Misplaced Pages

Talk:Jabel Mukaber

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Llywrch (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 25 July 2018 (closing discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:58, 25 July 2018 by Llywrch (talk | contribs) (closing discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconIsrael C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from Jabel Mukaber appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,130 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/September.
Misplaced Pages
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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!


Sources do not support claim

Hi there. In the intro (and in the proposed DYK hooks), it is stated that "Palestinians consider the neighbourhood the site of their future capital ..." based on two sources provided Condos for American Jews (in Arab East Jerusalem) and East J'lem could be Palestinian capital. The first source does not mention this fact at all and the second indicates that Ehud Barak said that populated Arab neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem (without naming Jabel Mukaber itself) could make up the capital of a future Palestinian state, but the article says nothing about Palestinian views towards such a proposal. The text should therefore be altered accordingly or perhaps discarded altogether since it is a huge topic that cannot be covered with any accuracy in the introduction, which should be discussing this particular neighbourhood instead.

Also, the second part of that sentence in the introduction reads: "... while the Israeli government and indeed, many of Jerusalem's Jewish residents consider Jabel Mukaber a hotbed for terrorism, and an obstacle to the peace process." Missing is a description of why this is so, as well as discussion of numerous other issues for the residents of the neighbourhood. For example, the article on "Luxury condos..." discusses how the proposed construction of the gated Jewish community of Nof Zion between Jabel Mukaber and Silwan, which is viewed by neighbourhood residents as a settlement intended to reduce the Arab presence in Jerusalem, will complicate discussions around the final status of Jerusalem.

Also, there seems to be much descriptive information on Jabel Mukaber itself (rather than Israeli perceptions of it), missing from the article altogether, such as :

"The road linking the new neighborhood to central Jerusalem runs along the Haas and Goldman promenades that offer similar views of the Old City. The landmark at the start of Jabel Mukaber is a police station that looks more like an army base. Outside the station at the entrance to the Palestinian neighborhood a giant poster advertising units in the "private" neighborhood for sale.

A newly installed traffic circle starts the descent along a path under construction to upgrade the narrow road to a divided street to accommodate the traffic. Infrastructure in Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem is notoriously underfunded by the municipality, and the lack of street lights or sidewalks make Jabel Mukaber look more like an outlying village than an actual part of the capital.

Though Palestinian residents are grateful for the new road, they say their requests to be hooked up to Nof Zion's sewage system have been turned down, leaving the Palestinians without a sewage system."

This critique extends to the DYK hooks suggested as well, which focus solely on Israeli perceptions of Jabel Mukaber, rather than any facts about the neighbourhood itself. Please consider adding other POVs to this article and altering the hooks accordingly. Tiamut 10:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. Mandel, Roi (03.11.08, 10:52). "J'lem neighborhoods of Armon Hanatziv and Jabel Mukaber: Peace tenuous notion - ynet". ynet.co.il. Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. Avnery, Uri (26/7/2008). ""If I Forget Thee, Umm Touba…" - amin.org". Arab Media Internet Network. Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. Shragai, Nadav (18/3/2008). "Shin Bet mulls rightists' attack on yeshiva gunman's home - captain.co.il". Haaretz. Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. "Family of terrorist: Everyone in Jabel Mukaber is proud - jpost". Jpost.com. 7/5/2008. Retrieved 2008-09-07. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

Description

Due to the fact that most of the media attention on Jabel Mukaber generally focuses on the negative (i.e. terrorism and riots), very few sources contain descriptive information. If you would like to post a few sources here with other information on Jabel Mukaber, i'd be happy to include them in the article. Otherwise, i've fixed the first 2 problems that you listed to the best of my ability. Cheers --Fatal!ty 05:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'll try to find other sources for you and appreciate your efforts, but I still find the article to rather POV. Particularly, the lead sentence marrying the ideas that Jabel Mukaber is at the forefront of the Palestinian desire for independence (whatever that means) with the idea that it is a hotbed for terrorism. A little loaded no? Tiamut 11:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried a Google book search? There are a lot of books discussing issues in Jabel Mukaber, particularly land zoning, home demolitions, etc. for example, the book Jerusalem by Menachem Klein writes of how land zoning policies drafted in 1980s and implemented in 1996 by the Israeli government designaed 70% of Jabel Mukjaber's land "green space" leaving only 20.5% for building purposes, most of which was already built upon. Kleim notes that this meant that Jabel Mukaber residents could build only at 25% housing density level at a time when the adjacent Jewish neighbourhood could build at 140%. Tiamut 11:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Separate and Unequal is a book which discusses how a project for coexistence between East Talpiot and Jabal Mukaber developed. Before the meetings began in 1993, a 300 meter long fence was constructed between the Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods (at the request of the Jews in East Talpiot) to allay fears after an East Talpiot resident was stabbed to death. Security officials thought the perpetrator may have come or taken refuge in Jabel Mukaber and thought the fence would do little to prevent a future attack, but it was built anyway. In any case, meetings took place and were initially successful, even leading to a joint Arab-Jewish demand to improve conditions in Jabel Mukaber, but the request was ignored by the authorities, as were subsequent requests. The lack of response is cited by the authors as a reason for the coexisence project's failure to continue. The meetings ended in 1996. Tiamut 11:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This article discusses the attacks perpetrated by residents of Jabel Mukaber and Sur Bahur in the context of home demolitions which plague the residents of East Jerusalem. Perhaps some discussion of this context would be appropriate considering how much space you have given to a discussion of terrorism in the section on cooexistence? Consider this passage:

One of the main contributing factors for the stirring up of hatred is the demolition of "illegal" homes of Arab residents, who are quite unable to build "legally." The dimension of official stupidity is attested to by the demand of the Shin-Bet chief, voiced this week again, to destroy the homes of the attackers' families, for the sake of "deterrence." Apparently he has not heard about the dozens of studies and the accumulated experience, which prove that every destroyed home becomes an incubator for new hate-driven avengers. This week's attack is especially instructive. It is quite unclear what actually happened: did Ghassan Abu-Tir plan the attack in advance? Or was this a spontaneous decision in a moment of excitement? Was this an attack at all — or did the bulldozer driver run into a bus by accident and try, in a state of panic, to escape — running over his pursuers, becoming a target for a shooting spree by passersby and soldiers? In the atmosphere of suspicion and fear that pervades Jerusalem now, every road accident involving an Arab becomes an attack, and every Arab driver involved in an accident will in all probability be executed on the spot, without a trial. (It should be remembered that the first intifada broke out because of a road accident, in which a Jewish driver ran over some Arabs.)

This article was also reprinted here . Tiamut 11:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, some discussion of the building plans for Nof Zion and it impact on Jabel Mukaber could be good for the article. One of your sources (on Luxury condos for American Jews) already discusses this. Here's another . And another . Tiamut 11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting fact is that one of the representative on the Palestinian Olympic team was from Jabal Mukaber. 16-year old Raed Awassat was training to represent Palestine at the Olympics in 2004 . After he was not allowed to continue training in West Jerusalem, residents in Jabal Mukaber organized to expand the local 17-metre village pool to 25 metres in an effort to make it more acceptable for Olympic training. Here's another article on him . Tiamut 11:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Also relevant to this article is information on the separation barrier. This article states that "Under the planned route of the Security Fence, the 1,000 residents of Sheikh Saed, the eastern neighborhood of Jabel Mukaber, would be separated from the nearly 2,000 Arabs living in the rest of the village, and isolated in a West Bank enclave surrounded by desert." Additionally, petitions by The Arab Jewish Center in Jabel Mukaber to move the route of the fence, while successful, have led to a worsening of the situation. "Daoud Awisat, an Arab from Sheikh Saed, and his Jewish friend Hillel Bardin, a pensioner from nearby Talpiot, explained that life in Jabel Mukaber has ironically become far worse since the Tel Aviv court ordered the government to move the Fence eastwards. 'The army has set up checkpoints on all the roads leading from Sheikh Saed to the center of Jabel Mukaber,' explained Awisat, 41, a building worker and father of four. 'Sometimes for days on end the soldiers do not allow us through the roadblock. This means we cannot work, my children cannot go to school and we are even denied access to hospitals.'" Tiamut 11:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a testimony by a woman from Jabel Mukaber who is fighting to reunified with her husband who is from Bethlehem. It may be a good external link or perhaps you could discuss a bit about family reunification issues among the residents of Jabel Mukaber. Tiamut 11:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also relevant to the article are statements made by Haim Ramon in December 2007:

Ramon told Army Radio: "I am convinced that all Jewish neighbourhoods, including Har Homa, should be under Israeli sovereignty and the Arab neighbourhoods should not be under Israeli sovereignty because they pose a threat to Jerusalem being the capital of Jewish Israel. "Those who want Walajeh and Jabal Mukaber as well as Har Homa, will ultimately cause Jerusalem not to be a Jewish capital to Israel with a clear Jewish majority," he added, referring to Palestinian villages incorporated into Jerusalem after 1967. Ramon, seen as a confidant who often speaks for Olmert, told Israel Radio: "Whoever wants Walaja, is endangering our hold on Har Homa ... Jewish neighbourhoods will remain in Israeli control and Arab neighbourhoods will be the Palestinian capital.

In light of this quote, I think I understand where you got the idea that Jabel Mukaber will serve as a future capital for the Palestinian state. Note however that this is not a Palestinian aspiration, but an official Israeli position in the negotiations with Palestinians. I have yet to see a Palestinian official say this is an acceptable compromise for them. Accordingly, I think you should change the text in the intro that refers to this. Tiamut 11:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Negative information inserted on a flimsy excuse

Debresser, Disputed content is kept OUT until the dispute is resolved. You should know that by now. These paragraphs are an attempt to show the place in a negative light on account of the actions performed elsewhere by a few people who happen to live in this place. How this is justified, I have no idea. I wonder if there is any example of a Jewish criminal being privileged in this fashion. Zero 01:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, content that is sourced, is by definition not disputed, and can be removed only after consensus. This is all the more so in case like this, where the information has been in the article a long time.
As far as the inclusion of this material is concerned, I am of two minds. On the one hand, this seems, as you say, not related directly to the article, which is about the place. On the other hand, it is not a secret that Jabel Mukaber is a militant village that breads terrorists, and that is very relevant. It seems that these pieces of information come to make precisely that point. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If "Jabel Mukaber is a militant village that breads terrorists" then a reliable source should be found that says that. We aren't allowed to make such a case ourselves by cherry-picking news stories. We also aren't allowed to ignore the other side of the story, that Jabel Mukaber is one of the most underprivileged neighborhoods. I can agree to include items about notable events occurring in the village. I don't agree to adding other stuff just on an indirect pretext. Zero 00:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It seem appropriate to include information about the political inclinations of a town, when it becomes a matter of significant news coverage. As here http://elpais.com/diario/2008/03/08/internacional/1204930805_850215.htmlShulMaven (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The source does not support your claim. It is also 90% sure that the items at the end of the story were extracted from Misplaced Pages. Zero 01:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, see also this source which mentions arms dealers from Jabel Mukaber on page 22. Debresser (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A Shabak source, are you kidding? Zero 02:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? Shabak is a government institution. A very good source. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
It isn't relevant in this article just because they come from this area. If it can be backed up by a RS that it's relevant, then it's acceptable. Collecting your own examples to promote a certain view is not. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Map unclear

Map is unclear. Where is Jabel Mukaber? also colored lines are not explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.202.179 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2014‎

It doesn't seem to be there. File:Greater Jerusalem May 2006 CIA remote-sensing map 3500px.jpg shows it and explains the lines. There are explanations in the description at File:EastJerusalemMap.svg but an explanation in a caption could be added, though in this case it is still insufficient as it doesn't show Jabel Mukaber. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now added the map and added in the caption where the neighbourhood is located as it could be hard to find. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I recently removed the following passage because it seems pretty trivial for an encyclopedic article on Jabal Mukaber: "Following the 2008 Mercaz HaRav massacre in which eight Jewish high school students were killed, the residents of Jabel Mukaber erected a mourners' tent for the murderer. Israeli protesters tried to break through police barricades outside Jabel Mukaber, resulting in the arrest of 13 protesters.."

It was reinstated with the following reasoning: "The consensus is that this is relevant." My question is, what consensus? I don't see anything close to consensus on this talk page unless I'm missing something. The information may be sourced, but it still remains trivial. So every time a family erects a mourning tent for one of its members who died as part of the I/P conflict we're supposed to mention it? Obviously that would be excessive and ridiculous. Overall, this type of editing only contributes to a cheapening of the article. Does anyone have a rational reason to keep this tidbit in the article? --Al Ameer (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The consensus is inherent in the fact that multiple editors have restored this information. As to your question, if villagers erect a mourners tent for a terrorist, yes, that is noteworthy. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not what consensus means and I think that is obvious. The matter is a subject of an edit war. How is that a consensus? Beyond the trivial aforementioned fact about the mourning tent, the whole section is dubious and violates NPOV. All we have is a list of attacks against Israelis that were carried out by people who from the village. None of these attacks occurred inside the village. This is not the typical or appropriate thing that we add to locality articles. If any of these attackers were notable or had an article we can perhaps include them in a section called "Notable residents", but even then we would just list their names and a two or three word description. What he have now is out of the ordinary and inherently biased. --Al Ameer (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. It's original research to connect the incidents to neighbourhood and there is no consensus to include it. Three, including me, on this talk page has said no while two had said it is relevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
IRISZOOM, you seem to have a problem with counting. Including the implication that 3:2 can be called a consensus (which it can not). Also, don't forget to count the people who restored the actual information by reverting its removal. Debresser (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't. I counted it totally right. You read wrong, I didn't say 3-2 is a consensus but that it isn't enough for you to claim it is. I haven't seen more than you two who wrote here to support it have reverted such removals, though some others have added other attacks but that could be expected when similar info is there (when there are already some attacks listed, why not add more). So no consensus exists yet, contrary to your claim. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I claim that there was a version which was stable for a considerable time. If you want to change that version, the burden to prove consensus for that change is on you. In other words, there is a assumption of consensus for the last stable version. That is the consensus I claim. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There was some examples listed, that you and one other reverted when it was removed because you thought there was a "consensus" to keep it (which was what you said, now you are saying something else about what you meant). Then the list has been expanded with more examples, though you have not showed how it's relevant. I will surely go forward in relevant venues to fix the OR problem. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please drop me a note when you do. Debresser (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I will do it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a request at WP:DRN about this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

On 20 May 2015 a 41-year-old man from Jabel Mukaber was shot dead in his car at a-Tur by a member of the Israeli Border Police in an alleged ramming attack. Ha'aretz 20 May 2015] I'm just putting this here until I can think of a sensible argument as to why it should be included. Padres Hana (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There was previous consensus on this talkpage not' to have incidents like "Man from Jabel Mukaber butcher Jewish worshipers during synagogue prayer" in this article. The underlying argument is that the place of origin is incidental to the event, not essential.
Just for the record, I was one of those who disagreed, and my reason still stands, but I won't go into that. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Summary: Objecting to including these external links to ARIJ is an overreaction, & there is no overriding reason for not including them.

I was summoned here from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, & have read this discussion as well as performed due diligence review of external sources. This debate consists of two arguments: on the one side, these links ought to be excluded because ARIJ is a biased source; on the other, there is no problematic bias in the content at the URLs. Neither argument has been effectively responded to; instead the participants decided to let their emotions rule & have spent their time shouting at each other. This is why I took the time to look beyond Misplaced Pages in order to properly consider each argument. (If any participats object to this approach, I can only suggest they do their own homework.)

About ARIJ, an NGO which is the subject of a Misplaced Pages article: I performed a Google search, & the first result returned (which was not to the ARIJ website) did expend a lot of space describing how ARIJ is hostile towards Israel, providing a detailed list of all of these activities; however, the group behind this webpage is an "Israeli Non-Profit" with the purpose of "producing and distributing critical analysis and reports on the activities of the international and local NGO networks", so that may not present ARIJ fairly. I looked at the next two URLs Google returned: one did not mention ARIJ's criticism of Israeli policies, although it did provide an overview of the NGO's goals of economic development; the second did include it, but as one of 12 of ARIJ's activites, which included "Improving Plant Production to enhance Food Security of Farming communities in Rural areas of Bethlehem Governorate." & "Activated Sludge Filtration System for Wastewater Treatment in the West Bank". So the evidence is, at most, mixed on ARIJ being a primarily anti-Israeli group. There is also the consideration that a group dedicated to promoting one POV can still provide reliable information: the American Petroleum Institute promotes an agenda that has contributed to global warming, yet would that fact invalidate citing their statistics for oil production? No one even mentioned this last point.

On the content of the four external links: I reviewed these links, & found only one I would exclude -- the aerial image of the community; the article already has a similar image. Of the other 3 items, their primary content is about the population, area, & infrastructure of this community. Once upon a time, I wrote articles on the local governments & towns of Ethiopia, & I often relied on materials prepared by NGOs & the Ethiopian government to provide content for those articles; had I materials as detailed as these about any of them, I would have thought I struck gold. Considering that this article lacks objective & falsifiable facts (e.g. size of the district, quality of roads, number of schools & medical facilities), I would expect these resources to be mined to improve the article, not added at the end as "External links". About the only objection I can conceivably find in these 3 is that the pamphlet (whose creation was funded by a second NGO, which could be expected to exert some fact-checking & editorial oversight) does discuss alleged Israeli practices of forcing resident inhabitants out of their homes & encouraging in-migration of Jews; but I expect the current policy of WP:BRD to manage any improper emphasis of this information. Moreover, incidents of this policy already appears in the article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Debresser have now removed the following links, which were listed under the "External links" heading:

...with the edit line: Remove unneeded external links per WP:EL. Also note that these are not exclusively about Jbel Mukaber.

My comment: there is absolutely nothing in WP:EL which can justify a removal of these links. As for noteing that these links are not exclusively about Jbel Mukaber: yeah, LOL, that was actually noted above. (And this is not the only place which is about two places, treated as one on wp, take Sur Bahir & Umm Tuba Town Profile as an example)

Debresser, you better explain this removal (which IMO borders on vandalism), or better still: undo your edit, Huldra (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have explained this removal, and you yourself have quoted my explanation above, so I fail to understand you. Also, per WP:CIVIL and WP:VANDALISM I suggest you take back your comment as though my edit borders on vandalism.
Now you had better start explaining the addition of 1. no less than 4 links to one and the same website 2. which are not really of major interest and do not meet WP:EL inclusion criteria, and 3. are sourced to an extremely POV source. Each of these points is a valid reasons to remove them, and you are hereby demanded to explain yourself or desist from adding them to articles. Debresser (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
These are papers funded by AECID, the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation. They are certainly more RS than all the settler sources used on Israeli settlements, for a start. Sorry, Debresser, you dont have case here, and I suspect you know it, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You ignore the bulk of my arguments, bring some Spanish organization as a source for what happens in Israel/Palestinian Territories, and top it of with an off-topic remark about other articles, and after all that you revert with the generic edit summary "per talkpage". So I reverted that, obviously, in view of the above. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I considered your arguments and found no substance in them. Zero 11:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
No surprise here. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Debresser, by reverting me, you even undid my linking to Gershom Gorenberg and Isabel Kershner.....Sigh, Huldra (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that was obviously not my intention. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC

Recently an editor added 4 external links to a certain website, First of all I think that is overkill. Apart from that, I think that none of the links is especially valuable, and see no compelling reason they should be included. In addition, the source in question, the Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem, has a very clear political agenda, and I am always wary of science which is being used for the attainment of political goals. All in all I would like to see opinions of editors regarding the desirableness of these links. I would also propose that in the case that a clear consensus should emerge among editors who have no prior involvement in this article, and on that condition only, this discussion could be used for similar issues on related articles. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The criteria which Debresser here makes for those whose opinion will determine this RFC, (ie, those ="who have no prior involvement") is totally unacceptable. This is a Palestinian neighborhood, those of us who edit Palestinian places of course have an involvement. (Imagine the opposite: A RfC on an article on a Jewish subject, to be determined by those who had not edited the article....) So, either all editors opinion matters the same, or consensus should be sought from editors with no involvement in the IP area. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I said "who have no prior involvement in this article". That does not preclude involvement in the Israel or Palestine area. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
If you were looking for an objective survey of uninvolved editors, you shouldn't have started the RfC with the highly biased opinion of an involved editor. Zero 19:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
And who has prior involvement in in this article? Answer: All of us who write articles about Palestinian places. Debresser: what would you have said if I started a RfC on...oh, say Haredi Judaism, or Menachem Mendel Schneerson (just to take a couple of articles you have recently edited)..and said that only the votes from those who had not previously edited these articles would count? Would you have accepted that? -- Huldra (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove or cut down to single link. External links are not an end around on NPOV.Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't remove, because they are on-topic and meet the requirements for EL. ARIJ is one of the most reliable Palestinian NGOs and a blanket exclusion of it would be an act of political censorship. There's no policy that only sources presenting the claims of the Israeli right should be mentioned. Zero 20:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
To expand on the reasons for retention: (1) ARIJ is a large NGO which engages in development and environment projects. It has a large staff that includes many people with higher university degrees. Its annual income of several million dollars comes primarily from European governments, United Nations bodies, and external NGOs such as Oxfam. (2) ARIJ reports are regularly cited in academic sources , showing that ARIJ has a reputation for reliability. (3) NPOV requires us to present all notable viewpoints, which would be impossible if major representations of the Palestinian viewpoint were to be excluded. (4) The reasons given here for exclusion are "clear political agenda" (not a reason for exclusion even as a source if used properly, let alone as an EL), and "unreliable" (an assertion for which absolutely no evidence has been provided). In summary, the case for exclusion is essentially nonexistent. Zero 08:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove this is extremist source that have no tradition of reliability it was created to disseminate Palestinian POV.--Shrike (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't remove, pr Zero0000. I think the best we can do is to bring all sources to the table. The suggestion from Icewhiz is impractical, as there is no single link which would lead to all (typically 4) pages which concerns each place. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove, unreliable biased source is not necessary.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't Remove ARIJ's "village profile" project is one of the more reliable Palestinian sources out there. I didn't see anything too problematic in these links, and the fact they follow a certain POV doesn't matter too much because they are only external links.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove Misplaced Pages is not an outlet for partisanship. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove, this source has many of the same problems as the Zochrot site that was used a lot in the past before we decided not to use it, for obvious reasons. There might be some specific research where ARIJ can be cited, but overall political NGOs should be avoided, both as sources and for ELs (unless ARIJ itself is relevant as an EL, not a specific piece it published). —Ynhockey 21:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)per
"Many of the same problems", "obvious reasons". Isn't there someone voting to delete who can give explicit reasons rather that just asserting that reasons exist? In addition it is a serious mistake to compare Zochrot to ARIJ. While Zochrot is an advocacy organization, ARIJ is an important NGO that engages in development projects; see their project lists here and here. They are nothing at all like each other. Zero 08:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
But its advocacy organisation. Its waging law-fare and support BDS against Jewish state.--Shrike (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
That is sheer nonsense, Shrike. Defining the catastal shape and history of land outside of Israel has nothing to do with lawfare or BDS against the 'Jewish stare'. A shameful argument.Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't Remove per Bolter21 and Zero, Huldra. Looking at the links I see no indication of extremism. and it is an external link (editor is a volunteer for Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service) .-- BoogaLouie (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment.Don't remove, per Zero.I won't 'vote' because I don't like my appearing to imitate the bad practice around here of lockstep POV votes. In reading the above, there is sniping mostly, and avoidance of thwe duty to respond to the detailed arguments made by Zero in particular. ARIJ, as Bolter also notes and secondary sources attest, is a solid and reliable source, whose credentials are challenged simply because they document meticulously facts on the ground. The removalist editors show no familiarity with the organization, and appear to be opposed to it on principle because it covers the Palestinian angle. We simply should not continually drag out dislikes and make everything a putative POV issue, but evaluate on the merits, something which requires familiarity with the issue, and careful judgement.Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
There has been no evidence of any substance at all arguing on legitimate grounds for removal. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - not a single person arguing for removal has given a single policy justification for it. Also, WP:RFC requires a short and neutral statement about the dispute. Not this paragraph making an argument at the beginning. This isnt even a valid RFC, and the people voting to remove have not given a single valid, meaning based in Misplaced Pages policy and not their own personal preference to keep Misplaced Pages clear of Palestinian sources, reason to remove. nableezy - 17:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
You sound like a tendentious editor: no policy reasons were given (what about WP:EL?!), this is not a valid RFC (if this isn't a valid RFC, then what is?), editors' votes are based on what they like (as though your vote isn't), etc. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
You continue to be quite hypocritical about WP:NPA. Read and internalize that policy please. And yes, no policy reason was given, you nor anybody else has given what in WP:EL supports your view, you simply assert it. A valid RFC would be one that follows the requirements of WP:RFC, not one in which you make a non-neutral and long-winded argument at the start, then only notify WikiProject Israel and not any other relevant project until you are called out for selective notifications in violation of WP:CANVASS. That would help create a valid RFC. nableezy - 19:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I am well acquainted with WP:NPA, thank you very much. I do not need to point out every argument in detail. If you don't know what WP:EL is about after all the years you have been active on Misplaced Pages, all discussion with you is doomed form the beginning. Not all Rfc's are non-neutral, whatever the guideline may prefer. Long winded? For an Rfc? Not really! I was not "called out" for canvassing, rather an editor reminded me, and I agreed with him immediately. One might argue that that is the same, but the way yo formulate it makes all the difference. Which just shows that you have issues with me, and with this project in general. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Sigh, Debresser: I think I will start referring to you as female, as you insist on referring to me as male....Huldra (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
:) Did I do it again? Sorry. Please show me where, and I'll be happy to fix that. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Just above, at 22:30, 31 May. In case you were referring to Zero there, may I remark that I was the one first to call you out on this (below, 21:47, 27 May), which Zero then echoed at your talk page (08:30, 28 May), both cases which you acknowledged, Huldra (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I am well familiar with WP:EL (and both WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE suggest this material is fine), but also with WP:RFC, which has an entire section on Statements should be neutral and brief. As in Should the External Links section of this article contain these links? That would be a brief and neutral RFC question. You however chose to violate that by making a non-neutral and not at all brief opening remark here. So yes, I repeat my stance that this RFC is not valid. And the calling out is still visible below and on your talk page. nableezy - 23:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The requirement that an RfC should start with a neutral statement of the question is so critical to the whole concept of RfCs that there ought to be a standard way to request immediate closure if it is violated. Unfortunately I don't know of such a mechanism except to petition a general-purpose administrative noticeboard. Thus editors who violate the requirement, as Debresser did here, continue to get away with it. Zero 10:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Zero0000 What "sources presenting the claims of the Israeli right" are present in the article?--Shrike (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Since Debresser wants this RfC to be valid for the whole West Bank (if I understand him correctly), we need to see "sources presenting the claims of the Israeli right" for all of those article. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I only proposed that. And only if there would be a clear and strong consensus, which s rather unlikely. And in any case, other editors would have to agree with that proposal of mine. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Shrike, I'd like to see an example of a source presenting the Israeli government viewpoint (which is an example of the Israeli right) that you have voted to remove. Or that Debresser has voted to remove. Your claim "it was created to disseminate Palestinian POV" proves that you know nothing about the organization, so you shouldn't be voting at all. Nor do I believe that Yaniv has proof that this source is unreliable (if so, where is it?). We all know what is going on here. Zero 08:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on you to prove it reliable.--Shrike (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The fact that a few warriors editors claim it is unreliable without evidence means there is nothing to prove. Zero 19:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You ad homimenm just proves my point you have nothing to provide except violation of WP:NPA--Shrike (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Zero, please be so kind to strike that. That was not the spirit of Misplaced Pages speaking. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to provide evidence that this source is unreliable. It is not acceptable to just make accusations and demand that others disprove them. In order to help us judge your position, why don't you give some examples of Palestinian NGOs that you do consider reliable? Zero 19:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you waiting for me to prove something I never said? I said the source has a clear POV. Don't try to put words in my mouth and then ask me to prove them. You have tried this tactic many times over the years, and I have never yet fallen for it. By the way, thank you for striking that. Debresser (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"Having a clear POV" has never been a reason for rejecting ELs. If it was, we would delete the hundreds of ELs to Israeli government sites and that would be just the beginning. Zero 08:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on those who want to include not vice versa--Shrike (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Multiple academic publications cite ARIJ. End of argument. Zero 13:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Zero, what does that have to do with anything? Debresser (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I see, independent evidence of notability and reliability is irrelevant. Why didn't I think of that? You really deserve an award for that one, Debresser, please take a bow. Zero 21:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, Debresser, I see you noted this discussion several days ago on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel, but you seem to have forgotten to place a similar note on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Palestine. Please try to be less forgetful in the future, Huldra (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Admit my mistake, and copied my notice there. Thank you for pointing this out to me. Debresser (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: