Talk:Free Palestine Movement

Neutrality, accuracy and compliance with NPOV policy

This article is unbalanced, contains unsubstantiated statements and does not comply with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. I have been threatened 3 times with being blocked from editing by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vif12vf for alleged vandalism and disruptive editing when all I did was edit this article to make it more consistent with a more dominant, widespread, and commonly understood meaning of the term ‘free Palestine movement.’ I call on other editors to intervene and allow the article I proposed to be published along with a disambiguation page if the current article is to be maintained. Jgraham1956 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You need to read up on wikipedia policy and guidelines. Your edits are done improperly, includes info not relevant to this particular article, are not as neutral as you claim and you are creating cause for edit-warring. Please do not change this article further without knowledge about how to do this properly! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vif12vf:

Your edits are unbalanced and you are clearly not following Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy in deleting my edits to this article. Ask most people in the world what ‘free Palestine movement’ means and most people will say Palestinian resistance or words to that effect, NOT mention a Syrian-Palestinian group founded 16 years ago. You are misleading the public, spreading misinformation and damaging Wikipedia’s credibility as an online information source. Jgraham1956 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Im not doing anything, because i didn't write the article, but you are damaging what is already there. I am reporting you for your actions as you seemingly dont care about my responses or warnings, which makes it seem like you are unwilling to listen to other editors! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC - NPOV Policy non-compliance, lack of neutrality, bias

Free Palestine Movement NPOV dispute. Disagreement over whether current article complies with NPOV Policy and whether article proposed at this link: Special:Diff/906040376 should be permitted to stand alongside existing article and a disambiguation page. Jgraham1956 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Complaint about the bias in Wikipedia’s apparent insistence to portray the ‘Free Palestine Movement’ as a 16 year old Syrian-Palestinian armed group no one has heard of, rather than the Palestinian struggle against colonialism (a long-standing resistance movement which crosses political lines and ideologies, not limited to a single armed group of dubious standing) which goes back 100+ years and is the most accurate, dominant and internationally recognised understanding of the term ‘Free Palestine Movement.’ The current article is misleading the general public, non-compliant with Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy and undermining Wikipedia’s credibility. The factual accuracy, neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy of the current Free Palestine Movement article are all disputed but instead of letting those tags stand until the dispute is resolved as required by Wikipedia guidelines, the tags I have added to the article noting these concerns are simply deleted repeatedly by User:Vif12vf (who has threatened me with being blocked from editing three times based on accusations of ‘disruptive’ editing and ‘vandalism’). I have tried to resolve this matter through this talk page, to no avail. I therefore call on other Wikipedia editors and subject matter experts to intervene. The solution is in my view simple: instead of gagging dissent and undermining objectivity, allow both the thoroughly researched and professionally written article I have proposed (and which has been published on Wikipedia but which User:Vif12vf has repeatedly taken down) for ‘Free Palestine Movement’ (available here: Special:Diff/906040376) and the existing ‘Free Palestine Movement’ page (WITH disputed accuracy, neutrality and POV tags) to stand, and introduce a disambiguation page. The solution is not to silence the truth, however uncomfortable it is, but to encourage and harness multi-dimensional contributions and allow them to flourish. The NPOV Policy is clear. It can’t be one rule for some and another rule for others.17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraham1956 (talk • contribs)

• @Jgraham1956: What is your brief and neutral statement? As it stands, it is too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so nothing is shown at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law apart from a link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: Apologies, it’s a complex issue.

  Free Palestine Movement NPOV dispute. Disagreement over whether current article complies with NPOV Policy and whether article proposed at this link: Special:Diff/906040376 should be permitted to stand alongside existing article and a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraham1956 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  Then you need to put that as the first item after the {{rfc|pol|rfcid=4639318}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Redrose64:: Ok. Done, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraham1956 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  It seems I have to do it myself. Please read WP:RFCST and also WP:SIGN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• This article is about a specific group named "Free Palestine Movement". If you want to write an article about another topic, go ahead and do so, but please refrain from destroying this one. This has nothing to do with bias. This group exists, and this is its official name. Furthermore, the article is neutral and objective about the group in question. The "factual accuracy, neutrality and compliance [...] are disputed"? How? Why? You talk about one topic (the Palestinian struggle for independence, covered in many articles such as Palestinian nationalism, Greater Palestine, History of the State of Palestine, and so on), but this article is about the specific group named "Free Palestine Movement". You deleting and/or replacing this entire article with your political views is, as Vif12vf correctly pointed out, de facto disruptive editing and vandalism, as well as POV pushing. Applodion (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Applodion: thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback. The objective was not to ‘destroy’ the existing article, as you put it. The objective was to ensure that Wikipedia readers are informed that the term ‘free Palestine movement’ refers most commonly and most dominantly based on a global litmus test to a political resistance movement composed of multiple parties and has been around for over a century. The 16 year old armed group that currently features being the only ‘Free Palestine Movement’ Wikipedia page that exists risks misleading the general public into thinking that a long standing, broad-based political movement is limited to a 16 year old armed group of dubious standing. The first paragraph of the current article contains a number of unsubstantiated statements lacking citations (hence questions about its accuracy.) The sources it does refer to appear to be very one-sided and come across as having an ulterior motive (presenting a Zionist narrative as gospel) - hence the non-compliance with Wikipedia’s NPOV Policy and questions about neutrality. The NPOV Policy is very clear - it cannot be one rule for some and another rule for others (which is the vibe I’m getting at the moment.) I have already tried to publish the article I am proposing at Special:Diff/906040376 as a separate article and look forward to receiving Wikipedia’s response. I am not proposing to ‘destroy’ the existing article, but have both the existing article and my proposed article exist along with a disambiguation page distinguishing between resistance movement (my proposed article) and armed group (existing article). I appreciate your contention that there are already pages referring to some limited aspects of Palestinian resistance (Palestinian nationalism, Greater Palestine, History of the State of Palestine), but the article I am proposing covers ground that those articles do not (please read it and you will see how.) The effect of Wikipedia having only one ‘Free Palestine Movement’ page (the little-known armed group), even if not the intention, is to divert attention away from the Palestinian struggle for liberation from colonialism (the most dominant meaning of the expression) and mislead the public by omitting its history from public view. I suggest my article (see link above) is allowed to be published, that the current page remains as it is and a disambiguation page is introduced. Please confirm whether or not you agree with this request and, if not, why not. Jgraham1956 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have a strange view on Wikipedia policy. Where are your sources for a massive, widely known political movement known under dozens of names being misidentified as the "Free Palestine Movement", a small armed group? "Free Palestine Movement" can be applied to the overall movement for the self-determination of the Palestinians, sure, but the latter does not just exist under one name, and "Free Palestine Movement" is not its official name - because it does not have one. It is a large movement of hundreds of groups, not limited to one name. In contrast, the armed group in question is known only and officially as "Free Palestine Movement". You might think that is dumb and that this group should not use this name, but the simple truth is: We have to use the official names for groups, whether we like it or not. Furthermore, the sources are NOT one-sided; one can hardly claim that the Syrian Arab News Agency (!), and Action Group for Palestinians of Syria (!!) are Zionist - they are literally anti-Israeli. In the end, if your article is accepted then we can add a disambiguation, sure. But before that, this is unnecessary. Applodion (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A couple of comments. First of all, per WP:VANDAL, what User:Jgraham1956 is doing is not vandalism. Specifically, from that policy, Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. So the vandalism argument needs to be dropped. That said, what User: Jgraham1956 is doing fits pretty well with the bolded quote above, as it is misguided. The proposed text strays awfully far from WP:NPOV. To mention one reason among about a hundred, in the proposed text, whenever the cause of violence is the arab side, it "flares up" or the like, with no apparent human agency whatsoever. Meanwhile, atrocities committed by the Jewish side are described in detail. That's not how WP:NPOV or WP:DUE work. Lastly, I believe there is an arbcom ruling to the effect that editors with fewer than 500 edits are supposed to stay away from the arab-israeli area. I know because I was warned for doing exactly that when I had like 300 edits. Someone who knows the template should put it on the user's talk page.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: The notice at the top of this page shows that the active community sanctions applicable to this article are because it is related to the Syrian Civil War. In such cases, the notice to put on a user's talk page is {{subst:GS/SCW&ISIL notification}} and it accepts up to three parameters, read the documentation carefully before using it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: thank you for recognising that my intentions are to improve Wikipedia and not to vandalise it. If there is indeed a rule requiring editors to have made 500 edits before they can publish material on the Arab-Israeli conflict, then I have to take issue with it. How does this make anyone more qualified to comment on the issue? This could simply mean that the editor is savvier in the ways of Wikipedia or has a lot more time to devote to editing Wikipedia, not necessarily that they are better qualified to comment. Let me quote from the WP:NPOV policy: “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it...

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.”

The current ‘Free Palestine Movement’ article is in effect (whether it is intended to be or not and for reasons already exhaustively explained above) in flagrant breach of this requirement, as would be a decision by Wikipedia not to publish my article. So Wikipedia can use the excuse that the current FPM article is about the specific armed movement and not the political resistance movement, that editors on the Arab-Israeli conflict must have a minimum of 500 edits, that I am disruptive or a vandal - the effect is the same: gagging dissent, uncomfortable truths and silencing people who fall on the ‘wrong side’ of WP:NPOV. On whether or not my article (available here) is itself compliant with WP:NPOV, I reiterate that the article is extensively researched from a number of reliable sources, supported by facts and figures, professionally written and adds value to Wikipedia by providing content which is not currently covered on Wikipedia. If there is content that people view as biased or lacking in neutrality, then let’s have that article published and have a healthy debate about it (exactly as is happening with the current FPM article) or have people propose edits to it (exactly as is not being allowed to happen with the current FPM article.) As User:Applodion begrudgingly admits, ‘free Palestine movement’ is a term used to describe the broader Palestinian resistance movement. My central argument is that it is the most dominant and widely recognised understanding of the term. So Wikipedia appears to be digging its heels in with a view to maintaining a situation that is misleading its readership and deliberately concealing a historical injustice. The taking of a human life is regrettable whoever the victim and the intention in my article was not to place a higher value on Palestinian life than Israeli civilian or Jewish life, the intention was to provide a history of Palestinian resistance against colonialism in the face of a vast imbalance of power and wave upon wave of injustice, the effects of which continue to be felt, both online and in the physical world.Jgraham195612:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• The way Wikipedia works, though, is that we have an article, currently titled Free Palestine Movement, about a specific organization. We should not broadly overwrite this article with a different topic. (This practice is occasionally referred to as "article hijacking".) What Jgraham1956 is proposing is a separate article. The correct way to deal with this through Wikipedia process is to create an entirely separate article about the subject. For the sake of convenience, I'm going to say to call it Palestine Liberation Movement, since that's one of the names Jgraham1956 used in their version, but unless we find the movement using that specific name, it may be more appropriate to call it Palestine liberation movement. (Other than the first word, capitalization is only used in article titles for proper names.) Once the new article passes muster, then we can evaluate article titles for both articles, which may lead to one or both articles being moved (retitled). However, this article must remain intact and about its current subject, unless the community decides to delete it outright. —C.Fred (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  @C.Fred: Thank you for your message and understood. I have proposed a separate article, which I understand is currently under consideration. I await Wikipedia’s response with interest. Jgraham195614:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: Where? I don't see where you've created a draft article or anything in your sandbox. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: It’s here: Special:Diff/906042306. The article content should be identical to the article available here. Let me know if you have any issues accessing it or if the content is not identical.Jgraham195617:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  @C.Fred: I believe I have now submitted the article to Wikipedia for consideration. Apologies if this was not the case before - I only have my advancing years and poor tech skills to use as an excuse for that. The link should be here. @Redrose64: Thank you for tidying up the RfC reference for me and for your informative notes re signatures on talk pages. Forgive me for not always following correct procedure - I am a bit of a luddite but trying to learn something new every day. I am going to attempt to sign off this comment correctly - fingers crossed it works.Jgraham1956 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• As expected, hot on the heels of my last message, Wikipedia and specifically User:Bkissin has declined publication of my article on grounds that a Palestinian nationalism page already exists, which User:Bkissin refers to in his rejection message as Palestinian liberation and therefore tacitly acknowledges the potential confusion that can arise given the overlapping titles and subject matter. The point about the existing Palestinian nationalism article is noted, although the article I am proposing covers ground the existing Palestinian nationalism page does not. However, this still does not address my point about Wikipedia (in my view deliberately) misleading its readership into thinking that the term ‘free Palestine movement’ is uniquely a 16 year old armed group and not a long standing movement seeking liberation from colonial oppression (the most dominant and widespread understanding of this term, which is a clear breach of the WP:NPOV, notwithstanding the tenuous technicality people keep latching onto that the current page is about the specific armed group and not the political resistance movement). In order to address this point, and the potential misinformation and confusion that the status quo is resulting in, can you please create (or grant permission for there to be created) a disambiguation page distinguishing between the current Free Palestine Movement and Palestinian nationalism pages? Can you also confirm whether publishing material on Wikipedia on the Arab-Israeli conflict requires editors to have a minimum of 500 edits as User:Adoring nanny has alluded to? @Redrose64:@Bkissin:@C.Fred:@Applodion:@Adoring nanny:

-Jgraham1956 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: You have still not provided any proof that "Free Palestine Movement" is the official or even widespread name for any Palestinian nationalist movement. In fact, a short google search shows 2 results under this name: This armed group and a California-based human rights organization, already mentioned at the top of the article. I have found so far no source according to which the wider movement uses exactly this name, excluding cases were it is simply called "free Palestine movement" in a unofficial capacity. Applodion (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Found the 500 edit policy.WP:A/I/PIA Adoring nanny (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Applodion: I will respond to your message soon.@Adoring nanny: thanks. I will comment on this soon.Jgraham1956 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

No matter what you may believe about any movement to free Palestine, the fact is clear that "Free Palestine Movement" is a proper name and this page referring to only that specific organization is not a WP:NPOV violation. If you have specific neutrality complaints regarding this specific article regarding this specific organization, you should address that on this talk page in a new section. As for a new article to address to overall movement to free Palestine, you have submitted your article and it has been responded to. If you have problems with that decision, it can be addressed on that page. Or you may propose edits to the Palestinian nationalism page to cover what you claim it is currently lacking. A disambiguation page seems largely unnecessary unless you get a "Free Palestine movement" (lowercase m) article approved. The 500-edit-history requirement is, in part, to prevent confusion such as this, not as an effort to oppress dissent. (Regarding your proposed article, please visit WP:MOSLINK and consider reducing the use of wikilinks to only the first instance of a term.) Tchouppy (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Jgraham1956 response 21 July 2019:

• @Redrose64:@Bkissin:@C.Fred:@Applodion:@Adoring nanny:@Ultimattack2:@Tchouppy:@Vif12vf: I have mulled over the comments I have received following the rejection of the article I have proposed here and my conclusion is that Wikipedia suffers from innate, institutional Zionist bias in the content it allows to be published and in its editorial approach to both reviewing content, resolving disputes as well as responding to RfCs (Requests for comments), in breach of its own policy WP:NPOV. I have arrived at this conclusion for the following reasons:

1. One-sided threats: I have been threatened with being blocked from editing for reversions made to the Free Palestine Movement page a total of 4 times by User:Vif12vf. These threats are available for all to see here (if you cannot see them there, let me know and I will pass them on). I received a welcome message from Wikipedia after receiving the threats - which is a bit like joining a club, being threatened with being thrown out and then being offered a cup of tea (a frosty and far from genuine welcome to say the least.) I note the point about more than one reversion within 24 hours being banned as edit-warring, but I challenge Wikipedia to demonstrate that it adopts a similar approach to reversions that serve a Zionist agenda or are favourable to a Zionist narrative (for example, was User:Vif12vf threatened with being blocked for his reversions? Of course not.) This is a breach of the WP:NPOV.

2. Article rejection, hollow alternative offered and discriminatory policies: User:Bkissin in his rejection of my article and User:Tchouppy in subsequent comments suggest that I edit the current Palestinian nationalism page to incorporate content from my article that is not currently covered instead of creating a new 'Free Palestine movement' page (User:C.Fred and User:Applodion seem to think that decapitalising the 'm' in movement is going to make a difference to my article's chances of success (or at least distinguishing it from the 'proper name' used in the current article) - I do not share their pedantic optimism because I used a small 'm' in my article and it was still rejected (User:Bkissin doesn't seem to care if it's a small 'm' or capital 'M', he or she just doesn't want it there.) Just as importantly, I do not have the option of editing the current Palestinian nationalism page to include content from my article as suggested by User:Bkissin and User:Tchouppy because of WP:A/I/PIA, which requires Wikipedia editors to have 500 edits to their name before they can publish material on the Arab-Israeli conflict. So I am being directed to a door which is closed. The intent is clear - 'go away, User:Jgraham1956'. WP:A/I/PIA is discriminatory because it favours editors with lots of time to spare to edit Wikipedia or who may be more tech savvy than others (such as Wikipedia editors funded by Israel to maintain pro-Israel, pro-Zionist narratives in mainstream online content), but may not necessarily be qualified to comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and excludes people with fewer than 500 edits. WP:A/I/PIA favours 'institutional' editors who are funded and resourced to spend large amounts of time editing Wikipedia and excludes your average Wikipedia editor, who may nevertheless know a lot about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would go as far as to say that WP:A/I/PIA, even if this was not the intent, is in this case effectively in direct conflict with WP:NPOV. Again, this 'set up' is a breach of WP:NPOV. User:Tchouppy says that "The 500-edit-history requirement is, in part, to prevent confusion such as this, not as an effort to oppress dissent" - please elaborate on how this objective is achieved. My contention is that the effect of this requirement is to gag dissent and exclude the participation of potentially very qualified editors, on grounds which are irrelevant to their level of suitability to comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please enlighten me on how this is not the case.

3. Systematic discrimination and selective publication: Wikipedia not only exclusively has one page called Free Palestine Movement (that little-known 16 year old Syrian armed group), which has the effect of misleading the general public and obscuring uncomfortable truths about injustices committed at Palestinians' expense (and their attempts to resist them) from public view, but it also has another page called Palestinian Freedom Movement which relates to an equally little-known 12 year old Palestinian armed group. Both articles contain unsubstantiated statements, lack citations (in breach of WP:V) and demonstrate inherent bias (in breach of WP:NPOV). There is a pattern here. Wikipedia editors are making a concerted effort to reduce Palestinian efforts to seek liberation from colonial oppression to a couple of terrorist groups, are permissive in the requirements they apply to editors putting forward such articles and do not want anyone to edit them at all costs - this is serving and protecting a Zionist narrative. Wikipedia's approach is in breach of its own WP:NPOV.

4. A note to the pedants, Wikipedia prioritising red herrings over elephants in the room: A note to User:Applodion, User:C.Fred and User:Tchouppy who are very keen to point out that the current Free Palestine Movement page is a proper name, and that my article should therefore be 'movement' with a small 'm' (which is how it was submitted and rejected.) The term 'Free Palestine movement' is publicly and widely understood to mean Palestinian efforts to seek liberation from occupation - it is BOTH a description/expression AND a proper name. The position Wikipedia is maintaining by insisting on having only one Free Palestine Movement page (and not another one with a small 'm' for 'movement,' or including this as a searchable term linking to the existing Palestinian nationalism page), as well as rejecting having a disambiguation page in place distinguishing specific armed group from wider political movement (or Palestinian nationalism page, as I have requested), which would add value to Wikipedia: (a) has the potential to cause confusion; (b) is indicative of innate pro-Zionist bias; (c) demonstrates that Wikipedia does not want to fix the issue; and (d) is in breach of the WP:NPOV. It is like saying that 'Free Nelson Mandela' is purely a song by The Specials while ignoring the wider political movement advocated by the African National Congress and other supporters of Nelson Mandela seeking an end to his incarceration and the discriminatory practices of Apartheid, which was the inspiration for the song in the first place. It is like saying that Macdonalds is a furniture and appliances store in Ontario, Canada (which it is) while refusing to distinguish it from the much larger and more widely known fast food chain by introducing a disambiguation page. In short: Wikipedia is in denial, seizing upon a red herring, ignoring the Elephant in the room in a concerted effort to mislead and maintain a pro-Zionist narrative, reduce Palestinian efforts seeking freedom from occupation (which have historically been expressed through a variety of non-violent means, such as civil disobedience and efforts to get Wikipedia to comply with its WP:NPOV) to some terrorist groups - 'listen, general public, these are just a bunch of guys with guns and bombs' is in effect what Wikipedia is saying - never mind that a majority of world states have recognised their state or a majority of people around the world according to a number of opinion polls support ending Israel's occupation of the Israeli-occupied territories and the injustices Israel continues to carry out at Palestinians' expense (see my article for sources backing up these statements).

5. Reasonable, value-adding compromise rejected: WP:DR requires Wikipedia editors to be open to compromise in their approach to resolving disputes or considering Requests for Comments (see 'Tips'). When my article was rejected, I offered the compromise of a disambiguation page at least between Free Palestine Movement and Palestinian nationalism (which User:Bkissin referred to in his/her rejection message as Palestinian liberation), but this idea has not yet been accepted by Wikipedia. The current Free Palestine Movement lists Palestinian nationalism among the armed group's ideologies. The intent is clear: Wikipedia wants us to believe that a bona fide movement seeking an end to colonial oppression (which has used civil disobedience and other non-violent means to do so) is nothing but a few guys with guns and bombs, basically terrorists - Wikipedia not only sees a link between the two but wants us to believe that they are one and the same. This heightens the risk of confusion and the need for disambiguation, so I reiterate my request that Wikipedia introduces a disambiguation page distinguishing Free Palestine Movement and Palestinian nationalism, with Palestinian liberation being a search term that links to the Palestinian nationalism page if it is not already. For the reasons outlined in this message, I am skeptical of the likelihood that Wikipedia will look upon my request favourably, but I would welcome being proven wrong.

6. Why you cannot easily find the 'Free Palestine movement' (small m) on Google: User:Applodion says s/he can only find the current Free Palestine Movement page and the California-based Human Rights organisation of the same name on a Google search and challenges me to provide proof that the term 'free Palestine movement' refers to Palestinian efforts to seek an end to colonial oppression in their occupied territories. Let me explain: (a) Wikipedia want you to think that the term 'Free Palestine movement' (small 'm'!) is just that armed group and nothing else because they are engaging in concerted efforts to erase the injustices propagated against Palestinians (and their efforts to resist them) from their online content. In short, they want the young and future generations both now and with the passage of time (when Wikipedia eventually acquires a monopoly on public thought - it is already a widely used reference tool) to know nothing of Palestinian efforts to oppose the injustices they have suffered; (b) the Palestinian resistance to occupation and injustice are over 100 years old - they predate both Wikipedia and the internet by quite some distance in time. In those days, particularly as many Palestinians were farming folk, not as much was documented about their resistance efforts. However, to demonstrate to you that 'Free Palestine' is a movement and not just an armed group, here are some examples: (1) Palestinian resistance in the early 20th Century (note that the article refers to 'the withholding of their freedom and the continuance of Mandatory rule'; 'Palestinian demands for independence' and their 'attainment of national independence'); (2) History.com article (indicating that 'the people of Palestine have a strong desire to create a free and independent state'); (3) This JSTOR article (referring to Palestinian 'freedom from colonial occupation'); (4) Twitter example; (5) This Stanford University academic paper (referring to 'THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENT'); (6) This JSTOR article (referring to 'the Palestine Liberation Movement'); (7) This JSTOR article (referring to a Palestinian 'national liberation movement'); (8) This BBC article (referencing UK labour party politicians chanting 'Free Palestine'); (9) This JSTOR article (referring to Palestinian folk songs themed around liberation from occupation and colonial oppression); (c) Israel has a propaganda, sorry diplomacy (let's use the language Wikipedia uses) machine called Hasbara which is doing its best to ensure that pro-Israel and pro-Zionist narratives dominate in mainstream online sources such as Wikipedia and Google - they seem to be doing pretty well!

7. Wikipedia took down (and kept taking down) my dispute tags: Not only is Wikipedia not comfortable with edits to current Free Palestine Movement article content, it will also not tolerate any suggestion that the article's content is disputed, lacking in neutrality or unbalanced (the 'Disputed,' 'POV' and 'Unbalanced' tags I added to the article on multiple occasions to note this at the top of the article on grounds that there are a number of unsubstantiated statements in the article lacking citations, that the sources are very one-sided, deliberately obstructive of the wider Palestinian resistance narrative and unbalanced were taken down repeatedly by User:Vif12vf and Wikipedia seems to have settled on accepting User:Vif12vf's position. Again, a clear breach of WP:NPOV and a clear demonstration that Wikipedia is gagging dissent while maintaining the facade of balanced content.

Conclusion: So, to briefly summarise: Wikipedia suffers from innate pro-Zionist bias. This manifests itself in the threats, official response to article proposal, comments and RfC intervention I have received from Wikipedia editors (which as a result I have no confidence in and do not view as a truly impartial process). It also manifests itself in Wikipedia's discriminatory policies (WP:A/I/PIA), which also conflict with other policies WP:NPOV, as well as Wikipedia's selective application of its WP:DR, WP:V and WP:NPOV policies, and systematic removal of 'disputed,' 'POV' and 'unbalanced' tags I added to the current Free Palestine Movement page.

PS: User:Tchouppy: Thank you for enlightening me about WP:MOSLINK. I have also put this response in my sandbox as you have suggested, so the editors reviewing my article request can receive it. Depending on how the rest of the discussion goes, I may also publish this entire discussion further afield. To quote Nelson Mandela, 'We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.'Jgraham1956 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• No offense, but it is always easier to claim that some kind of conspiracy is ongoing than to accept that one's one view is not necessarily correct. Wikipedia is based one sourced facts; and so far you have still not provided any for your claims. It is fine for you to think that an article named "Free Palestine Movement" should only (or at least primarily) be about a wider political movement; however, as long as you only claim dubious common knowledge and your own opinion as sources for this view, you cannot implement it in Wikipedia (The sources you did name do not refer to the larger political movement as "Free Palestine Movement", so they actually reinforce my point. As you say yourself, they call it "Palestine Liberation Movement" or give it other names). This is one of the reasons the 500-rule exists; so that people without sources but a strong political opinion (such as beliefs about as "Zionist conspiracy") cannot push their own, biased views onto somewhat neutral articles. For you to accuse the current article of bias shows that you are certainly biased - This article about an armed group includes hard facts, based on sources from a wide political specture, ranging from pro-Palestinian to pro-Israeli. There is no Zionist conspiracy, just numerous people attempting to build up a somewhat neutral encyclopedia. Applodion (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Applodion: This might be news to you (I suspect it is) but ‘Palestine liberation’ and ‘free Palestine’ are interchangeable terms. ‘Liberation’ is a synonym of ‘freedom.’ You’re in denial.Jgraham1956 (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: I am not in denial; it is important that the exact name of an article is sourced. "Palestine liberation" and "free Palestine" are not interchangeable here on Wikipedia, even if they are used this way elsewhere. You cannot name an article "free Palestine movement" while its sources talk about "Palestine liberation movement"; sources and article names should be in concert, unless a specific topic has no official name (then it boils down to what name is most often used in sources, or which name is most neutral, or which name is commonly accepted among experts). That is also the reason for the whole issue of "Free Palestine Movement" vs "Free Palestine movement". Applodion (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: So you agree that this article is about a group titled the Free Palestine Movement, and any article about a broader movement should go at a different title? —C.Fred (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Applodion:@C.Fred: I’m not agreeing to anything until Wikipedia shows signs of objectivity and reasonable compromise (as required by both WP:DR and WP:NPOV, but also simply in order to properly inform your readership and avoid confusion) on this issue. My position is as set out in my long message sent on 21 July 2019 (copied above), which I await a complete response to. I would also like you to: (1) respond to my request for a disambiguation page between Free Palestine Movement, Palestinian Freedom Movement and Palestinian liberation (aka Palestinian nationalism), noting that WP:DR requires you to be open to compromise and WP:NPOV requires you to ensure a balanced representation of all views as far as possible (I have yet to see any sign of compliance with either requirement from Wikipedia on this issue), providing supporting reasoning for your decision; (2) Explain how I can comply with User:Bkissin and User:Tchouppy’s suggestion in response to my article submission that I edit the Palestinian liberation page to include content from my article given the impediments of WP:A/I/PIA (which prevents me from doing so due to the minimum 500 edit requirement); and (3) more generally what Wikipedia proposes as a workable solution to my concerns (other than trying to silence me).Jgraham1956 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: What title do you suggest for the disambiguation page? I don't see where there's an overlapping term. Hatnotes are probably the better fix for right now.

As for the second suggestion, you should be allowed to suggest edits at the talk page, just not edit the article directly.

Finally...with all due respect, your concerns are outside the scope of this article, so I have no opinion on them at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: I think the title of the disambiguation page can be ‘Free Palestine movement’ or ‘Palestine liberation movement’ (or both? I see your Macdonald disambiguation page entertains multiple spellings) - note the lower case L and M. The pages would then be listed in the following order: (1) Palestinian liberation (resistance movement); (2) Free Palestine Movement (armed group); and (3) Palestinian Freedom Movement (armed group). Please let me know your thoughts on this and explain why, if it is not acceptable to you, it is not acceptable and why you view hat notes as a ‘better fix’.Jgraham1956 (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: The titles are distinct enough that a disambiguation page isn't called for: they aren't all referred to by one common term. This is almost moving into the ground of List of Palestine liberation movements, but then we get into scope creep. (I mean, at that point, the PLO gets listed.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: It is one movement, in which there are multiple participants, so no list of movements is required. I struggle to understand how you (or, just as importantly, the lay person who knows nothing about the matter could) view Palestinian liberation, Free Palestine Movement and Palestinian Freedom Movement as self-explanatorily distinct and would not require a disambiguation page to help distinguish them. Why are hat notes a better mechanism for clearing up the confusion? The MacDonald disambiguation Page entertains multiple spellings so it can’t be a need for an exact nomenclature match.Jgraham1956 (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: The MacDonald page has MacDonald as the common tie among those entries. That's what I'm not seeing is what the common tie is here. Or, what would the title be for the disambiguation page? Palestinian liberation (disambiguation)? —C.Fred (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: Yes, distinguishing (resistance movement) from each (armed group) with Palestinian liberation appearing first in the list as the longest standing of the 3. Are you going to create the disambiguation page or should I? The point I was making re the Macdonald disambiguation page is it appears as McDonald, MacDonald and Macdonald (so multiple permutations of the same thing, some featuring upper case and some featuring lower case letters - not too dissimilar to the issue we are discussing.)Jgraham1956 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: You should not, as it falls within the scope of WP:A/I/PIA, broadly construed. I'm waiting for other editors to opine before I go farther. —C.Fred (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: Noted with thanks. Please ask them to do the right thing, for the sake of WP: NPOV, WP:DR and properly informing Wikipedia’s readership.Jgraham1956 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I fail to understand what use a "Palestinian liberation" disambiguation page would have, as nobody would ever confuse Palestinian nationalism with particular groups like the Free Palestine Movement or the Palestinian Freedom Movement. Disambiguation pages are for similiar names, but if we would have to list all Palestinian movements/ideas/groups with "free", "liberation", "freedom", and so on in their titles, the disambiguation would be, as C.Fred noted, gigantic. "Palestinian liberation" is currently a redirect for Palestinian nationalism, and that is honestly sufficient. However, I am not strictly opposed to a disambiguation page either. I just regard it as mostly useless in this particular case; if other editors want it, we can go and create one. Applodion (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Applodion: Thanks for not objecting. @C.Fred: Looks like we’ve got the green light. Will you create the disambiguation page, in this order: (1) Palestinian liberation (resistance movement); (2) Free Palestine Movement (armed group); and (3) Palestinian Freedom Movement (armed group)? Appreciate your cooperation.Jgraham1956 (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• @C.Fred: Any news re the disambiguation page requested? Thanks.Jgraham1956 (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Redrose64:@Bkissin:@C.Fred:@Applodion:@Adoring nanny:@Ultimattack2:@Tchouppy:@Vif12vf: Can someone please respond to my messages and confirm how this RfC is going to be progressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgraham1956 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: I'm involved and shouldn't close it myself, but I'm thinking we're done here. Palestinian liberation (disambiguation) has been created and is hatnoted at Palestinian nationalism, where Palestinian liberation redirects. I don't think we need hatnotes anywhere else. —C.Fred (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• @C.Fred: Thank you for your message and for confirming the creation of the disambiguation page. This will serve to help properly inform, and avoid confusion on the part of, Wikipedia’s readership. This still does not address Wikipedia’s discriminatory minimum 500-edit requirement for editors making edits to Israel-Palestine related pages under WP:A/I/PIA, which I maintain is in contravention of WP:NPOV (how can you ensure most views on an issue are represented if most are excluded?) but as you have alluded to before, this conflict of Wikipedia policies, and questions around innate Zionist bias in Wikipedia more broadly, will not be resolved in this RfC/exchange alone. I, and many others, hope that Wikipedia will, and strongly urge Wikipedia to, give these matters due consideration and modify WP:A/I/PIA such that it removes the 500 minimum edit requirement due to being discriminatory, irrelevant to determining editor suitability and in breach of WP:NPOV.Jgraham1956 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jgraham1956: I do not speak for the Arbitration Committee, but I suspect that part of the reason for the 500-edit/30-day minimum is because of past problems with new editors violating NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. ArbCom doesn't act in a cavalier fashion, so I am sure they studied the situation thoroughly before the initial General Prohibitions were set and in the two amendments (the last in 2016). Thus, I'm sure ArbCom has carefully considered the effects and feel the benefits of the 500/30 rule outweigh the costs. Finally, changing that rule would require action by ArbCom, which is far beyond the scope of this talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

i want to publish an article about Mofeq, so I want to [[' em. 89.15.237.108 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear what exactly you want to change. Applodion (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we add the American League for Free Palestine as early activity?

A play called 'A flag is born' presents the first incident of the slogan 'Free Palestine', cheering for a jewishstate. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/A_Flag_Is_Born

I believe this article is inaccurate, and biased without discussing this piece of history. I am calling for a consensus to change the article. 95.86.64.127 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

+ 1 for updating the article. Raconcilio (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a Syrian militant group, not the slogan "Free Palestine". Applodion (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In General, Wikipedia will give a reference to something else if it’s confusing or two topics are phrased in the same way. Would like to see that done here 2A01:6500:A036:557F:C01F:9095:220:C470 (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2023

I request that 'A Flag is Born' be the first piece of flyering for 'a Free Palestine' https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/A_Flag_Is_Born Raconcilio (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Minor errors on the page!

First of all, you claimed on the page that Palestine wants "Israel" not to exist, which is completely wrong! If you study the religion of a country before writing the text, you will find that it is mentioned in "Islam" and the writings of people that you should not destroy the people of Bani Israel, but guide them to the right path.

Why are the Palestinian people protesting? Suppose a killer is in your house for several years and puts a knife under your throat, won't you defend yourself?!!! Yes, you defend! Palestine has been surrounded by Israel for 70 years, and because of this, Palestine defended itself for the first time, and what was the world's reaction? that Palestine did something bad? not at all

Palestine is not against Israel or Judaism, please don't spread such nonsense.

Rather, the Palestinian people are suffering from a lack of food due to the siege by Israel, and Israel is genocidating their generation!

Do you disagree with me? Don't you want to accept the truth? So shame on you! Shame on your upbringing! Shame on your humanity!!! 2.190.225.223 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A) This is not a forum. B) This article is about a Syrian militant group, not Palestine. Applodion (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

full of mistakes

This article is full of mistakes, are you sure this is a free encyclopedia and you claim it has the most reliable information?! It's more like a book full of lies! My little girl lies less than here! 0 2.190.225.223 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

A) This is not a forum. B) This article is about a Syrian militant group, not Palestine. Applodion (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

( Wiki Education assignment: History of Social Movements in the US )

[text removed]

@Iimohareb: Hello! I just saw your Wiki Education assignment and wanted to inquire about something: Do you intend to write about / research the Syrian militant group known as "Free Palestine Movement"? That's what this article is about. This article is not about the Palestine liberation movement, i.e. the wider (global) protest and activist movement. I'm asking because the Wiki Education assignment is part of the "History of Social Movements in the US", and the Free Palestine Movement of Syria was never active in the United States. If you intend to write about the global, or US-based sections of the Palestine Liberation movement, I would recommend other articles such as Free Gaza Movement, From the river to the sea, Anti-Zionism, Palestinian nationalism, International Solidarity Movement, and Palestine–United States relations. Alternatively, a new article about Pro-Palestinian activism in the United States could also work. Applodion (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2024

Free Palstine is Fraze used by the pro Plastinen Movment aginst Isrea's/Amircan Occupation of Arab Countery(Palstine) TellTheTruthOrDieTrying (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2024

This article is biased and have Zionist influence suggesting that freeing Palestine is a terrorist armed ideology whereas the whole world can see what Israel is doing to the Palestinians: killing, starving, bombing and ethnically cleansing. 88.202.200.249 (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like it was written by a Zionist

This makes free palestine sound like it isn’t a movement to free these people from terrorism and genocide. 24.100.154.245 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

As stated several times above: This article is about a Syrian militia, not the global pro-Palestinian movement. At least try to read the article or the talk page before voicing accusations. Applodion (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2024

The source is corrupt. Only 1 source and does not include Palestinian or Syrian sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:6FD0:3FEA:B40C:1EFF:FE68:75FE (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. 41 sources are cited in the article, and most are by Palestinian and Syrian publishers / news sites. Applodion (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)