Talk:Masada2000

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Israel

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Praise

I wanted to praise editing work that's gone on regarding this article. It's even better than when I worked on editing it some time ago. I don't agree with the member who claimed that article is too negative. As Malik said, if you visit the site the hate practically oozes fr. the page. The best that can be said for the site is that its owner truly believes that he's defending Israel and the Jewish people by upholding these values. 10:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Richard (talk)

That was a very brave act - whoever erased by comment to Richard. What a way to stifle free speech and legitimate debate, especially here on the "Free Encyclopedia". Oh well, some people do not want to face reality, and feel the need to shut up dissenting voices, as though we were living in the age of the Bolsheviks. ---Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please don't delete facts because you don't like them or can't access the source

thanks for assuming good faith. I read the sources and none refer to Palestinians as cancer. In fact, the first source is very explicit:

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ARAB Citizens of Israel We are not talking about the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza... the "occupied," or "administered" territory.

See?

Where in the source does it say "badge of honor?"

There are a lot of problems with this article, mainly because it is simply a collection of attacks and criticisms from leftist-wing or radical academics/professors. Criticism should be split, and primary sources need to be cut down a lot. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Palestinians: Perhaps you didn't read the rest of the paragraph, "It doesn't really matter that much since BOTH the Arabs in the West Bank/Gaza AND within Israel itself consider themselves to be 'Palestinians,' rather than Israelis!" Or the preceding footnote, "In the next war, the Israel Defense Forces and the civilian population will hopefully rid themselves of the Arab demographic threat by expelling hostile Arabs from BOTH the 'liberated' territories of '67 AND the Arab cancer growing WITHIN Israel herself!"

The article doesn't use the phrase "badge of honor", which is why the phrase doesn't appear in quotation marks. It says, "The Masada2000 list has become a phenomenon in left-wing Jewish circles: activists compare their status, those who are left out wondering whether they should submit themselves."

I'm sorry you consider the article a series of attacks. Masada2000 itself is nothing but a series of attacks. And no, criticism should not be split. Good articles incorporate the criticism into the article, they don't segregate it into a "Criticism" section.

Finally, the use of primary sources is 100% okay when those sources are used to say what the subject says about itself or its beliefs. See WP:SELFPUB. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please read WP:DEADREF about what to do when you encounter a dead link. Hint: you don't delete the material in the article because you can't access the source. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shabazz, now you are just making interpretation. The source does not explicitly refer to Palestinians independent of Israel as "cancer." It would be "good" if the article actually described Masada2000 as an organization, rather than cherry-picking inflammatory essays (they host hundreds) and taking the most outrageous quotes from them. "Masada2000 itself is nothing but a series of attacks." Maybe Shabazz, but that isn't our role to infer. I could just as easily take the most hostile articles from Electronic Intifada and create an identical article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources that describe EI as a hate site, please edit its article accordingly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a response Malik. I'm sure you are very familiar with policy. The sources do not refer to Palestinians independent of Israel as "cancer" and no source refers to leftists as owning a "badge of honor." Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're expected to write encyclopedia articles in our own words based on what is written in reliable sources. We're not expected—in fact, we're not allowed—to quote or closely paraphrase the words in the source. I'm sorry if you're not able to read the sentence above and understand that it means leftists take pride in being on Masada2000's S.H.I.T. List. I don't know what else to tell you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Malik. So, as an editor, I have a right to make my own inference based on editorials or a group of like-minded thinkers even though the source material might not include a single word from my contribution? Is that what you're saying? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote what I'm saying. Please read it again if you don't understand it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We are not talking about the so-called "Palestinian" Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza... the "occupied," or "administered" territory (which, by the way, Israel captured as a result of a war BROUGHT TO THEM by the Arab world!). It doesn't really matter that much since BOTH the Arabs in the West Bank/Gaza AND within Israel itself consider themselves to be "Palestinians," rather than Israelis!" I think the current wording is in line with what they say although it's hard to divine their meaning as they seem to employ their own definitions of who's in a group. Trying to figure out what they mean makes my head hurt.

These aren't the most inflammatory quotes from Masada2000. They ridicule democracy, the U.S., Jews, every Israeli PM of the last few decades, gays and a few religious denominations. It's probably going to remain a pretty one-sided article as M2K's notability only stems from offending people and I doubt you'd find many sources discussing their positive impact. But if you do, go for it. "Badge of honor", which might work as RS in this limited area (there are quite few others using the same phrase). Sol 02:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol Goldstone (talk • contribs)

I don't care for Masada but I'm just bothered by the way the article is formatted and written. Just a collection of quotes and criticisms from Masada targets. From reading the article by itself, I don't know anything about the website other than a vocal group of leftists hate it. Take this for example:

As one woman explained, "I felt that I am in good company when I saw who else was on the list."[4] According to one writer, "activists compare their status, those who are left out wondering whether they should submit themselves."

"As one women explained, according to one writer." Hey, did Wikipedia suddenly become a newspaper? Am I the only one seeing this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting the existence of the Facebook group On the Masada 2000 S.H.I.T list and lovin' it!!, with 468 members. The group says of itself: "We are members of a very special elite group. We are Jews (whether practicing or not) who have been singled out for our work for justice for Palestine, and placed on the Zionist www.masada2000.org hate-site's S.H.I.T. list (acronym for "self-hating, Israel-threatening Jews"). Also very welcome in this group are Jews (whether practicing or not) who have not yet been chosen for Masada 2000's S.H.I.T. list and who aspire to be placed on it, as well as non-Jews, people of any background, who are friends and supporters of the Jews on the Masada 2000's S.H.I.T. list. We also wish to thank the hate-mongers of www.masada2000.org for providing such a helpful networking tool! Free Palestine!" Makes it sound like a badge of honour to me! RolandR (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend a class in remedial English? The article clearly says that "Masada2000 is a California-based[1] Kahanist[2] website created and maintained by people from the United States, Israel, Brazil, and Switzerland.[3]" If you don't know what Masada2000 is after reading the article, whose fault is that?

You may not like it, but the site is principally known for its S.H.I.T. List. The article suffer from WP:UNDUE if it didn't discuss it at length. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was either written by an infant or lifted from a blog. See my explicit example above. I can't be the only one seeing this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Facebook a reliable source? Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly a reliable source foor the statement that such a Facebook exists, and for the group's own statement of its views. RolandR (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, who cares? So a Facebook group consisting of people who congratulate themselves for being on the "SHITLIST." What does this have to do with the "badge of honor" statement. I'm really concerned I'm the only editor here who sees something wrong with editors writing up their own interpretations of ideas based off sources they choose. In the presence of an admin no less. Here, in case you guys missed it:

As one woman explained, "I felt that I am in good company when I saw who else was on the list."[4] According to one writer, "activists compare their status, those who are left out wondering whether they should submit themselves."[4]

Are these kinds of edits acceptable??? Not a difficult question. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

The website hasn't been active for a while. I updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.191.51 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This site appears to be down with a message saying "Your domain has expired, please contact your domain provider to renew your domain". I don't know if this is temporary common reoccurrence or not. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Site

This is the very definition of hate speech and hate site, please make sure that it's described as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diefromevileye (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. I don't think the article can describe it as a hate site in Wikipedia's voice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diefromevileye (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]