Talk:Land Day/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Limited time, and things to change

My time is a tad limited, but I'm still interested in changes in this article, which is still heavily POV but I'll wait to make a more serious review and inspect how the collaboration process works out before deciding on whether or not a dispute tag is truly necessary again (there have been some real improvements). I would go ahead and be bold with changes myslef, but as I took a break and as this article induces a lot of emotions, I figured it be better to first lay out desired changes/queries on the talk page. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

List of issues

  1. "from the Galilee to the Negev" - lead paragraph lists this down and links it to the JPost narrative article. I don't see the special value of listing down the Galilee and the Negev in the lead - these are just fluff terms and it would be better to replace it with a more generic, non enhancing, descriptive from the same article - i.e. "around the country". I think it would also be better to use a more historical source than a problematic journalist (who's been caught of making up anti-'Jewish-Settlers' content and putting it to publication).[1]
    Done text, source not yet replaced. 10:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the Halpern source, and good job on finding another one. In that light, I don't understand the revert made by Nableezy. For the record, the problematic article is here, and the retraction is here. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yn, you reintroduced spelling and grammatical errors with your revert, kindly clean up the mess you brought back. About the substance, you say '"sent in army and police" is inaccurate because the police was always there, no one "send it in"', if that was the issue why did you not just remove the police from the sentence, why remove the whole sentence? There are multiple sources in the article that describe the catalyzing event of the violence as being the display of force, not just that the protests became violent for no apparent reason as the article currently says and then, tragically of course, those violent protests became confrontations with security forces (funny how when the word army disappears the words "security forces" have much less meaning). You want to remove the source fine, but it does not justify removing content that is easily sourced to multiple other sources that are already in the article. But I dont want to deal with this for now, so if you want to correct the issues you reintroduced feel free. If you just want to provide backup reflecting a certain users pov feel free. nableezy - 06:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've restored Nableezy's edit, seeing nothing wrong with it at all. On the other hand, Jaakobou and Ynhockey seem to want to erase all mention of the actions of the Israeli police and army in this affair, which is strange given that multiple reliable sources indicate that they day is notable because of the massive deployment of Israeli forces against its Arab citizens. We already agreed to removing mention of "tanks and armoured vehicles" from the lead. I don't see why we should whitewash out any mention of the deployment of forces and pretend that events just "degenerated into violence" on their own. Tiamuttalk 09:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
PS. Ynhockey, what are you linking to above? I don't recall using that article in ours here. The Halpern article is from the Jerusalem Post and not Forward. What's the relevance of what you link above to what we are discussing? Tiamuttalk 09:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Tiamut, please stop looking for ulterior motives in other peoples' edits. If you don't like the edit, discuss it, not the editor. If I have time, I will look further into this matter, although the wording "sent in army and police" misleads the reader as to what happenned. The chronology is simple: Protestors and police were at the scene > protests turned violent > police turned violent (and an army unit was sent). This is not what "sent in army and police" conveys. In regards to sources, personally I'd like to see more use of academic sources in the article and less reliance on the mass media. The event happenned in 1976, there's no reason to use the mass media at all actually, with the rich bibliography we have.
About the link, you can clearly see that I was posting it in support of Jaakobou's argument that using this author as a source should be avoided. The author does not work for the Jerusalem Post or The Forward, as far as I can tell. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The link doesn't work for me and I still don't understand its relevance to this discussion at all. Tiamuttalk 11:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Opinion pieces, regardless if they are published in a reliable source, are not a reputable source on historical events - more-so if written by a person with a record for falsifying information. As for the chronological issue, the lead should take in a conservative approach until we can sort the sources on the talk page - we don't insert one controversial version into the leaqd because there's a couple people supporting it if there are notable other sources rejecting it. Discuss first and avoid the drama, please. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a red herring. There are two other sources (both books) that say that they army and police including tanks and armoured vehicles were sent in and that their presence was a catalyst for the violence. I'm fine with discussing this in the article body, not introduction. But I have changed your text to better reflect the undisputed points. I've replaced "security forces" with "Israeli army and police" (since all sources agree this was the case). I've also removed the strange editorializing about the protests degenerating into violence. Its unnecessary anyway. Tiamuttalk 11:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Heyo Tiamut,
I figured that asking to discuss rather than edit war would get some participation going, so I'm confused to the value of the edit removing the note that the protests deteriorated into violence.[2] Both used sources -- i.e. Haaqretz[3] and Byman (Pg. 132)[4] -- use similar text btw. Which books, btw, did you say report the army presence as the catalyst for the violence? Mind you, several sources disagree on this but I am willing to find a global compromise. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 11:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
p.s. "Red Herrings"[5] and "some people's POVs"[6] aside, I respectfully request that you stop with the bad faith accusations. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jaakobou. Read the article. You will find three different sources saying the army presence preceded or catalyzed the violence; one from a Jewish peace group, one from a Palestinian academic, and one from an Israeli media report. They are even directly quoted in the section on the Land Day protests of 1976. I'm surprised you would even ask to see them, given their presence there and the fact that we discussed some of them before above.
About the wording you say is supported by two sources, I don't really care. Given that you have removed references to tanks and armoured vehicles from the lead (mentioned also by atleast two sources) the fact that someting is mentioned by a source is not a reason to include it in the lead. Your wording also implied that the protests became violent before the security forces were sent in. As I said, at least three sources we have indicate the very opposite - that the "violence" began with the deployment of the army and police and not before. Tiamuttalk 12:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
We also have (more reliable) sources saying the violence escalated before the army was deployed. Is this not correct? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
p.s. you repeatedly revert the text back to versions that ignore raised concerns. Could you please stop? JaakobouChalk Talk 13:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I see one source that say the violence preceded the army and police deployments. Its Arutz Sheva, which most people thought was not a reliable source.
I did not revert back anything. I changed the text again. Read it closely. It says nothing that could offend you. Tiamuttalk 14:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tiamut,
A) I'll add in the sources you've missed. e.g. This one[7]
B) Once again, I request that you stop making personally oriented commentary.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That source is vague on the sequence in my opinion and what it says is already in the article. Tiamuttalk 21:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing vague about it - it says the security forces went in to close off the uncontrolled riots a day after they broke out and one person was killed in Sahnin while the Ayan (a.k.a. "public figures") couldn't control the riots in Aaraba and Dir Hana, where rioters went into ("Molotov cocktail") fervor. This is a major source of high historical validity. JaakobouChalk Talk 15:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeating the same old point from above:

  1. I don't see the special value of listing down the Galilee and the Negev in the lead - these are just fluff terms and it would be better to replace it with a more generic, non enhancing, descriptive from the same article - i.e. "around the country".[8] Also note, that the expropriations were in the Galilee, as a move to build a better buffer with Syria after the Yom Kippur War. Please revert the text back.

Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do see the reason that Galilee to Negev should be mentioned: because it is mentioned by more than one scholarly source. The newest source I added in that edit mentions that the nationwide breadth of the response was the most significant things about it. I thought you removed it because you thought it was only sourced to Halpern, so I found another source that said the same thing (and there are others too). I hope you don't mind. I also share the opinion of the sources as to significance and prefer detail to vague statements like "around the country". Tiamuttalk 14:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Best I'm aware, one reliable source uses this and others don't. Even if, say 5 use it, there are certainly dozens who don't use it so it seems like an un-notable point to input into the text. Please explain the value of Galilee to Negev above "around the country", I just can't seem to follow the significance. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Three reliable sources mention it (read the article Jaakobou and the links provided to the source material cited). More than one of them mentions the significance in the nation-wide aspect of the protest.
Plus, I don't know if you noticed, but solidarity strikes were held in the West Bank and Gaza Strip too. The nice thing about Negev to the Galilee is that it can include those places too. Whereas "around the country" cannot, since the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not a part of Israel. Tiamuttalk 21:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh, "Negev to the Galilee" is completely meaningless to most of this article's potential readers, who cannot envision a map of Israel by heart, and some might not even know these terms. And to those that can envision such a map (mostly Israelis living in Israel), the "Negev to the Galilee" would definitely not include the Gaza Strip. If your concerns are those two places, you can use different wording. For example "around the country, with solidarity strikes worldwide" (assuming that's true). —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It really would help if you would read the article and the sources cited therein. There you will find information on the solidarity strikes held in the West Bank, Gaza and Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
Negev to the Galilee is not meaningless. Wikilinks make it useful to readers who do not know where these places are and the fact that multiple scholars use this terminology is significant. At least one the sources cited who uses it does so because he sees the significance in this event being the mobilization of Palestinians at a national level. "Around the country with solidarity strikes worldwide" is overdoing it. And yes, Gaza can be considered as covered by Negev to Galilee given that the Negev extends south of Gaza (this is a north-south reference, not east-west).
I don't see why we should replace perfectly fine terminology used by scholarly sources with our own approximate substitute. There is nothing incorrect about the description as it is and it seems strange for us to spend so much time on what is really a trifling issue. Tiamuttalk 08:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a content argument, but a style argument. Lead sections have to be accessible to the average reader. A relevant example is the FAC for "Fungus", which had this oppose based on readability and accessibility. Whatever you write in the article, the lead should be understandable to anyone. I'm not sure who reviews your articles, but when asking for peer reviews both on and off Wikipedia, I have often been told that some of the terms I use are not well-known outside Israel. This is a clear-cut case of this phenomenon. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Replies and discussion

What is up for discussion here? 86.151.134.93 (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. this is a just section Jaakobou created to partition off the replies of other editors to the important points he raised above. We prefer to respond directly to his comments and not in this special section. Tiamuttalk 21:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

External links

Although the links within the external links section might be appropriate as citations within the body, it is overall a linkfarm. I am copying them below for use as sources but please read WP:EL before sticking in whatever random story you find. This is an encyclopedia and not a mirror to your favorite stories.Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Land Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Land Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Land Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Land Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ynet

I removed the source with this edit. My rationale was: "please find a less polemical source for this information or simply wait a few days for better sources". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2018

I suggest you change ... "Arab citizens used the Land Day commemorations to bring attention what they described as an acceleration in land confiscations in the city" 

to ...

"Arab citizens used the Land Day commemorations to bring attention to what they described as an acceleration in land confiscations in the city" MrMDog 21:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK Discuss 22:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

Adding Category:Discrimination in Israel Tania 09:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The word "discrimination" appears only once in the article, in a direct quote from an advocacy organization. It may be POV for us to include it in Wikipedia's voice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Issue of terminology

The main theme of the article (as well as the holiday itself) is how Land Day contributed to the reassertion of a United Palestinian national identity across the green line. So, in an article where we are talking about how Palestinians living in Northern Israel expressed their national identity, it's appropriate to steer away from the arbitrary division of the Palestinian nation into "Palestinians vs. Arab Israelis". It is honestly a spit into the face of whatever Land Day stands for, on an article about the meaning of Land Day to those who celebrate it. BasilLeaf (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

observedby = Palsetinians in [[Arab citizens of Please change Palsetinians to palestinains


}} 72.69.164.75 (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Land_Day/Archive_4&oldid=1216540791"