Palestinians to face 'Wikipedia War' - Ma'an News Agency Options

[Newsfeed]

Palestinians to face 'Wikipedia War'
Ma'an News Agency
BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- The next regional war will be a media war, head of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate Abdul Nasser An-Najar said Thursday. ...

<a href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ned=us&ncl=d5fZNkgRtsNMcWM" target="_blank"></a>

View the article

[Anonymous editor]

common knowledge, moulton

if you want to know why 'anti-semite' is now used as a term for 'anti-jew' or something, that's a different story. I've yet to hear anyone say semite refers to jews only, and it really is common knowledge that semite is a broader term than that. for example, majoring in semitic languages.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Sun 29th August 2010, 10:09pm

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

common knowledge, moulton

Difficult one ... yes, common knowledge - in theory - but the Zionists do seem to want as much of a monopoly over the term as they do the territory now known as Israel.

Boy, Zionism is sure becoming this forum's this week's pedophilia or pornography dominating umpteen threads. But then I guess it is all popular entertainment.

I predict the Palestinians will lose again in the long term. There is far more bandwidth in Israel and America than there is coming out of a shelled bunker in the Gaza Strip. But it will become a long protracted and expensive war that we will all become dragged into in one way or another.

The problem with the Wikipedia is that there is no obstacle or disincentive for any editor to strap on some metaphorically explosive facts and blow themselves and some topics up online .... endlessly. I mean, Israel has a fair few tanks on the domain but, without being able to offer broad cash incentives, it is far less supported internationally than it is in real life.

I am not getting involved.

[Wikifan]

common knowledge, moulton

Difficult one ... yes, common knowledge - in theory - but the Zionists do seem to want as much of a monopoly over the term as they do the territory now known as Israel.

Boy, Zionism is sure becoming this forum's this week's pedophilia or pornography dominating umpteen threads. But then I guess it is all popular entertainment.

I predict the Palestinians will lose again in the long term. There is far more bandwidth in Israel and America than there is coming out of a shelled bunker in the Gaza Strip. But it will become a long protracted and expensive war that we will all become dragged into in one way or another.

The problem with the Wikipedia is that there is no obstacle or disincentive for any editor to strap on some metaphorically explosive facts and blow themselves and some topics up online .... endlessly. I mean, Israel has a fair few tanks on the domain but, without being able to offer broad cash incentives, it is far less supported internationally than it is in real life.

I am not getting involved.

Palestinian PR is not designed in Palestine but Europe and USA. Average Palestinians have little to no influence over how their worldwide image is shaped and developed.

Generally, Wikipedia has far more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel editors. Many Israel-related articles suffer from serious edit-warring and POV disputes. The concept of reliable sources is frustrating because RS exists to support all narratives, including Israel=Nazi Germany.

The Palestinians will always win the propaganda war simply because they have more money and energy to support it. The Arab states have pumped billions in petrodollars to purchase Middle Eastern study departments at mainstream universities (Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, London School of Economics, etc..) and the media is highly dependent on the Palestinian plight for revenue.

To think, the god-fathers in modern terrorism - hijacking airplanes, torching embassies, killing thousands all across the war, starting civil wars in Jordan and Egypt, killing and murdering each other, and assassinating Western diplomats - have managed to rewrite their history of violence and place the blame solely on the shoulders of Israel. The Palestinian plight is no longer attributed to a series of conflicts and wars involving multiple nations, but the Nakba - an event 6 decades ago where the ancestors of today's Palestinians were displaced and expelled in a regional war.

Even though the Palestinians are world record holders in humanitarian aid and their livelihood attracts more attention than all oppressed-peoples combined, people still whine about an absence of attention and lack of sympathy for the Palestinian people. That is by far one of the greatest lies in Arab victimhood.

In the 1970s, no one said this conflict was predicated on the creation of a Palestinian nation. The argument that the Arab states were passive victims to a belligerent Israel was laughed at.

[Malik Shabazz]

Generally, Wikipedia has far more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel editors.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it the truth. There are many more pro-Israel editors than there are pro-Palestinian editors, but they belly-ache louder than the pro-Palestinian editors about how Wikipedia is biased against them.

[nableezy]

Generally, Wikipedia has far more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel editors.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it the truth. There are many more pro-Israel editors than there are pro-Palestinian editors, but they belly-ache louder than the pro-Palestinian editors about how Wikipedia is biased against them.

There are barely any "pro-Palestinian" editors if we define "pro-Palestinian" they way "pro-Israel" is usually defined. Almost nobody pushes a "Palestinian POV". Hell, I don't even try to get the "Palestinian POV" into articles. Certain users, among them newly registered members of this forum, have been incredibly successful in creating this illusion that most of the "battles" in the I-P area are really between the "I POV" and the "P POV". It isnt and never has been. Two examples of this come to mind, "Israeli settlements" vs "towns" and "West Bank" vs "Judea and Samaria".

For the first example, look at how the argument on how to describe the localities Israel has built in the occupied territories. One "side" argues for "Israeli town" or "Jewish village", the other for "Israeli settlement". One side is arguing for what is clearly an "Israeli POV", the other for what everybody else uses. Nobody argues for what would be the "Palestinian POV", that is "Israeli colony in occupied Palestine". Never is such a phrase even suggested to be used as the primary description much less even discussed as an "alternative viewpoint". The "Palestinian POV" is routinely ignored, it does not even get discussed. But simple-minded fucks like some of our beloved Wikipedia administrators can't get past "there are 2 sides here, one must be I the other must be P" mentality.

Now look at "Judea and Samaria" vs "West Bank". The same exact type of argument, one is undeniably the "Israeli POV" the other what everybody else uses. The "Palestinian POV", that the West Bank is the eastern portion of occupied Palestine, is never discussed. The users who argue for using the terminology not used by the Palestinians but by everybody else are however branded as "one side" in a dispute between the Is and the Ps.

There are nearly no Palestinian editors that actively edit in the topic area. Only a small number of Arabs. Hell, there are more Jewish "pro-Palestinian" editors than there are Arab ones.

[Wikifan]

Generally, Wikipedia has far more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel editors.

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it the truth. There are many more pro-Israel editors than there are pro-Palestinian editors, but they belly-ache louder than the pro-Palestinian editors about how Wikipedia is biased against them.

There are barely any "pro-Palestinian" editors if we define "pro-Palestinian" they way "pro-Israel" is usually defined. Almost nobody pushes a "Palestinian POV". Hell, I don't even try to get the "Palestinian POV" into articles. Certain users, among them newly registered members of this forum, have been incredibly successful in creating this illusion that most of the "battles" in the I-P area are really between the "I POV" and the "P POV". It isnt and never has been. Two examples of this come to mind, "Israeli settlements" vs "towns" and "West Bank" vs "Judea and Samaria".

This is a lie Nableezy and you know it. There is nothing sinister about being "pro-Palestinian." Many editors openly advertise their pro-Palestinian sympathies, including you. That is fine, I am not offended. But don't deny it.

For the first example, look at how the argument on how to describe the localities Israel has built in the occupied territories. One "side" argues for "Israeli town" or "Jewish village", the other for "Israeli settlement". One side is arguing for what is clearly an "Israeli POV", the other for what everybody else uses. Nobody argues for what would be the "Palestinian POV", that is "Israeli colony in occupied Palestine". Never is such a phrase even suggested to be used as the primary description much less even discussed as an "alternative viewpoint". The "Palestinian POV" is routinely ignored, it does not even get discussed. But simple-minded fucks like some of our beloved Wikipedia administrators can't get past "there are 2 sides here, one must be I the other must be P" mentality.

The Israeli settlement debate is one of the few I/P articles where one side is obviously right and the other wrong. Wikipedia must reflect what reliable sources say, and reliable sources most often refer to Israeli towns and villages in the West Bank as "settlements." The term "settlement" does not necessarily negate town/village/status.

Now look at "Judea and Samaria" vs "West Bank". The same exact type of argument, one is undeniably the "Israeli POV" the other what everybody else uses. The "Palestinian POV", that the West Bank is the eastern portion of occupied Palestine, is never discussed. The users who argue for using the terminology not used by the Palestinians but by everybody else are however branded as "one side" in a dispute between the Is and the Ps.

Judea and Samaria are the historic terms, "West Bank" is interchangeable with the historic name. The West Bank is the West Bank because Jordan is the East Bank. Original Jordanian leadership were bent on naming their country Palestine but British officials told them not to.

There are nearly no Palestinian editors that actively edit in the topic area. Only a small number of Arabs. Hell, there are more Jewish "pro-Palestinian" editors than there are Arab ones.

I think the debate has more to do with political philosophy than ethnic loyalty.

Except that it based on truth. I would class your insane degrees of lies as part of racist hate speech.

LOL way to pull the race card.

The world is united against any government killing children for its political aims. To condemn the Government of Israel's inherent and defining racism, and the lack of humanitarian ethics, does not make one "anti-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian".

Can you please provide any evidence that the Israeli government has established a policy of killing children for its "political aims."

According to the United Nations, almost 90% of Palestinian deaths were male. Of those, the majority were above the age of 14. Considering the average age of a Palestinian in Gaza/West Bank is 17 (legal child), and Palestinian militants have an open and proud history of arming children, I'd say any allegations that the IDF is deliberately targeting children is dubious.

Compared to conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen, etc...where Islamists have no problem brainwashing impressionable teens to join the fight, the Israel/Palestinian conflict has a much lower civilian/combatant ratio.

Of course, not all Jews or even Israelis agree with them either.
The U.S. provides Israel with at least $7.0 million per day in military aid.

$0 in military aid to the Palestinians.

1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.

6,348 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000

39,019 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000.

Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.

7,383 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel.

24,145 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967.

The Israeli unemployment rate is 6.1%, while the Palestinian unemployment in the West Bank is 16.3% and 41.3% in Gaza.

Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians 0.

What are the Israeli figures?

Who collects the most casualties is a function of who is weaker, it has absolutely nothing to do with who is right/wrong from a moral perspective. Israel has F-16s and the Palestinians are lousy fighters.

USA has provided the Palestinians with more than 500 in military aid. In fact the US military is actively training Palestinian security forces. the PSS frequently cooperate with the IDF in catching Hamas and Islamist militants.

You can thank the USA and Israel for the decreased violence in the West Bank. The support for the Palestinian Army has made them less dependent on Israel for security and now Palestinian officials are begging Israeli generals to allow settlers back into Palestinian cities so they can contribute to their economy. So much for the boycott.

Why does Israel receive US aid? Because the Jews own America?

It's too bad many on the left resort to hyperbole and emotion when discussing Israel/Palestine.

[nableezy]

There are barely any "pro-Palestinian" editors if we define "pro-Palestinian" they way "pro-Israel" is usually defined. Almost nobody pushes a "Palestinian POV". Hell, I don't even try to get the "Palestinian POV" into articles. Certain users, among them newly registered members of this forum, have been incredibly successful in creating this illusion that most of the "battles" in the I-P area are really between the "I POV" and the "P POV". It isnt and never has been. Two examples of this come to mind, "Israeli settlements" vs "towns" and "West Bank" vs "Judea and Samaria".

This is a lie Nableezy and you know it. There is nothing sinister about being "pro-Palestinian." Many editors openly advertise their pro-Palestinian sympathies, including you. That is fine, I am not offended. But don't deny it.

You misunderstand. I dont plan on explaining other than to ask that you read what you respond to more carefully.