Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 22
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 |
Biased historical presentation
The article presents a biased background history for the conflict by framing the circumstances strictly through the settler-colonial narrative lens while omitting relevant historical context (such as that presented in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel). The article assumes that the conflict began with the development of Zionism; however, the historical context from which Zionism emerged should not be omitted, as it is crucial to a more complete understanding of the shape of the modern-day conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.239.139 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. This is not an edit request. It is an unsolicited article review from a particular perspective rather than with reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is therefore not actionable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
FYI: “How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative”
https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative BrianH123 (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to thank everyone who helped me on my journey to becoming one of the top 30 members of this powerful group of pro-Hamas editors hijacking Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- The author is busily twittering. Or is it Xing? Selfstudier (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- And this Kinda giving the game away. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a curtain. He's pulling it back. It's important work. It reveals that we work in pairs or trios to evade detection. There is incredible extensiveness. Setting aside the casual defamation and parallels with antisemitic conspiracy theories, I like to look on the bright side. Although the article would undoubtably be flagged as a hallucination if it had been produced by an LLM, these kinds of articles build community. They bring people together, albeit people likely to have an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, manipulation, radicalization, and probably finance/romance scams, and that's a good thing. And they help to make sure people don't feel too bad about employing deception to fight the pro-Hamas hijackers for the greater good. He's helping people come together and feel better about themselves. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Lol, and that's a wrap, close this up now. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a curtain. He's pulling it back. It's important work. It reveals that we work in pairs or trios to evade detection. There is incredible extensiveness. Setting aside the casual defamation and parallels with antisemitic conspiracy theories, I like to look on the bright side. Although the article would undoubtably be flagged as a hallucination if it had been produced by an LLM, these kinds of articles build community. They bring people together, albeit people likely to have an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, manipulation, radicalization, and probably finance/romance scams, and that's a good thing. And they help to make sure people don't feel too bad about employing deception to fight the pro-Hamas hijackers for the greater good. He's helping people come together and feel better about themselves. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- And this Kinda giving the game away. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
trouble confirming a citation
To editor Alaexis: You cited
- Breger, Marshall J.; Reiter, Yitzhak; Hammer, Leonard (2010). "Regulation of holy places in the West Bank and Gaza". Holy Places in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict : Confrontation and Co-Existence. Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9780203867457.
about Western Wall access. I have both the ebook edition which that isbn refers to, and the hardback edition. Breger+Reiter+Hammer are not the authors but rather the editors, as this is an anthology. Moreover, there is no chapter "Regulation of holy places in the West Bank and Gaza". There is, however, a chapter "The legal regulation of holy sites" by Breger+Hammer (pages 20–49), which on pages 34–37 has a subsection headed "Regulation of holy places in the West Bank and Gaza". Alas, that subsection does not seem to mention the Western Wall at all. Please clean up this citation, or explain how I have it wrong. Incidentally, the truth is that the prohibition was for Israelis, not just for Jews, and Israeli Arabs also couldn't visit except for organized Christmas tours to Bethlehem for those who could prove they are Christians. Quite a few foreign Jews managed to visit, though the Jordanians didn't encourage it. Zerotalk 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can find it in footnote 139
Jordan agreed to allow Israel “free access for the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives.” That agreement was never adhered to by the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom
. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll amend the text. Alaexis¿question? 15:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)- But this does not support the claim "Israelis were forbidden". Not having free access is certainly not the same as being forbidden. DMH223344 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could you explain what the difference is? Alaexis¿question? 19:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- For example, if prior approval was needed it wouldnt be considered "free" access, but that's certainly not the same as being "forbidden". "access was restricted" is a much more accurate representation of the information presented here. DMH223344 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Right, "free access" cannot be promoted to "no access" by editor alone. The full story (easily sourced) is more complicated still. Jordan did not agree to allow free access, but only to establish (jointly with Israel) a committee to agree on arrangements for access in both directions. (Read the armistice agreement.) That committee never reached an agreement and Jordan and Israel blamed each other for the failure. I'm dubious that this very high level article should have such detail, but my point is that the common "Jordan promised something and reneged on it" version is the Israeli position only. Zerotalk 01:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is your interpretation which is different from the one in teh source. But indeed we don't need to describe such details in this article and I didn't include them either. I've rephrased the sentence to follow the sources more closely. Alaexis¿question? 07:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- How is "had no access" different from "forbidden"? It should read "had restricted access" DMH223344 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I changed it to match the source more precisely, which says "free access for the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives". Also, the citation is still wrong as I detailed above. Zerotalk 00:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Free" is misleading, it seems like they required them to pay for the access. Alaexis¿question? 13:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- So cite that, it's still not the same as forbidden. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Free" is misleading, it seems like they required them to pay for the access. Alaexis¿question? 13:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I changed it to match the source more precisely, which says "free access for the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives". Also, the citation is still wrong as I detailed above. Zerotalk 00:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- How is "had no access" different from "forbidden"? It should read "had restricted access" DMH223344 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is your interpretation which is different from the one in teh source. But indeed we don't need to describe such details in this article and I didn't include them either. I've rephrased the sentence to follow the sources more closely. Alaexis¿question? 07:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Right, "free access" cannot be promoted to "no access" by editor alone. The full story (easily sourced) is more complicated still. Jordan did not agree to allow free access, but only to establish (jointly with Israel) a committee to agree on arrangements for access in both directions. (Read the armistice agreement.) That committee never reached an agreement and Jordan and Israel blamed each other for the failure. I'm dubious that this very high level article should have such detail, but my point is that the common "Jordan promised something and reneged on it" version is the Israeli position only. Zerotalk 01:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- For example, if prior approval was needed it wouldnt be considered "free" access, but that's certainly not the same as being "forbidden". "access was restricted" is a much more accurate representation of the information presented here. DMH223344 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could you explain what the difference is? Alaexis¿question? 19:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- But this does not support the claim "Israelis were forbidden". Not having free access is certainly not the same as being forbidden. DMH223344 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Intifadas
The two intifadas are notably missing from the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- a discussion of those developments seems like it would flow naturally at the end of the third paragraph. DMH223344 (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)