be the first to underwrite it as both principle and practice. In this area a large number of editors hold it in contempt but watch their p’s and q’s. They challenge far too many edits by seeing who did them, revert without carefully sieving the source to check it has been correctly reported, use false edit summaries that fail all verification for what is done, and spend undue time trying to get AE opportunities to ban people whose editing they dislike, taking as disruptive any picayune expression of protest. That Debresser's edits were not only tendentious, but were done while he failed to even take a cursory glance at the source I introduced and used to document my text, can be proven objectively. But sloppy, insouciant editing is not a problem administratively. You can't be punished for that. But if someone is frustrated by it, perhaps he needs a permaban. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, if you can't get your point across without a wall of text, or using the "f" word, then you need to re-read Strunk and White. And the issue with you, is that you use the word far too often, I don't think I've seen Debresser use it more than once or twice. That's the point. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read 100-200 pages a day, and the strength of my content additions comes from that, and close source control for everything I add to this encyclopedia. I.e. if someone copies and pastes from one wikipage to another pseudo-information like this, to cite one example, I spend a half an hour at least to verify whether my suspicion it is questionable is correct or not, and if found to be misleading, I alert editors like you and Debresser, who don't want me to edit there, that it needs fixing. Rather than follow people around to make pointy comments, why not consider fixing the problem? I'll give you a clue: the majority of historic Yemeni Jews were not obliged to dress in blue or dark garb and generally dressed as their Arab neighbours did. If you haven't time to fix it, don't waste time niggling around talk pages. We are here to build articles, not niggle, nag, make cheap cracks or rush to defend friends. As it stands, the failure to correct that error means either (a) no one looked into the topic, even while reverting people who have or (b) editors are too lazy to trouble themselves, except on talk pages. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
since you brought up following people around, how did you get to that article in the first place? That seems like a weird place for you to pop in. As for me, I didn't follow anyone, I have this page on my watchlist, please don't make aspersions.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'll close this by documenting scientifically why collegial editing is what does not exist here. The practice is one of reverting without even looking at the consequences of one's revert. This has happened to me scores of times in this company. How did I get there you ask?
Esther (bookmarked) discussion led to Debresser's page. I didn't comment, though I thanked StevenJ for a compromise he offered. Keeping track I noticed that article mentioned below. I read it and noted several problems.
My edit
2.sniping response over trivia
3. Remove superfluous sentence
(a) Debresser broke my paragraph up into sentences. Acceptable. But this meant that the first sentence was detached from its source. Rather than check the source, (obligatory in my view if you meddle with a sourced text) he added a [citation needed] request. Absurd. The source is there, on the page.
(b) The superfluous sentence removed was

The first of the other Abrahamic religions to impose a distinctive mode of dress on Jews was Islam, beginning with decrees set forth by the Abbasid caliph Al-Mutawakkil obliging non-Muslims (dhimmis) to wear distinctive marks, -buttons on their caps, patches on their sleeves, and generally honey-coloured garbs,- on their clothing in order to mark them off from members of the Muslim communities.[1]

Content dispute of course, but the ‘superfluous sentence’ cannot be this, which establishes the historical kernal, the origin of external imposition on Jews of discriminatory clothing. What was left in could be superfluous, in that it elaborates by an instance the principle cited. When Davidbena added (by copying and pasting from the Yemenite Jews page, without checking the sources, a WP:Undue addition to the superfluous sentence, silence. The key sentence is eliminated, two superfluous illustrations, one displaying ignorance of the topic, are permitted to remain. Sheer incompetence.
4. I restored this, indicating the error Debresser made. He had called for a citation when the citation already existed on the page because, I must assume, he didn't check or read the source given.
5. Debresser ignores my point that what he wanted sourced is already sourced, and reverts me again.
WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. He won't believe what I stated, which is however obvious. Technically this would be reportable as reverting without examining the source, and repeating the revert even after one had been notified. But I don't report people on principle.
I.e. twice Debresser created a problem, demanded I fix it, which I did fix it, he reverted that as well. Content dispute? No. Provocative carelessness? No. the problem is that I must not get frustrated at shockingly careless editing, and persist in being collegial.
The page still reads that a sourced piece of information is unsourced. Neither you nor Debresser want me on that page, and neither you nor Debresser for some days, have taken note that Debresser's double revert created a problem that didn't exist. So, fix it or tell someone on that page to do so.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ Silverman 2013 p.47
Maybe if you 1) weren't so antagonistic, and 2) didn't paste such walls of text, people might listen more. It's just the way things go here. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apropos, when things were more civil,a and I wasn't endlessly accused of anti-Semitism or being antagonistic. I was raised, as every serious orthodox Jew is raised, to think nothing of daily reading dozens of pages of difficult texts. So I don't take seriously anyone who complains that a few paragraphs is a strain on one's attention span. You should feel obliged to fix it because (a) you asked me not to contribute on Jewish topics some years ago, rather outrageously (b) do not want me on this page (c) have been informed that the page has two errors, one gross, and provided with the information to fix both. If you don't fix it, or alert editors that false information is on that page required adjustment, why are you editing here?Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a) I don't recall me asking you not to edit Jewish topics. b) It's not my page to tell you to stay or go. c) I'm not in charge of any page or its errors and I haven't interacted with you at all on that page about that edit so don't bring me into it. d)And again, there you go again with your antagonism. I edit here because I choose to. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the two of you have something to talk about, or talk past each other about, I am sure there are better places than Huldra's user talk page. Nishidani, I myself would say if somebody does not want to read a "wall of text" then editing an encyclopedia is probably not the best use of their time. But then again, what this has to do with Huldra or her talk page is not something I fully understand. nableezy - 19:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • User:Nishidani, with all respect: there are two reasons why I dislike swearwords, especially in public discourse.
  • 1. I was brought up in a pretty religious household (though not as religious as my mothers siblings, where they all prayed together before dinner); if anyone had used a swearword half the household would have dropped dead of shock.
  • 2. (Most importantly): I am concerned about the signal vs. noice ratio....I try my very best to have a high "signal rate", ie. get info into WP. I try my best to avoid the "dramah" boards, and other "time thieves". And using the f word (or c word)....that is pure "noice".
  • Notes A: (Off course people have double standard: a quick search found Debresser using the f word several times. Pot.Kettle.Black. Alas, you didn't really expect anything else, did you?)
  • Notes B: There have been rules about clothing since at least Roman times, when only certain people could use purple. In the town where I live there were lots of rules in the Middle Ages about "loose women" not being allowed to use colourful dresses, while, as I recall, the Kings in the 1500s were desperately (and mostly fruitlessly) forbidding the nobility to wear more than 3 gold necklaces (if I recall correctly), lots of laws about that.. Fascinating subject, and certainly not only something concerning Jews.Huldra (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. We should avoid at all costs the use of offensive language. I have never forgotten that when I was a small child and had said a bad word to my older sister, I was immediately rushed by mother into the bathroom where she washed out my mouth with soap.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huldra, you know I like you. And when I know people dislike certain language Ill try, not without fail, to mind my own. But the world is a big place, and people dont all have the same feelings on what is or is not "offensive". You and I grew up in very different times and places, and my experiences shape me just as yours shape you. I dont personally think a casual use of the f word is not offensive. Or the s word, or hell the c word (if we are talking about the same one). Really, outside of a very limited set of words (like the n-word and maybe one or two other ethnic slurs), I dont think it is reasonable to expect people on the internet to follow somebody's personal standards in language use. I say things to my closest friends that my mother would possibly murder me over. And I dont think those things are offensive at all (well some of them are, but still). What is "civil" depends entirely on the community in question, and in this community, on the internet, I dont think the use of a swear word can rightfully be called "uncivil". nableezy - 22:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nableezy, as I said; it isn't my personal feeling that is most important, it was my second point, namely the "noice" level it creates. And Wikipedia isn't just any internet site, like reddit, or imgur etc....we are (supposedly!) here to "build an encyclopaedia" etc, etc. I prefer to look upon this place as a (mini) UN, where people of completely different view points try to work out, eh, something. Telling people they are idiots (especially if they are!), or telling them their edits stinks is never helpful. And especially in "our field", (ie the I/P area), where a dozen editors watch your every edit, and some have a very short threshold for going to the "dramah" boards in order to "take out" "one of the enemy".
Look at it as a purely practical matter: using such language here, in the I/P area, inevitably brings on a lots and lots of "noice". (Just all the text written today about it proves that!) Is it worth it? I think not. Huldra (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


'I don't recall me asking you not to edit Jewish topics.'

1 March 2017 And you shouldn't get too emotional about things, if you do, perhaps try to stay away from those areas that get you worked up. Focus away from Jews and switch to Australia

(b) To sum up, an attempt, one of several, made over the last years, to catch at a warning by Sandstein to get me permabanned simply because I, like the plaintiff, dropped the eff word at tendentiously obstructive edit-warring. It failed. Our admin raised legitimately the point that it is not best practice, not conducive to the collegial atmosphere required. The fundamental point about collegiality is using commonsense. The gravamen of everything is this. I wrote:

The Torah set forth rules for dress that set Jews apart from the communities in which they lived, . . .[1]

Twice Debresser removed the source which warranted that generalization, and twice he tagged it with a citation needed notice. Even after strenuous collegial efforts to get Sir Joseph or Debresser to fix the blunder the latter made, it remains tagged.

The Torah set forth rules for dress that set Jews apart from the communities in which they lived,[citation needed]

Days trying to get Debresser or Sir Joseph to fix this have failed. What the Italians call an impuntatura, stubbornly digging one’s heels in and refusing to fix per request an obvious error. Why. There is only one explanation. Nishidani wants that done, so even if he is right, don't fix it to do him a favour even if this means the article remains tainted with an improper tag. That, Dear GoldenRing is the collegial atmosphere in which people like myself are asked to work in here. Simple problems easily resolved with intelligence and good will develop into futilely humongous threads of ridiculous attitudinizing and second –guessing suspected motives (for eff’s sake:)). Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you're still talking... I never asked you to stay away, as your comment points out, I suggested that if you get emotional, it might be better for you to step away, I never told you to. Secondly, you keep saying that you told me to fix errors on that page. As I keep pointing out, I was not involved, so stop bringing me up. That you are involved in an edit dispute with Debresser doesn't mean you are in an edit dispute with me. I have nothing to do with this. Secondly, I don't own that page. I know that's a foreign concept to you but people don't own pages and we don't have to edit if we don't want to. Notice how I got my point across in a couple of sentence? That's how it should be. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That you are involved in an edit dispute with Debresser doesn't mean you are in an edit dispute with me. I have nothing to do with this.

The first Latin dictum I memorized wsas:Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. Debresser, like Davidbena, is of course watching this page. You edit that page. I've notified all three editors of an error. Silence. Collegality, yeah.
I rarely get 'emotional', except when listening to, say, the last bar of songs like this, reciting a poem or delivering a funeral oration. Just things like that. I grew up in far too tough a neighbourhood where the art of sledging one-upmanship was a craft practiced wittily by real masters of hurtful chiakking, and where serious fighting a regular feature, to take this intense world of petty bickering as anything more than a sad index of frailty. To suggest I get 'emotional' about 'Jews' is a deeply offensive insinuation that I am antisemitic.
The second point was that your remark suggesting I was being 'emotional' about Jewish topics looks projective, in so far as you later added:

people get worked up over lots of areas. I stopped following many pages when I couldn't help getting worked up

I certainly am aware that my demanding manner of getting things right, sources checked, and the exercise of logical judgement translates into coming over to many as a kind of second-hand rerun of the sniffish Kingsfield. But that can't be helped. I'm not here for social distraction, but to ensure strict quality control of articles and collegial hard work by fellow editors.
I was raised in the Judeo-Christian world, and therefore regard Jewish heritage to be an ineludible part of my life, that if it can be quantified half of my sense of modernity is informed by what I have learned from thinkers, writers and poets who happen to be Jewish. Being 'Jewish' to me is synonymous with an acute sense of being an outsider, never quite at home in any world yet comfortable with its diversity, and sensitive to discrimination. something I admire and hope to have absorbed, consolidating what has been a recognized part of my character since early childhood. Of course, there are as many kinds of 'Jew' as there are Jews, a formulation true of any ethnicity. So yes, I have an abiding attachment to understanding that, as I do the several other cultures I have studied in depth.
What is remarkable about much editing on Jewish topics on Wikipedia is that the quality of the articles is (a) poverty-stricken (b)dominated by a we against them suspiciousness (c)where editor-awareness of Jewish history is remarkably thin, surprisingly uninterested in the scholarship in the field (d) blinded by some confusion over a nation-state and Jews, as if they were interchangeable (e) as, as a consequence, tending to edit towards a collectivist vision of Jews in a way mirroring the collectivist identity impetus of any young nation (f) so the narrative of the past must emphasise anything conducive to a vision of the unity of a suffering minority against the murderousness of the goy majority until the redemption of normalcy emerging in the acquisition of one's own state solved the historical tragedy of righting the wrong performed in 70/135 CE. No one owns their ethnic culture, has proprietorial rights or can get away with the idea birthright means comprehensive insight. Joseph Conrad knew more about English prose and culture than 99% of solidly ethnic Englishmen.
All those ingredients are problematical, together they are a sure recipe for banality, at least to this cultural historian. In any case, you said in the first diff your belief is that editing in this area is frustrating because it's 'a numbers game and your side has the numbers which is why most IP articles are heavily biased, those are the rules.' If I believed that, I would never work talk pages so hard to try and get fellow editors to see past our POV residues into the heart of a topic. So I can't edit there, in this perspective, and even a polite note to fix a flaw will fall on deaf ears, for the numbers, here negative in my regard, decide what can and cannot be said, and in this case, that means the errors I spot, will not be corrected. Fine. Sorry for the extended thread here, Huldra. I have abused your hospitality.Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Look at Al-Muharraqa. Maybe "Village" is less important than the color? Zerotalk 11:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zero0000, definitely! Thanks, then that could be a solution. Huldra (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking of colors, I wonder if it is time to tone down the color of the navbox. Please compare Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus side-by-side with User:Zero0000/sandbox/Template:Palestinian_Arab_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus. Is the new version better? Zerotalk 12:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zero0000 the new colour looks fine, IMO, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Israeli government maps[edit]

I fixed the URLs in the "govmap" line of the Israel pane, which didn't work for months. Zerotalk 12:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DS Alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Yeah, well, I last got one of them from Icewhiz on 13 November 2018, I thought once a year was enough? Huldra (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right that one DS alert is sent per year. I just now saw that.Davidbena (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AE (April 2019)[edit]

For good or bad, better or worse, I am submitting an Arbitration Enforcement (AE) against you, because of your POV edits (namely here) with respect to an article that remotely involves the Arab-Israeli conflict. The AE report has been filed here. Although I am not sure that the action that I am taking on AE is the proper venue (perhaps not), but at least I am confident that some action must be taken against you.Davidbena (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I raised a clarification request earlier this year[7] concerning an American Muslim Congresswoman where the dispute was a part of her article. The decision basically was that there's a distinction between "reasonably construed" and "broadly construed" and that articles such as the one I was concern with and the one you are concerned with are "broadly" hence 1RR doeen't apply. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Doug Weller, I don't understand one bit of this, except that an editor who made an obvious violation walked off scot free on a technicality: not very reassuring. And the issue of Solomon is very central to the Israeli settler movement on the West Bank: straight in the middle of the I/P conflict. That an editor who just come off a topic ban from the I/P area are not familiar with ARBPIA 1RR is not credible, to say the least. I have now added {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} to the talk page: does that mean 1 RR is now in place? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. A pagenotice goes on the edit page when you click edit, and only an admin can add it, and it has to be logged properly. I am not sure that the page itself is under ARBPIA though regardless. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank for telling me about {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}, I didn't know. I have added an {{ARBPIA}} instead. See my above note on Solomon, Huldra (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Innocent me." Huldra, my advice to you is to stop trying to Game the system.Davidbena (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't add that either, since per the last ruling, as your AE action stated, in order for the article to be under AE, an admin has to log the page, so the template will do nothing but confuse everyone. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that is correct, then that is a huge new change. Than would mean that say, edits like this, by Shrike also would have to go, right? User:GoldenRing, User:Sandstein, is Sir Joseph correct? Huldra (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Pinging User:BU Rob13, too, Huldra (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No idea. Why don't you look it up? ArbCom decisions are made in writing. Sandstein 08:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed it. This is it's best for only an admin to place it. Without proper logging, it's not enforceable. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is the new rule, then it is absurd. I would guess that up to now more than 90% of {{ARBPIA}} notices have been placed by non−admins. Do admins suffer from a lack of work? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I opposed this at ARCA. I do not think you are prevented from placing ARBPIA talk page banners (they are merely informative) and you can request the 1RR thing be placed at RfPP. However, I think I see eye to eye with you on the downsides of the new edit notice required rule. The page does not need to be DS logged - it just needs the ddit notice for this to be enforceable (1rr still apploes topic wide, but editors are considered uninformed absent an edit notice).Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davidbena, you are very quickly reverting back to the behavior that saw you topic-banned. I would have hoped that would not happen so quickly. nableezy - 05:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles is an "authoritative compilation" of ARBPIA rulings. I don't see anything about logging page editnotices. It does say that 1RR cannot be enforced on pages without a {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} (which goes on the article, not the talk page). However, my reading is that the 300/50 restriction does not need the editnotice. I don't know if only admins have the power to add editnotices; hit the full-page (not top section) edit link and see if a link "page notice" appears at the top right. If you can't do it, you can tell me what pages you think it is needed on. Zerotalk 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admins and template-editors can create or edit those page editnotices. nableezy - 18:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks to me that have introduced rules which contradicts each other. Look at the wording of Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice (that is, {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}), it says (under "Template documentation"): "Note that a lack of this template is not an indication that the article is not subject to the restriction."
Alas, here, on 14 March 2019 they add "This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice."
To me, this looks absurd, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[8]. Zerotalk 04:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huldrra, User:Zero0000, I wasn't happy when I was told that 1RR only applies to articles that are clearly "reasonably construed" and not to articles where the dispute is not the main subject. I think that's wrong and in any case we should replace "reasonably construed" with something clearer. The long and short of it is that someone for instance changes locations within an article that in itself is irrelevant to the dispute we can do nothing about it. Even those where there is a section on the dispute cannot be put under ECP. This isn't like a topic ban which would cover such instances but I think it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talkcontribs) 07:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Icewhiz, Sir Joseph, Davidbena, and Johnuniq:- Per the committee's recent motion, all of ARBPIA (reasonably construed) is under 1RR by dint of the committee's remedy, but it is only enforceable if the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} is in place. Note that this is quite different to other topics where discretionary sanctions are authorised, where an administrator might place a 1RR restriction on a particular page as a discretionary sanction. The effect of the editnotice is not to place a page under 1RR, but to make a 1RR that is already in place enforceable. An enforcing administrator can't just rely on the presence of the editnotice to determine that 1RR is in effect; they have to actually consider whether the page falls into the ARBPIA scope, reasonably construed.
The result of this is that any editor may place the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} template; again, this is different to other topics where only administrators can place a page under 1RR as a discretionary sanction.
I hope this is reasonably clear but I realise it's complicated. It's the result of trying many different variations on this remedy and I doubt that a perfect solution is possible. I don't expect to be online much between now and Tuesday, but please do follow up with any questions you have and I'll try to look in and answer them. GoldenRing (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but there is still an issue regarding my question at your talk which mentions that the Arbcom motion included a statement suggesting that anyone could place the template (although someone who is not an admin and not a template editor would have to put the template on article talk as they could not put it in the article's WP:Editnotice). The problem is that the ARBPIA Index omits that statement from the motion. I believe the Index should be updated. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you for your reply, User:GoldenRing. I have made some comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Like Johnuniq, I am concerned about the lack of clarity about who can put what on talk pages. I was reverted after placing {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}, and I was reverted after placing a {{ARBPIA}} on an article, both because I am not an admin,
I am also very concerned about the "upping" the level of bureaucracy, as simple violation of 1RR no longer can be handled on AE in the great majority of cases, but instead has to be taken to ARCA. More about that on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Modern Kefar Hananya[edit]

User:Huldra, this is for your information: The modern moshav of Kfar Hananya, built one kilometer to the south of the Old Kefar Hanania (now Kafr 'Inan) is, obviously, not the same site as the older, although it bears the same name. We find this all over the country: The new Beitar Illit, named after the old Betar (now Bittir) are two different sites.Davidbena (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David you are missing the point. The Hebrew for Kfar Hananya belongs in the article Kfar Hananya. It does not belong wherever Kfar Hananya is mentioned. nableezy - 22:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Davidbena They are both spelled the same way, no? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two identical spellings, but two different sites. The new name takes its name from the older name.Davidbena (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So? As Nableezy said, we dont add the Arabic name for Hebron each time we link to Hebron. Huldra (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kafr 'Inan happens to be an older Jewish site. What's the problem, Huldra? You don't like ancient Jewish sites?Davidbena (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you really making an accusation of racism for following the manual of style? User:Doug Weller, David seems to trust you. Is this sort of conduct acceptable? nableezy - 22:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Davidbena: I have a dislike for information which is "out of place": if someone had added a link to "Hebron (Arabic: الْخَلِيل)", I would have removed the Arabic. Huldra (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on WP:DR[edit]

There is a discussion here on WP:DR to which you have been named as an involved person. Please check it out.Davidbena (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard[edit]

User:Huldra a request to resolve an edit dispute has been filed here with the WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We welcome your comments.Davidbena (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trying to make amends[edit]

Huldra, I wanted you to know that while we often disagree with each other on our edits, I am hopeful that one day we will learn to see eye-to-eye. Have you seen this video One Step Closer to Peace Among Israel & Palestine. Davidbena (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two men, one Muslim and one Jew....well, not being male, not being a Muslim and not being a Jew: I am afraid I got bored after less than 30 seconds, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This [9] may not be your type of humor, but it is something people of different faiths have sometimes agreed on. It's covered on WP:[10]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tunshuk palace article[edit]

Hey, I saw you've started to work on the Tunshuk palace article and found some great sources about it. Do you want to publish it any time soon? Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Alaexis, I plan to start an article on all the places mentioned in User:Huldra/Mamluk Jerusalem, that is, all the places mentioned in Burgoyne (if they don't have an article already) ...but the work progress slowly, as I have concentrated on finding pictures on commons, and for that, I need to "know" all the different buildings. (Typically, people have just taken pictures of a place, and then uploaded it to commons, without knowing the name of the building.) Please feel free to add anything to any of my [[User:Huldra/something]] article stubs! Including, of course, User:Huldra/Tunshuk Palace (I would love to have some help....) Huldra (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Just wanted to say that some of them already provide a lot of value and so would benefit from being published with people seeing them and trying to fill the blanks. Alaexis¿question? 15:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Alaexis, I had hoped some of them (or many of them?) could be DYKs, they should be uncontroversial and interesting enough. Help to sorting the many pictures at commons would be greatly appreciated (or any other help, for that matter!), cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I just spent a couple of hours trying to sort out Dafna. Khirbet Dufnah is marked on the SWP map where Al-Shawka al-Tahta was later, about 1km to the north of where the village of Dafna was later. So I need to change some of what you added. Zerotalk 04:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I off course bow to your knowledge of maps! I see that on SWP 2 map the Kh. Dafnah was a bit further north than the Sanbaruyeh place, but I though it was a SWP 2 inaccuracy, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything else in that region on both PEF and British maps lines up very nicely, and Khirbet Dufnah sits right on top of Al-Shawka al-Tahta. I've ordered an archaeological report that will hopefully provide more information. Zerotalk 03:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I've added Palmer to Al-Shawka al-Tahta, I'm not quite sure if it should still be in Dafna? Huldra (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


enjoy reading almost anything

Thank you for quality articles such as Emily Ruete (2005), Khan al-Tujjar (Mount Tabor) (2009), Sha'ab, Israel (2011), for adding images and direct links, for hundreds of redirects, for "Thank you for your actions!" and "this user enjoys reading almost anything", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Gerda Arendt, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A year ago, you were recipient no. 2227 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Saud al-Qahtani.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Saud al-Qahtani.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Makova (Hasidic dynasty) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Interstellarity T 🌟 13:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Troll/sock on bellingcat discussion[edit]

Hi Huldra The IP attacking you on RSN is a sock of Sayerslle so I have removed the content. I didn't remove your response because it was written by you and you're an editor etc. I'm letting you know in case you want to remove it as the attack it was a repsonse to is deleted. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 21:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, never heard of him/her. Also User:Cambial Yellowing: In cases where socks have already been answered too, it is possibly better to strike the comment? Like this, Huldra (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair, duly noted. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 22:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Probably best to ping other CUs to your talk page instead of Bbb23’s. —Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, ok @Doug Weller:, @PhilKnight:, @Zzuuzz: @Reaper Eternal: please, could any one of you make a second opinion on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilabrand‎? I was pretty sure that is was a sock, I could send you further diffs if needed, Huldra (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I'm being pretty useless, real life and other distractions keep getting in the way. I think this one is a bit beyond me. --Doug Weller talk 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Doug Weller: Understood, (we are all volunteers...;P ) Huldra (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rough Guide[edit]

I think that Rough Guides, and all other travel guides not written by professional historians/archaeologists, are not reliable for history and should be removed. Thanks for removing that one. Zerotalk 07:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zero0000, well, with Mar Elias Monastery it was pretty obvious: the earliest person Pringle mentions in connection with it, is Manuel I Komnenos. And "Bible walks" (who are mostly quite accurate on historical facts) doesn't mention it, either. I don't know the Rough Guides well enough to pass judgement generally; there might also have been a mixup by a Wikipedia editor. (Did the RG actually say that, about the Mar Elias Monastery, or about some other place? I have no idea.) Huldra (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Nature reserves in Palestine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fourteen years of editing[edit]

Hey, Huldra. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Huldra (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Al Ma'in?[edit]

re Nirim, Nir Oz, Magen and Ein Hashloshla. What does Al-Main village refer to? Is this eye-witness report useful to any Palestinian village there?Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani: Khirbet el Ma'in was at 0931/0821, 1 km SE of Nirim. But is there an article? I'm an Earth's diameter away from my Khalidi. Zerotalk 21:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nishidani: @Zero0000: It is not in Khalidi, Khalidi is generally lacking wrt the Beersheba Subdistrict: only Al-Imara, al-Jammama and Al-Khalasa are mentioned. Auja al-Hafir is not mentioned in Khalidi, neither is Khirbet el Ma'in/Harabat Abu Sitta. It is to the west of Wadi Gaza on SWP map 23 (only called "Arab et Terabin"), and that part is not covered by SWP. In the 1931 census, under "Tarabin" in the Beersheva section (p. 7), "Ghawali Abu Sitta" has 606 Muslim inhabitants. Salman Abu Sitta has written about his home before, perhaps it is time we start an article about Khirbet el Ma'in? Huldra (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abu Sitta is an interested party, but apparently there is some coverage of the village in the links (Hebrew and Spanish) at de Colonizer. I certainly think it deserves an article, but this note is intended only to put down a marker for it, so that one can keep an eye out for more substantial texts. There is much to be clarified khirbet/village (the RAF 1945 photo is nsaid to, legitimately or not, mark out something like the latter. Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The I-P conflict[edit]

I'm hoping a new case will bring a sensible resolution so we can deal with editors at articles which aren't mainly about the conflict, but as I learned to my regret, at the moment we can't. It's a shame that ArbCom is so small now, not just because of the delay before the new case but few opinions. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Doug Weller: Well, I haven't really thought much about the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4...but in my experience, "common sense" does NOT work in the IP area. What is needed is very clear, hard rules. I could imagine, however, that the protection only worked for a part of the article. That would have to come with a new feature: that you can only "watch" a part of an article. An example: I "watch" Heredia, Costa Rica, because some jokers like to do edits like the one I am undoing here. Of course I have to "watch" the whole article, even though 95-99% of it is of absolutely no interest to me. It would be lovely if I could "watch" only the "Sister cities" paragraph, and that the same paragraph had some protection. But no: it is all or none. Huldra (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not an ambassador of Israel[edit]

So please stop seeing my edits as though they are part of Israel's official foreign policy. Not all citizens of Israel share Israel's official views, and anyway, as an Israeli, I really have no idea what exactly "Israeli view" means since our foreign policy is so vague. With that said, I do feel a bit entitled to say that the State of Palestine article is mostly bullshit and I use my feet, standing on the State of Palestine and my eyes observing it, as a primary source. I've been in Palestine for 2 years now and I've yet to actually see it. Yes there are some signs popping out saying "State of Palestine" or "دولة فلسطين", but when speaking with Palestinians, they mostly refer to the سلطة, i.e the PA. Their I.D.s also say "Palestinian Authority". It is not the same situation as with the Arab states who refuse to recognize Israel, because they still know Israel exists. Here in the West Bank, the idea of a "State of Palestine" is not acknowledged by anyone. They know that they are the شعب الفلسطيني and that they live in فلسطين, but فلسطين doesn't refer to any state within the Palestinian territories, but to the whole former territory of the British Mandate. The "State of Palestine" is an abstract term, used by Palestinians mostly in foreign policy. It is a shame that Wikipedia mislead so many readers on that issue. If those who created this article cannot come up with a less vague article, which contradicts other articles and it self and is not really backed by any sources, full of SYNTH and OR, maybe the "Israel's view" guy should do it, and I don't edit without any sources.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, so you are basically saying that "I, as soldier in the Israeli army, serving on the West Bank, have yet to actually see the State of Palestine." Sorry for being formalistic here, but besides the OR, I hardly think you count as a WP:RS (at least not presently! One day, maybe...)
Anyway: this discussion belongs 100% on Talk:State of Palestine, and NOT here: see you there, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are right. If it was the article's talk page I would have been more professional. But this was an emotional personal comment, as I don't think I have any interest in re-approach this article again any time soon. Seems like even if I tried to make my edits look less aggressive, they would have been reverted all the same and dragged to a talk discussion that will last unil 2025 when one of us will retire from Wikipedia. Take care.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2025? You are far, far too optimistic: that is only 6 years away (and I have already been here 14 years): I have exactly 0% belief that the issues will have been resolved in 6 years time. (Actually, I have long since lost any hope that the issues will be resolved in my life time: I read one interview with a settler spokesperson in Haaretz: she was settling in for 500 years. (Hmmm, will the US continue to pay billions of $$ (or ~20% of the Israeli budget) to Israel for the next 500 years? Every year? That settler spokesperson seem to think so! Ah well, in 500 year we will both be "permanently retired", that's for sure!) Huldra (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing[edit]

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended[edit]

The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why did you remove the settlement type "Village" in this edit? And, additionally, why didn't you mention that in the edit summary? Debresser (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I usually do many things during one edit, I cannot mention them all in the edit summary (I could of course say "ce", ..but "some" editors don't like that..) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That I can understand. And what about my first question? Debresser (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]


The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

al-Tira, Haifa[edit]

Dear Huldra, I hesitate to reverse your removal of the Palestine Exploration map of al-Tira without explanation. I am certain that it should stay. It is not labelled but the line on the left marks the sea. Kh. el Kiniseh & El ‘Arak appear on the 1:20,000 map as Maradel Kneise & Farsh(?) el ‘Iraq. Also the older map has W el Ain & you can just make out W el Ein on the other. As you may have noticed I do like maps. Padres Hana (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Padres Hana: you are absolutely right, and I have undone my removal. I was fooled by the category "taken from SWP map 11" is actually taken from SWP map 5, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened[edit]

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need your help for Guérin[edit]

In a Hebrew book, it cites Guérin but I can't find the original source. The site is called in Hebrew Horvat Kur but Guérin probably called it Khirbet Kuk or Khirbet Kok. The name of the source is in Hebrew and it is translated to "Description of Palestine 6, p. 151". I believed it was just one of the Galilee volumes but I didn't find it there. If you need another reference, the cite appears in the Mandate's maps west of Capernahum as "Kh. al-Kur" and I believe it is 199/254 on the grid.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bolter21: Kharbet Kefr Kouk, Gal I, p.223. Verified by comparing with pef map. Zerotalk 12:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The French text referred to by Zero is this, Stav, just to save you time searching for it.

A cinq heures trente minutes, je parviens sur un plateau fertile. A cinq heures quarante-cinq minutes, une montée continue, mais qui devient de plus en plus douce, me conduit è des ruines qui me sont désignées sous le nom de Kharbet Kefr Kouk. Les arasements de nombreuses petites maisons sont reconnaissables. Au milieu des dèbris confus de ces habitations démolies, à travers lesquelles la charrue a souvent passé, j’aperçois deux fûts mutilés de colonnes de basalte: ils proviennent probablement d’un édifice tourné de l’ouest à l’est, dont il subsiste près de là de faibles vestiges, et qui, à cause de son orientation, me paraît avoir été une ancienne église chrétienne. Des cisternes creusées dans le roc sont éparses sur beaucoup de points. Un birkeh, au fond duquel divers arbres, entre autres plusiers figuiers, ont pris racine, a dût être dans le principe une carrière, transformée plus tard en un réservoir d’eau.

Cheers,Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the other here has said: "Kharbet Kefr Kouk"; 1880, p. 223. I have added it to User:Huldra/Guerin#1880_Galilee_1. Is it a place that there will be an article about? (If so, I need to link it in my Guerin page,) Huldra (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is "Horbat Kur" in IAA (search in
Kh. el Kûr (Sh. 6, Pf), I, p. 403.
Palmer Kh. el Kûr, the ruin of the forge (Sh. 6, Qg), p. 129. Huldra (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Hudlra. Might you have access to the book "Géographie de La Palestine" by Félix-Marie Abel?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bolter21: I have Vol 2, which is a list of localities. I can copy-paste what it has on a particular place if you like. It is rather dated. Zerotalk 10:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Bolter21, sorry, I don't have access to any of Félix-Marie Abel's books (except those which are at, off course). If any have any access to them: feel free to email me ;), Huldra (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philip King (historian)-day of death[edit]

Hi-I saw your comment on the Philip King (historian) talk page. The funeral home that Father Philip King was buried from had the day of his death as being December 7, 2019. You may want to look at the article's talk page and read the obituary from the funeral home. I am hot sure what changes should be made concerning the day of death. The December 7, 2019 day of death is probably the correct day of his death since the funeral home published the obituary. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I will answer on Talk:Philip King (historian), Huldra (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"expropriation" vs. "confiscation"[edit]

first off, if this is the wrong place to post, I apologize. I am not much into computers and coding, the only reason I am able to part of the wikipedia community is because of the visual editor.

secondly, i would like to reply to your post on page regarding the differences between the terms expropriation and confiscation.

according to google "confiscate" means the action of taking or seizing someone's property with authority; seizure. "a court ordered the confiscation of her property" "expropriation" means the action by the state or an authority of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit. "the decree provided for the expropriation of church land and buildings"

by using "confiscation" instead on "expropriation" is a bias that denies Israel its legitimacy as a state

Also you quoted in your post on my page. is just people who respond to question online; the problem with quora is the same problem that exist with wikipedia: there are no qualifications necessary to reply to a question.

the definition I found online did not mention anything regarding what the quora page mentioned notably no mention of "Expropriation can be done with the owner’s consent and/or with compensation paid. Confiscation usually implies without the owner’s consent and without compensation."

Thank you, and I look forward to continuing to helping the wikipedia community create fair and balanced articles.

Also, I just realized that the wikipedia page reads "land expropriation in the West Bank"; in the interests of keeping wikipedia accurately self-referential, it seems to me that we should keep using the same terminology.

Well, first, User:Zarcademan123456, please signs your posts using ~~~~
Secondly thank you for this, (when you again changed confiscated -->expropriated at Beit Ummar) with the edit-line:
"according to google "confiscate" means the action of taking or seizing someone's property with authority; seizure. "a court ordered the confiscation of her property" "expropriation" means the action by the state or an authority of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit. "the decree provided for the expropriation of church land and buildings" by using "confiscation" instead on "expropriation" is a bias that denies Israel its legitimacy as a state."
I agree about the problems about using quora, or google for that matter, but the crux of the matter is that the source use "confiscated". (I hope we both agree that the source (ARIJ) use the word "confiscated"??
Needless to say, I will take you to WP:AE unless you undo your last edit at Beit Ummar, and/or continue to change confiscated -->expropriated, without any source for the word "expropriated". Huldra (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~~~ ok, i will go back and change the page, i will include a source that uses expropriated, but it will be more clunky i am afraid. Also, a better source than a Palestinian NGO [ARIJ] is needed. ALthough i do concede the difficulty of finding unbiased reporting on the situation.
Also, I just realized that the wikipedia page reads "land expropriation in the West Bank"; in the interests of keeping wikipedia accurately self-referential, it seems to me that we should keep using the same terminology. lol, again sorry for probably not replying in the right place or anything, i am just trying to keep the terminology accurate
User:Zarcademan123456 ....please sign your posts with only the 4 "~" ...and not with the whole <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
Also, if you want to use "expropriated" at say, Beit Ummar, you must find a source which mention Beit Ummar, Huldra (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)like this?Reply[reply]
also, i dont understand how u said that the source did not "mention" beit ummar.Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
figured out how to "sign my post, thankyou!!Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Zarcademan123456 great, now the next thing to learn is how to intend your posts....either using a ":" or a "*"
I am not sure what you don't understand: to repeat: if you want to say, eg in the Beit Ummar article, that Israel has expropriated land from Beit Ummar...then you must find a source which says so, ie which explicitly mention Beit Ummar. (Yeah: the rules are strict in the I/P area..but they are the same for all of us!) Huldra (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Using wikipedia as a reference is not allowed!! Ie, edits like this counts for nothing.... Huldra (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

using wikipedia as a source counts for nothing!! but it is supposed to be self-referential!!Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Zarcademan123456: Following the source is more important on Wikipedia than being consistent. One of the strange things about Wikipedia is that we have to be inconsistent sometimes because sources are inconsistent. As an aside (though this is not an argument for Wikipedia usage), the Hague Convention of 1907, which Israel claims to follow in the West Bank, uses "confiscated" (Article 46). Zerotalk 01:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For wikilinking so many articles to PEF Survey of Palestine. I just took the liberty of replicating the same change across another c.500 similar articles using WP:JWB. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Onceinawhile: Whaw! Good job! I should learn to use those tools (one day..), but I am afraid I would get in "finger-trouble". I have managed to mess up the WP:TW a few times, already...Huldra (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Onceinawhile: searching for "Palestine Exploration Fund's Survey of Western Palestine" I got 265 hits, mostly in Lebanon etc, but also quite a few in Israel/Palestine. Feel like using your fabulous WP:JWB -tool a bit more? Huldra (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I managed to find and fix 70 of them just now. The JWB tool works by choosing articles within specific categories; the skill is in finding the right categories to work through. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found another 12. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Onceinawhile: Ok, great, but I think we can shorten Palestine Exploration Fund to PEF? Huldra (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are a hard task master :-)
I have fixed this. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The are still about 100 unfixed; unfortunately the JWB tool doesn’t pick them up in the various searches I have done. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Onceinawhile: Yeah, I know: I'm picky... :-). Anyway: thanks for the formidable job you did...I'll try to take the few remaining by-and-by, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About SWEDHR[edit]

Dear Hudra, if I may. Short version: I am a Swe doctor and relatively new in WP. While creating the article “Swedish Medical Association” I found the SWEDHR article. I got a shock! Almost all statements in the article are plain falsehood or deceiving. Most sources cited as references do NOT support the statement in the article, etcetera. Seriously, the article merits as an excellent example of what a WP should not be (Not neutral point of view, no verifiability). I have tried to do some repair work, but my correcting edits end permanently reverted WITHOUT discussion by two users. I saw in the edit-history that you were long time ago trying to correct things too, and perhaps you can advise me if there is any way for me to continue this. Or if any effort would be futile. In that case I would devote my WP time to other issues. What is in the article now blunt contradicts the respect that that organization has earned in Sweden and in our medical community. BTW, the Swedhr professors had an article published today in the largest Swe newspaper (Aftonbladet), and last week in The Lancet, about the Assange case. If you could spare some five minutes please take a glance to this more detailed version with the rationale the essential corrections needed, here [11], and here [12]. Many thanks in case you reply, and if not, forgive me for taking your time. My user name is Toverster and I have a Talk page. Toverster (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Toverster: Yeah, I was involved in the previous SWEDHR (and the Marcello Ferrada de Noli-article), but then took them off my "watch-list".
The thing is, both articles touches on what I have called the "the worst shit-hole on Wikipedia" (see above, under User_talk:Huldra#AN_discussion), namely the Syrian war. Lets be clear: massive amounts of money have been poured into "on line information" (read: "online lies") by Western government (eg. link, or see Institute for Statecraft.)
One has to be extremely naive to think that none of those resources have been put into Wikipedia editing.
I basically gave up on the area after editors voted Robert Fisk not to be WP:RS for the Douma chemical attack, (see here), while at the very same time finding Seth Doane (who went to Douma at the same time as Fisk) to be WP:RS(!). This is such an outrageous double standard that I gave up the articles. (ie, stopped "watching" them)
But recall: in 2003, around the time the US invaded Iraq, about 70% of the US population believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 (link). IMO; that was (mostly) the result of a massive disinformation campaign from the Bush government: no-one in that administration ever mentioned 9/11 without immediately mentioning Saddam Hussein. This, while Saddam Hussein was about as involved with 9/11 as you, or I, or Queen Elizabeth II.
How many of those 70% will even admit today that they ever thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11? No many, I suspect. Nobody likes to find out they have been fools.
We are extremely naive if we believe that not similar dis-informaton (or rather: mis-informaton) campaigns have been going on wrt Syria,...or Julian Assange.
I became involved with the SWEDHR and de Noli articles as I understand Swedish (yeah, you can write in Swedish to me, if you like).
Please do work on the articles, adding WP:RS is the best you can do. I'll "watch" them again: but be warned: it will take a lot more than 5 minutes to get (or keep them) in a "neutral" way... Huldra (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: I haven't followed the Assange case closely, but I recall how he was totally ridiculed in MSM as "paranoid" for not going to Sweden, saying they would use that to extradite him to the US....Hmm, looks as if that wasn't paranoia at all...
Tack så mycket, Huldra, för dina åsikter, samt ditt råd. Toverster (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huldra, I totally agree with your post and announced course of action you wrote in the Talk page of the SWEDHR article. I just posted a convergent suggestion at [13]. I will be back tomorrow. Then I plan to do a sequence of short posts in the article Talk page, each one containing the core arguments for each of the edits I am suggesting. It would be great if you give me your opinion on those. As I said, not ready until perhaps tomorrow afternoon. I wish you a pleasant Saturday evening. Toverster (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huldra: As I suggested, in view of your experience in WP editing, I think it is preferably that you do the edit of the necessary changes. Any how, I have shortened drastically my previous edit on the Organisation section. In case you find the time to review it (and maybe post it if you think it is appropriate). I put it in the Talk page (Break; the "Organization" part) "Organisation"_part.
When I check the WP article Marcello Ferrada de Noli to link it in the swedhr Organisation section, I saw some same ppl (?) participating in the discussion at the Admin board, that are now changing things in that article. So, apparently the 2017 circus is now recycling. Then, as they could not rebut the SWEDHR investigation's conclusions on the White Helmets, Gamester et al went to discredit the investigative organisation as such, via the horrible edits in the Swedhr article in WP. Now in 2020, when thy could not rebut the criticism of the falsehoods in that article, they turn to the WP article about the Swedhr's founder. I saw in that talk page also a ban asking for the deletion ok that article in 2017, in conjunction to the attack on Swedhr. And this now: [
@Huldra: Toverster (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, User:Toverster, I am not unduly concerned about the Marcello Ferrada de Noli-article being "trimmed" (it was rather excessively detailed, IMO.) However, we should note that self-published sources is allowed, when used about the person in question. See WP:BLPSPS, where this is clearly stated. So info published by Marcello Ferrada de Noli about himself can be used in the Marcello Ferrada de Noli-article, Huldra (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huldra, I share your opinion about that article.
Regarding the Swedhr corrections, I have now posted in Talk page one suggestion for edit (about one topic). But there are other positions by SWEDHR (before and after the '2017 edition') published in WP:RS. I'll try to get back to it soon. Otherwise I have been doing diversified editing in the Swe WP. Great fun. My time is thou limited. But I hang on.
P.S. I read this afternoon that the position of some in the SWEDHR to disagree with the RUS veto in the Sec Council might have been on behalf of neutralising Turkey of attacking Syria and thus deepening the war (based on the risk of a Turkey invasion deeper in Syria to engage gov forces. Which is what is apparently happening). But I have to search more about that Swedhr position. @Huldra: Toverster (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Huldra: Hi again, Huldra. I posted a suggestion for the "Positions taken by SWEDHR". I tried to follow the friendly (and awesome) advice from the journalist you mentioned. Well, I guess is not enough. Then, I added (for background info) what I found in my searching for Swedhr references in WP:RS. I am aware that is a bunch of text and perhaps its extension will irritate one or another user. So, please just remove it if you think is not really contributing. Thanks Huldra.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

@Huldra: Hi, I have now managed to shorten and clean up the first version of my proposal. I had in mind both the magic advice (to never forget) and the WP pages on style, NPV etc., which I checked it up. For the next section (currently labelled "Accusations..."), may I anticipate my suggestion for tittle: simply, "Controversies". Thanks again. Toverster (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Toverster:, sorry, but I have been distracted by other wp-business... I'll try to take look at it. And I definitely agree: "Controversies" is a better headline (and the most "common" headline; I cannot recall any other article with a "Accusations..." headline), Huldra (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Huldra:, Fine, thanks. I have commented your (right) observation in "Positions taken by SWEDHR, subsection 1". In the meantime I will start working now with a proposal for the Controversies section. Toverster (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Huldra, I understood you are very occupied with other issues, as you said. I know how it is. No problem. I wonder if you just would be able to have a glance to my argument in "Positions_taken_by_SWEDHR",_moving_to_article and perhaps OK the moving? My point being that the info there is only a listing of the positions as reported by the sources. The controversy about that (if any) should be treated in the new section "Controversies", together with the statements regarded as controversial by the old article's version. I added new WP:RS (four) and also I had to delete the ref to You Tube containing the Swedhr video on the shooting incident. Thanks again. Toverster (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi @Huldra:, I posted a brief text in [14] as suggestion for section "Criticism". I also made a break down of the current edits [15] at the section. all authored by Gamemasterg9. Thanks.
Toverster (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Toverster: working on it!
A couple of "technical" notes: you don't have to "ping" me when you write here on my talk-page (I automatically get a message). Also, when we refer to the same reference multiple times: we once give that reference a name, say <ref name =DN.02.04.2018>, and afterwards we can refer to the same reference by using <ref name =DN.02.04.2018/> (note the backslash). The name can be anything, but preferably something that makes some sense. Also, twitter and Youtube are not the best of sources, (to put it diplomatically), please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content, Huldra (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Huldra. Important development. I saw that Swedhr had ceased the organization’s activities since January this year (an extension of one month “for the ending of representation activities of the chairman and vice-chairman”). It’s all in the homepage [] in a statement signed Dr Lena Oske. It is said the Swedish doctors are now integrating the ranks of “Doctors For Assange” (international group started in London). I first saw it through a link in The Indicter but it has also been on Twitter. Also, another update necessary in the article is that the publication became independent from Swedhr in 2017 (as stated in The Indicter editorial page describing the publication’s history [16]). Difficult these days the editing even in the Swedish WP because work overload. But I'll make it to post an ‘updated’ version by only rephrasing into past tense, without changing anything of the texts agreed (with the exception of the update ref. The Indicter). I will now do the edit of the new proposal, opening a new section in Talk. I know you are also busy but if I may ask, as last thing, to consider publishing the updated version, and also to keep watching the article in case of the possibility of renewal of disrupting editing. On the other hand who would have interest in disrupt a defuncted organization. Thanks again, and for the editing advices!
Toverster (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again, I started now to work in the updated complete version, and I realise it is a lot of work. I mean it would be a lot of work for you if you would have to re-edit to make it in publishing format for both the "Criticism" section (with posting of 17 references, or so) and the new updated total version. So, I will publish the updates myself, and then you may please check that all is all right or/and change it. Thank you.
Toverster (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Toverster, please hold off an hour or so; I'm working on it ;) Huldra (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Toverster: Ok, I have finished; please make the updates you feel needed, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh my, I can't manage with that of not repeating the same reference in full. E.g. the last reference in "Criticism" section. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverster (talkcontribs) 21:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Toverster: heh, don't worry about it: it took me ages before I got the hang of it! Huldra (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful! I saw it. Thanks a lot, Huldra! I'll now edit the updates. Toverster (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done :) [17]. When possible in days of this week, I'll do the changes in the Swedish page. Toverster (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Israel “occupation” vs “rule” of east Jerusalem and the Golan[edit]

One of the reasons I was told why the annexation and subsequent “rule” of the West Bank is not characterized as an “occupation” was because full legal rights were extending to the citizens under Jordanian rule. Seeing as full legal rights are extended to those in the Golan and East Jerusalem, can you help me understand why differing terminology is used? Also, Both countries annexations were similarly granted limited recognition. Does it have something to do with the consent of the governed? If there’s another forum for me to posit this question, please let me know thank you. I reached out to you because you seem knowledgeable on the topic of Israel and the conflicts. Thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zarcademan123456: There is a huge difference between the Jordanian/Syrian and the Israeli rule/occupation, as I am sure you know. (AFAIK; no Jordanian leader ever said that the ultimate goal of Jordanian rule of the West Bank/Jerusalem was to get every Palestinian there to leave, or if they stayed: it was to serve their "Jordanian masters". I can find (far too many) such statements from Israeli leaders/rabbis.)
Having said that: I am far more familiar with the pre-1948 history, than the post-1948 history. There are other editors here, who are far, far more knowledgable than be me about these "newer" issues.
I would suggest you raise the matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration: big issues (in the IP section on wp) can never be determined by one or two people: we need community discussions for that, Huldra (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, User:Zarcademan123456: will you please stop making the same changes to a lot of articles, without discussing them first? They will only be reversed. It is really a waste of everyones time, and it is extremely disruptive. Huldra (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and directing me where to go. Also, I can’t tell you how refreshing your humility is (“ far, far more knowledgable than [m]e”)...that is something I just feel I don’t often see. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zarcademan123456: "Humility" has nothing to do with it; it is just stating the plain facts. Another plain fact: you are being extremely disruptive, when you after being told to stop, still go around doing edit like this, without any discussion. You are wasting everyone's time, Huldra (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jordanian “occupation” then “rule”[edit]

Would it be incorrect to characterize the Jordanian rule over the West Bank before formal annexation in 1950 as an “occupation”, seeing as, similar to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, sovereignty had yet to be applied? Just trying to understand, so as to harmonize the terms characterizing the Jordan and Israeli governances during this seemingly similar time. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

See Deir Abu Da’im, for example Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Deir Abu Da’if my apologies Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I assume you read the article Jordanian annexation of the West Bank where you are proposing a page move? The first line of the lead reads "The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was the occupation of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) by Jordan (formerly Transjordan) following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War and its subsequent annexation." Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The Jordanian governance prior to annexation is characterized as an occupation. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said on Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank: it was 2 years of formally occupying, and then 17 years of formally annexing...and you want the 2 years to "trumph" the 17 years?
Secondly, I could cherry-pick anything out of Israeli occupation of the West Bank (say Israel's " "flagrant violation of international law", etc)...and then put that into each and every article which has a link to Israeli occupation of the West Bank: more than 500.
I haven't done so, and I will not do so.
You, by unilaterally cheery-picking parts of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, and putting it into hundreds of other articles are doing exactly that. It is extremely disruptive, and a waste of everybody's time,
The way to avoid endless edit-warring is to put what is contested into one article (where possible), and link to that. Anything relating to the 1948-1967 Jordanian occupation/annexation should go into this article, and nowhere else. Huldra (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zionist political violence[edit]

I don't have the Wiki-authority to edit Zionist political violence, would you help me? As I've noted and you've kindly amended, the article incorrectly only deals with Zionist violence up to the year of 1948.

I would like to add some examples from that point up to the present day, for example: Kach and Kahane Chai considered a terrorist organisation by Israel, Canada the European Union, Japan and the United States.

Obviously, this is just a tl;dr, lacking all context and sources.(I hope I'm not oversteping any boundaries by writing here, if so, I do sincerely apologise.)Kuiet (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the problem is to distinguish between between Zionist political violence, and Jewish religious terrorism. (Indeed, they can sometime overlap, me thinks). All the above probably more belong in the religious category (and all are mentioned in the Jewish religious terrorism-article, which is linked in the "see also" section.) We might possibly have a sub-section about mainly religious terrorism (linking to the Jewish religious terrorism-article: presently that article "drowns" in the other links there, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is indeed the problem. Made no easier by
A religious variety of Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity defined as adherence to religious Judaism, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies, and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority nation in their own state.
— Zionism
Nonetheless, since Jewish religious terrorism is defined as "motivated by religious rather than ethnic or nationalistic beliefs." I find it a fairly safe to conclude that the first three aforementioned examples fit under "Zionist political" better than under "Jewish religious":
  • The group's founder, Meir Kahane, "preached a radical form of Jewish nationalism which reflected racism, violence and political extremism,"
  • Sicarii's goal was to send a message to Israeli politicians that there would be opposition to any process of rapprochement with the Palestine Liberation Organization.
  • Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin condemned the attack, describing Goldstein as a "degenerate murderer", "a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism". (from Cave of the Patriarchs massacre)
While Meir Kahane is, indeed, too hard for me to distinguish. But, you know, I don't much care either way. I listed the examples to make clear my case that the article is in need of inspection and amelioration and ask for assistance; the specifics hardly matter at this point. And please know that I do apologise for being so late in replying.Kuiet (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC; “were taken”[edit]

Please see

Since I can’t figure out the exact mechanism for an RFC, can you tell me exactly what language you would be in favor of seeing regarding the expanding of articles? I just want to expand the articles to include legal status of lands over past 100 years.

Also, regarding “were taken” ( given how it previously mentioned Israel’s confiscation of land above, in a pursuit of conciseness, why is deleting “were taken” not appropriate?

Also as an aside, stay safe from corona :) Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see[edit] Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jerusalem Annex[edit]

Hi, it's probably staring me in the face but do you have a list of those WB villages that got swept up in the annex, like Shuafat and Kafr 'Aqab? Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Selfstudier: I assume it is on a map somewhere, User:Zero0000: do you know? Huldra (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Selfstudier: I'm not sure what the question is. The villages included in the post-1967 municipal boundary are here: File:EastJerusalemMap.jpg ? Note that some places were cut by the boundary. In terms of expropriation, there are lists in the book "Land Expropriation in Israel" by Holzman-Gazit, and "Separate and Unequal" by Cheshin. There is also a Btselem report and more recent statisics. Zerotalk 02:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zero0000: That's it, perfect, thanks very much.Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reason I asked was because after a bit of kerfuffle on the Kafr 'Aqab page, I ended up making some changes there but when I look at some other inside the Jerusalem border the presentation (lead/infobox(if there is one)/short description)is a bit different. To take the 2 extremes Beit Hanina and say, Shuafat and cf where I ended up at Kafr 'Aqab. Any thoughts on which ought to be the general approach? Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You repeat a reverted edit[edit]

I reverted your edit from March 20 with a clear explanation.[18] Why did you repeat it again today, ignoring my revert and its reasons? Please understand, that that is not collegiality, and especially in the already loaded WP:ARBPIA area. Debresser (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Debresser: Um, there is a bit more going on here than just this. I have already issued a warning to Zarc (the originator of this edit) on his talk page about this (he is acquiring a fair old list of warnings by now, I did ask you to try and help him with requesting changes in a centralized way rather than making many (dozens, hundreds?) of separate edits of little value that seem to me to be more about making a point than anything constructive). The net new information being added there is "in 1950" and that is anyway in the original wikilink.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The net information is a lot more than just the year; it is the differentiation between "rule" and "annexation", which are two different things and took place in different years, as I explained already on the talkpage of the article as well. Whatever Zarc did or should have done, I am not aware of, since all I address is the edit itself, and IMHO it has great value. Debresser (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said , there is more going on here, Zarc opened an RFC (I helped him do it) at the wikilinked annexation article, propsing it be changed to occupation. The rule part is not an innacurate description of the wikilinked annexation article. The point remains that he is attempting this (and other troublesome edits) en masse (which strikes me as a rather odd thing to be doing, I assume he is working through some kind of list). As things stand, it remains for Zarc to justify (and to the extent that he is cherrypicking from a wikilinked article, then it needs independent sourcing) his editing, you and he would like it in (even if he would like it in in many many places and you only in one) and Huldra and I (I think some others also reverted him elsewhere for the same edit) would like it out ie return to the stable version of many years. If it really is such a big issue (and I do not think it is, it is barely even a minor issue) then we ought to set up an RFC at the central point to resolve it (we have in fact asked him to do this on many occasions and he claims an inability to do so).Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Debresser: the annexation part was first introduced by User:Zarcademan12345 on March 4, 2020 ...he has been putting similar phrases into literally hundreds and hundreds of West Bank places.
I have asked him countless of times to start a RfC or equivalent, before he goes on a rampage of editing ...but it has been like talking to a stone. The worst case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT that I have come across on wp for at least a decade.
My objection to it, is that he is WP:CHERRYPICKING info out of the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank article. I could of course cherrypick info out of, say the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, but I think we agree: (I hope we agree!) ..that controversial info should be in as few articles as possible (where all the info regarding any controversy can be presented)...and then we can link to those articles.
Of course, if Zarc got a the approval of a RfC, I would off course follow that. But what he is doing now: just forcing HIS view on wp with tons of edits.....that is not a good way to proceed in the IP area, to put it very diplomatically, Huldra (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that the way he went about this might not be okay, but I think that in this specific case the edit is a good one, and I frankly have not yet heard one argument from anybody why the edit is not good. Debresser (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Debresser: Cherrypicking?? Huldra (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edit shows the consecutive phases: first rule, then annexation. I think it adds important information. Why do you call this cherrypicking? Especially since cherrypicking has a negative connotation, and I see nothing negative about this edit. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion should probably go under Talk:Battir, but as I have said before: the view of the Jordanian era (1948-67) are...many, and some controversial. If we link to the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, everything should be there. (Again, I could pick something out of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and put that in each and every West Bank village..alas, that is a recipe for edit-wars). Again, since this is relevant for hundreds of articles: please start a RfC if you find it important, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, the point of a wikilink is so as to avoid the need for for cherry picking. Otherwise every cherrypicked datum needs to be re-sourced. In any case, the general issue needs an RFC, even if it were resolved for one page, that does not mean automatic application to every other. I notice these edits are still being made, I think we are being forced to dispute resolution (again).Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made an RFC on Zarcademan behalf since he says that he is unable to do it himself. HereSelfstudier (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Came under the rule of" implies something totally different than "annexation." The former suggests the possibility of consent or agreement, the latter clearly does not. The sources describe an annexation almost universally. Z's edits are much more faithful to the sources than yours, yet you accuse Z of trying to "prove a point" and use that as a justification for edit-warring across dozens of articles? Why shouldn't I report you at AE for this? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if this is addressed to me or to Huldra. In any case I have pointed you to the relevant RFC, go there if you have something to add.Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Selfstudier: You seem to be a participant in this dispute as well. I am addressing my comment to Huldra, who has reverted Zarcademan across dozens of articles despite the fact that his additions properly reflect language universally used in reliable sources. You have opened an RfC that suggests there is a problem with using this language, and your and Huldra's edits add language that is more ambiguous and suggests something not supported by the sources. Using legitimate Wiki processes to create the appearance of a legitimate content dispute where the sources are unambiguous and the proposed addition clearly conforms with the source is disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't start pinging me again, I have told you about this before. The only editor with disruptive warnings up to now is Zarcademan, look at his talk page. The RFC is a solution to the edit warring, not an excuse for you to "get involved".Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see a bunch of warnings from you, Nableezy, and Huldra, all centered on content disputes, and an AE filing with no action taken. And here, Zarcadeaman123456 has the better of the argument because his language is explicitly supported by sources. You should not be misusing template warnings to the extent that you are to bully editors you disagree with, and edit-warring across these articles over language that is clearly WP:V, and replacing it with suggestive language non-compliant with NPOV, is a serious problem. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You forgot the warning from Zero. I am sure Zarcademan will be pleased to have you as his public defender. We done now?Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Selfstudier: We've been done. I'd like to hear from Huldra why they are edit-warring across multiple articles. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's up to her, meanwhile you have once again pinged me after I have requested you to cease doing so. I can see that you and civility are merely casual acquaintances. Why don't you go back to doing bios, you seem to know what you are doing there?Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made clear to the user above that any further personal attacks or battleground behavior will result in my requesting an interaction ban. In the meantime, my question to Huldra about why edit-warring across over a dozen articles, over content that appears to be verifiably supported in the sources, is appropriate still stands. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there a standard infobox for Israeli settlements? I noticed that for Barkan (it's still a settlement, just the type is industrial (IZ)) is a dog's breakfast (West Bank, Israel). I changed the short desc, that was showing Israel as well, but the infobox is all wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with an athlete?[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure if you could help or not, but I'm working to get the Kenyan athlete Augustus Kavutu added to Wikipedia. I saw you were a part of Africa-related projects. A student of mine drafted the article, but it has been proposed for deletion here: ncu (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have the book "The Lord's Land" by Henry B. Ridgaway?[edit]

"The Lord's Land: A Narrative of Travels in Sinai, Arabia, Petraea, and Palestine, from the Red Sea to the Entering in of Hamath", New York 1876.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Bolter21: Here it is. Zerotalk 13:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much thanks.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And Huldra if I am overflowing your talkpages with requests for 19th century sources please say.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Bolter21: not at all, (I am just rather busy at the moment, and may be late in answering, though), cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Violations of Wikipedia policy[edit]

Please cease and desist using “segregation” as you did at,_Jerusalem

It violates Wikipedia NPOV.

Also, “were taken”...? Again, as I said at beitar Illit, what does adding these two words add to comprehension of article? as “were taken” obv implied by “confiscate” Zarcademan123456 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also you edited with false edit summary is not merely a "ce" but extensive POV changes --Shrike (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shrike and Zarcademan123456: as I told Sir Joseph, the source actually calls it a segregation wall. Since the source says segregation wall we need to use the term. The NPOV solution is to use both as at Israeli West Bank barrier. Huldra, please use edit summaries more accurately. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doug Weller, What about when source use Samaria instead West Bank? Also the source is clearly partisan shouldn't we use neutral terms per WP:NPOV? --Shrike (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doug Weller, It was already advised by AE admins[19] now to use such terms she was not sanctioned because it was not discussed with her now it is. Shrike (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Folks, a title for the wall has already been chosen for Wikipedia. It is: Israeli West Bank barrier. Use WP:RM, if you wish to change that. Using a redirect to accommodate this or that source seems unusual. Sure, there can be secondary names in that article, and there are, but different articles ought to reflect the consensus title. Consistency with the title is preferred. Quotes may be piped, but otherwise, avoid redirect. El_C 11:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, The problem you and Doug Weller give a contradictory remarks(and btw its fence at least 90% of it) Shrike (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On further thought, if local components of the wall (or fence, or whatever) are titled uniquely, piping may also be okay. At its heart, that would make it a content dispute on how to assign due weight to what. I don't see how misrepresentation of sources come into effect for that (again, not a quote) passage, and by extension any DS enforcement pertaining to this dispute in its present form. El_C 11:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shrike, that's mostly too terse to be useful. El_C 11:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, So you suggestion is not clear most WP:NPOV way is to use our name especially if the source use partisan terms --Shrike (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, Do you propose to use quotes when quoting not neutral terms? Shrike (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support building consensus on Wikipedia that ends up reflecting the consensus in academia and the mainstream. An effort toward that end is encouraged. Deciding when to quote and when to use original prose is part of the process. Deciding what are "neutral terms" is also part of that process. El_C 11:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, Such consensus was already was built when we decided the article name Shrike (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we must use the precise terms of our sources. Rather the other way around, we are encouraged to paraphrase and use our own words when writing articles. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) My point was that if a source says one thing we shouldn't say the opposite, so to speak. The source used the term in a section heading and the first sentence is that section is "The Israeli Segregation Wall Plan has had a negative and destructive impact on Jaba' village."@Shrike: how is the Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem clearly partisan? That same link shows that it's widely used. As I said, we should use both, as both terms are disputed by the other side. Choosing to use only a term not used in the source, that seems pretty pov. User:El C, it's not a quote but still... and there's nothing suggesting that the term is a local one, or at least nothing I could find. Debresser, I agree we paraphrase, but that doesn't avoid the pov issue, unless you are actually arguing that one term is pov, the other not? Doug Weller talk 11:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doug Weller, Its a pro-Palestinian NGO with clear agenda its not some independent university its not clear on what they base the data and how much its reliable --Shrike (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shrike: it doesn't say that in its title, nor was that agreed in the RSN discussion.[20] - you need to go back to RSN, otherwise it's just your opinion - which may be correct, but I don't see sources stating that. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doug Weller, It was also not agreed that its reliable the only no regular of WP:ARBPIA that commented was very sceptical of this source.The WP:ONUS are on those who want to add it Shrike (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doug, both sounds like a good compromise, if you're able to elegantly accomplish that in the prose. El_C 11:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doug Weller, And the Israeli term is Anti-Terrorist fence[21] does it ok to use it? Shrike (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not גדר ההפרדה. El_C 11:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, The source is clearly says otherwise anyhow Israeli West Bank barrier is not Israel term like Doug said .Its was a NPOV compromise Shrike (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Israeli term is "the separation fence" (גדר ההפרדה). Yes, the Israeli West Bank barrier is the title chosen on Wikipedia. El_C 11:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, So for example this source use anti-terrorist fence does it OK to use it or no? Shrike (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, I reread your first response its not for local components the source never use some other term. Shrike (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usage is to be determined by discussion. I don't see how it's practical to use three terms, but I suppose it is in the realm of possibilities. El_C 12:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fence, lol. Tell Banksy not to write on the fence.Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, So to summarize this discussion what you as uninvolved admin propose? Shrike (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose you discuss usage of the term/s on the article talk page, keeping in mind that the primary title on the English Wikipedia is Israeli West Bank barrier. El_C 12:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, so we now have to use a term because a pro-Palestinian source uses it, even though it's not neutral and violates Wikipedia article policy and consensus? I just want to make sure we have the new policy you and Doug just made up. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't have to use either a pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli terms. You could use neither, or both. That's what article talk page discussion is for. Again, the primary title on the English Wikipedia is Israeli West Bank barrier. El_C 12:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El C, right, Huldra was the one who redirected to segregation wall, and I got a notice by Doug for reverting that. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with Doug in this instance (which doesn't happen often) about the notice and I invite all participants to advance their arguments on the article talk page. Yes, two uninvolved admins can disagree. It happens. El_C 12:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I am allowed my 2 cents, I would always use the WP article term unless a Rsource is using something else which should be quoted and probably attributed as well.Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selfstudier, We need a consistent policy one way or another --Shrike (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well how would you deal with this?Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no policy that addresses this that I am aware of. Local consensus should decide usage. If you want a wider policy discussion, you can use Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). El_C 12:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If its WP:DUE to explain Zegler views we of course should use the term "Apartheid fence" or any other term but in this case it was not used to explain ARIJ views like I say the policy should be consistent either we use terms used by source someone view or we should use wiki article titles when we when we not explain someone view and in this case no pipe links --Shrike (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the benefit of Huldra's talk page, please continue the discussion on the article talk page. Thank you in advance, everyone. El_C 12:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Good Lord, what a storm in a teacup.
  • Some points: the RS/N was from 2017, in 2018 we had a RfC, see Talk:Jabel_Mukaber#External_links, and note what closing admin llywrch says about ARIJ
  • Out of laziness (I admit!) I often use the exact phrase used in a source, and then make a redir (if it doesn't already exists). Typically it is for names (as names originally in Arabic/Hebrew can be written in English in so many, many ways). (Of my 50 last edits, I see that 5 of them are redirs: I have made thousands). Of course, if anyone change the redir to the "Official name", I do not re-introduce the redir. So if anyone change segregation wall into Israeli West Bank barrier; fine. Just like I wouldn't undo anyone editing Hamza Abdouh changing Raed Awisat to Rad Aweisat (just to mention a redir just did.)
  • Ahem, I have seen that when I have changed Israel War of Independence to the "official name", namely 1947–1949 Palestine war, then that has often been undone. There are presently 24 links to Israel War of Independence.
  • As for my edit of Jaba', Jerusalem: why I edited it was to change After -> Since. (First word in the "Post-1967" section). Then I saw that Zarcademan123456 had edited, introducing spelling errors ("Israeli seperation wall" (my bolding)), in addition to removing the word "confiscated" (which is the word ARIJ and numerous other sources use, but Zarcademan123456 does not like). So yes, I undid it (and yeah: I should have used a more instructive edit-line than "ce")
  • Also, Zarcademan123456 was cautioned at AE in March this year: "Zarcademan123456 is cautioned against making mass changes when these involve contested edits. Similar problems are likely to be met with sanctions next time."
  • However, that is exactly what he continues to do: make hundreds of similar edits all over the West Bank villages, without getting the consensus first. Apparently admins are unable to stop this disruptive behaviour, (looking at his talk-page I get the impression of the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that I have seen in years), Huldra (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important source[edit]

I never see used. Félix-Marie Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, 2 vols. I downloaded one of his massive studies on Jerusalem finding it effortlessly, but couldn't find in it what I was looking for. But in any case, do you know if the above study has been made available for internet access? It probably has material, for one, on wadi qana. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nishidani: when Shrike started the Félix-Marie Abel article 2 years ago, I did quite extensive search for (publicly) available works. Géographie de la Palestine was not available then, and I cannot find (publicly available) today, either. "Gallica" would have been my first bet, but it only have his works on Hebron and Emmaus: link,
Hard-copies are actually available at the local library for me (both the 1930s and the 1967 editions), but the libraries are all covid-19 closed  :/ Huldra (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Even if they are there, I wouldn't get anyone to do my 'dirty' work of drudgery. In any case, had I not a million other things to do, I could certainly read them in any number of Roman libraries, through one contact or another, were this covid business not afoot. I didn't look into the history, but it is very commendable that Shrike prompted the wiki bio. His books are detailed and voluminous to gather from the Jerusalem one I downloaded. Thanks and, keep safe.Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To editor Nishidani: I have vol 1 in closed-19 library. Vol 2 is a catalogue of locations and you might like to watch your mailboxes. Zerotalk 01:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks maestro (di color che sanno). I began examining vol.2 on rising at sparrow fart, and finding the emailed copy. As they say in Aussie pubs on such occasions,'nuf ta givva a boffin yobbo the horn', which however, wouldn't be quite appropriate on mother's day (apologies to Ms.H for my congenital vulgarity - especially in the disgusting Franco-Latin Joycean pun in 'con-genital, now that I think of it).Nishidani (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Jisr el-Majami[edit]

On 17 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jisr el-Majami, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Italy helped to renovate a bridge between Israel and Jordan? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jisr el-Majami), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

West Bank editing[edit]

Since West Bank is not available for editing because of vandalising, and you've edited it several times lately, I said maybe you're the right person to refer to. I'd aprecciate if if you check out the talk page at West Bank, specifically "Replacing or adding new imagery where needed?", and tell me.what you think, It'd be awesome. And you'd also be helping some of my work get through. I'll be contacting some other editors of the article also for a broader opinion. SoWhAt249 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SoWhAt249  Done, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I hope this won't be causing any problems for you. I can't express how happy I am right now. It took me long to finish the map and now I can finally see it put to good use. I hope to touch up on it when I get a new computer, and start mapping other regions. Again, thank you. SoWhAt249 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for your very kind help with my edit suggestion regarding the Palestinian localities destroyed in 1948!

Bustan1498 (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)