Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Israel: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:30, 11 October 2009 editShuki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,955 edits →Jewish homes, outposts, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, and cities: ambiguous label should not lead the lead over a the specific essence of the subject← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:35, 13 December 2024 edit undoBearian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers84,444 edits →Kav LaOved: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel/header}}
{| width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" valign="top"|
|-
|
<!-- BEGIN TABS -->
{| border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" height="50" width="100%"
{{User:Phaedriel/tab2|]}}
{{User:Phaedriel/tab1|]}}
{{User:Phaedriel/tab2|]}}
{{User:Phaedriel/tab2|]}}
{{User:Phaedriel/tab2|]}}
{{User:Phaedriel/tab2|]}}
{{User:Phaedriel/tab2|]}}
{{User:Phaedriel/tab2|]}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel/tab3|]}}
| style="border-bottom:1px ridge black;" width="100"| &nbsp;
|}
<!-- END TABS -->
<div style="border:solid 1px lightblue; background:white; margin:5px; padding:5px; color: black" id="Top">
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 3 |counter = 7
|algo = old(20d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
<div style="align: center; padding: 0.25em; border: solid 1px black; background-color: white; font-size:120%; text-align: center;">This ] is dedicated to matters related to WikiProject Israel.<br/></div> <div style="align: center; padding: 0.25em; border: solid 1px black; background-color: white; font-size:120%; text-align: center;">This ] is dedicated to matters related to WikiProject Israel.<br/></div>
{{talkheader|WT:Israel|WT:ISRAEL|wp=yes|noarchives=yes|search=no}}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage WPT|Israel}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Shortcut|WT:Israel}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=NA}}

{{archive box|
*]
*]
*]
}} }}
{{archives|auto=short|1=Old noticeboard archives: ], ], ], ]}}


== Canvassing ==
== Proposed merge discussion ==

* ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:False_Moshe_Ya%27alon_quotation

<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== Yehuda Amichai article dispute ==

There is/was an edit war at the ] article that led to it getting locked; the issue is whether a biography by Nili Scharf Gold, that some other scholars consider unreliable, should be cited. Additional opinions would be welcome, at the article's ]. ] (]) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::The blanket reversion of sourced information in this page continues, after an administrator locked the page instead of addressing the problem. Is there anyone who wants to get involved? I am getting tired of being the guardian. Some "editor" with a personal grudge against Nili Scharf Gold is on the rampage, leaving bizarre comments and cooking up wacko conspiracy theories.--] (]) 10:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

== Evolution of left-wing parties in Israel ==


It looks like there was (has been?) a large scale canvassing operation targeting Israel-related topics on Misplaced Pages, see . The first part of the article is not very convincing in my opinion but coordinating edits on Discord seems like a clear violation of the policy. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Having seen ] on the Hebrew wiki, I decided to make my own version of it - I have done two versions, ] and ]. If anyone has any comments or corrections, please let me know. Cheers, ] ]] 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:Good work! A couple things:
:# The diagram should be chronologically sorted (IMO), so 1965 (Rafi) can't be above 1948 (Mapam), etc.
:# The bottom-right lines make it look like Meretz transformed into Shinui, which is misleading and not exactly like they did it on HeWiki. Basically you would have something like:


:It looks like they mention two different groups, the first they don't seem to name, the second being Tech for Palestine. It seems like most of Tech for Palestine's activities are transparent, including some past on-wiki coordination (see ]), but more concerningly, there's also coordination on a now-private Discord channel. It seems most evidence was deleted, though there are a few screenshots like in . {{yo|BilledMammal}} might have more information. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 20:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Meretz (1992)<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|_______________<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;|<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;V&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;V<br />
Meretz (1997) Shinui (1997)


Or something. —] <sup>(])</sup> 13:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC) ::This isn't a forum, if there is evidence of something sanctionable, do the necessary. ] (]) 21:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{yo|Amayorov|Sean.hoyland}} just cc'ing you based on your related ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::See also — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::I agree the Tech for Palestine's channel for Misplaced Pages editing has a high likelihood of constituting improper canvassing. However, the issue would be stale if the channel is inactive. I have asked on the Discord server the status of their Misplaced Pages activities. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 14:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::They say they discontinued their Misplaced Pages editing channel due to doxxing. I believe the issue to be now stale. ] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">]</sup></i> 12:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
<-Yes, I already read it. I learned that I am one of the top 30 members of this powerful group of pro-Hamas editors hijacking Misplaced Pages. So, I already know the author is either a bit dopey, dishonest or both.
* There is, no doubt, plenty of offsite coordination going on and there has been for years. We already know the use of deception and canvassing is relatively common among Israel supporters here of course, has been for well over a decade, and is seen as justified from an in-world perspective, so it wouldn't be surprising at all if these kinds of activities existed with the opposite valence.
* My view is that little to nothing can be done about it because it is not currently possible to prevent off-site coordination or any determined individual from editing in the topic area due to various technical and wiki-cultural constraints. For example, I believe that one of the people banned in the ] is currently active in the topic area, and Misplaced Pages's rather unserious approach to ban evasion, or the ranking of privacy over honesty, means that it can't be addressed. That's okay. Nobody died.
* Given the technical/cultural limits that can't be changed it seems, I would rather there was an emphasis on enforcing compliance with the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct's position that unacceptable behavior includes "systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" i.e. biased editing/activism. The normalization of biased editing/advocacy means that you naturally produce conjugate sets of editors with opposite valence forming something like an autocatalytic set or a self-sustaining fire. But again, anyone blocked for biased editing/advocacy/coordination/canvassing etc. can easily return with a new account and quickly become extended confirmed using numerous tools that Misplaced Pages provides to new users to get them started.
* On the article itself, it is hard for me to take it seriously as these kinds of conspiratorial, casually defamatory, attack pieces camouflaged as rational analyses remind me so much of antisemitic conspiracy theories and conversations I've had with street people over the years, including a man who believed he was John the Baptist. The primarily utility of these kinds of attack articles and low-quality media reporting about on-wiki-things for me personally, as someone interested in the dynamics of the topic area, is that they are a useful reminder of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect and they help to identify actors with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation and manipulation and/or a willingness to generate or inject disinformation into Misplaced Pages's systems either directly or by employing external vectors. ] (]) 03:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


:Thanks for your response. Indeed a lot of the article seems like guesswork, maybe poor guesswork. Just wondering if anyone had dug into this further to determine what actual evidence exists.
Also, the communist parties table doesn't include newer parties like Hadash. —] <sup>(])</sup> 13:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:To the extent that their is evidence of stealth canvassing, I think it should be acted on regardless of the editor's ideology. Certainly ban enforcement has its challenges, but that doesn't seem like enough reason to ignore rulebreaking. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 05:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::I'm also wondering if anyone has managed to have a detailed look at the Tech for Palestine activities to compile actual evidence of policy violations, and if not, why not. I guess the answer is no/not yet or else evidence would have been presented in the PIA5 discussions or at AE for specific editors by now since that information has been available for a while. I may be a lot more cynical than you when it comes to enforcing rules in PIA because I see sanctions/remedies as mostly performative nowadays. They appear to have little to no actual impact on the dynamics of the topic area over time unless they are machine enforceable like EC protection, and even then, the benefit is very limited. People enforcing rules in PIA doesn't seem to work. The main benefits of enforcement seem to be that it can be weaponized and exploited by partisan actors to keep the fires burning/take out perceived enemies and it provides reinforcement learning so that people get better at exploiting weaknesses in the system over time. I also think that much of what happens in the topic area, rule breaking or not, is not visible/goes unnoticed/is given a pass. This is evident from the number of edits ban evading accounts manage to make before they are blocked. ] (]) 07:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


== RFC: ] ==
:The ] basically reunited with MAKI in 1948--it's complex, but it would probably be better to show it merging with MAKI rather than being a dead end.] (]) 21:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:Also it's not really clear from the current version that MAKI split in 1965, it looks like it just changed its name. Thanks for doing this though.] (]) 21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::] needs to be added to the chart. --] (]) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I've done a new version of the ]. Thoughts? ] ]] 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:Much better! There are a few small modern parties missing though (not sure if they'd be important enough for the chart), notably Meimad and Hetz. I'm sure that many smaller parties from earlier years were also missed, but my political history knowledge isn't that vast. Cheers for the job well done! —] <sup>(])</sup> 00:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::I think it is a mistake to exclude the communist parties. There were, after all, a number of notable splits and mergers between the "mainstream" left and the communists. Also, the graph should probably be in ]. Otherwise, looks good. '''''] ]''''' 06:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I would like to include them and the smaller parties mentioned above, but it's really a question of size - the diagram is almost too large already to include in an article. Also, I don't have the programmes necessary to turn something into an SVG! ] ]] 08:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I do and have uploaded SVG files for both. Not sure if I should have uploaded over the current file. If not revert it and will upload to commons, if that is fine could an admin please move ] to ] and ] to ]? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 02:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
:::::That kind of defeats the whole point of SVG though... since the text isn't in SVG as far as I can tell. I am waiting for the final version from Number 57, then it won't be a problem to remake this in SVG. —] <sup>(])</sup> 11:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::aight then, revert it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
::::::I think I'm happy with the non-Communist version if you want to SVG it - it would be nice to include Hetz, Meimad etc, but there just isn't enough room unfortunately (and they are all quite minor in comparison to the size (at some point) of Mapai, Rafi, Ahdut HaAvoda, Mapam, Meretz and Shinui. ] ]] 21:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
] is my attempt at an SVG version. I still can't figure out what problem this thing has with the Arial font... I tried two methods to fix this, and it didn't work. If you have any ideas, please let me know, although I believe the current version is also possible to work with (but the PNG is better for now). —] <sup>(])</sup> 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
:Cheers for that. Is it possible to make parts of an image into a link (I think I've seen this done elsewhere, but not sure if it was something like the links on certain maps)? ] ]] 20:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
::AFAIK, in cases like this it's only possible by putting the links on top of the image in a template (see ]). If you make links in the actual SVGs, it won't thumbnail links. Anyway, I'm not up to the task at the moment, but you have an example of how to make this :) maybe I'll do it later. —] <sup>(])</sup> 11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


This RFC might interest contributors of this project. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
== Israeli fascists ==


== Sourcing for events at Kamal Adwan Hospital, Gaza ==
On September 18, a new category, "Israeli fascists", was created by “Scottish Wikipedian” ] and two individuals were placed in this category, the Israel Prize laureate, ], and ], a co-founder in the 1930's of the ] faction. In addition, these two individuals were, respectively, added to the categories, “Austrian fascists’ and “Russian fascists”, sharing such categories with certain odious characters. I query whether either of these two individuals can be considered as fascists (let alone Austrian or Russian fascists, which terms has somewhat more specific connotations), having regard to the current understanding of the term and its clearly pejorative nature and, indeed, I question whether the category itself should not be deleted. As I do not consider my self to be an expert on these two individuals, I have not, for the time being, taken any action as I would prefer those users more acquainted with this aspect of the history of the Palestine Mandate to initiate the appropriate action. ] (]) 08:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
:The categories should be deleted, if they haven't been already. ]. —] <sup>(])</sup> 00:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::The category: "Israeli Fascists" was deleted, but has been recreated by its original creater (and the two individuals mentioned above placed in it). The issue is now under discussion in ], having been moved there from an initial discussion on speedy renaming. ] (]) 08:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
:::This matter is still under discussion, and comments on the ] would be welcome. ] (]) 08:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 03:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
== Yom Yerushalayim move suggested - again ==


== Discussion about "History of the Jews in ____" articles ==
Current: ]. Editor is reopening old move discussions to move this page to Jerusalem Day. In the past, the original Hebrew Israeli civic holiday names have been attacked and attempted to be anglicized and Yom Hashoah, Yom Hazikaron, Yom Ha'atmaut are all an inherently related package on this argument. --] (]) 09:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Please see ] dealing with articles about Jews and Jewish history. Thank you, ] (]) 17:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
: FYI, the page has been moved to Jerusalem Day for some odd reason, even though numerous move requests have already been turned down. ] <sup><font color="Green">]</font></sup> 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


==SHARAP==
::I commented on the admin's talk, as well as on the talk page. The only word I can think of is 'absurd'. This admin has justified going against the 'majority' by telling us what the common name of this day is, as if he knows better than us. Given his admin 'justification', what will prevent other admin with POV to 'translate other pages? --] (]) 23:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone feels like writing an article about this contentious subject? Or failing that a section for ]? All the best: ''] ]''<small> 16:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC).</small><br />
:::If you read the closing text, he justified it by the actually taking into account the evidence given proving that Jerusalem Day is the common English name. ] ]] 08:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Wow, the guy who repeatedly suggested to move the page is happy the page was moved. I agree that this move is absurd. The activists who try to dilute everything Jewish and/or Israeli on Misplaced Pages can mark another notch on their belts. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Yes, the closing admin was so 'justified' in his explanation, he had to re-explain himself. We only have his POV that decided for the Israeli, Jewish, and other related editors that the common name is something that is not common at all, and at least a wrong usage. His justification was that the ''oppose'' editors (who were the majority) were just annoying 'me too' votes.--] (]) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Consensus is not a vote, in fact ] specifically says ''Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.'' And this is not a Misplaced Pages just for ''Israeli, Jewish, and other related editors'', it is a Misplaced Pages for all English readers, so if the most common name in English is "Jerusalem Day" the name of the Misplaced Pages article will be "Jerusalem Day". Reasons and evidence were provided that this is the case, nothing was offered to rebut that evidence besides users jumping up and down saying "NO NO NO". ] also says that ''Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.'' ] is part of site-wide consensus. That said, I am more than a bit shocked that an admin did what they were supposed to do and not just count votes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
::Yeah, whatever. The best of you couldn't abstain from adding your two cents here, and given especially after what 24.120.153.187 above said.
::Googlehits, several examples in the world, and secular Israeli newspapers supported your suggestion over uneloquent Israeli / Jewish supporting people who identify with the holiday or otherwise people know something about it. The Bastille Day is certainly not the rule, just one example bordering on ]. There are many more 'ethnic named' days on WP that 'English' editors respect and don't push their POV under guise of 'commoname'. Apparently, I did not take this discussion as serious as I should have. I was so sure that your past actions and reputation as related by 24.120.153.187 above would be evident on top of the fact that this is clearly a case of the ignorant world telling a country how to name its holiday. I was so sure that common sense would win that I specifically did not apply your tried and true tactic to ] discussions by badgering opposing editor's comments and reply to you further into the discussion/vote. Move/delete 'vote discussions' are usually characterized by single comments and few people ever come back to reply since it is not on their watchlist. And FWIW, the exact policy you just quoted from 'CONSENSUS' is why the outcome should have been opposite. There was no ''limited group of editors'', there had been several past discussions with outcomes opposing name changes so that ''one place and time'' is not true here, and there is definite ''community consensus'' to keep the Israeli/Jewish names as seen with all other Jewish and Israeli holidays except Passover and now Jerusalem Day. --] (]) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Apparently not. Community wide consensus trumps what a group of editors tries to force on a set of pages, and there was no "badgering", there were requests to actually back up assertions that were shown to be false and yet repeated continuously. Policy trumps what a few editors want to do and policy was correctly applied in this case. If you or anybody else had made any effort at all to show that I was wrong the decision would have been different. But you instead relied on a call to arms against an "attack" on "Israeli civic holiday names" and what you got from that was a few people lining up giving the same bogus argument without a single shred of evidence. Consensus is not a vote, and no matter how many people you get to say "me too" reasoned application of policy will trump assertions without any factual backing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
Interesting. We have a lot of terms from the Arabic as well. "Intifada" instead of "uprising" "Al-Nabka" "Al-Quds" the various Muslim holy days etc. What's the big deal that vernacular more specific to Israel can't be permitted on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:There is no such deal. "Intifada" was used in English as the name of the uprisings, "Nakba" is not in a title of an article, the only reference to "Quds" in a title that I have seen is ] which is used in English as the name of the event. Page names are dependedent on the most common English name, and in this instance it is "Jerusalem Day". For other events, such as ] or ] the most common name used in English are "Eid ul-Fitr" and "Yom Kippur" respectively. So those are the titles of the articles. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
::I know I'm just an ignorant American but I have almost never seen and certainly never used the expression ]. Of course we do have ] and then there is the ] and we have expression like the ] and ] that demonstrate to me that WP has room to express many (both) cultures. ] (]) 15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::The culture is not the issue, it is what name is used in English for an event. For "Eid ul-Fitr" take a look at what , , , , and any number of other sources use. I showed on the talk page of the article that major English sources, including Israeli sources that publish English version such as ] and ] use "Jerusalem Day" as the name of the event. English sources use "Eid ul-Fitr" (sometime "Eid al-Fitr") as the name of that event just as English sources use "Yom Kippur" as the name of that event. But the common name used in English is what the title of the article is, and in this instance it is "Jerusalem Day". Besides sophistry, is there an argument that shows that this is not the case? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
Generalising somewhat, it is common for the names of holy days to remain in the original language, but for secular public holidays to be translated. ] ]] 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Nableezy, you just said that the issue "is what name is used in English for an event." And yet we have just spent the last week and a half trying to express just that in the ] article with you where you have been insisting on calling it "The Gaza Massacre" in the lede despite the fact that it is generally ''not'' called that in English RS. You had to go to the Arabic and translate it yourself to come up with evidence to maintain a '''massacre''' in the lede. This despite the fact that most everyone was quite willing to include the ''massacre'' concept in the body of the article and to acknowledge that it was widely described that way in the Arabic press. Now here you are insisting on calling something by its English name. I guess it all depends on your POV. Yours seems quite consistent. No one is accusing you of antisemitism but your antiIsraelism is clear enough. It is probably understandable considering what I think I read was your background but it is not neutral nonetheless. ] (]) 20:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::I dont know if you are purposely being obtuse but let me break this down for you. The '''name of the article''' is determined by the most common English name of what the article is covering. "Gaza massacre" (and I never capitalized the m) was never presented as a common English name and nobody suggested that the name of the article be "Gaza massacre". The '''name of the article''' was the issue with "Jerusalem Day" and nobody even suggested that "''Yom Yerushalayim''" not be included in the lead as the name in Hebrew. And I completely reject the label "anti-Israel" and I consider it a personal attack. Kindly refrain from spouting such inanity in the future. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>


== D. Grossman ==


Could anyone of you please start an article on him here on en.wp? There is a lot of info sourced to him. I asked , but he seems o be on a wiki break. The article about him on Hebrew wp is https://he.wikipedia.org/דוד_גרוסמן_(גאוגרף) Cheers, ] (]) 21:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
== Jewish homes, outposts, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, and cities ==


== Articles about types of Jews as well as their histories ==
Coming off a grand victory of the Yom Yerushalyim move, Nableezy now takes on Jewish villages as well. His rationale is that 'Israeli settlement' is the most common description given the ghits around the internet. While no one is denying the use of that term, it is OR and POV to emphasize that vague general label over the actual type of locality - its essence - a place where people live, study, and work. '''Emphasizing''' that all these houses, outposts, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, and cities are primarily 'Israeli settlements' and deprecating a more accurate description of the subject of the articles is POV. It assumes that they are all the same 'questionable' efforts when in fact, each one is a completely different story by itself. Using a vague descriptive label over a term to describe the residential type is dehumanizing of the subject. This is not an accusation of anti-Semitism (as Nableezy assumes), and given AGF, I say that it is rather a POV attempt to degrade all these localities to the same general less meaningful status. Since Nableezy's edits are characterized with a record of edit warring and tiring out other editors on articles he targets, I plan on opening a WP:DR early next week (unless someone wants to attempt to do it first) to get a WP community for consensus. I've reverted most of his changes and hope that Nableezy will stay calm and show some maturity by taking part in peaceful dispute resolution. --] (]) 10:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:TBH, he has a point - they are primarily (and almost exclusively) known as Israeli settlements - I'd imagine only Israeli right-wingers would describe one as a "Jewish village" or something similar. ] ]] 10:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
::Number57, I'm sure you know that this is A) an encyclopedia and B) an NPOV encyclopedia. If I show you a myriad of geographical localilty articles around the world, the first term I would expect anyone to describe the subject of the article is as a 'city' or a 'village' or a 'district'. But when it comes to Israeli settlements, for some reason, this is an exception to the rest of WP. I can show you a couple of hundred articles about Jewish residences in the disputed land, and you are claiming that we should merely say: Jewish house in Ras el Amud: 'Israeli settlement' and house; Jewish city in Samarian Mountains: 'Israeli settlement' and city. (Though the effort is to even reduce this as well) Again, the vague settlement term is not denied, but it poorly reduces the type to the vague label, and reduces the accuracy of the geographical article. Is that quality? When colonies will be set up on the moon in several years, will there lead be; '''Tranquility''' is a ] and ], or the better format - Tranquility is a village on the moon. ] are ... etc...? --] (]) 11:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, but places like ] are primarily known for being Israeli settlements rather than a village, moshav, town or whatever. Other geographical localilty articles around the world do not have this issue because Israeli settlements are almost unique by their virtue of being illegally constructed on occupied territory (I suppose the only equivalent would be Moroccan settlements in Western Sahara, but I'm not sure how far recognition of Morocco's occupation goes). And yes, I would expect to see Tranquility is a moon colony, not Tranquility is a village on the moon, as a moon colony has far more meaning! ] ]] 11:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
::::What crazy logic! Jewish and Israeli villages are not unique for being villages with people, schools, and houses of worship, but instead are ''almost unique'' for being ''illegally constructed'' on ''occupied territory.'' No POV there surely! ] (]) 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::The POV expressed is the POV of the vast majority of the world. These places are, almost without exception, called "Israeli settlements" before any other description. You think there is "no POV" in calling these places "villages" before the most common description? This is not about "Jewish and Israeli villages", this is about localities built in occupied Arab lands. The words used to describe such localities is "Israeli settlement". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
::::::I do recommend checking your dictionary for the definitions of villages, towns, cities and neighborhoods. These are neutral terns which contain considerably more information for readers than the expression "settlement", which besides being vague and overly general in its meaning has political overtones in the region. The (political) implication is that Jews have "settlements" and Palestinians have "villages." While of course the political can & probably should always be mentioned, these are still Jewish villages and towns outside of the political context. It would be nice to get the politics out and the people in. This ] of the Jewish community in and around Israel is really very troubling. ] (]) 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::No they do not provide "considerably more information for readers" and I am not using the generic term "settlement", I am using the specific term ] which has a specific meaning. That meaning is Israeli locality built in occupied territory. There is no logical explanation of how "village" gives more information to the reader, and nobody is removing the word "village", just placing it after the most common description ("Israeli settlement"). These places are called "Israeli settlements" by nearly all reliable sources before any other description and usually without any other description. And "Jews have villages", but the "villages" (more accurately known as "colonies") that Israel has built in the occupied territories are called "Israeli settlements". This is not about "Jews" or any other association, this is about where these places were built. And the "implication" is that colonies that the occupying power builds in occupied territory have a name, and in the lands occupied by Israel that name is "Israeli settlement". And there is no "dehumanization", there is accuracy. I caught a speech by Robert Fisk in which this very issue came up. It discusses the way that certain extreme right-wing Israelis and their American supporters attempt to change the language used to convey certain meanings. He had a line that was close to this: Colonies become settlements and now there is an attempt to change settlements into "neighborhoods" or "villages". And I dont care what troubles you, but if we are sharing our feelings Ill let mine out. A number of users are adamant that NPOV means that whatever Israel says goes. That even though the world agrees that the West Bank (including E. Jerusalem), Gaza and the Golan remain occupied by Israel that because Israel "disputes" this it is non-NPOV to say the lands are occupied by Israel. They demand that we instead use the language of a fringe-sized minority and say "the disputed lands of Judea and Samaria" instead of "the occupied territory of the West Bank". That is what is in violation of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that we treat fringe views on the same level as what is agreed by nearly the entire world. It does not mean that words a certain set of people do not like should not be used. NPOV, specifically ] in fact says the exact opposite of this. What is troubling is the number of users who try to distort policies into saying that if their POV is not the one presented then NPOV is violated. That is what is troubling. I will also add, as you seem to have trouble understanding the point, that this has nothing to do with "Jews in Israel", I would not say that a village in Israel is an "Israeli settlement". The localities that Israel has built in occupied lands outside of Israel are however "Israeli settlements". And this is the last time somebody implicitly accuses me of racism before this gets taken to ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
::::::::Also, playing the anti-semitism card is a really poor way to conduct an argument. ] ]] 19:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Please see the discussion at ]. Thank you, ] (]) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Whatever the verdict on settlements, Nableezy is wrong to have made those edits. When you know an edit is going to be as controversial as this (and Nableezy should know this better than anyone, after the major ArbCom case where 8 users were banned as a result of a very similar dispute), you don't go on a willy-nilly and made a bunch of similar edits where consensus has not been reached. Other than that, I agree with Stellarkid, but firstly request that Nableezy ceases to make further edits like he did, before discussing them in depth with other editors and gaining clear consensus. —] <sup>(])</sup> 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:BS. Most of those articles had been changed from having "Israeli settlements" first to having "town" or "city" or "village" first. Is that not controversial? Is that not going "on a willy-nilly" and making "a bunch of similar edits where consensus has not been reached"? Yn, if you expect people to show you respect it would be wise to actually look at the circumstances and not just provide automatic backup consistently to those who express a certain POV, especially as those users are freely implying that I am a racist (and apparently agreeing with them). But BS on how I should not be doing these edits. Shuki should not have put village first, especially after having the same argument at Moddin Illit with most users agreeing that "Israeli settlement" is the most common description and should be first. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
::I would appreciate a policy-based argument instead of personal attacks. Thanks, ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:::As would I. Mine is that the ] of these places is ] and using the language of the occupying power in place of what is most common throughout the world is in violation of ]. Would you like to try or would you rather say "me too" along with people calling me a racist without any rational reason? And perhaps you would like to give a policy-based argument as to why my edits should not have been done but Shuki adding "village" before "Israeli settlement" is just fine. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
::::It only adds to the confusion when you reply to my concern of behavioral issues with your rationale for the content changes. Please focus on just one topic.
::::The reason why your edits were inappropriate is simple, and it's not helpful that you're trying to divert attention from that by saying that "Shuki was also wrong". Perhaps he was, I made no comment about Shuki's edits, but about yours.
::::I am fully aware of how this unfolded, having most of the articles on my watchlist; Shuki made some changes to a number of articles about settlements in late August. For over a month, these edits were uncontested and no one raised an objection, and I refuse to believe that nobody noticed them since they were made to about a dozen (or more) articles. So, while the appropriateness of those edits can be disputed, what cannot be disputed is that for over a month no one cared. Then suddenly you ] Shuki to each of these articles (as far as I can tell) and reverted him without discussion. Now, ignoring for a second that the revert was in itself inappropriate (mass reverts should simply not be made except to clear vandalism, without prior discussion), you did not attempt to start a discussion even after the revert, and instead Shuki started one in the appropriate location.
::::All of the above demonstrates a very clear behavioral gap, and this is why I singled you out in criticism. This is irrelevant to the actual content dispute, which should be settled separately. Therefore I again request both editors to stop edit-warring over these articles (might not have been clear from my above post), and present concise arguments on why their positions are correct. Personally I have already presented my position in the past, and will do so again in the framework of the content-based discussion.
::::—] <sup>(])</sup> 02:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Again BS. I did '''not''' follow Shuki, and for you to say that I did is hopefully an unintended falsehood and not an outright lie. I can tell you exactly how I got to these pages, I was looking through pedrito's edits to see where the J+S problems arose. These articles were all edited in a set by pedrito, so I looked at them, and corrected the errors that I saw. So please stop saying things that you do not know, they can easily be mistaken for lies. And my edits were for the most part not reverts. Shuki '''added''' "town" "neighborhood" or whatever to the articles, placing them in before "Israeli settlement". I changed that order, but did not undo any part of Shuki's edits, I left "village" "town" or whatever, but I modified that placement. And where do you get off asking me for a policy based argument and then complaining when I provide one? This was by no means a "mass revert" as most of the edits were not even reverts. However, Shuki's reversion of these edits would be categorized as a "mass reversion" by your definition (though I would not say that they were), but you again take no issue with that. I am not going to stay here and argue the point with you, I dont exactly have a whole lot of faith in your objectivity or fairness so I dont see the point. You have said you "agree" with a user that has implicitly called me a racist in the post you apparently agree with and then have the gall to chastise me for things that are simply not true. There is no point to continuing with you here, so bye. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>


== Requested move at ] ==
:::::I take exception to the accusation that I called you an antisemite or racist, implicitedly or otherwise and to ''number57'''s assertion that I "played the antisemite card." I challenge you to find anything even vaguely resembling a personal attack in my post. I do stand by my belief that your posting and editing clearly shows an anti-Israel bias, and if you insist that stating that I see a bias in your work is the same as calling you an antisemite or a racist, go ahead. I would just remember to take a look at everything that you have said of me regarding bias (and I can find them for you), and you will see that ''at best'' you will be seen as the pot calling the kettle black. (No racism intended, implicit or otherwise.) No one has called you a racist, so you should ] and start making good WP edits and policy-based arguments instead of attacking other editors because they disagree with you. Thank you. ] (]) 03:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::saying "this dehumanization of the Jewish community in and around Israel is really very troubling" in reference to nableezy's justified insistence on using the most notable, common descriptor ''is'' an accusation of racism. full stop. ](]) 04:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Well, first of all then you must convict me for the accusation of racism against ''number57'' since it was ''his'' post <blockquote>"Yes, but places like Elon Moreh are primarily known for being Israeli settlements rather than a village, moshav, town or whatever. Other geographical localilty articles around the world do not have this issue because Israeli settlements are almost unique by their virtue of being illegally constructed on occupied territory (I suppose the only equivalent would be Moroccan settlements in Western Sahara, but I'm not sure how far recognition of Morocco's occupation goes). And yes, I would expect to see Tranquility is a moon colony, not Tranquility is a village on the moon, as a moon colony has far more meaning!" <blockquote>
:::::::and his <u>dehumanizing</u> of real villages with real people in them as ''"almost unique by their virtue of being illegally constructed on occupied territory"'' rather than unique as villages with real people in them, was my original motivator. I suggest you try to put the shoe on the other foot if you can for a second, and see if you would like it if someone said something similar, about a Palestinian "encampment" in Israel for example. Refusing to see a village as a village or a neighborhood as a neighborhood simply because you disagree with those people politically or even a lot of people feel that way, it is still a village first and a settlement later. If you want to take this as a personal attack on my part that is your prerogative; but I must say that to do so is to make a personal attack of your own. I made an argument for an edit and said I was troubled by what I see as an attempt to dehumanize Israel and Israelis by turning them from human beings into "illegal occupiers" everywhere in WP, using any and every conceivable argument. ] (]) 04:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::(ec) I am not dealing with this conversation anymore, but a tip for you. If you intend to reply to somebody you should indicate that by the level of your indent. Immediately following a comment with an additional indent is usually take as a reply to the comment you followed. So your comment looked like it was a reply to mine. But your argument is even more ridiculous when applied to Number57, but I'll leave it to you to figure out why it would be silly to accuse N57 of "dehumanizing Israel and Israelis" (] would give you an idea of why that would be a silly accusation). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)</font></small>


== Requested move at ] ==
<- I find it baffling why people get so aggravated over this issue. It's really rather routine for the Supreme Court of Israel to refer to Israeli settlements as 'Israeli settlements' and Palestinian villages as 'Palestinian villages' in their rulings. but just have a look through their rulings. If they're quite happy to talk about 'settlement activities' producing 'Israeli settlements' in areas they recognise as being governed by the 'law of belligerent occupation' what's the problem ? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 06:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 00:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:Well Sean.hoyland that was an interesting Supreme Court of Israel ruling in a number of ways. You are quite right that they regularly (certainly in ''this'' ruling) refer to Israeli "settlements" and Palestinian "villages." However I do think it is easy to understand that in the context of a legal and political document such as this one -- that legal and political terms would tend to be used. I did a quick count just as a point of curiosity, and see they refer to "villages" some '''42''' times and "settlements" some '''23''' times. They did however refer to these settlements as "neighborhoods" some '''78''' times. ''Neighborhoods'' certainly has a more human ring to it than does "settlements." On another note, I ran a quick check on '']'' - fourteen times, and '']'', twice. Make what you will of it. ] (]) 03:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==
Number57 (and others), let us look for more/other NPOV, accurate, good writing examples on WP to strengthen the argument that we should open the lead with the more specific description rather than an ambiguously vague one: Chemists who come from France, for example. In most of the articles in that cat ], the subject of the article is described: 'ABC is a French chemist'. The lead is not 'ABC is a French scientist', or 'ABC is a scientist from France', or 'ABC is a French scientist and chemist', etc... Now for some exceptional reason, on Jewish locality articles the WP community enforces the idea that 'Modiin Illit is an Israeli city' implies that Modiin Illit is 'in Israel' but 'Modiin Illit is an Israeli settlement' somehow does not imply that the settlement is in Israel (settlement being a noun widely used in WP to describe all other human localities). Since it is better and more accepted editing to refer to the persons above specifically as French chemists, chemist being the most specific name to describe what they do as opposed to the vague 'scientist' term than likewise for the Jewish locality articles, it is more reasonable to use the more specific type of locality. I do not deny the general term 'Israeli settlement' and there is no attempt to remove it from the lead paragraph, even if it being in the lead sentence is a bit of awkward. But it is misleading to blanketly give this generalized label (which means any Jewish residence built by Israel or Israelis) to lead the lead. --] (]) 07:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Please find sources. ] (]) 05:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== DYK ==
FYI --] (]) 22:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
:I always assumed that DYK was an interesting 'trivia' bit from a random article. Now I see that it is simply some sort of recognition for good work on expanding an article in a short time. The work done on exapanding Ayn Ghazal should be commended as all other editors who contribute time on WP to write good articles, but I don't know what is so special about it to deserve a mention, especially a non-exceptional sentence being singled out for publicity. --] (]) 06:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:35, 13 December 2024

MainTalk PageHelpParticipantsAwardsArticle AssessmentTemplatesTo doNew ArticlesSister Projects

This Talk page is dedicated to matters related to WikiProject Israel.
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Israel and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis page 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
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Old noticeboard archives: 1, 2, 3, talk


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Canvassing

It looks like there was (has been?) a large scale canvassing operation targeting Israel-related topics on Misplaced Pages, see here. The first part of the article is not very convincing in my opinion but coordinating edits on Discord seems like a clear violation of the policy. Alaexis¿question? 19:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they mention two different groups, the first they don't seem to name, the second being Tech for Palestine. It seems like most of Tech for Palestine's activities are transparent, including some past on-wiki coordination (see here), but more concerningly, there's also coordination on a now-private Discord channel. It seems most evidence was deleted, though there are a few screenshots like in . @BilledMammal: might have more information. — xDanielx /C\ 20:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a forum, if there is evidence of something sanctionable, do the necessary. Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
@Amayorov and Sean.hoyland: just cc'ing you based on your related discussion. — xDanielx /C\ 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
See also Inside the war over Israel at Misplaced Pages — xDanielx /C\ 22:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree the Tech for Palestine's channel for Misplaced Pages editing has a high likelihood of constituting improper canvassing. However, the issue would be stale if the channel is inactive. I have asked on the Discord server the status of their Misplaced Pages activities. Ca 14:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
They say they discontinued their Misplaced Pages editing channel due to doxxing. I believe the issue to be now stale. Ca 12:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

<-Yes, I already read it. I learned that I am one of the top 30 members of this powerful group of pro-Hamas editors hijacking Misplaced Pages. So, I already know the author is either a bit dopey, dishonest or both.

  • There is, no doubt, plenty of offsite coordination going on and there has been for years. We already know the use of deception and canvassing is relatively common among Israel supporters here of course, has been for well over a decade, and is seen as justified from an in-world perspective, so it wouldn't be surprising at all if these kinds of activities existed with the opposite valence.
  • My view is that little to nothing can be done about it because it is not currently possible to prevent off-site coordination or any determined individual from editing in the topic area due to various technical and wiki-cultural constraints. For example, I believe that one of the people banned in the CAMERA lobbying case is currently active in the topic area, and Misplaced Pages's rather unserious approach to ban evasion, or the ranking of privacy over honesty, means that it can't be addressed. That's okay. Nobody died.
  • Given the technical/cultural limits that can't be changed it seems, I would rather there was an emphasis on enforcing compliance with the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct's position that unacceptable behavior includes "systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" i.e. biased editing/activism. The normalization of biased editing/advocacy means that you naturally produce conjugate sets of editors with opposite valence forming something like an autocatalytic set or a self-sustaining fire. But again, anyone blocked for biased editing/advocacy/coordination/canvassing etc. can easily return with a new account and quickly become extended confirmed using numerous tools that Misplaced Pages provides to new users to get them started.
  • On the article itself, it is hard for me to take it seriously as these kinds of conspiratorial, casually defamatory, attack pieces camouflaged as rational analyses remind me so much of antisemitic conspiracy theories and conversations I've had with street people over the years, including a man who believed he was John the Baptist. The primarily utility of these kinds of attack articles and low-quality media reporting about on-wiki-things for me personally, as someone interested in the dynamics of the topic area, is that they are a useful reminder of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect and they help to identify actors with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation and manipulation and/or a willingness to generate or inject disinformation into Misplaced Pages's systems either directly or by employing external vectors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Indeed a lot of the article seems like guesswork, maybe poor guesswork. Just wondering if anyone had dug into this further to determine what actual evidence exists.
To the extent that their is evidence of stealth canvassing, I think it should be acted on regardless of the editor's ideology. Certainly ban enforcement has its challenges, but that doesn't seem like enough reason to ignore rulebreaking. — xDanielx /C\ 05:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm also wondering if anyone has managed to have a detailed look at the Tech for Palestine activities to compile actual evidence of policy violations, and if not, why not. I guess the answer is no/not yet or else evidence would have been presented in the PIA5 discussions or at AE for specific editors by now since that information has been available for a while. I may be a lot more cynical than you when it comes to enforcing rules in PIA because I see sanctions/remedies as mostly performative nowadays. They appear to have little to no actual impact on the dynamics of the topic area over time unless they are machine enforceable like EC protection, and even then, the benefit is very limited. People enforcing rules in PIA doesn't seem to work. The main benefits of enforcement seem to be that it can be weaponized and exploited by partisan actors to keep the fires burning/take out perceived enemies and it provides reinforcement learning so that people get better at exploiting weaknesses in the system over time. I also think that much of what happens in the topic area, rule breaking or not, is not visible/goes unnoticed/is given a pass. This is evident from the number of edits ban evading accounts manage to make before they are blocked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

This RFC might interest contributors of this project. Andre🚐 19:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for events at Kamal Adwan Hospital, Gaza

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kamal Adwan Hospital sieges § Over-use of Al Jazeera. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about "History of the Jews in ____" articles

Please see Talk:Jews in Madagascar#Requested move 1 November 2024 dealing with articles about Jews and Jewish history. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

SHARAP

I wonder if anyone feels like writing an article about this contentious subject? Or failing that a section for Healthcare in Israel? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC).

D. Grossman

Could anyone of you please start an article on him here on en.wp? There is a lot of info sourced to him. I asked Rajoub570, but he seems o be on a wiki break. The article about him on Hebrew wp is https://he.wikipedia.org/דוד_גרוסמן_(גאוגרף) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Articles about types of Jews as well as their histories

Please see the discussion at Talk:Georgian Jews#Requested move 12 November 2024. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gaza Strip famine#Requested move 27 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gaza Strip famine#Requested move 27 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 18 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Kav LaOved

Please find sources. Bearian (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: