This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Bear in mind though (on a slightly separate point), that IPCOLL, in some ways can only provide alternate insights and views, and can't really replace discussions at article talk pages themselves. this is not an official rule here, but my own personal take on how IPCOLL can work best. however, we'd be happy to discuss a variety of concepts and issues here. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 14:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

General discussions can be held here, but specifics - on the article talk pages. Not everyone is even aware of this page, and only have the specific articles on their watchlist. Also, a while from now, if someone wants to see why some decisions were made, they'd go through the article talk page archives, and find nothing.

If discussing specific articles, in a general fashion (I think that's what you're going for here), please add a link from the article talk pages, to get people's attention. okedem ( talk) 14:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

well to add to your point slightly, I think we can discuss some specifics here, in order to provide some help and input. however, the actual acceptance, implementation or enactment, would probably need to take place at article talk pages; unless, of course, a large number of the disputants had shown up here to resolve the issue(s). -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I think those are both helpful clarifications. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree also. Though IPCOLL could initiate/guide an effort to discuss some controversial terms that cut across our editorial conflicts. We've discussed this kind of effort in the past (see archives). For instance, we could have a centralized discussion of 'Jerusalem' or 'settlement' etc. But the in-depth content discussion would not take place on this page. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

this thread can be archived, thanks! HG | Talk 04:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Speaking of new resources for this page - I originally proposed this for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard page but really just wanted it for I-P and other political article editing. What do people think? Below is just my original example, and the irrelevant entries would not be used. It actually wouldn't take that long and also would alert us to when a source we often used is being discussed.

---

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED SOURCES AND ISSUES

(Instructions: Once discussions have been archived, add new source and status to the table in the same format, in alphabetical order.)

SPECIFIC SOURCES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS

---

---

GENERAL ISSUES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS

---

Carol Moore 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

It might be made into a subpage of the WikiProject here. For some examples of subpages of another WikiProject see:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps#Subpages of WikiProject Maps

This link pulls up the current subpages here:

Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself and any other Israel-affiliated editors, i don't consider us bound by any of this. sorry. I think it's better to discuss these individually, as issues may arise. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 15:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sm8900, please explain as explicitly as you can what you mean by 'this'? Bound to any of what? Do you mean you wouldn't be receptive to having a reference page at which particular historical facts (as suggested above - e.g. from 24 of the Palestinians killed at Jenin were considered civilians to some of those killed in the Passover massacre were holocaust survivors) or the sources backing them up (as described here - e.g. from Mona Baker to CAMERA, Pappe to Gilbert) are centralized? (Also, as an aside, just to be clear, I'm Israel-affiliated, though my definition of what that means, as well as some others like me, may be different from yours;) LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean that this process has not been sufficiently explained to me, presented to me, or made to seem constructive yet, nor has my support been adequately sought or obtained. I am stating this clearly and openly, in order to foster an atmosphere of clear and open communication, where we can work together in an atmosphere of consensus and collegiality. Your comments above have not moved me any closer to accepting any aspect of this process. Please feel free to consider any further ways to foster better communication about this. thank you. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 16:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me just ask: is this just a list of previously archived discussions to sometimes read, or is this meant to be a list which we might supposedly abide by? just want to clarify. if it's the first one, i guess that might be ok. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's up to us to discuss. My feeling is that is should be somewhere in between - i.e. more alive than an archive, but not a set of strict policies. A reference. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be very useful. It's not a set of binding rules, but rather links to previous discussions about what exactly constitutes a reliable source. Anyone acting within the spirit of these guidelines could reasonably claim to be following accepted practice, and anyone ignoring them should be expected to justify this. The previous discussions could indicate what opinion the WP community might be likely to take in future discussions. The links Carole has provided above are a good start; I'd like to see this expanded to include pointers to previous discussions about, eg, CAMERA, Electronic Intifada, Ilan Pappé, Uri Milstein and other specific sources. RolandR ( talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't explicit enough about the purpose. It's just an easy way to find past discussions of Reliable Sources (specifically named or general ones) on the Reliable sources notice board, especially since some sources DO come up repeatedly. If one finds 3 discussions and all favor your view, it makes it easier to argue your point. If you disagree with the conclusions of past discussions at least you have a clue what arguments have been used before so you can proactively counter them, either on the reliable sources noticeboard or on your article's talk page (or both).

Of course, results of mediations, arbitrations or other important procedures dealing with reliable sources also could be included with link. It would NOT be for specific facts, however. Carol Moore 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

Well if it's simply a set of informational resources, of course I'm open to that, and I applaud you trying to set up. Once it's set up, we can decide how much it might be able to have a functional effect, and how much we want to decide that we will or will not abide by it, or use it as a definitive source. thanks very much. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need are two or three related reference pages:

• 1: A reference replete with links to commonly-used sources, and the debates around them
• 2. A reference of well-established historical facts that have been a subject of debate (i.e revert wars, or 10 significant changes.), together with links to archived discussions about the matters at hand
• 3. An I-P banning log where we can chart reasons for block warnings and bannings related to I-P articles.

One idea, once we reach that stage, is to post a notice on I-P articles to direct new editors to the reference pages. A lot of collaboration would be needed not only to get such a resource up and running, but to be sure that bases are well-covered. Note that it would be vital that wikipedians on all ends of the political spectrum participate, rather than complain about the lack of information expressing 'all sides' 'objectively.' LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on this, but I suggest that you think about proceeding one issue at a time. It may be that if you try to make it a global resource now, it will sound like you are trying to lock in one set of views, no matter how well-intentioned you may try to be about it. if you look for where there are existing disputes, and try to add beneficial resources, it may help to make people feel that this is being done in a neutral way. just my suggestion. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it can't be done all at once. I think this is a good time to brainstorm the possibilities, however. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 19:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

that sounds good. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

---

---

I'll be happy to start a page like the below with the same kind of brief info and links as above. I'll do the first two archived pages as an example. There are 15 archived pages and the current one. Just tell me where it is most appropriate to be created. Here's an updated version of how it would work.

---

---

List of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Past Discussions

These are lists of Discussions of Reliable Sources, or Issues related to Reliable Sources that have been conducted over the last few years, mostly on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. "Other Reliable Source Discussions" such as resolutions in mediation or arbitration also may be linked.

(Instructions: Once discussions have been archived, add the new source and link to the table in the same format, in alphabetical order.)

---

SPECIFIC SOURCES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS

---

GENERAL ISSUES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS

---

Carol Moore 22:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

If you want, just start it here: /Reliable sources summary. This will open as a subpage of this page, WP:IPCOLL. (we can always rename it later, if we wish.) -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 03:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Great. Will start work later this weekend. Carol Moore 00:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

Minor technical point. Here is the full subpage link ready to fill in:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Reliable sources summary

Or [[/Reliable sources summary]] can be pasted into an edit window of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration and then previewed to get a red link. That is the way to create a subpage from another page if using the forward-slash-only name. Feel free to use any name for the subpage. It can always be moved to another name later just like any page. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the draft with relevant contents and links to articles from two archives included. A few of them were a judgment call whether to use and how to describe, but most straight forward. Carol Moore 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

Thanks for getting things started with /Links to Reliable Sources Discussions .... LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 03:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This page comes out of suggestions made at an ArbCom workshop. The initial work is borrowed shamelessly from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Folks are welcome to edit this extensively (or to delete, if it does not become active). Thanks. HG | Talk 13:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a section to say something about yourself and your interest in working collaboratively in the I-P topic area. Examples may be seen from the Sri Lanka effort. Currently, there are no specific criteria and all are welcome to join. Perhaps certain criteria are implicit; for example, that members engage in deliberately civil conversation, follow Talk and editing etiquette, and only make big changes to this WikiProject after discussion here. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It might help if people articulated their role(s)/goals with the topic or WikiProject. For instance, you might say if you're available to mediate, or uninvolved admin to enforce policies, or an active editor w/an identifiable point-of-view. Ideally, the project could call upon some "good cop/bad cop" teams when heated disputes arise at an article. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, this project is a wonderful idea! Come to me for help with images (cropping, rotation, restoration) - I'd be glad to help prepare photographs for featured picture candidacy, particularly historic material. Also glad to help with dispute resolution. Regards, Durova ^Charge! 21:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• PalestineRemembered I sometimes regret wearing my apparent sympathies so openly, at other times it's been useful. Think of me a bit like Emily Hobhouse, having absolutely no dog in this race (as she had none in the Boer War), other than the interest we all share in "peace'n'justice". And the accuracy of the historical record - I have a particular objection to hate-sources. (More on that elsewhere) I have never concealed or attempted to conceal anything that might be "disreputable" to the Palestinian "cause", nor ever (that I'm aware of) used anything doubtful about Israel. This "I-P conflict" is well documented in good sources, so even when there is reasonable room for two different scripts, it should not be difficult to write both up properly/fairly. I look forwards to my first invitation to "write for the enemy", and the first acceptance of an invitation from me to do so. PR ^talk 12:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• As an introduction, I should say that I spent three months touring around Wikipedia before I dared show my face and self-graduate to newbie status; I should also say that my POV-powered vehicle is heavily loaded with a very long (literally geologic) sense of history and historical perspective; I believe that perspective, and others also, can be called truly encyclopedic. IPCOLL is the first wiki-anything I have joined. I too believe that the difficult issues should be tackled first; it is synonymous to the Oslo accords and leaving the ‘final status’ issues for later evolutionary work. ... Shalom, Salaam, Peace. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 07:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Hello! I'm a pretty uninvolved editor in I-P and other Middle East articles (until I discover something I just have to edit ;). I'm over at medcab, and that's my main role at the moment, and it's there I come across Israeli-Palestinian related discussion. I'm happy to see an Israeli-Palestinian Collaboration project, and am hopeful that it will help and do good things for the future :) I suppose there isn't much for me to say. Here's a nice quote I heard once, though: "seek context; flee abstraction". Words to live by, imo :) Xavexgoem ( talk) 19:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• (These comments by Leifern would be a fine statement, if he joins!) On principle, I support any kind of initiative that leads to 1) better adherence to NPOV, 2) more informative articles, and 3) better written articles. I have no reason to doubt the intent of those who are initiating this Wikiproject and would encourage them to continue. But I think I'd be doing them and the other well-meaning editors a disservice if I didn't express my reservations candidly. My biggest fear is that this becomes an alibi, a safe haven, for POV-pushers. I can all too easily imagine a scenario where an editor comes running her with an edit dispute, finds other editors sympathetic to his/her point of view, and then uses their support as a basis for claiming "consensus." There are too many editors on this particular issue who claim to be absolutely neutral, but are anything but neutral, whether they realize this or not. (Moved w/permission. HG | Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm an uninvolved admin who's here to help out as needed. I'm currently a member of the ArbCom-created Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, and creator/moderator of the dispute board for Hungarian-Slovakian issues. I'm also currently updating various dispute resolution processes around Wikipedia, and am paying close attention to longrunning disputes to see how we can improve our procedures and/or enforcement. I've been a professional online community manager for over 15 years, long before I was involved with Wikipedia, and my own "style" tends to be a bit more on the enforcement side, but I also do a great deal of mediating and mentoring. If I can be of assistance, let me know!  :) -- El on ka 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks for your help with archiving and moderating this Talk page. More assistance (and from others) most welcome. HG | Talk 10:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hello all, I'm an Israeli who trusts my fellow Israelis to bring in all the relevant Israeli positions; my job is to balance it out with some Palestinian history and to try to make as much room for Palestinian claims as there is for Israeli ones. I believe strongly that wikipedia entries should not look like guide-book entries, but should deal with the vital, hitherto too-contentious 'details' that comprise the 'stuff' of the conflict and yet are so often ommitted from the standard encyclopedia entry. My background: medieval Islamic history; European Zionist history; Palestinian unions; Negev Bedouin history; current development projects in Israel. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am a Palestinian and a Zionist, and a firm believer in this quote from the Sri Lankan Reconciliation Project "Any one who wants to join this agrees that they believe in the goals of this organization. I.E any contentious issues that cannot be resolved by sticking to wiki rules will be resolved by discussing here". I am an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, my family came to live in Palestine in the mid 1500s, and my heart is in Jerusalem (both sides). Phil Burnstein ( talk) 16:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(Crossposting)

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good with the Israeli-Palesinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova ^Charge! 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very open to the idea and find it very interesting. I congratulate the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedians for such a big step - though it took only a few steps. I am thinking of proposing it at Wikipedia:IPCOLL and Wikipedia:SLR as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As we all know, sourced material on certain topics is continually deleted. Any ideas about how to protect certain content over time - i.e. regarding the documented killing/expulsion, of innocent Jews and Arabs? Often these deletions are not so different from editing an entry on slavery so that it says the black people were not enslaved, they jumped on the boat and headed for the New World. In other articles such deletions are more clearly understood as vandalism; Yet in the case of I-P articles, often deletions have been allowed to continue without censure, and those who revert such deletions (i.e. those constituting vandalism as they remove sourced facts without explanation) have at times been banned, or had to waste time disputing threatened bans, themselves. I should add again that all of the following refer to facts that were properly cited, and their citations were ignored when the facts were distorted or deleted.

• Information on expulsions and massacres during 1948 has been regularly deleted from entries such as Jerusalem, often by the same people. In one recent example, mention of the expulsion of Liftaa transformed into something like "the residents of Liftaa moved".
• At Battle of Jenin some editors repeatedly edit the entry to read that all or most of those killed at Jenin were combatants, or that none were civilians. Bt'selem and Human Rights Watch stats say that just over half were combatants, and the rest civilians. This data has been repeatedly deleted, reverted, etc. To back up their claim, some editors continually assert that all those civilians killed were voluntary human shields. However, they have produced no evidence to this effect. The IDf has tried to prove that all those killed were combatants, but has been unable to do so in 14 cases.
• Just now, at Haifa, we saw an editor distort this well-cited information: "...Palestinians from Haifa left partially as a result of a combination of a campaign of threats from the Zionist leadership and encouragement by Arab leaders in the region to leave, but mostly were forced out by the shelling of Arab villages and neighborhoods by Jewish soldiers.[5][6]" She altered the sentence so that the source argued that shelling was just one factor among several, as opposed to the main cause of flight. This was simply untrue, yet a very common type of edit and a form of tolerated vandalism.

Again, I know none of this is new to you, but wanted to list this here for the record just as a set of examples of the many such incidences we have all witnessed. These same essential 'disputes,' in some form or another, have been ongoing. In these cases, no consensus seems to have been reached, or, when 2/3 majority has been, one or two of the same editors seem to start the process again a month later. It's very hard to track such trends, monitor the specific editors, however. (Who has time to go around trying to get people banned?) I have not noticed deletions of terrorist acts against Israelis, although archiving repeated incidences of such deletions here would make sense. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 20:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

some of the examples you cite do not sound like such negative editing trends to me. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain? (Perhaps on my talk-page if you think it will get too detailed here.) LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I think I'll let the discussions proceed, here and at the article talk pages, without me at this current point. However, I do appreciate you mentioning these items here. I am open to staying informed and aware of this. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 19:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, one point, for general reference...if you want our help, the way to do so is to ask for our help on specific items, one at a time... in other words, not to take a whole mishmash of items which have no common thread, except that they are all opposed to the Israeli viewpoint, and then disingenuously ask for help in the form of "how to prevent deletions," or how to protect "certain" content over time, etc (as stated above). sorry, but I do need to point this out, just to cast some light on this issue for the future. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 20:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I take your point as far as focusing on one issue at a time. Thanks for this single constructive comment, however, I ask that you assume good faith (i.e. not use words such as "disingenuous"). It may seem naive of me, but I honestly see the above as facts that have been deleted repeatedly or distorted. To me these deletions seem like ongoing vandalism, and I honestly would like to brainstorm how to protect ALL key historical facts from continual omission/eradication. Perhaps this is unrealistic of me/trying to jump in the deep end of the pool too fast. But I think it's best to be transparent and tackle differences of opinion/approach to key questions such as this, head on. Best, LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 00:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your open and helpful reply. sorry for any over-opinionating on my part. if you want to get any input or help on some ways to work through some of these issues individually, I'm sure we'd be happy to try.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in wikipedia, one must be eternally vigilant and willing to revert such vandalisms. I've had a few heated battles myself, but only once very obliquely threatened with banning (and by a POV administrator). I am wondering if that is the problem that we need a process to address, if it is biggest barrier to correcting facts?? Carol Moore 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm not sure how prevalent banning in such cases is, or how much it creates an atmosphere of self-censorship. However if people are interested, this could be an excellent place to try to keep track of and centralize discussion of such trends. It could be interesting to create a ban-log here, or link to a new page on the subject (if one does not already exist) in which those penalized for revert-wars over overt vandalism of sourced facts, or having to combat threats of banning, can log the main issue in a sentence. Feedback? LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 01:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as protecting sourced content, I have a suggestion of huge dimensions, which I am sure is very far from being realized: One way to deal with the issue could be to create a separate log of well-sourced historical facts that have been the subject of repeated vandalism (i.e. more than three deletions or distortions). when combating such vandalism, editors could refer to given fact and citation in this "log of protected data" (or whatever we might want to call it). I hope this suggestion does not sound horribly naive to people. If do-able it could be highly relevant to other issue-areas. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 01:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Older thread for archiving. Thanks. HG | Talk 04:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for getting things started with /Links to Reliable Sources Discussions .... LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 03:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did an update to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions and wanted to remind people it was a resource and feel free to insert it in any articles.

Also in doing so I chanced upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism/Reliable source guidelines which actually list and opines on frequently used controversial sources. I don't have the energy to do something like that, but just thought I'd mention it in case others think it's a good idea and want to work on - and importantly promote - it. Carol Moore 03:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

I envision a space in which Israelis are never demonized, but are held accountable, and Palestinians are never disappeared, and are also held accountable. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 07:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an RFC going on at Talk:Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks#RfC: Redirect to what? ← Michael Safyan ^{( talk)} 06:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this one somewhere and wondering if there is one for the page itself to get out and about? (Including for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions which I'm finishing off as we speak. Also will preview and "advert" here that people can put on talk or user pages.) Carol Moore 15:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

I wrote the first paragraph so it can be used as an advertisement with a note encouraging people to do so, per below:

WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions provides Links to Specific Source Discussions and Links to General Issues Discussions of reliable sources that have been or could be relevant to Israel-Palestine issues. These discussions have been conducted over the last few years, mostly on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and been archived there. Current discussions will not be linked here until archived there. Other Reliable Source Discussions such as resolutions in mediation or arbitration also may be linked. However, none of these discussions may be the "final word" on a source or an issue about sources, so feel free to open a new section on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard if you think it is necessary. Information on Wikipedia source policies can be found at WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability.

Please feel free to circulate this paragraph and its links to talk pages or your user page to alert others to the availability of this resource.

Carol Moore 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

Hi. Would somebody pls volunteer to archive the threads as marked above? Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 04:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, what's the hurry? This TalkPage is currently 79K bytes. Other TalkPages are much, much bigger, eg Reliable Sources is currently 141K bytes, AN is 313K characters, ANI reached 370K yesterday, it was archived down to 242K - so still 3 times bigger than this! And many of the dicussions above are highly relevant, eg abusive charges of antisemitism (seen inside the project as well as outside), CAMERA hosting an attempt to subvert our processes etc etc. The JIDF situation is current and looks like another attempt to hi-jack. PR ^talk 17:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ...add links for readers HG | Talk 13:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For PR and others, let me emphasize that our archiving can be done when our IPCOLL discussion is old, resolved or otherwise unneeded. Of course, people are welcome/expected to keep working on the article and dispute resolution discussions well after this Talk page has helped draw the attention of IPCOLL readers. As moderator, I need to both use my best judgment for archiving and be responsive to objections. Also, if an archived discussion needs to be revisited, please pull it up from the archive, or link to it when starting new Talk section. Thanks for your understanding and support. HG | Talk 13:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

At the WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE subpage, we have a table that seeks to assess the extent to which the I-P topic area has been contentious. I'm trying to arrange to rebuild at least part of this table by automated queries. So, I would welcome feedback on what kind of data to gather. Here are my initial thoughts.

1. Page protection. (a) Which pages are currently protected, by protection type? (b) Which pages have been protected since the ArbCom decision (1-19-08), by type and number of instances? (c) Total number of pages for (a) and (b)?
2. XfD. (a) Which pages have been subjected to XfD requests, by type and number of instances? (b) Total number of XfDs
3. Moves. (a) Which pages have been moved or subject to requested moves? Please list multiple instances. (b) Totals
4. Blocks. (a) List pages that have been associated with 3RR, other blocks, or bans? (b) Total blocks and bans
5. Tags. (a) By article and Talk page, list all current tags and warnings such as NPOV template, etc, plus list all those removed since 1-19-08. (b) Total number of tags and warnings, by type.
6. Edit intensity. Need suggestions. (a) Rank the article and Talk pages by number of reverts and average number of edits per day. (b) Identify articles that have had high bursts of reverts or editing on single day(s).
7. Dispute resolution efforts. (a) List all instances of a page that is subject to ArbCom, MedCab, WQA, RfC, 3PO, and other(?) dispute resolution processes. If possible, it would be helpful to see a list of articles that have been the focus of noticeboard (esp AN/I and WP:AE) disputes.

Please let me know if you have other suggestions for data to gather, or clarifying questions. At this juncture, I do not yet know which queries are realistic. Please note: these are not queries about individual users'. For the data above, I'll be asking for totals since the ArbCom decision and monthly trends, if feasible. Thanks very much, HG | Talk 19:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Daily word count of the edit page. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 04:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Number six is a very good idea. The number of reverts, especially multiple reverts in a row, would be a good indication. Also, you might want to measure how many words have been added to an article's talk page, as that can also be a good indication of the heat of an editing dispute. ← Michael Safyan ^{( talk)} 05:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I see there haven't been any entries in What's Happening on main page since July. Does that mean things have calmed down, people not reporting there in preference to the statistics page, or not reporting at all? Just wondering. Carol Moore 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

This is still not clear since there are now other areas for reporting things and I just had to figure out where to report something. SHould old "what's happening" be deleted or merged into other report areas? Carol Moore 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle East Textbooks/Invitation Hi. All of you are invited to join WP:WikiProject Middle East Textbooks. I look forward to seeing many of you sign-up. ← Michael Safyan ^{( talk)} 19:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This project recently started. They were inspired by Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. It started after discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nationalist nonsense in AfDs, RMs etc -- Timeshifter ( talk) 18:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As folks can tell, I have not been able to devote time lately to this project, which I continue to think could help identify and smooth out some of the I-P topic editing conflicts. So, another moderator or two would be helpful. At a minimum, if a (relatively) neutral party could help archive this page, that would be great. Any additional efforts to facilitate discussion of pro-active IPCOLL work, of course, would also be beneficial. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk 13:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone object to #Member statements being moved to a subpage? I could do that if no one objects. I will wait a week or so before doing anything. Is this OK to everyone? -- Timeshifter ( talk) 12:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First, per my recommended changes I actually cut out a lot of other stuff but leave member statements on front because most other projects do and makes it clear it really exists. Now that I've read the whole article in order to re-write, I figured out what the moderator does. ;-) I am willing to be an administrative moderator for archiving or moving misplaced messages (if new regime created) but not for removing negative comments since I can be pretty combative myself - one reason I wanted to streamline these pages to make it easier for me to review and clean up my act :-) So I shouldn't be judging others. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that there is no objection to this nomination; I will therefore add Carolmooredc to the list on top of this page. — Sebastian 07:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A few months ago I wrote an essay about some ideas I had for resolving political conflicts in the Wikipedia. I wrote it mostly for myself, but in the last couple of weeks, a few people have found their ways to it and commented on it favorably.

So anyone that's interested is welcome to read User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 06:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ongoing_monitoring_and_collaborations says:
  • Collaborative editing of a low-tension and/or higher tension article, (help choose an Article in Talk), initiated by Durova
  • Facilitated discussions/interventions at disputed articles: Palestinian people (Padillah and HG), (others-to-be-named)

It is not clear how this is supposed to work, especially on alerting people to issues/problems in other articles. While some announcements of need for help get a response, I made one where one of the editors I was disagreeing with in article told me here, "no, you can't bring that here." Ttat doesn't seem appropriate given the above. (I think someone came by anyway and helped resolve problem.) I have a note about an RFC:Bio going to post here which hopefully I won't be chided for again.

• The merging of collaboration and monitoring on one page can make things very confusing.
• This has become a place where some of the more contentious editors feel free to enage in WP:Gaming the system and personal attacks - too reminiscent of the other pages we are having problems with.
• I'm thinking of just rewriting the main page to be a COLLABORATION PAGE with BATTLEGROUND STATISTICS as the only monitoring page and moving What's Happening and a couple other relevant things there. Might provide an outline here in the near future. General comments welcome! Carol Moore 17:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc

Hi Carol, yes I agree. I think part of this problem was highlighted in this posting asking for additional moderators to volunteer. Would you consider volunteering to become a wikiproject moderator? PhilKnight ( talk) 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You know I couldn't figure out what he was talking about when I first read the posting and still unclear without my studying the Collaboration article page (or talk above), which as I noted about is pretty confusing. Thinking about it, I think a first easy step we could do now would be to have two talk pages for collaboration, one for project structure and process (where for example JIDF actions v. wiki editors would go) and one for current issues on articles (where for example JIDF itself article would go). Then people more interested in one or the other would not be getting others confused. What do you think? (and if current posts above overlap, put a copy in each talk for past discussions). Carol Moore 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc

Hi. just a brief note to let you know i'm still here. I haven't looked at these pages in a while, but I can try to maybe look a little bit more now and then in the future. not sure whether my edit activity will change much though. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Carol, I like both your ideas. however, you might want to start them perhaps as separate sections on a single talk page, just to see what kind of responses you get. how to structure those pages might depend on how much interest they get. does that make sense? thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to know you're still paying attention. I was going to do a short outline here and then do whole page on my Talk Sandbox page for people to look at at their leisure. Just waiting til latest controversies die down (including one I'm about to start) so can look at with most neutral eye. Carol Moore 15:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Noticed above in the description of this talk page that "community lounge" was supposed to be for a lot of the discussions currently here. I think renaming it something more goal oriented like "current article debates" and then moving any debates that accidentally get her might might be part of the solution. So no need to create brand new pages. Also, as I'll note elsewhere, the criteria of when to bring an article issue here might be specified. We could brain storm a bunch of reasons and then decide which seem appropriate and which not. Carol Moore 00:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea of this page

One idea of this page, in my opinion, is that anyone who makes their way here to proactively start or join a discussion is doing their part to help solve the problem. so various controversies may emerge here, but that does not negate the value of this page. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 16:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Alerts board

Would it be appropriate to provide a space here where people can simply list active controversies informally, without any "scientific" or official tabulation? -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 16:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Simplification is definitely needed! Carol Moore 00:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Per recent discussions above...and the statement on the main page For the time being, all sections on this page may be considered provisional -- this WikiProject is open to your creative input and editing. I came up with greatly simplified structure that allows busy users to read and understand what the project is about and how it works. As other subprojects arise and become active, they can be added. Feel free to comment on the talk pages of those draft articles pages listed below. Temporary links deleted after changes made.

• Sandbox 1: Main page explains project; talk page only for discussion of project, not specific articles; Sandbox includes notes on changes. New page is about 1/2 current size.
• Sandbox 2: "Current Article Issues" (formerly Community Lounge) which includes "Current Article Issues List" as main page and "Current Article Issue Discussion" on talk page
• Sandbox 3: Lists/tables moved over from the main page which have to be integrated into current Battleground Statistics page. Something which hopefully others will do.

CarolMooreDC ( talk) 15:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Silence means consent...don't wake up next thurs or fri morning to find everything changed to new version which isn't quite like you would have liked because you didn't comment ;-) Also I am going to ad a short draft invite to the project main page for people to use when I find the existing page where the long ones are hiding, to check them out. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carolmooredc, I think your proposal would be an improvement. I agree that it's probably best to go ahead, unless anyone objects. PhilKnight ( talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with PhliKnight. (And I'm sorry that I didn't bother to give any feedback earlier or thank you for your efforts.) It sounds a very logical breakdown with room for add-ons as necessary. Good work. Tiamut ^talk 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the changes per above. Below is a summary. Please discuss what needs reinsertion after you have looked at all three relevant pages. Lots more can be done, including integrating some excellent ideas from this talk page's archives into our process. Doing the archiving I did see how the discussion deteriorated from great ideas on how to improve process to usual wrangling over specific articles. Hopefully this page can be used to bring more light and less heat to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues!

• Changed "Community Lounge" page to: Current Article Issues List of articles currently experiencing issues or disputes and a Current Article Issues Discussion page for specific issues.
• Integrated most important material on main collaboration page into six sections or moved per below; trimmed excess verbiage
• Moved 3 sections into I-P editing battleground statistics
• Removed Links to Article methods and Article workshop which haven't been used, at least until they are made more workable and/or used
• Removed links to Wikipedia:IPCOLL/INVITE because put short invite draft in article
• Removed Jerusalem as capital project that never got going
• To Do List moved to the talk page of this article
• This Collaboration Talk page is only for the project.
• Added Wikiproject banner, currently at the Community Lounge CarolMooreDC

( talk) 08:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Check Current Article Issues List since a lot of the articles were placed in an approximate month; feel free to put articles in the month or months where there were issues.
• Remember to put on your watch list Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues because it also includes as its talk page Current Article Issues Discussion for specific issues which are no longer on this page. Discussion of issues with organization of project, including on various pages, belong here. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 18:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• First, I hope that separating Articles discussion here from process discussions here will let process people come up with ideas they can then bring over to articles discussions.
• FYI. I just put an announcement about an important reconsideration of a deletion of an article on the Articles discussion page - start watching it. :-)
• I know we were all excited that some of the destructive editing habits would change after the early 2008 administrative moves and there were lots of good ideas on process which are on this page's archives. Things did seem to improve a bit, but then over time this page turned into mostly article discussions that were too much like the discussions on article talk pages.
• Now things seem to be getting as bad or worse than they were before and part of me just wants to announce on my user page that I'm boycotting all articles on Is-Pal topic -- or at least those that involve certain groups of editors - and give a list of policy reasons why. But I'd probably get in big trouble for that!!
• Also, relevant to all this, note that the new draft Wikiscanner is really beefed up including a check user. Of editors I searched, I only found one so far that produced IP results, an infamous longtimer -- who seems to post from all over the world. What's up with that? So there will be a lot of issues once the new wikiscanner really gets going regarding some of the games some of us suspect people are playing. Thoughts on any of the above??? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The check user function looks very interesting. Regarding your other comments, I think we need to recruit more neutral editors and admins to help moderate discussion. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Carol, I don't know what the last part of your statement was supposed to mean; I used the checkuser thing on myself and it had me in County Cork and Sao Paolo, two places I've never even been. I have a guess as to which "infamous longtimer" you're talking about, and every edit from anywhere but where we already know he edits from was an obvious false positive (and who cares anyway.) Conspiracism unsupported by evidence is unlikely to help fix the deterioration you allude to. < eleland/ talk edits> 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It only seems to catch long-time users of whom there are many on the many pages I edit, so why go out of your way to assume it's any one individual? I'm not sure how to identify false positives - the ones in green that a few of them had? (Even though a couple had same ones in yellow also.) Anyway, its still in draft/testing mode. Obviously, people who don't know how to read it shouldn't be drawing conclusions - but why can't they ask what certain information means without people assuming conspiracy theories? Those who do know might make some constructive use of the info. Wikipolicies on using it still uncertain so we probably could have a more constructive input if we could discuss it here without making negative comments. Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 02:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Phil's comments on more neutral editors to moderate discussions. Do you mean like a list of neutral editors willing to mediate article talk page discussions informally like the Mediation Cabal that we would present on the front page?? More thoughts welcome. Also, I had some ideas for making clear problems and where to go to get to help I might put together as a proposal for input. I know I sure still need lots of guidance, with so many options, some confusing, and some of which work better than others. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally look forward to the re-boot. The collaboration project should be used to set overall guide lines and should stop a lot of hot air getting repeated endlessly on individual articles... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered the Israel-related topics and Palestine-related topics noticeboards and added them to the main article page this section. However, looking again I see the Israel one says go to wikiprojects so I fixed that. My question: is this a good idea for the variety of political reasons one might think of which I won't list? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 18:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we have an automated mailing list? The idea behind that is to halt tag teaming on articles...as most contentious issues are repeat performances and standardised formulae for the various issues should be worked out in advance by involved editors... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 02:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)