User talk:Dan Palraz

Invitation for a "Discussion" - Belgrade - Kosovo Train

Good Day,

Due to barely interactions with the Article, it is easy to assume that there wont probably be a disccusion to start with. Since you were the one reverting the move, then you might also take part in the "discussion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Belgrade%E2%80%93Kosovska_Mitrovica_train_incident

--InNeed95 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz

I guess that you are ignoring my comments means that you dont want to accept my invitation. Am I right?

Also, since you are removing information on the Article about the International recognition of Kosovo without taking into regard the concerns I have written down on the Talk page of the Article, I might have to revert your edits, which probably will result in a Edit-War, because you would most likely edit the Article again, which I cant allow due to not having a proper solution/summary/result from the discussion which was started some days earlier on the Talk page of the Article.

I hope that you will cooperate with finding a solution to the problem.

Best Regards,

I am not Serbian nor Kosovar/Albanian (nor American nor Russian) so I have no personal position on Kosovo's statehood, but you know much better than I do that Kosovo is trying to gain full international recognition as a sovereign State, and that Serbia, Russia, China, India, Greece, Spain and most countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa still consider Kosovo a part of Serbia, while Albania, the USA, France, Germany and most countries in Western Europe consider Kosovo and Serbia two distinct countries, and Wikipedia tries (as it has to) to be neutral about it and use language that suits both parts. So your suggestion for changing this article from the name of the two cities to "Kosovo-Serbia" would obviously be controversial and not reach a consensus in this moment. It doesn't even matter if I agree with you, it's not the two of us who will change the minds of about half of the international community and Wikipedia's policy on the issue. But if the city name is Mitrovica, we can change it to Serbia-Mitrovica, yes. Dan Palraz (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dan Palraz

The whole comment of yours could have been written on the talk page of the article, the place where it is meant to be.

Of whose ethnicity you are part of, plays no role. Since it doesnt answer the question. On wikipedia I am trying to be neutral. Something like "Kosovska Mitrovica" isnt neutral at all. Maybe I shouldnt have directly changed the articles name and rather asked about it on the talk page first.

Either way, I take your comment into consideration and I will change the article to "Belgrad-Mitrovica".

Now to the second part, which you didnt answer:

"Also, since you are removing information on the Article about the International recognition of Kosovo without taking into regard the concerns I have written down on the Talk page of the Article, I might have to revert your edits, which probably will result in a Edit-War, because you would most likely edit the Article again, which I cant allow due to not having a proper solution/summary/result from the discussion which was started some days earlier on the Talk page of the Article.

I hope that you will cooperate with finding a solution to the problem."

Do you might wanna answer this?

Best Regards,

--InNeed95 (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"InfoboxIPA": soundfiles

Hi Dan,

I undid your edit to article Voiced palatal lateral approximant because you inserted a sound file where a graphic is appropriate. Please note that sound file data of template {{Infobox IPA}} is handled on Module:IPA symbol/data. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! – Joe (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring

What purpose do you think is served by edit-warring at Maltese (dog)? You added some ill-written content (example: "What is sure it that is probably originated from spitz-type dogs") and removed some sourced material. I removed some of that, improved the sourcing, and made a start on cleaning up the rest of the mess there, but you've reverted to your preferred version, undoing the other edits in the process. Please read WP:BRD – in a nutshell, if your edit is reverted, don't make the same edit again, discuss. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Oslo areas

A month ago, around the discussion of User:Nishidani & User:Doug Weller, I didn't want to engage bc I thought "he may be impulsive, as he wants to engineer reality to his thinking without regards to rules or facts on the ground." But my opinion doesn't matter. You mentioned your mental health (I wish you good health), and that caused me to view it in a more empathetic way. So I am addressing your empathy and compassion: you should understand that, for example, a young American jew, who reads that the Nebi Samuel is part of "the state of Palestine", with no mention to the reality -- being part of area C under Israeli control -- can be afraid to visit the area, as if it was Ramallah? This is not merely a specific, or about the narrative war. This is a crucial information. I hope you get it. Archway (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned...I won't speak of the merits or otherwise of the edit in question, but this is not a matter of empathy for one or the other side of the divide, or for that matter the reality. The reality is that (a) there is a State of Palestine; (b) There is an International Court of Justice which in its advisory opinion in 2004 found that the Separation Barrier violated international law in infringing what it called the West Bank Israel holds under belligerent occupation; (c) In that territory Israeli, and it is reflected in numerous wiki articles, illegal settlements are described as coming under the purview of Israeli regional councils*. (d) Technically, those councils and settlements are expropriations, theft, of land to which Israel has no legal title; (e) The state of Palestine is a de jure reality, as the settlements are a de facto reality; (f) Two 'realities' imbricate over each other; (g) in stating that for a 'young American Jews' there is a sense of safety associated with visiting areas 'under Israel control' , and, conversely, unease if those areas are defined as falling technically within 'Palestinian' jurisdiction, may reflect what some such people feel. Many other 'young American Jews' have no problem with it.

One cannot speak, in short, for others and, on wiki, we don't edit for 'political correctness' either way. If you wish to challenge Dan's edit, then you simply have to request a source that states what he affirmed, that Nebi Samuel is part of the State of Palestine. If they cannot produce such a source, then the edit can be challenged as a WP:OR inference.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note for example how the linked article on Israel's regional councils conflates seamlessly those in Israel proper, and those beyond the Green Line, as if the latter were part of 'Israel'. They aren't. They are built and exercise jurisdiction on Palestinian land. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Anything in Area C (specifically mentioned in the second line of the lead) is in occupied Palestinian territory. The State of Palestine claims the occupied Palestinian territory. Any Israeli settlement in Area C is illegal under international law. That includes Nabi Samwil, where Israel's forced transfer of population, creation of a park and construction of a wall are all likewise illegal. It seems to me that the OP commentary is merely intended to provoke although the phrase "But my opinion doesn't matter" is most certainly true. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This all reminded me of the fact that we need for several articles a map of the areas in the West Bank over which settlement councils assert their authority, together with a map of Palestinian governorates. I looked around for one but couldn't find any.Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the international law here doesn't matter nor relevant. The Palestinian Authority, witnessed by the US, signed the Oslo accord and agreed to the divisions of Area A, B and C. That's the reality.

Secondly, having you calling the West Bank "Palestinian territory" (occupied yes, but that's it) seriously questions your neutrality (indicating about pro-Palestinian stance), although I don't question your decency and overall good will. As former Primer Minister Naftali Bennett to CNN just recently] (then as PM), these are Areas in Dispute. And as I said, on this subject this isn't a personal opinion -- there are significant factors differentiating Area C from A/B -- the existence of settlements, army, police, entry permits and others. Although the Israeli government disputes the illegality libel of the settlements -- and even though this is an old controversy that's been debated and settled, long before me being here -- it's really not connected to my point about area C, or to any legality issue. To date, the PA is signed on the Oslo accords. Archway (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not neutral because I called the West Bank 'Palestinian territory', a 'pro-Palestinian stance'? You are neutral because the terminology I used comes from the International Court of Justice, and 'that doesn't matter'. You prefer a youtube soundbite mantra recited, this time round (there's a cast of thousands who chant it) by the PM of the day, to the deliberations of the ICJ and the language of those who signed the Oslo Accords.

Is it a waste of time to actually read the Oslo Accord and note that it (a) refers to an 'interim agreement' for arrangements beween Israel and the PLO setting forth arrangements for the following five years (1994-1999), that foresaw a peace settlement in terms of the two UN resolutions that recognize Israel's obligation to withdraw from the territories it occupied? Oslo1 specifically states, against the meme, that 'The two sides view the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as a single territorial unit, the integrity and status of which will be preserved during the interim period.' The interim agreement 'transitioned', during and then after its expiry, into the present patchwork of settlements, military bases and firing zones, and 165 bantustans penning in over 2 million people to allow cheap real estate land grants to a few hundred thousand immigrants, 23 years after the failure of the parts to implement the interim agreement, a division of a 'single territorial unit' along lines not foreseen by the PLO/PA (understandably, they are as corrupt as their adversary, though far less smart).

Language is crucial and you ignore it (I tend to think that when you use the word 'libel' for 'label' (the 'illegality libel') that is just a lapsus calami, though I would be entitled to take it as a Freudian lapse revealing a more personal take -that anyone using the language of international law in this regard is engaged in 'libelling' Israel. (Nations are not subject to the laws of libel: only individuals).

I intervened here for just one reason, not to forumize, but to undo the perceived damage (WP:AGF) of what could be read as a personal attack (I'm sure that was not your intention), in mentioning Dan's 'mental health' while questioning his edit. Our job here, regardless of POV, is to read scrupulously all the relevant historical documentation, rather than consult youtube, or politicians' speeches, or the usual mediatic spin. It's hard work, requires Sitzfleisch, and a particular sensitivity to language, which is charged with erratic emotional commitments (i.e. you eliciting an imaginary story about a 'young American Jew' to imply Dan was offending someone's sensibilities.) Let's drop it. Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

+1. Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Archwayh The West Bank:" The United Nations calls the West Bank and Gaza Strip Israeli-occupied territories. The United States State Department also refers to the territories as occupied." How is agreeing with this a show of lack of neutrality? Doug Weller talk 09:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I will eventually archive all this conversation as I don't want to be reminded all the time about health issues, but I just *need* to agree with Doug Weller, Nishidani and talk about there being nothing political about calling the West Bank "Palestinian territory". Every single country in the world *including* the United States calls the West Bank one of the two "Palestinian territories": https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/west-bank/ - literally, the US official position's first sentence about the WB: "The landlocked West Bank - the larger of the two Palestinian territories - is home to some three million Palestinians." Which leads me, by the way, to point out the need to include this crucial bit of information in the first line of Wikipedia's West Bank article - the way it is now is not neutral, as it follows only the position of some politicians of one single country, Israel, according to which it is no one's territory for now, going against the official positions of all other 192 UN member States, and of international law: whatever the ICJ says *is* by definition "international law" as the ICJ rulings are a source of international law, so, by international law, the West Bank is the largest of the Palestinian territories, and not stating it clearly in the introduction to the "West Bank" article is clearly biased. Dan Palraz (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

By all means archive this. The points have been made and read by the parties. Just a small pointer, Dan. These articles all need a lot of work, and just getting the right language and due weight to the parties is minor, compared to the microhistorical details. Most editors come in to contest the politics, and have little knowledge of such relevant details. It's probably easier on anyone with a deep interest in the area to focus on the nitty-gritty. Details are more persuasive than broadbrush categorization. That said, edit towards your own lights, and, above all, keep well. This should be a hobby, nor a source of stress.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Samaritans

Hey Dan, I don't really think that we can affirm something that is not proven, at lest in wiki's neutral voice. Now it is true that a recent genetic paper concluded that the genetic evidence points to their descent from the Israelites, and we note that. Genetics in this area is still a young science (b) as I edit stuff in that area and follow it, I know of work that is questioning one of the methodological fundamentals behind a large amount of this research and (c) in historical writing there are few certainties for this period, even for dates, let alone population figures. That is why historians prefer not to pass claims or even probabilities as facts, which is what emerges if one replaxces 'whose traditions affirm' with 'are' Above all, the lead must summarize the sections below it, and, in those, we outline in some detail (still incomplete) the two basic arguments for and against an Israelite descent.

Everyone has a natural right here to call the shots as their reading suggests, of course. But I hope you pause to reflect on the change made. It doesn't strike me as neutral, even though I am highly sceptical of the theory proposed in rabbinical/Jewish traditions. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"whose traditions affirm they descend from the ancient Israelites" doesn't sound neutral to me either; it makes it sound like that is not true. We don't have the same sentence in the page about Jews, and rightly so, as it would sound demeaning. I really have a problem with the way it is, and if genetic research has proven it I don't see what else is missing for the affirmation to be made, but if you oppose it, I hope we can find a better lead, maybe scratching up this part completely.

This is a matter of compositional method. I found an article that struck me as a disaster. Since for over a decade a large number of editors have contributed to it, rather than wipe out their work, I accepted (privately with distaste but out of respect for prior editors and protocols) the given structure I found. So (a) one went through the whole article like a dose of salts, getting references correct (b) ridding the text of poor sources and replacing them with scholarly ones, always while hewing to the given textual priorities. I was half way through that before the sudden disturbance and panic over my choice of region of Palestine vs the toxically ideological 'land of Israel'. (c) Once I have, if these contretemps pass, finished this first review, I intend to then go back through all of the text and reorder it so the relentless reduplicative harping on controversies as to whether the Samaritans are 'pure Israelites' or not, is replaced by a brief synthesis of the various positions, and a summary of what both modern archaeological scholarship and genetics state.

This involves an immense amount of laborious source checking and research, only a small part of which will ever get into the article. Constant editwars do nothing other than disrupt the primary task: fix a deeply flawed article. Only in the second phase can one begin, with the evidence there in footnotes for all to see, to tinker with terminology. It doesn't matter for the moment that the lead states the phrasing you contest, because that summarizes objectively what the evidence below points to so far, and leads summarize. They don't affirm a truth. No article should. Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Good luck. Dan Palraz (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Abu Ali Express

Hello, Dan Palraz,

Thank you for creating Abu Ali Express.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I think the inclusion of information sourced to a broader variety of sources would help to rectify the POV problems in this article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ONUnicorn}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, ONUnicorn. I have replied on the deletion discussion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abu_Ali_Express&oldid=1112730594

As I pointed out there, "I had only added two sources because it was a first edit, but I have just added five other sources that confirm that, as said in the Hebrew Wikipedia version of the article, As of September 2022, it is the Telegram channel with the most views per post in Israel. and stories first published by Abu Ali Express have been often reproduced in the mainstream Israeli media, including in Maariv, Globes, Ynet, Arutz Sheva, as well as on Israeli television. Dan Palraz (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

New sources added:

Nomination of Abu Ali Express for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abu Ali Express is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ali Express until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Slatersteven. I have replied there. As I pointed out in the specific page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abu_Ali_Express&oldid=1112730594), I had only added two sources because it was a first edit, but I have just added five other sources that confirm that, as said in the Hebrew Wikipedia version of the article, As of September 2022, it is the Telegram channel with the most views per post in Israel. and stories first published by Abu Ali Express have been often reproduced in the mainstream Israeli media, including in Maariv, Globes, Ynet, Arutz Sheva, as well as on Israeli television. Dan Palraz (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

New sources added:

November 2022

Hello, I'm Apaugasma. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Epistles of Wisdom, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Judaen desert

A) Geographically, "Israel and the West Bank" is a more appropriate description of the desert's extent than "Israel and Palestine". B) The large majority of edits that replace West Bank/Israel/Palestine with each other and do nothing else are nationalist rubbish that gets reverted on sight. I'm glad you don't consider yourself to fall into that camp, but it seems to be your (and no-one else's) idea to replace the established "West Bank" in the article with "Palestine", you will have to accept that others undo your edits. Please discuss on talk page before doing that again. C) The next time you feel impelled to leave random misapplied template messages on my talk page, stow it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

References

December 2022

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Assyrians in Israel, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Lapid and Shilat

These villages are not in the West Bank; Shilat is half inside the green line and half in the Latrun salient (no-man's land). Lapid is fully in the salient, but again this is not the West Bank. Please undo your edits. Thanks, Number 57 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't me or you who say what is a settlement and what isn't; they are built over area which was out of Israel control before 1967 and are therefore settlements in international law: https://www.ochaopt.org/atlas2019/images/db/israeli-settlements-checkpoints/israeli-settlments.pdf Dan Palraz (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You have again reinstated the incorrect claim that Kfar Ruth is in the West Bank. I will be undoing your edits in the next few days. Then you are expected to follow WP:BRD and gain consensus for your edits on the talk pages. Number 57 22:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Can't you read? https://www.ochaopt.org/atlas2019/images/db/israeli-settlements-checkpoints/israeli-settlments.pdf Dan Palraz (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I can read a map, which makes it clear that source is wrong. Sources are not always correct. Number 57 22:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The official United Nations body that defines what is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank says it is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. By the way, I also don't know what you mean by "reading a map", but the image in the article itself clearly puts Kfar Ruth inside the yellow area (the West Bank). But again, I have provided official source saying Kfar Ruth is an Israeli settlement; if you find a source saying Kfar Ruth is not a settlement, be my guest. Dan Palraz (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

1rr

I believe that's two reverts at Bethlehem. nableezy - 22:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The rules are strict on this,and you are under a formal obligation to self-revert there, Dan. Please exercise patience.Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)