User talk:Makeandtoss

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned,my article specifically addresses the importance of olive trees and their fruits in Jewish history. The olive tree is one of the most important trees in Judaism and is the national tree of the State of Israel. It played a key role in both Israelite Kingdoms and was planted from biblical times up to the arrival of Jews during the First Aliyah. How does it not fulfill WP:Notability? With all due respect, olives in the land of israel have roughly 8 thousand of cultivation, and 3+ thousand years of Israelite and later judean history. None of the information that is available on my page is on Agriculture in Israel. What exactly is the problem? AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmedHijaziElSultani: As a non-confirmed user you’re not allowed to edit in this topic area yet. Also please do not leave further messages on my talk page about articles, and rather keep your contributions to the article’s talk page where you are limited to making edit requests. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss, as far as I can tell that article doesn't relate to the Israel-Arab conflict? BilledMammal (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: And why do you think so? The topic of olive trees in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories features heavily in the conflict [1]. “Broadly construed” fits this definition as far as my understanding goes. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article makes no mention of the conflict, and primarily deals with events that occurred thousands of years ago? There are aspects of the topic that would relate to the conflict, but the topic as a whole does not.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Could you clarify this for us? BilledMammal (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article (from its title) includes the modern-day state of Israel. Also, if it makes no mention of the conflict despite significant coverage through the lens of the conflict, then that shows a POV problem. No need for the article to mention the conflict anyway, based on my understanding of the WP:Broadly construed explanatory essay: “In particular, if there is any plausible dispute over whether particular content is covered by the scope of a contentious topic (for example, definitional disputes: whether a particular issue counts as a type of American political issue, whether a particular practice counts as a type of alternative medicine, etc), that is normally taken to mean that it does.” Makeandtoss (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not everything related to the modern-day state of Israel is related to the conflict. Israel Railways, for example. I don't see a plausible claim that the entire topic is covered by the restrictions.

Regarding the significant coverage through the lens of the conflict, your deletion nomination says there isn't significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Railways should be considered part of the IP conflict under the broadly construed definition: [2]

As I said, there is significant coverage in RS (WP:Notability) about the role of olive trees in the IP conflict, which would justify a standalone article named Olive trees in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is no significant coverage that would justify a standalone article for olive trees in Israel and Judaism specifically however, meaning such content is better off at Agriculture in Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of the conflict or strong tie to it at this time, and everything related to Israel or Palestine isn't covered by ECR.

Makeandtoss, is there part of the article that makes you think it would be covered? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I personally think it’s not much about the current content as much as it is about the scope of the article. As seen from the BBC article above, controversy surrounding olive trees play a significant role in the IP conflict, so it would inevitably come to include mentions of the conflict. Also the current lack of mention of the conflict itself is problematic given the extensive coverage in RS. To further quote from that explanatory essay: “ If there's problems in topic area A, we don't want people to move on to "related topic B" and continuing.” Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There would have to be a significant section of the article dedicated to the Arab/Israel conflict, or disruptive editing on the topic, for the entire article to get protected. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: This is an example where an article on a topic with important connections to the A/I conflict is artificially kept away from the conflict simply by failing to mention those aspects. For example, it doesn't mention that many of the current Israeli olive plantations were owned and managed by Palestinians for centuries before 1948. Nor does it mention that destruction of Palestinian olive trees and interference with the harvest by Israeli settlers in the West Bank is something that happens almost daily. Nor, more generally, does it mention the deep significance of olive trees (often the same trees) in Palestinian culture. The article belongs to the genre of Zionist literature that emphasises the Jewish connection to the land without mentioning the natives. The article is open about the Zionist aspect ("They symbolize Jewish rootedness to their historic homeland") and the failure to mention the natives is also stark ("Within Israel’s olive plantations, some olive trees have stood for centuries." — how did those trees get there?). In order to maintain a status of being unrelated to the conflict, it has to be an endless NPOV violation. I agree with you that the article in its present form does not strongly proclaim the relevance of the conflict, but as soon as editors start to balance the POV the relevance will become obvious. Whether it deserves CT status already is less clear. Zero^talk 04:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I was searching to see similar cases in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and noticed you participated in a lot of these discussions over the years. Do you think this question could be better clarified there? This is all the more important now since I am seeing more similar articles being created by very new users; articles that are being linked to PIA articles, which are subpar in the extensiveness of their coverage about the supposedly historic topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA is more concerned with matters of principle than with classification of particular articles. Also, no matter how the definition of ARBPIA is written, there will be articles close to the boundary. In this case I suggest you add material to the article like I mentioned, with good sources obviously. When the content includes explicit ARBPIA-related material, it will be easy to classify the article as ARBPIA. Zero^talk 12:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A page about olive cultivation in Palestine already exists. Olives, in fact, symbolize Jewish rootedness to their historic homeland. The "natives" are mentioned, the whole article focuses on "the natives'" culture and religion. Why doesn't the Palestinian Nationalism page include Soviet material? Why doesn't it discuss their funding or the significant role that it played in the emergence of the Palestinian cause? Wikipedia is full of bias, but olives in ancient Israel aren't one of them. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I refrained from discussing the current conflict. The only reference to modern-day Israel is the mention of the olive tree as the national tree and the extent of olive plantations. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s POV by emission and should be corrected. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have it deleted than include any modern bs. I was aware of the issues surrounding Wikipedia's coverage of Israel, but I didn't realize it was this bad. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd rather have it deleted than include any modern bs;" this certainly does not sounds like constructive editing to WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the obsession that bothers me. I'm not adding anything about the modern conflict, but people keep trying to make tenuous connections, which leads to the content being altered or erased entirely. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP reflects RS; all of them, not some of them. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and again, that's why the page mostly talks about ancient Israel, Judah and Judaism. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the title of the article clearly says "Israel" (the modern-day state of Israel) and not "ancient Israel" or any other ancient kingdom. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title was "Olives and olive trees in the Land of Israel and Judaism". It got replaced by Israel to "make it shorter". AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was actually never moved; this has been the title from the start, and the scope includes modern-day Israel as seen from the dedicated section. If the intention is to refocus the scope of the article about ancient Israel, then I am afraid it would definitely not satisfy WP:Notability and would be deleted due to lack of significant coverage. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user "Discospinster" changed the title on the first day after its creation. The article focuses primarily on the production, use, and significance of olive trees and their products in ancient Israel, Judah, and Judaism. I don’t understand why this topic doesn’t meet WP:Notability, but I’d prefer to have the page deleted rather than see it devolve into an edit war. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the explanation, I did not see that. Do you want to refocus the article to "olive trees and their products in ancient Israel, Judah, and Judaism"? That would entail two things; (1) showing that there is enough significant coverage for this specific angle and (2) removing all references to modern-day Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

I didn't find many sources that specifically cover that topic. My page is a combination of several sources that in some way mention it. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then this article is better merged into History of ancient Israel and Judah or elsewhere. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. AhmedHijaziElSultani (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, we both know that the line about expulsion of palestinians in the lead of the IPC page is constantly being edit warred over. What's the point of your edit? DMH223344 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the mention of apartheid. I'm not against adding mention of apartheid or writing a better sentence about expulsion, but what's the point of making an edit like this which we both know will just result in wasting everyone's time? DMH223344 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMH223344: No, I don't have a mental database on every single word that other users are edit warring about in the around 30 articles I edit on a daily basis. No one does, so we would all appreciate a friendlier reminder. On that note, I don't see anything on the talk page discussions relating to Nakba or apartheid, or see any disputes relating to these two specific points on the edit history. Plus, if you or other editors have reservations about certain edits, this is a matter of discussion at the article's talk page, not here. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, I find it surprising that someone such as yourself would be unaware that mention of expulsion of palestinians hasnt been edit warred over in one of the highest traffic pages on the topic. Even browsing wikipedia casually its clear that almost every mention of the nakba has been victim to edit warring (eg every mention must include "or fled").

In any case, I dont mean to be rude, sorry about that. DMH223344 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMH223344: No worries, but I don’t take a meta approach. What might be contested at one article is not necessarily contested elsewhere. Editors have different priorities and articles have different levels of importance and scope. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help to remove WP:RECENTISM and summarise August 2024 section of Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). Pachu Kannan (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pachu Kannan: Thank you for your trust, but I would rather focus elsewhere in all honesty. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation on Gaza Strip's talk page is baseless and misrepresents my actions. I did not engage in an edit war; I reverted once, which is standard practice when an edit is contentious. Your attempt to frame my actions as "edit warring" is a clear example of a straw man fallacy. Instead of addressing the substance of the issue, you're trying to divert the conversation by falsely accusing me of violating guidelines. If you genuinely want to discuss the content of the article, then let's do so. But don't mischaracterize my actions to undermine my position. Let's focus on the actual content and have a constructive discussion. Alexysun (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexysun: There is no such thing as reverting once as "standard practice". Wikipedia's guidelines are clear, when you make a bold edit, and you are reverted, you take the issue to the talk page discussion per WP:BRD. Furthermore, you are editing a PIA contentious topic, which means your editing behavior must adhere even more strictly to these guidelines. And contrary to your claim, after having notified you about your editing behavior, I did actually attempted to have a constructive discussion by asking you about whether other articles' first lede paragraphs have such a similar remark, which you have not responded to. You now can respond to it there, in the respective article's talk page, without leaving further messages on my talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Within your talk page message you accused me of "edit warring". This is a response to that.

"And contrary to your claim, after having notified you about your editing behavior, I did actually attempted to have a constructive discussion by asking you" This is actually an inaccurate statement because you accused me of edit warring in the same paragraph that you tried to have a "constructive" discussion. There was no "after having notified you", because it was the same message. Alexysun (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I understand WP:BRD well. The BRD cycle allows you to make an edit, have it reverted, and then revert it once to restore your change. After this, discussion is encouraged before any further reverts are made. If you make an edit to a contentious article and it gets reverted, you are allowed to revert that revert once as part of the BRD cycle. Your claim that I was "edit warring" is false, because I was operating perfectly within WP:BRD. Alexysun (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have that wrong. Someone makes a bold edit, someone else reverts it, then it gets discussed. If your edit is reverted you should open a discussion, not reinstate the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexysun: Now that has been clarified, please, again, no more user talk page messages here, and onto the discussion I opened in the article's talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder about other WP guidelines, namely WP:NOBAN: "Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or a similar kind of disruptive behavior." Makeandtoss (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]