Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 6 December 2012

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Settlers, law abiding?

The vast majority of world opinion is that "all settlement activity is illegal under international law" . The minority Israeli position is that some of the settlements are "official" and thus legal while others are unofficial, and thus illegal. Saying in the lead that the vast majority of the settlers are law abiding even when supported by an Israeli source is a violation of NPOV as it is presenting the minority opinion and ignoring the majority opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This is OR that contradicts what a source states. However, as an explanation, when settlements activity is described as being illegal under international law, this applies to a state or country, not individuals that reside in this annexed land.

RolandR, The BBC source states, "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent", please do not misattribute this to an IDF officer.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The West Bank has not been annexed. It is not part of Israel, even according to Israel's (minority) opinion.Dlv999 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't; I attributed to the Israeli officer the assertion that most (not "the vast majority") are law-abiding. This is a hotly contested assessment, and should certainly not be reported in Misplaced Pages's neutral voice. RolandR (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You wrote, "According to a senior Israeli army officer, "most West Bank settlers are law abiding" and non-violent citizens..." This implies that the view that they are "non-violent citizens" is the officer's when in fact, the source stated without attributing to IDF personnel that "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There had been a mini edit-war (in which I did not take part) over the phrase "the vast majority... are law-abiding". Eventually, Shrike added a citation, immediately after "law-abiding", in which a senior army officer used the phrase to describe "most" settlers. The citation was thus evidently added in order to verify the use of this phrase. Since it was clearly the view of this officer, and not a neutral statement, we should not have added the term in Misplaced Pages's neutral language. I decided not to continue the edit-war by reverting this edit; instead, I clarified that this was the view of the officer. The source says nothing at all about non-violence, and does not use the phrase "the vast majority". RolandR (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source also said "Both sides are as stupid as the other," i.e. the side we are discussing here are stupid according to an Israeli commanding office. Let's not include that because cherry picking statements to make some kind of point doesn't improve the content. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case if we are going to quote the Israeli security services in the lead, for balance we need to add that Israel's security policies have been regarded as discriminatory, failing to deal with the problem of settler violence and protecting the Palestinian population. The comments that they believe most of the settlers are law abiding should be seen in the light of them failing to deal with the vast majority of settler violence. Dlv999 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a novel point. The vast majority of settlers are non-violent and this must be stated when discussing settler violence. I am not seeking to include an offhand jocular comment opined by an IDF officer as Sean analogises to, this is a statement of fact asserted by the BBC that recognise the importance of accuracy when indicting large groups of people.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then remove the "law-abiding" bullshit and we can all get back to work. Nightw 11:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with removing an individual's statements of the "law-abiding" nature if it is clearly expressed that "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent", without the misplaced attribution that RolandR has decided to introduce.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not introduced any attribution, misplaced or not. I simply clarified Shrike's citation, which left in Misplaced Pages's neutral tone the misstatement that "the vast majority of settlers are law-abiding". RolandR (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually think that RolandR edit is good.I have missed that it was the words of the IDF--Shrike (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as attribution is given in the text (BBC). Nightw 11:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is source specification necessary? Shrike - That most settlers are "law-abiding" is the IDF officer's views, that the "vast majority are non-violent" is not; it is stated as fact by the BBC source. RolandR's edit puts these two things together and attributes both of them to the IDF officer.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Because that's how Misplaced Pages works. If the statement is contentious, it needs to be attributed to the source within the text. See WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. Nightw 09:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it contentious? Do you have a source that contests the view that the "vast majority are non-violent"?Ankh.Morpork 10:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the BBC statement is necessarily contentious but I would be interested to see a source that contests the view that the vast majority of any set of around half a million civilians are non-violent. Do we need to take the possibility of domestic violence into account though given that it's quite common around the world ? A tendentious editor trolling the page could probably carry on raising issues like that making it impossible for you to make progress on this content issue. Just so I can be clear on this point for future reference, can you confirm that here in this article, your argument is that it is "a statement of fact asserted by the BBC that recognise the importance of accuracy when indicting large groups of people" and that in your view inclusion is consistent with the requirements of NPOV to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (as opposed to say, something the Palestinian BDS National Committee, CAMERA, Electronic Intifada or NGO Monitor published on their sites about this issue) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that my interlocutors are not the tendentious editors that you describe and will not engage in this petty caviling. Since I am not omniscient and cognisant with "all significant views" on this subject matter, I am unable to asseverate that all standpoints are being fairly represented, and is for this reason that I have requested the provision of further sourcing that challenge the BBC assertions. Ankh.Morpork 14:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

that pic

I {{fact}}-tagged that picture's caption, as it can currently be read as though the article's editorial voice is doing the alledging. If there's an alledging source meeting Misplaced Pages's standards, it should be cited. If not, the caption should be re-worded ("Graffiti of unknown origin"?), or outright removed. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm boldly removing the photo. Kindly reconsider the caption when you revert. 24.177.122.56 (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it. You should implement the outcome of the deletion discussion that you were involved with (commons:Deletion_requests/File:05_04_21_Gas_the_Arabs.jpg), including citing the sources that were provided that discuss this graffiti. If there is something preventing you from doing that, I will do it. You asked for sources. They were provided. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The outcome of the deletion discussion had nothing to do with the picture's inclusion in this article. Those sources don't back up the picture's caption. You really shouldn't be removing {{rs}} or {{fv}} inline tags without discussion, either. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I already did. Don't tag things without a legitimate reason. It's disruptive. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is legitimate to suggest that CPT isn't a reliable source. Sorry, but that's fact. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS/N is thataway. nableezy - 19:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Have fun over there. CPT fails WP:RS in all sorts of way; it's on you to show they're reliable for information on any topic other than themselves. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge the reliability of a source, by means other than proof by assertion, RS/N is the place to do it. Otherwise, go troll elsewhere. nableezy - 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to continue discussing this (or anything else) with you unless/until your withdraw your repeated ad-hominem attacks, and apologize for them. I continue to hold that CPT is prima facie unreliable on this subject per Wikipolicy. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hold what you like, an assertion made without evidence will be given the consideration it deserves. nableezy - 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This has probably already been discussed here but the first appearance of 'that pic' appears to have been on the International Solidarity Movement website with a date of April 23, 2006 , the pic being taken by an Ann Detwiler. The characterization of the graffiti as being done by settlers makes it original appearance there. Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes I just realized that the date of the one pic (with a child) on the CPT website is May 11, 2005 with their first reporting of the pic to be May 2, 2005. The first attribution of a photographer for a similar photo (with no people) is on the ISM website and dated April 2006. Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

there are no RS that say that this pic is what it is. Soosim (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

reliability of ref 47

Per WP:RS/N consensus, CPT is "probably not" reliable for the claim made in the picture's caption. As such, I'm going to {{rs}} tag it. Unless a consensus develops in the next few days over there that CPT is, in fact, a reliable source for this claim, I will be removing the citation entirely. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

in my research now on the internet, i don't see CPT as being reliable for any facts - they are not a news service or editorial board, etc. Soosim (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this reference entirely. Suckily, that changes the number of all the subsequent refs, rendering the following section headers inaccurate. C'est la vie? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that this was not the RSN consensus at all: in fact, the consensus was in favor of using the CPT source backed up by the Loewenstein source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

problems with ref 48

Antony Loewenstein, in My Israel Question describes and quotes the graffiti published by CPT. Two problems:

1. If the facts asserted aren't reliable on their face (see RS/N), why are they more reliable when being quoted with attribution?
2. The source-text asserts the existence of some graffiti, and photographs of that graffiti. Isn't it synthetic to claim that this photograph is an example of such, when the source is text-only?

I'm going to challenge the reference with some inline tag tomorrow, if not convinced otherwise. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

and again, it is based on a CPT report which isn't sourced or reliable. Soosim (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Again, RSN determined pretty much exactly the opposite of what you claim it did. It's not that Loewenstein's book - an academic text from Melbourne University Press - becomes unreliable when it believes a source that wouldn't be reliable on its own - instead, it's that we can use the latter when it's endorsed by the former. Loewenstein describes a photo released by CPT of graffiti on a house in Hebron that says "Gas the Arabs." CPT's photo is of a house in Hebron with graffiti that says "Gas the Arabs." There is no synthesis here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be true if Loewenstein said "there was settler graffiti that CPT photographed." He didn't. He described a photograph, and asserted that CPT had described it as settler vandalism. It's synthetic to make the leap that this is such a photograph, and it's outright untrue to state that CPT's claims were "endorsed" by Loewenstein. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, that's just incorrect. He states that the CPT released photographs that show settler attitudes, not that "CPT described" as anything, cites the web gallery in which the photograph is found, and then provided examples of the photographs' content. What is this bizarre original analysis of the source you're trying to do? How many knots are you going to tie yourself in in this weird attempt to deny that a source says what it says? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

correctness of ref 49

I think it's wrong, for two reasons:

1. The book is a compendium of photos and essays. The appropriate attribution for this section, which is called New Europe: Eyes Wide Shut, is to Katarzyna Marciniak. The title of the book is, I think, "Streets of Crocodiles: Photography, Media, and Postcolonialist Landscapes in Poland". I don't know who Maeve Connoly is.
2. The book shows a different photograph of what appears to be the same door, at an earlier point in time. The title of the photograph is "West Bank". The text does not make the assertion that this graffiti was sprayed by settlers, nor that the door is located in Hebron.24.177.121.137 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

it is definitely a different photograph and hence, can not be used as is. Soosim (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

also

Regardless of the above, I think we should switch the pic to the one without the boy. The purpose of the image is to illustrate the graffiti, right? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus at the WP:RSN discussion (which you initiated) that the photo in question is reliably sourced. You appear to be flogging a dead horse with this one. Dlv999 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was that CPT is unreliable. Anyway, it's beside the point. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not beside the point at all. You raised the issue of the photo at WP:RSN. A consensus was reached at RSN that the photo is reliably sourced. You have ignored that consensus and sought to misrepresent the comments of RSN contributors to support your position. Dlv999 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you missed it. The sourcing is at issue above. But that aside, the boy serves no purpose, and the image without the boy is more appropriate. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The picture is of a Palestinian home, thus there is nothing inappropriate about a Palestinian standing in the picture. Dlv999 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

do we know where this palestinian home is? and do we know who spray painted it? we really have no RS on it. Soosim (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There was consensus at RSN among uninvolved editors that the sourcing for the photo is appropriate for what it is being used for. Dlv999 (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just misrepresenting what went on. RS/N adjudicates source reliability, not whether a photo is appropriate in-context. The boy distracts from the point of the image: the graffiti. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

what counts

There has been a bit of a distortion on what is required and what determines what may be used. This is an image provided by a non-profit organization. Barring a reason not to, we can assume that they are accurately describing the contents of their picture. The very idea that a reliable source is needed for a picture would be the end of most every article in Misplaced Pages being illustrated. Attribution to CPT is the most that can be granted here. I am restoring the source because the source is the author of the picture. nableezy - 05:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

there is much reason to disbelieve the non-profit since they have a particular agenda. i would say that since there are many pictures of spray-painted slogans reportedly done by settlers, why not use one from an RS? here is one, i remember: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4123160,00.html Soosim (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Every non-profit has an agenda. News agencies have an agenda. That alone is not a reason to disbelieve them when they say this is a picture of a door in Hebron. Especially when that same door appears in any number of other sources. nableezy - 13:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can get the rights to that one. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons we dont require reliable sources for images. nableezy - 13:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This image used in the article is photoshopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Says who? nableezy - 13:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

My eyes, there are obvious giveaways on the image. The rust being the most blatant as it is over the graffiti, another rust stain appears from behind the graffiti but has come form nowhere as there is no rust patch above it and the red wash is both over and under the graffiti. Certainly looks like a shopped image to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"the rust is over the graffiti"...the words of someone who has never seen a painted metal door decay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank your eyes for us. I mean, it isn't as though we can find this same image from any number of angles across the internet. I mean, surely, as your eyesight is the determining factor here, and as you surely are not mistaken, one should be unable to find such a door anywhere else, shouldn't he? nableezy - 16:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In those results we see the same graffiti (I don't mean the same words, I mean actually the same graffiti) in at least two clearly different locations. As you point out, there are a number of different angles and depths, meaning that a number of people would have had to independently be shopping the images very convincingly, but I do wonder what the explanation for this is - the simplest explanation seems to be that at some point the doors were moved from one place to another. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Darkness Shines: Just to put your mind at rest. Here is a later pic of the same gate. Compare it to the one in the article and you will notice it has considerably more rust over the letters, so much more in fact that it looks like someone was throwing rocks at the gate. I guess the white paint is flaking off. Wayne (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And now another editor is parroting claims that do not stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Almost all pictures on Misplaced Pages come from things other than "reliable sources". See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images: Generally, Misplaced Pages assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. I'll take seriously the objections to using a well-known instance of the racist graffiti brought to us by the generally law-abiding settlers when I see these same people removing any picture the IDF releases. The sources are unequivocally reliable for this being a picture of graffiti left on a door in Hebron that was signed by the JDL. Attempts to twist WP policy in to removing an uncomfortable fact will not end well. nableezy - 19:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to examine the history of this graffito and door over the years. I have looked at some 30 pictures of it and some of other graffiti as well as a lot of text. It appears that this phrase only appears twice on widely photographed and uploaded objects, but has become (in particular this version) iconic, and widely reported - often described as widespread. Possibly graffiti in English is more noticed, and certainly this has impact. In July 1998 an amount of graffiti was painted out or sandblasted. Even in the earliest pictures this graffito seems old, so it possibly dates from not long after. The consensus seems to be that it is a school gate, in both its locations. It does seem a leap of faith to assume anything about authorship of this particular document, therefore care should be taken with the caption. Rich Farmbrough, 06:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC).

Do you see any problem with the current caption? nableezy - 15:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Title

Since the lead acknowledges that most West Bank settlers are "law abiding" and "non-violent" and that the violence is perpetrated by fringe extremists, surely, a more neutral article title would be Israeli settler extremist violence, which accurately describes this phenomena? Ankh.Morpork 10:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"law abiding" is a quote of an Israeli military commander, it is not something that has been acknowledged in the Wiki voice. In any case "settler violence" is the common name. This is the term used in countless RS e.g. , , , , , , , , , . Dlv999 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify:

A) Which term do you think more accurately describes this phenomena?

B) If most sources referred to this as Settler violence, whether you would support such a name change? Ankh.Morpork 10:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A)I think "Israeli Settler Violence" is the most accurate term to describe the phenomena.

B)"Israeli Settler Violence" is supported by multiple RS. E.g. , , , , , , , . Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by".

A) Do you have any RS to support your proposed title?

B) Do you have any RS to support your assertion that the current title is non-neutral, or is it just your own personal (unsupported) opinion as an editor? (Personally I find it hard to accept that it is not neutral when it is used by multiple RS across the political spectrum, and is used by Israeli, Palestinian, Arab and Western sources.) Dlv999 (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. Were most sources to refer to this as Settler violence, would you would support such a name change? And please explain why you consider Israeli Settler Violence more accurate than Israeli settler extremist violence Ankh.Morpork 12:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

In its current form this article is very far from any objectivity, which is very much needed in the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This article is using numerous one sided sources with questionable objectivity and unverified pictures from self published political activist sites, which has racist and blood liable sounding . This article lacks any attempt to present other side of the story, any attempt to balance opinions and any attempt to in force minimal degree of encyclopedia objectivity. Tritomex (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Besides you not liking the blood liable from self published political activist sites, what exactly is non-neutral about this article? nableezy - 23:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The title for starters. It is only a fringe of the settler movement, yet this is called "settler violence". Also, the remit of this article; can you explain how graffiti amount to "violence"? Ankh.Morpork 23:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, you asked this question back in March, and it has already been answered: "The section of the article that included this image was "attacks on Palestinian agriculture and Property", so attacks on Palestinian property (as shown in the image) is clearly relevant. Also gassing Arabs is a violent act - so graffiti inciting the gassing of Arabs is clearly relevant to the article as a whole." Dlv999 (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources call it settler violence, it is not our fault that the extremists among the generally law-abiding settlers commit such actions. And incitement to violence is certainly relevant to the article. nableezy - 13:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Since we are in agreement that sources call it settler violence, I propose we retitle the article to that and solve this area of dispute. Ankh.Morpork 15:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, because it is specific to Israeli settlers. When a news article is about Israeli settlers and says that Israeli settlers in the West Bank did such and such and then later says that this is an example of settler violence the article has already made clear that they are Israeli settlers. This is not about any random resident of a human settlement, it is specifically about Israeli settlers. Trying to purposely obfuscate that wont fly. nableezy - 15:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And lets not pretend that sources dont also include Israeli in the description, see for example , , , , . nableezy - 15:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This are not just about alleged graffiti.

1.What a Palestinian child photographed together with this graphite is doing in this picture?Was there any purpose to make such a picture in order to enhance hatred, racism or just emotional eruptions, or we can assume that the child photographed on picture was accidentally there? What kind of scientific artickle use this language? I will quote "The Christian Peacemaker Teams released a series of photographs taken in Hebron in recent years that showed the attitudes of many settlers to the Palestinians. Some of the graffiti in English included: 'Die Arab Sand Niggers'; 'Exterminate the Muslims'; 'Watch out Fatima, we will rape all Arab Women'; 'Kill All Arabs' 'White Power: Kill Niggers'; 'Gas the Arabs' and 'Arabs to the Gas Chambers'"

2.Than again we have "Christian peacemakers" "On 9 December 2007, members of Christian Peacemaker Teams, an American NGO, reported to have observed a group of Israelis stop next to a cistern in Humra Valley, open the lid, and raise the bucket. The water was later found to be contaminated. Oxfam, a British NGO, has reported that settlers deliberately poisoned the only well in Madama, a village near Nablus, by dumping used diapers into it; and that they shot aid workers who came to clean the well. -Both links are unusable.Also this is given as universal truth, without quotes and proper attribution of claims.

3.In March 2010, International Solidarity Movement reported that settlers sabotaged a natural spring used by Palestinians in the village of Qarawat Bani Hassan by pouring in a mixture of cement and sand. The settlers were protected by the Israeli Defence Forces as they destroyed the springs." and the source given is You Tube video (this can not be used as a source for any such claim)

4.Claims like this are left without any source

"Extremist groups associated with the settler movement include Gush Emunim Underground that existed from 1979 to 1984 as a militant organization linked to the settler activist group Gush Emunim. They carried out attacks against Jewish students and Palestinian officials, attempted to bomb a bus and planned an attack on the Dome on the Rock. The Human Sciences Research Council (South Africa) (HSRC) a statutory research agency released an exhaustive study indicating that Israel practices both colonialism and apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The study was conducted by an international team of scholars and practitioners of international public law from South Africa, the United Kingdom, Israel and the West Bank. The study reviewed Israel's practices in the territories according to definitions of colonialism and apartheid provided by international law. The project was suggested by the January 2007 report by South African jurist John Dugard, in his capacity as Special Rapporteur to the United Nations Human Rights Council. He said that the practices of Israel had assumed characteristics of colonialism and apartheid and that an advisory opinion on the legal consequences should be sought from the International Court of Justice.

5.What is NPOV?

NPOV stands for Neutral point of view. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, where there is often an abundance of viewpoints and criticisms of the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts.

This article does not adhere to NPOV!Tritomex (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I cant honestly understand what it is you are saying. Something about a child causing hatred and racism and a quote that describes the actions of Israeli settlers as being a Bad Thing. Sorry, but including what verifiable sources say about the topic is not "non-neutral", it is actually required for an article to be neutral. Your personal distaste for the inclusion of this content (though curiously no word said about the actual slogans used by settlers) is not relevant to whether the content should be included.

2. reported to observed is rather clear. It is not Misplaced Pages that is saying these things occurred, it is Misplaced Pages saying that CPT is saying these things occurred. This is properly attributed.

3. There is an extra source there (though dead, I'll work on correcting that), and an ISM video is fine for an attributed view from ISM.

4. I'll get you sources for those statements. Though after edits like this I wonder why you feel the need for sourcing for that material. But no matter, that material will be sourced soonish. (looks like Roland already provided those sources. The question regarding your rather obvious inconsistency on sourcing however still stands. nableezy - 14:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

5. No, you have only made an assertion, one that I can just as easily deny. You disliking the topic of an article does not make an article non-neutral. What viewpoint is not given its due weight in this article? Tell us exactly and bring sources espousing that viewpoint. Until then, just claiming the article this article does not adhere to NPOV! is worthless. nableezy - 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My problem with this article is not in the topic. I do not deny Israeli settler violence against the Palestinians. I do not live in that area of world, nor I have any connection with the conflict, beside my personal curiosity with the region. My problem is with the unbalanced picture this article is creating. For example you again restored a very serious claim against one side in the conflict without absolutely any source. Second many of your editions lack any attribution and are presented as well known facts. Third your editions are full of death links, unreliable videos and the fact that those videos came from ISM, or from any other political interest group, do NOT validate those claims. It is very good if you are looking to find sources, yet you should not edit the page with such serious claims UNTIL you do not have a reliable source. Considering the picture, it remains problematic, both regarding of its content and its source. It comes from self published article of one political organization which is directly taking sides in this conflict. Therefore the source of that picture is unreliable. Considering the content it is again problematic, I already explained above why. Best regards Tritomex (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image

Putting aside for now the fact that there was clearly no consensus to delete the image and the closing admin blatantly cast a supervote - Commons is a separate area and we can't always control what goes on there - it was used to convey information in the article and is now gone. Unless the image is restored, which it should be, we should put the information about graffiti in as text. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

the image that was deleted was the one with the Palestinian child in the foreground, is the image without the child still available on commons? Dlv999 (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh good call, there are two (as well as some other lovely specimens). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have restored it with the last text that was there and dropped the CPT cite although it could be used since it is the same graffiti, I don't care either way. I still favor combining all the refs into a single citation as shown here per WP:CITEBUNDLE rather than having the clutter of 3 or 4 individual citations. I've also put this article back on my watchlist for the time being. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Maeve Connoly

Before reverting, take a second to consider that, without controversy, that source is just fucking incorrect. Consider the description of the purported source from the author's own web-site:

In The Place of Artists’ Cinema, Maeve Connolly identifies a recurrent concern with site, space and cinema architecture in film and video works by artists, extending from the late 1960s to the present day. Focusing on developments over the past decade, Connolly provides in-depth readings of selected recent works by twenty-four different artists including Carlos Amorales, Gerard Byrne, Jeremy Deller, Stan Douglas, Tacita Dean, Pierre Huyghe, Aernout Mik, Tobias Putrih and Anne Tallentire, ranging from multi-screen projections to site-specific installations and feature-length films.

It's obviously not on point. Next, give ten seconds of thought to the pages displayed on Google Books; in particular, the very first few. It's obvious to anyone with a grasp of basic English and basic critical thinking skills that the source I just removed could not have been correct, and that Google's information is in error.

Finally, I'm currently holding a physical copy of Maeve's book in my hands, and it doesn't contain that photograph, or anything even remotely resembling sourcing for that image's caption. So there.

BAM! 24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd also note that inappropriate citations to living authors runs afoul of WP:BLP; as such, removing this source from the article is exempt from 1RR restrictions. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You are holding the book. Good. Turn to page 108 and quote here the rest of the sentence that starts "Stunning in their...", then turn to page 109, look closely at photo of the same graffiti in this article, and quote the caption next to Figure 10. I am looking at it right now. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked into this, there is a PDF available of the book, the IP is correct. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Post the link. No, they aren't right. I am looking at the book right now. I can post the scanned pages. I have already put them on google docs. Let the IP answer the 2 questions first. They are very simple if they have the book in their hands. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sean, here is the link to the PDF of the book. p108 has only a photo od some woman, 109 has no photos at all, nor does Hebron even appear in the book. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And here is the version on google books page 108, the graffiti is on page 109, and if you can't see those the google docs links are pages 108 and 109. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the scans, the material is where Sean says it is (shocker). nableezy - 19:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate to have to tell you this but those scans are not reliable. However the PDF of the book is, and those pics are not on the given pages. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not; but the Google Books version is certainly reliable, and has a photo of this graffiti, explicitly ascribing this to settlers. Therefore, it would appear that the PDF (where is this posted?) is itself inaccurate.RolandR (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a picture wherein I am HOLDING THIS BOOK. Surely if the physical version and the Google Books version are not in agreement, the physical version is correct, right? (Also, RolandR, you forgot to sign that.) Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What does that photo prove? All it shows is a mirror image of the book's cover; that certainly does not disprove the Google Books version. RolandR (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That photo doesn't prove anything except that I've got a physical copy of the book I'm referencing. Now then, when I post pictures of pages 108 and 109, and they look nothing like the Google Books version, will you be convinced? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily; you could have a different edition. The Google Books page is quite clear, and I see no way in which this could have been manipulated, so I consider it reliable. If there appears to be a discrepancy, then this should be discussed at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not challenging the reliability of the source; I'm challenging whether the source actually says what the citation claims the source says. RS/N isn't appropriate. Are you saying that Google Books must be infallible? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I consider Google Books to be reliable. If you disagree with its reliability for the edit and citation, then this is clearly a matter for RSN. RolandR (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Google Books isn't a source, any more than "the library" is a source. Much like libraries, Google Books contains sources. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(od) Because pages 108 and 109 aren't number in Maeve's real book, I've created a photo-essay where I'm flipping the pages from 106 to 109, demonstrating that the content displayed on Google Books is inaccurate. Here's part one: File:Maeve's Book Page Flipping Pt 1.jpg. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's part two! File:Maeve's Book Page Flipping Pt 2.jpg. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Part three: File:Maeve's Book Page Flipping Pt 3.jpg. The citation is clearly incorrect. Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Or you have a different edition. nableezy - 19:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Marvelous. If one looks at Google books scan cover page, it is appears to be Streets of Crocodiles - Photography, Media, and Postsocialist landscape in Poland. Hardly Maeve Connoly. Here is the book's Amazon link. Interestingly the book does talk about Łódź at page 107, but page 108 jumps mid-sentence to Hebron. It appears from layout, style and content that pages 108 & 109 are from unidentified source, and not from Streets of Crocodiles. page 110 is back in postsocialist landscape of Poland. So someone totally screwed up in Google books project. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Odder and odder: if you look at the WorldCat entry for Streets of Crocodiles, it displays the cover of The Place of Artists Cinema. So there seems to be some confusion between the books, which is not of Google's making. RolandR (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there does appear to be something odd going on at google books, at least in terms of the "about this book" parent record for the pages, but the information of interest to us from a WP:V compliance perspective, appears to have been published in Streets of Crocodiles (pp 95-109), from the essay "New Europe: Eyes Wide Shut" by Katarzyna Marciniak in the final section "Coda: Landscapes of hate". The essay was also published in Social Identities, Volume 12, Number 5, September 2006 , pp. 615-633(19)link (doi). I don't think the statement "It appears from layout, style and content that pages 108 & 109 are from unidentified source, and not from Streets of Crocodiles." is consistent with the evidence. As you can see from the text on page 109 it refers back to Figure 2 in the same essay by saying "'Gas the Arabs' in the West Bank (Figure 10), evoking 'Jews to Gas' in Lodz (Figure 2)". And there is certainly no "jump mid-sentence to Hebron", sentences continue consistently from page to page and there isn't a change in layout. In fact, bar a few pages, I can see Marciniak's entire essay/chapter. Try the following google uk link for the beginning of the essay. The citation issues can be resolved but the disruptive trolling IP and their socks is not going to be part of that process. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Im restoring this with the ingentaconnect link. Thanks Sean. nableezy - 22:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just a fucking moment here, Sean says above he has this book and the IP is wrong. But the IP was right and Sean was obviously dishonest. In fact Sean says he had the book in front of him, I now have the PDF of said book, and it says fuck all of the sort for which it was being cited. Does this not fall under the sanctions within this topic area? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles