Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:48, 29 March 2018

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 November 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Israel B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

972 mag

A separate discussion seem to be about 972mag. And I must say that I don't know the rules about what is a reputable source and what is not. I believe that even though 972mag is a blog and many authors publish under pseudonyms, it is still a trustworthy source. It has, afaik, not been caught with publishing fake news. ImTheIP (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

972mag is WP:SPS per their own about page. There is no editorial board, each blogger to his own. Not a RS. Trustworthiness for 972mag would, if at all, be attributed to an individual author and not to 972mag (which does no vetting). It is also a highly biased source - vehemently anti occupation. Regarding assailants (Arabs, kids, whatever) that are killed or injured as they attack, frankly that should be seen as WP:ROUTINE unless the incident is truly notable.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that an SPS is not an RS? Because from my reading of the page you linked to, Misplaced Pages policy appears not to be that an SPS is not an RS. My take is therefore that links to 972mag is permissible and removing such links on the grounds that 972mag is an SPS, is not allowed. ImTheIP (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It is WP policy that SPSes are generally not RS. Regarding being caught with fake news... It is a highly partisan blog, which is not something that is usually checked by 3rd parties. Haaertz would be caught if it ran a fake (non opinion) in the main page, 972mag quite possibly not. Readership is mainly the convinced. It might be a well regarded collection of blogs. They are still blogs.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe the key word here is "generally." I can set up my own blog and publish how many diatribes I want and you would be right, that would not be a reputable source. Most SPS:es are just like that, random diatribes from random people. However, 972mag is clearly not like that. It is an exceptionally high quality SPS often relied upon by third parties. Therefore, again, removing references to 972mag is not justified by Misplaced Pages's SPS policy. ImTheIP (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note that even when highly regarded, indisputable WP:RS publications like the Washington Post and Forbes publish WP:SPS op-eds and commentators (both Forbes and WaPo now run large numbers of SPS contributions by wide range of activists, academics, and self-promoters, as a means of driving traffic to the site,) this material is not treated like edited material written by paid journalists, it is SPS, as reliable as the author, no more, no less.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that isnt a SPS, the author isnt publishing the material by itself. There are editors and a structure beyond a writer posting something to wordpress or something. 972 is very much not a self-published source. nableezy - 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• News articles in edited news media are assigned and overseen by an editor with the publication taking ownership of, that is, backing the content with its editorial integrity and warranting the content as accurate and responsible coverage; in an ex cathedra editorial, the editorial board of a publication takes responsibility for its own opinions and for its presentation of fact; in op-eds, columns by regular but unpaid "contributors" even in a mainstream publication like Forbes or WaPo, the writers are personally responsible for what they say. The op-ed page editor at The New York Times, WaPo, or Haaretz decides what to accept, and will sometimes make suggestions, but the editor DOES NOT ask the writer of an op-ed to show an editor that the facts presented have been verified. This is the category in which +972 stands, according to their own self-description. If you want to claim that +972 has the same sort of editorial control over its writers that WaPo or Haaretz does, please bring sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPS applies very specifically to sources that are self-published. Please do not erect strawmen. +972 is not a self-published source. Full stop. nableezy - 15:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It as an SPS per their about: We see +972 as a platform for our bloggers to share analysis, reports, ideas, images and videos on their channels. Each blogger owns his or her channel and has full rights over its contents (unless otherwise stated). The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels; the positions expressed on individual blogs reflect those of their authors, and not +972 as a whole. Since they themselves admit to being a SPS, there is no need to evaluate their partisan nature (also readily admitted by themselves in the same about in the para above) or their reliabiliy. SPSes may be used for opinions of the authors, possibly interviews, but not facts.Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You are missing WP:NEWSBLOG. There is no difference between an opinion piece on +972 and an opinion piece on some other magazine's site. Namely, they are citable with attribution. Because one magazine might call something an "op-ed" and another might call it it a "blog" doesn't make a difference. If they are essentially the same we should treat them the same. +972 is a magazine with an editorial board that publishes opinion pieces. Gregory's description of op-eds in regular newspapers is correct, but it doesn't mean that we can't cite them. It only means we have to use attribution when we cite them, as NEWSBLOG says. Zero 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

They are not part of a newsorg, but rather fully indepedent (they may be funded by an NGO, not sure. They do have a Hebrew affilate of the same stripe, but no news org) - so I am not sure this appllies. 972mag does not have an editorial board - they expressly state that each writer has full control of his channel. I do agree they can be used for opinions, if the opinion is notable and attributed, but not for facts (without attribution) - eg in the scope of this article who was killed by whom.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but you are entirely wrong about this. +972 does have an editorial board, including an editor-in-chief, a deputy editor and several other board members. You can find the list of names here. Also, I have no idea what newsorgs have to do with it. Zero 16:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That still is not self-published. There is a selection made of who is allowed to publish on 972. I cannot ask for and be granted the opportunity to publish anything on that site. And beyond that, reliability is determined by more than the publisher, it is also dependent on the author. If the author is an expert in the field, demonstrated by their work being published by other respected sources, then the source may still be reliable. Willy nilly removing 972 on the basis of it being a "SPS" is bogus, it is not a self-published source. Removing it based on it being a blog is likewise bogus, as Zero points out there are places where blogs may be used. An expert writing about his or her field of expertise is one of those places. nableezy - 16:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a matter of practical commonsense. We have a dozen Israeli/Jewish sources that report breaking news mainly by translating IDF radio reports, handouts, and the like, No one questions the reliability of these, though anyone working closely with the wire reportage, and checking reports hour by hour, will see that there is a notable amount of error, misreportage, that requires constant updating. A magazine like +972 frequently supplies us with overall summaries, critically, of what has occurred over a day, or two, or several. The reports aren't written to a deadline. They are written mainly by experienced journalists who have worked in most mainstream Israeli news outlets. This won't convince the 'never-budge' school, but one lesson should be this: any editor just removing +972 mechanically, esp. if used with attribution, has no backing at RSN or from a determinative page discussion, and if the edit summary asserts this, it should be reported. If there is a general ban, that must be established at RSN. With the majority of Israeli sources centre-right, this is one that is generally acute, and not within that area, and the objection is basically here, the magazine's failure to write in lockstep.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This a highly partisan source - of the Israeli radical left (the extreme 0.1%). They exist mainly to promote an anti Israeli government view, and are not a newsorg. These are individual bloggers (a term they use) each writing as they see fit, with no fact checking or oversight.Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not a blog, repeating oneself is pointless. There is no such thing as a 'radical left' in a country where the 'left' itself doubts its own existence, a suspicion often supported by mainstream commentators. The 'radical left' is, as usual, a jargon term for anyone ncritical of what the official government, or the unofficial government (IDF), states.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Per their about +972 Magazine is a blog-based web magazine...... We see +972 as a platform for our bloggers to share analysis, reports, ideas, images and videos on their channels.. Convince them to self declare as a newsorg, and then maybe there will be something to discuss (they would still be a highly partisan non-RS in my opinion), as is, they themselves declare themselves to be an SPS (or maybe possibly NEWSBLOG at best).Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON. Stop repeating yourself. No one listens if you do.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz claims: "This a highly partisan source - of the Israeli radical left (the extreme 0.1%)." I respond: "That is complete nonsense." Icewhiz also claims that +972 has no editorial board, which is also nonsense. To exclude something from the left like +972 yet permit rabid-right "news" organizations like A7 makes a mockery of the NPOV policy. Personally I would prefer to raise the bar across the board, but if that isn't possible at least we can aim for balance in our biases. Zero 16:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I used to dismiss A7, but they have improved much in terms of journalistic standards, and with the growing numerical weight of the settler movement represent a "mainstream settler POV" (representing the half million of settler statelet and their hardcore supporters outside). 972mag, which is a blog, really represents the same viewpoint of the current Haaretz mgmt, just without the journalistic standards.Icewhiz (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with reliability. Every reason you have given has been proven false or irrelevant, yet you continue with the same talking points. nableezy - 15:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The site publishing these articles calls them blogs and says they're not responsible for their content. That's about a SPSish as you can get short of using Wordpress. If the author is otherwise notable in the field or whatever, their opinions can (but don't have to) be used with attribution. This is fairly basic Misplaced Pages editing knowledge I'm almost entirely sure the very experienced editors participating here are aware of. The reference to BLUDGEON while completely ignoring what the site says about itself was a nice touch, btw. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I really dont get how people are claiming that being invited by a third party to write on their website is about a SPSish as you can get short of using Wordpress. Because that is on its face a laughable thing to say. Say it with me now, self published. Nobody has ignored what they say on their website, this game of pretending otherwise might play well is some other forum, but here, on this talk page, it has been acknowledged, repeatedly. However, their about us page does not cause things that are not self-published to magically become self-published so that they may be removed under the SPS guideline. Pretty basic thinking here, a nice touch in trying to walk around it, but still not at all valid. nableezy - 18:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I may have missed the part where SPS or V in general talks about "being invited" as a relevant criteria. Please quote. I do note it specifically talks about "group blogs". Say it with me now, group blogs. Pretty basic thinking here indeed, although I understand the use of "self" might confuse some people. The idea is that it is not published by an organization that is somehow responsible for the content. A group can still "self-publish". Hope that helps! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

An ordinary publisher of an ordinary book does not take responsibility for the accuracy of the book contents. The author takes responsibility. And yet we don't call the book "self-published" unless the publisher is one of those vanity presses. You are completely misrepresenting the concept of self-publication. The fact that +972 has an editorial board and selects who to publish makes it entirely unlike a vanity press or Wordpress and quite similar to an ordinary publisher. Zero 20:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who's completely misrepresenting both the letter and the spirit of V. 972 is a platform created by a group of people in order to publish their work, where each individual has full control over what's published in his/her name. How is that not a group blog? If you want to compare it to book publishing, it's as if a group of authors bought a press together and each can use it to print whatever they like. That is certainly more like a vanity press than an ordinary publisher. 927 itself adds nothing to the reliability of what its members publish, and states so explicitly. Things published there can be used with attribution if the author is an expert or somehow otherwise notable. It is not a reliable source for facts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This source is clearly not reliable for facts and cannot be used there is no editorial oversight as the 972 page clearly says.--Shrike (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think in most cases material from there should be attributed to its author. It is entirely reliable for the author's opinions. In fact, the lack of interference in the authors' writing makes it more reliable for the authors' opinions. Zero 10:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a great source for author opinions (as for those that does write with a nom de plume - which some do (including one used to source this article)), agreed. It is not an appropriate source for how many, how, why, and where people were killed by stones or during the throwing of stones.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, every single person who commented said that it's a reliable source for the author's opinion, just like any SPS is. It's not a reliable source for facts. I'm glad we finally agree. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It just means that "According to X, ..." is usually appropriate, just like it is for most op-eds in regular newspapers. It doesn't mean that material can be deleted on the (false) SPS excuse. My words "usually" and "most" are intended to allow for a small number of cases where the writer is acknowledged by everyone to be a subject expert; such cases to be considered on their individual merits. Zero 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested material could just be deleted on the basis of SPS, but otherwise I agree. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That is actually exactly what happened. nableezy - 13:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There's quite a long and detailed ES there which quite clearly states more reasons that SPS. Nice try though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palestinian stone-throwing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111162826/http://www.film.com/movies/rock-the-casbah-review to http://www.film.com/movies/rock-the-casbah-review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dislike erasures. Jonathan Cook

• extended variant on the same point made by this author earlier in the article
• Having cook in once is questionable. Twice saying the same thing (+declaration of war) is not tenable

Both these edit summaries are patently question-begging if not indeed mendacious.

(a) 'stone throwing has been, according to Jonathan Cook, an 'enduring symbol' of how the weak can challenge the strong. (b) For Jonathan Cook, Netanyahu's declaration of a war on "terrorism by stones", as evidenced in these measures, is an attempt to reinvent the David–Goliath story by conflating stone throwing with Islamic terrorism to undermine Western sympathies for stone-throwing youths facing an army.

1. ^ Jonathan Cook, 'Netanyahu seeks to impose a new reality at Al Aqsa', The National, 5 October 2015

(a) is generic about stone-throwing and has no reference to David or Goliath, which comes from the preceding sentence by Ted Swedenburg (b) is specific about a Netanyahu's legislation over some ostensible "terrorism by stones", and interprets what Cook perceives as a political strategy by that fellow.

Therefore there is no reduplication, the same article can be multiply cited as our ref name system proves, and Jonathan Cook is an award-winning journalist. So the edit summaries are false. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I restored the material; it's a continuation of the same thought, not duplication. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  And why are we giving Cook such UNDUE ample space for his thoughts? Perhaps we should only include the second stmt which seems to include the first?Icewhiz (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Twice this propagandist seems a little bit UNDUE. What is he anyway? What are Cook's credentials? Is he a scholar, an historian, a journalist...? If he's just another pro-Palestinian activist, I don't see why we should mention him more than once, if any.--יניב הורון (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd remind you both that a respectable prize-winning journalist whom you both might personally dislike (propagandist?) still qualifies. As Coffman notes, saying two paraphrased snippets of an article, amounting to 51 of 825 words, a sixteenth of the original article, is undue, is farcical POV-pushing.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I see the inevitable POV eraser Shrike has just struck again, without a rational thought here arguing why Cook, who has an MA with distinction in Middle eastern studies, has lived in Israel for 11 years, writes for highly reputed conflict think tanks like the International Crisis Group, is married to an Israeli, and is competent in the languages, is somehow like many IP editors, a propagandist. He's competent, we are not.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles