Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision#Negotiation:

#May I suggest "Status of Palestinians in the occupied territories" Fred Bauder 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this article shouldn't also concern the treatment of Israeli Arabs. Take for instance the infamous 2003 marriage law. -- Dissident (Talk) 08:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

I have the feeling this proposed decision is unbalanced, it defacto allows certain POV's in Wikipedia, and it does not address the issues sufficiently. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a start not a definitive solution. Fred Bauder 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this train derailment. There's only two choices the way I see it. 1. Ban everyone and give me exclusive authority to edit the article (sorry, no Kims, we already have one). 2. Amnesty everyone, and give exclusive authority to 72.232.204.226 to edit the article. El_C 12:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could go out of your way to get input from good wikipedians who never or rarely edit jew/israel/arab/muslim articles. A few admins who usually stick to science articles come to mind. WAS 4.250 18:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Maybe get some people from completely different cultures, from China or Japan perhaps. --John Nagle 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from "completely different cultures" doesn't guarantee someone neutrality. The conflict is highly polarizing and I am afraid it would be practically impossible to find someone unbiased (even though some people claim to be). This is especially true today, in light of the ongoing war and image-rich media. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of perfection in choices is no reason not to choose a better choice over a worse choice. WAS 4.250 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking people who know nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict for opinions about it doesn't sound like a very helpful thing to me, and the reality is that people who do know about it tend to have a POV. Therefore, the way forward is to trust that good editors will write carefully and will use good sources well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No part of Or you could go out of your way to get input from good wikipedians who never or rarely edit jew/israel/arab/muslim articles. A few admins who usually stick to science articles come to mind. WAS 4.250 That's a good idea. Maybe get some people from completely different cultures, from China or Japan perhaps. John Nagle necessitates "Asking people who know nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict for opinions". WAS 4.250 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot work

Whatever. I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia cannot work, and NPOV will always represent that of the largest group. Until that is fixed, Wikipedia will not be reliable. Just check an article at a bunch of different wiki's, and compare them. If NPOV works, they should roughly provide the same NPOV, which is just as illusive as a unicorn. See for example the taxonomy of the Psittaciformes, which differs per wiki... :-( -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ban on Zeq seemed to work, and banning a few more editors under the same terms would probably work, too. If nobody gets banned, that's a signal that the way to push your point of view on Wikipedia is to organize a team, preferably one with some admins, to do so. --John Nagle 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A block was proposed against Zeq for having written an article about another editor, so how would you ban others "under the same terms," and how did the block against Zeq "work"? You have to be very careful here not to talk about "teams," when all you're seeing is editors who agree with each other, either about the substance or about the interpretation of policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagle, if we're blocking people for creating attack biographies, perhaps we need to start with the person who created this: [1] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are quite prepared to block "teams" with administrators on them and desysop the involved administrators. Fred Bauder 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to determine when people are acting as a "team," as opposed to simply agreeing with each other? For example, from my perspective Homey and KimvdLinde were acting as a "team," though they probably didn't see it that way. People who share the same interests end up with the same articles on their watchlists, and therefore edit the same pages. I don't see that we can, or would want to, do anything about that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Any more evidence-free accusations? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you, but you've missed the point. My point is that who is and isn't a "team" often boils down to perception. From my perception, you were acting as part of a "team." From yours, you weren't; you were simply making edits that you thought were correct. Ditto for other people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the usuall unfounded evidence-free accusations. Maybe you should show the evidence for that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it might be very difficult to show teamwork, but it happens. It should not be confused with people who simply share a point of view. Fred Bauder 02:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, you're missing the point, and wikilawyering again. Has this case not shown you the problem with that? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple of editors who until recently used to edit the same pages a lot, in what KimvdLinde would undoubtedly call a "team" if they were opposing her (though not if they were on her side). They had a strong POV, which I don't share, and so it was mildly annoying when both would arrive at an article. But what it meant was that I had to work even harder to persuade them; had to find better sources; had to use the sources well; had to do my best to represent their POV. In doing that, I learned more about the topic than I otherwise would have, and discovered that, although I still think my position was good, they had a valid point too. The result was better editing and better articles. How would it have benefited me or WP to start screaming "tag team" at them? All they were doing was sharing interests and agreeing with each other, and anyway, the correct response to opposition is to become a better editor, not start throwing around accusations. There are very, very few regulars on Wikipedia who don't respond positively to good editing. Most editors act in good faith, and people acting in good faith don't as a rule interfere with well-written and well-sourced material, so if you produce that, most of the time your edits will stick. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just astonished that the findings of fact say what we all know to be true: the wiki is biased to a pro-Israeli POV. Fat chance of any action's being taken though. A good remedy might be to bar certain editors from editing the same articles in concert but even better would be to stop deciding content issues by force of numbers. If and when rightwingers or other pressure groups wake up to how the pro-Israelis have created that bias... well, it's just lucky that they're not smart enough to take the obvious course. -- Grace Note.

It's biased in that way in your opinion, but that's because you have a strong anti-Israel POV. Everyone with an anti-Israel POV thinks the articles are biased in favor of Israel. People with a pro-Israel POV think the articles are biased against Israel. I can therefore only repeat: the way forward is always, always to use the best sources available, read them carefully, and write up their material faithfully with as little spin as possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]