Talk:Peace Now

Not very balanced

i have little to no knowledge of the issues and no understanding of the groups or politics, other than a general overview of the region and politics, thus why i was on this page, to learn more. so, maybe as an outsider i might bring some perspective. something i noticed is this: there seems to be no real information on when, who, and how the organization was founded, how it runs, and what its presence is like. in fact, there is no mention any person's name except for the general secretary, who appears at the end of the article in an anecdote that provides no real understanding of him or the organization, and this only comes after 3 paragraph that go into more detail on one the group's detractors, Ami Ayalon, where it tells us what he used to do, the name of something he authored, along with the co-author and describes his motives and arguments for three paragraphs. smacks a little of unbalanced bias. --65.113.35.130 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the big Peace Now demo was in Tel Aviv (not Jerusalem), in what's now called Itzaac Rabin Square (was it Kikar Malchai Israel then?). Somebody who knows for sure - please verify! :-)

I added "allegedly" with respect to the 400,000 because someone calculated how close the demonstrators would have had to be packed in order to fit in the area where it occurred - and it was impossibly close, especially for Israelis. Come to think of it - was the reported number 400,000 or 100,000? -- Marj Tiefert, Friday, May 17, 2002

Yes, the big demo was in Tel Aviv, on Kikar Malchei Israel (now Kikar Rabin), and on September 25, 1982. I confused this with the demonstration on February 11, 1983 following the publication of the Kahan report (on which Emil Grunzweig was killed). Righteous Victims (by Benny Morris), on p. 548 says "hundreds of thousand (the organizer claiming 400,000)". Indeed, my estimates show that the Rabin Square in Tel Aviv (known in the past as Kings of Israel Square) is too small for 400,000 people as it is now (and the recent demonstrations top at 100,000), but about half of it is taken by newer buildings that were perhaps not there in 1982. As to density, Israelis are as used to it as any other nation :-). --Uriyan

But they gotta have room to wave their arms around! ;-) -- Marj Tiefert, Saturday, May 18, 2002

___

This article is ridiculously and insultingly POV. Not a word about when Shalom Achshav was founded, by whom, Emil Grunzweig is not mentioned in the body of the article, facts are scant; but adjectives like "surrender", "defeatism" and "unrealistic" abound. And what is this BS about "Song for Peace" and the Oslo accords? "Song for Peace" was written in 1969 [1], the Oslo Accords weren't until 1993. I hate to be dragged into political arguments. I don't particularly want to touch this article, but it reeks. I wish I hadn't read it and didn't have to do battle with myself not to edit for the next two hours.--Woggly 06:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have translated the corresponding article from the Hebrew wikipedia, currently up at User:Woggly/temp, waiting for this article to be unprotected. --Woggly 11:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

209.135.35.83, whoever you are: please don't start a revert war. You can always use this talk page to discuss your grievances. The "Song for Peace" was written in the aftermath of the Six Day War, in 1969, a good twenty-something years before the Oslo accords; this is well documented. I've never even heard of that other song by Rotblit, whatever it was did not catch on. I'm not sure either song belongs here in this particular article. Also, you seem to think the fact that Peace Now has lost support in recent years is so important as to justify putting in the lead. I disagree: stating this in the lead makes it seem that you're dismissing the entire movement as superfluous, which perhaps you would like to do, but the natural encyclopedic order is to go by a historic timeline. Peace Now is not defunct, it is still an active movement, and if it is not in the height of its popularity there's no need to gloat. --Woggly 05:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Woggly, while Rotblit did write the song for peace after the six-day way. peace now did adopt it as a anthem. the song for eretz yisrael is on rotblit's web site and it currently rather popular, though not on the leftist media. indeed i do think that they growth and waning of support for peace now is important. superfluous? not at all. rather responsible to state the current status in the lead section, just as i would expect to find regarding the libertarian, democratic and republican parties in the us. as well as the yippie movement...no gloating, i dont give a fig about peace now one way or the other.

If you don't give a fig as you claim, why are you insisting on reverting the page time and time over, including reinstating information that you have just admitted you know to be misleading (regarding when the song was written) and a typo (aslo/also)? --Woggly 06:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The issue of whatever other songs were written by this person is clearly irrelevant to this page. --Zero 16:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Or start a seperate article about Rotblit, there's plenty of info on him, he's a pretty well-known Israeli songwriter. Despite what you have claimed, "Song for Peace" is not an official anthem for Peace Now. It is not mentioned anywhere on their website, for example, nor does the Rotblit website mention Peace Now by name (just "Mahane hashalom", which is a more general affiliation). The song was used by the Meretz party in one of their election campaigns, I believe directly following Rabin's assassination. Meretz was the only group to officially adopt the song as an anthem, (and quite a few Peace Now supporters were actually quite upset by this, as it "spoiled" the song's apolitical integrity for them). In fact, the history of "Song for Peace" is probably interesting enough to merit the song itself having an article here on Wikipedia. But I agree with Zero that this discussion, interesting as it may be, is mostly irrelevent to the Peace Now article. --Woggly 06:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Have you read the surveys at the Tami Steinmetz Center of the University of Tel Aviv? The Al-Aqsa Intifada has had a significant effect on Israeli public opinion. One effect is a significant drop in support for Peace Now, the Oslo Accords and Geneva Initiative. Peace Now pre-dates, Oslo as you say. The Republican Party predates Ronald Reagan. Nonetheless, organizations change, evolve and espouse new efforts and individuals over time.

I don't need a survey to tell me that the Al-Aqsa Intifada has had a significant effect on Israeli public opinion, or that the popularity of Peace Now has waned - I live in Israel. The Al-Aqsa Intifada predates the Geneva Initiative, so it could not have affected a drop in support for the initiative. Your current phrasing implies that the surveys you refer to prove that the Oslo process collapsed due to failures of the Palestinian authority. Is that really what you meant to say? At least you have stopped insisting that "Song for Peace" was written in 1992. --Woggly 14:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am surprised to hear that "I insisted Song for Peace was written in 1992", can you show me a place where I made such a statement?

You wrote, and insisted on reinstating time and time again: The anthem of Peace Now is A Song for Peace whose lyrics were written by Yaakov Rotblit during the height of hopes regarding the Oslo Accords. This would be round about 1992, plus minus a year - or are you claiming that "the height of hopes regarding the Oslo Accords" was in 1969?

And here's why I'm about to revert the following paragraph:

With the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada (2000 to present), the movement has hit an all-time low, in light of what seems from a present perspective as the collapse of the peace process set into motion at Oslo due to failures within the Palestinian Authority as detailed in regular surveys by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at the University of Tel Aviv.

The link to the Tami Steinmetz Center is positioned in such a way as to misleadingly suggest that it contributes credibility to the statment that the peace process collapsed due to failures within the Palestinian Authority. In fact, the link does not even lead to the surveys you mention, does not mention Peace Now anywhere that I've been able to easily find, and so is totally irrelevant here. People reading this discussion are welcome to follow the link and see for themselves. --Woggly 06:59, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A little search has yielded the following link: http://spirit.tau.ac.il/socant/peace/peaceindex/2004/files/may2004e.pdf

Also, check the following graph: http://spirit.tau.ac.il/socant/peace/ , the red line represent the support in the Oslo accords in percents. You can clealy see it did hit all-time low. MathKnight 19:38, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will re-insert the paragraph in, with the additional links provided here. MathKnight 18:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not disputing facts, I am disputing their relevance here, and the particular misleading positioning and phrasing of the facts.

Peace Now is not synonymous with the Israeli Peace Camp. It is not synonymous with the Oslo Accords, or the National Census, or Meretz, or the Rabin assassination. If you want to keep the article NPOV, try not to get carried off into describing related but seperate issues. That's what the links to other articles are for. --Woggly 10:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peace Now is the mainstream (and the largest faction) of the Israeli peace camp and affilated\identified with the groups you mentioned - although they are not part of Peace Now. As for the criticism, you may not like it but it exists and it should appear. This is no secret the Peace Now is in a low and managed to lost a lot of the public support it had before 2000. As for "Symbols", instead of leaving a one-line tidbid I gave a little background to it.

I've reinserted much of the paragraph back and changed them a little. Before you revert it back (unjustifiedly, IMHO) please copy relevant sections you disagree to here, in order to discuss them. After the page was long-time protected we don't need another edit-war. MathKnight 11:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your comment, I'll be right back with a longer explanation. --Woggly 12:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, here's the sentence that ticked me off: and not being treated as enemies (as the current leadership of Peace Now treats them).

That is a very strong statement, and unsubstantiated. I don't care if it's Ami Ayalon's opinion. The criticism section, as it currently stands, does give the general gist of Ayalon's speech. In my opinion, giving more than this is not justified.

As for the "symbols", the whole section is silly. The history of "Song for Peace" is longer, more complex and more interesting than what's up there: maybe it deserves an article of its own, but just writing something inaccurate and not totally relevant on the "Peace Now" page is annoying. And Kikar Rabin is where the right-wing hold their major demonstrations, too; as well as many apolitical events. It doesn't belong to Peace Now any more than "Song for Peace" does. Also, before you revert back, notice that there are errors in the version you have been reverting to (a missing closing parenthesis, for example). --Woggly 12:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it is the only statement the bothers you, it can be removed (although Ayalon clearly states that). Is the rest of the paragraph is fine with you?

As for "symbols", you have a point that is only a minor issue. MathKnight 12:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, in my opinion, the sentence: Ami Ayalon ... has criticized Peace Now for demonizing the Jewish settlers ... encouraging hate towards settlers, and providing the general public reasons to dislike the peace camp. sums it up well enough. The rest of the paragraph is, in my opinion, superfluous; it gives too much weight to the opinion of one not terribly central political figure. But I don't object to the point that I would bother reverting back, if you insisted on reinstating that bit. Thanks for discussing this civilly, I appreciate that. --Woggly 13:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You welcome. I would insist of re-inserting the entire paragraph since it is not only a criticism of Ayalon, but also of a majority of the Israeli public on Peace Now and the peace camp. Ayalon so far enjoying a honorable reputation and political neutrality in the Israeli public, making him accpetable both on Right and Left. MathKnight 13:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peace Now and Microsoft

If you use an operation system other than Windows, please complain to Peace Now about how their site is full of Microsoft-specific coding and can't be viewed properly on anything else. --Zero 06:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

How to avoid Original Research

In order to avoid original research, one needs to cite what reliable sources have said on a matter, in a neutral way. For example, if one is citing criticisms of Peace Now, one must say "X has criticized Peace now on the grounds that it does Y", with a link to the source stating that. Then, if one wishes to "defend" Peace Now against that criticism, one must similarly state "However, A has stated that X's criticism is invalid, for the following reasons". One should not be making up criticisms, nor should one make up defences of those criticisms; rather, one should quote the critic, then quote someone else responding to that critic. I hope this is helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How do we label this group?

This is always fun and easy to do with no differing opinions, right? :) It seems that the lead should be as NPOV as possible with expansion to follow. Anyways, how do reliable sources "peg" this group? TIA --Tom 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is widely regarded as a radical left wing organization and is referred to as such in most of the sources cited in this article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 19:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What sources? This articles has more cite tags than my dog has fleas :) Seriously, I am going to remove a bunch of the unsourced material here shortly. Again, can we please put links/sources here and I would be happy to add them to the article. Thanks! --Tom 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This article by Y-net that is cited in the article refers to them as a left-wing organization. This article by Arutz 7 from this morning refers to them as a radical left-wing organization. --PiMaster3 ^talk 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PiMaster3 is absolutely correct. Israeli politics clearly are divided into a spectrum, with right, left and far right and far left. It doesn't get more left than Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) and removing it will simply not give the accurate picture. Amoruso 01:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the right label for Peace now is "Extreme Left wing Antisemitic Terrorrists".Axxn 15:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence to this article is ridiculous, and defies WikiPedia standards. The phrase "it is widely regarded as" is weasel words, and these things are frowned upon in articles, for reasons which should be obvious. The weasel words have been taken out of the article, and what remains is simply a declaration that Peace now is left-wing, which is even worse. The article should be NPOV, and the facts within the article should allow the reader to decide for themselves whether or not this organization is right-wing, left-wing, centrist, or whatever. Now, are there credible people who claim Peace Now is centrist? Yes, including some from within the heart of the Israeli establishment, such as former foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami. Read the interview with him at http://democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml, where he states "...even Shalom Achshav, which is a centrist — it's not a leftwing". Of course if you refer to conservative newspapers such as Ynet, of course they would consider Peace Now to be left-wing. I'm sure the Wall Street Journal would also consider them left-wing. Siding with these such publications is a slap in the face to the concept of NPOV, "a fundamental WikiPedia principle". To leave the article as is would be an academic disgrace. DeusIrae 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New Controversy

It has bee discovered that Peace Now was erroneous and criminal in its accusations of the community of Revava. Peace Now stated the community sat on land that was 71.15% privately owned by Palestinians. This has been disproved. The land in question is actually 22% Palestinian and Peace now has been convicted of slander by an Israeli court ordering them to apologize, Justice Barclay ruled that they must pay the Fund for Redeeming the Land 20,000 shekels plus tax. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128821

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/14/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Settlements.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.117.88 (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

HEllo

we are doing a project on peace now! how many people are in this group?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.32.137 (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 

Deleted material

RolandR has deleted a great deal of relevant information with the motivation "Removed highly POV commentary, well-poisoning headings and captions, and other unacceptable material". This doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain yourself? And if you feel there is a POV, it's more constructive to work out a better version than deleteing lock, stock and barrel. Thank you. --Jonund (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to delete the photo in the Disinformation about Settlements section. The photo accompanies a portion of the article about Maale Adumim, but Maale Adumim is not shown in the photo. The university on Mt. Scopus is. Mt. Scopus is not a settlement and is considered a part of pre-1967 Israel. Maybe someone can add a photo of Maale Adumim in its place. Poldy Bloom (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

CAMERA

Since when does CAMERA satisfy the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source? Zero^talk 05:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes by Malik Shabbazz

Malik Shabbaz has once again changed parts of the article, referring to WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. His changes are not easy to understand.

The information that 41 % versus 19 % of Israelis agree that Peace Now has done great damage to Israel is clearly relevant to the passage, as the readers get to know that Ayalon is right in his claim that they are not popular among the public – something that we are all the more obliged to tell when we use the insinuating words you added, “what he described as”. Which is the new position advanced by the juxtaposing of Ayalon’s statement and the confirmation of his factual claim?

Images are important for making articles nice and readable. Their use should be encouraged. Deleting an image of a Euro bill in a passage dealing with EU funding with a reference to WP:IRRELEVANT is astounding. The rule gives no support for deletion. A Euro bill is as good an illustration for EU funding as there can be.

The source clearly says that Oppenheimer refuses to tell what the annual budget is. That means it is secret, not that it’s “not known”. The JP editorial used the term appalled, so it is most descriptive, and “said” is rather stereotype.

How a picture of Maale Adumim illustrating Peace Now’s claims about the settlement there could be POV is beyond me. And, as I have already said, when you are convicted of libel you have committed disinformation, not misinformation. And how can it be POV to describe Peace Now’s hoax as an infiltration of the Knesset building?

Some of the changes seem provocative in light of my arguments in the edit comments; others at least require an explanation. In any event, the scornful remark that “if you want to write an editorial of your own, start a blog”, is out of place. --Jonund (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SYNTH? The fact that Ayalon made some comments and the fact that a public opinion poll was conducted have not been connected by a reliable source. Combining them is a perfect example of synthesis.

The "source" about the Peace Now budget is a newspaper editorial. That means it's not a reliable source. Peace Now's budget isn't secret, except in the opinion of the editorial writer. The editorial voice of the encyclopedia, unlike that of the newspaper columnist, must remain neutral. That means "secret", "appalled", "disinformation", "infiltration", and similar POV words don't belong here.

The images are irrelevant and their captions are POV. What does a Euro note have to do with Peace Now?

As I wrote, if you want to write an article about how evil Peace Now is, write a blog. If you're going to collaborate on an encyclopedia article, you must abide by policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says that we should not use synthesis of published material to advance a new position. Which is the position I have advanced? Juxtaposing the poll with Ayalon's statement gives support for the factual basis of his premise. The result is hardly different from rendering the poll in an other place in the article (which the alternative would be, as the information clearly belongs in the article). Is the conclusion that Ayalon was right in his description of Peace Now's impopularity disputable? Or are you refering to WP:SYNTH just to be bloody-minded?

The JP editorial says Oppenheimer declined to say what the budget is. Apparently, the newspaper had asked. That doesn't sound like merely "not known". I have searched for information about their budget, but not found anything. Do you have a source for saying that it's not secret?

You failed to explain why words like "secret", "appalled", "disinformation" and "infiltration" are POV in this context. I'm sure you understand that attempting to exchange "disinformation" for "misinformation" puts your own POV on public display.

Your questioning of a Euro note as illustration for a section about EU funding is no less transparent. If the captions are the problem, modifications should be attempted. --Jonund (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from your comments here and the fact that your edits elsewhere are routinely reverted as POV-pushing that you haven't grasped the concept of NPOV. I'm afraid it's pointless to discuss the issue with an editor who is unable or unwilling to understand such a basic concept. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tymoney5150's comment

I'm confused why so much of the sourcing for this article is from a lobby group (Alex Safian/CAMERA), or from the group itself. Especially since CAMERA has engaged in a wikipedia editing campaign in order to promote their framing of Israeli politics in the English media. How can this be considered a good-enough source upon which to base a large portion of the article? I am generally new to this topic, but am currently doing some research on this group for a paper that I'm writing for a graduate course in political science at Hebrew University. I figured I'd drop in and see what the Wikipedia page said, and I was surprised to see so little information in the article, and so much editorial bashing of the group. It would be nice if some peer-reviewed sources were used to beef up the article. For this, I would recommend considering Tamar Hermann's new book "The Israeli Peace Movement," which seems to do a nice job. I don't mind the CAMERA stuff being present, but it seems like a failure for so much of the article to be focused on their criticisms. Is there nothing more to Peace Now than what CAMERA has to say? Or Peace Now's website? Again, peer-reviewed sources would be a great help to this article, as I saw none referenced in the footnotes. Tymoney5150 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC) August, 2010.

I've done the 'Disputed information about settlements' paragraph, but the entire article as a whole is riddled with intentional deceit, NPOV issues, and dead or misrepresented links. Quite a lot of work to be done on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty jar (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Still this page is one of the shabbiest I've seen in terms of neutrality, or basic referencing. Marty jar (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Request unprotection of infbox on Peace Now's page

I am currently editing Peace Now's wikipedia page on behalf of said organisation, therefore I request the infobox be unprotected so as to allow me to add values to currently absent fields. I want to add information to the "founders" fields of the infobox to include "Amoz Oz", Amir Peretz (MK), "Yuli Tamir", "Tzaly Reshef", "Janet Amiad", "Gavri Bar Gil", "Galia Golan"

Jasonlevy (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Jasonlevy, 12.54, 15 November 2011

 Not done You need to request it at WP:RPP...also be aware of WP:COI CTJF83 13:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't protected at the moment is it ? Other than potential conflict of interest, is something stopping you from making that edit to the infobox Jason. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Peace demo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Peace demo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Price tag.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Price tag.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Peace now demo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Peace now demo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Peace now demo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Im Tirzu allegations

Regarding this edit: There is no "POV" being attributed to Im Tirzu, so WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV doesn't apply. Either Maariv found that NIF received those funds, or the allegations don't belong in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ma'ariv doesn't characterize Im Tirtzu's data as allegations. What the article says is,

Later the video presents a breakdown of the financial support Shalom Achshav received from European countries. "Thus for example in 2009 alone Shalom Achshav received ILS 844,000 from the Norwegian Embassy, 731,000 from the U.K., and 555,000 from the Belgian government."

If one insists on following a strict interpretation of the article's language then the attribution to Im Tirtzu isn't necessary since Maariv is accepting Im Tirtzu's figures as what Shalom Achshav actually received. However, this is likely a case where erring on the side of caution is preferable and attribution should still be used, since the figures themselves are in between quotation marks from the Im Tirtzu video.—Biosketch (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In other words, Maariv is just repeating what Im Tirzu said in its video (hearsay). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What Ma'ariv is doing – whether they're repeating hearsay or quoting credible figures from a notable critic of Shalom Achshav – is not something that can be determined by editors conclusively. What can be said with confidence is that Ma'ariv is a reliable source; and the information it reported, in the manner it reported it, has been reproduced by the edit accurately and in compliance with the policies of this encyclopedia.—Biosketch (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Aim

User:Biosketch changed the aim of Peace Now from "promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace" to "promoting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I don't think either of these is correct. The were originally created to oppose the continuing occupation of the Egyptian Sinai. That has absolutely nothing to do with either premise. Their website states that they are an "Israeli public pressure for peace". So I think their aim can be best described as "promotig Arab-Israeli peace". Poyani (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not using Wikipedia's voice it can't. In fact, far too much of this article relies on Shalom Achshav's own website for information that's passed off as objective when it should be attributed to the website, assuming it should be in the article at all. I suppose a Template:Advert tag is a reasonable place to start in that respect. There are also problems of WP:COI going back to User:Jasonlevy's edits that presumably warrant a Template:COI tag.—Biosketch (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:User backs Peace Now in Israel

This user backs Peace Now.

Similarly themed templates are at: Category:Israeli-Palestinian peace user templates

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Conversation on poll in second Intifada section

The following is a conversation from the talk page of Igorp_lj

Poll on Peace Now article

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

You reverted my edit on Peace Now. A poll is a primary source. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. Do you have any media articles that report on this poll? Otherwise it's not a valid source... --Perplexed566 (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll check.

At the moment: it seems to me that this poll is more RS and closely concerns to "Peace Now and the Second Intifada (2000–2005)" section than the following PR about its own success from Peace Now itself & its allies:

Despite the arguable decline in the Israeli public's support for the Oslo Peace Process, Peace Now succeeded in leading a demonstration of 100,000 people (in May, 2002) for the purposes of pressuring the government to withdraw from all Palestinian territories.[23] (According to "Peace Now" itself) Shortly after the outbreak of the Second Intifada, Peace Now was instrumental in creating the Israeli Peace Coalition, which later evolved into the Israeli-Palestine Peace Coalition.[1] Its main objective is to end the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, and to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution.[24]

Let's clarify & continue at Talk:Peace Now. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly this is open to input from others.

I'd like to keep the conversation focused on the poll. No doubt, there are other things that need editing in that section too. The paragraph cited above is one. So are the Wiesel Words like "arguably." Let's set that aside for the moment.

To re-state my case with some elaboration: Polls are done all the time. Just because something appeared in a poll doesn't make it significant. Most polls are probably WP:FART. Moreover, sometimes poll questions are framed in ways that produce a certain result. To abuse a famous quote: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The appropriate standard for including it in the article, would be to see that a reliable source (i.e. a mainstream paper) found it worthwhile enough to discuss. The source, also, could not be the pollster or the group that commissioned the poll. They don't show that the poll was significant, just that it was. Perplexed566 (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Perplexed566: Regarding to your revert: it's no "per Talk", it's per your POV. As I've wrote above, I'm checking an issue, adding at the moment the following info & RS and repairing & clarifying what's needed:

Despite the arguable decline in the Israeli public's support for the Oslo Peace Process,[23][24] Peace Now succeeded in leading a demonstration of between 60,000[25] to 100,000[26] in May 2002, after Israeli military forces began on March 29 a large-scale military Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank and as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was mobilizing reserve forces for a possible military invasion of Gaza. The demonstration was held under the banner "Get Out of The Territories".[27][28] According to "Peace Now" itself,..

One may see that new info doesn't contradict with poll's results. So I return the info & RS about it. My check is continuing and let's wait about a week+ and then we'll discuss its results. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to wait a bit longer. (One wonders why my edit is unacceptable to you while we wait. The better approach, I believe, would be to leave the poll out until we can show that it meets the standard, but I'm willing to let that go for now...) There is a significant question here about the notability of the poll. For the record, the charge of POV pushing is out of line. In fact, I believe that Peace Now's popularity did decline in this period. However, it should be written in a way that relies on appropriate sources and is worded to avoid weasel constructs. For example, beyond the question of this poll, every time I see the word "arguable" in this section, I cringe. We need to attribute each of these opinions to the person (or persons) who made that argument. Perplexed566 (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the poll for now. We can add it back it there's a reliable source that found it notable enough to publish it.Perplexed566 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the 90s?

The era from 1993 to 1999 was clearly one of the strongest moments for Peace Now. They were everywhere (as I remember). Yet somehow that part of the story is missing. Anybody up for getting that started?Perplexed566 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Here's what Haartetz says about the PN report on Ma'ale Adumim:

"The Peace Now report did indicate, however, that contrary to numbers released by the movement in November, little private land was seized from Palestinians to build Ma'aleh Adumim, the largest settlement in the West Bank. The new numbers are vastly smaller than numbers Peace Now issued in an earlier report based on leaked information. The group claimed in November that 86 percent of Ma'aleh Adumim, which has more than 30,000 residents, was built on private Palestinian land. After successfully petitioning the court to see the database, the group reported Wednesday that data show only 0.5 percent of the settlement is built on private land."

- could you explain what part of the edit your reverted is not supported by this? Epson Salts (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I thought you had just reverted my edit. To avoid future misunderstandings, please don't click on the "Undo" button. Instead, edit the old version and make your changes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to pin your incompetence on me. What you claim is a "self-revert" is not accurate, and still does not reflect what the source says , I will rewrite to reflect sources accurately in due course. Epson Salts (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Two points: (1) There is no way that Settler News 7 or Camera are going to be cited on this. If you want a source to the right of Haaretz, use JP or Ynet. (2) The text should distinguish more carefully between the totals for West Bank and the vales for Ma'ale Adumim. Zero^talk 00:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

My text clearly talks about Ma'ale Adumim. What issue do you have with it? Epson Salts (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for Extended Confirmed Protection

This article is highly relevant to Arab-Israeli conflict, and this organisation played significant part of it. Based on General WP:ARBPIA sanctions, this article should be placed under Permanent 30/500 protection. Any administrators should take action if this request were ever seen. Thank you. 1.152.107.150 (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to request protection; please direct your request to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

• Please change the current CEO: Since 2018, the CEO is Shaqued Morag.
• Please remove the segment about financing by foreign governments.If not, at least remove the line: "According to Im Tirtzu, Peace Now received ILS 844,000 from the embassy of Norway in 2009, as well as ILS 731,000 from the United Kingdom and ILS 555,000 from the Belgian government.[9]" Peace nows' funding is publicly known, there is no conspiracy. Major donors can be found here: https://www.guidestar.org.il/organization/580037430/donations
• Please add information about Peace nows' petition to the supreme court to evacuate Amona, which led to its dissovlment. Information here: https://peacenow.org.il/en/demanding-evacuation-amona, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-army-begins-demolition-of-illegal-outpost-in-amona-1.6806109, https://www.yesh-din.org/en/the-illegal-outpost-of-amona-theft-of-private-palestinian-land-a-chronology-1995/ עומר תשבי (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources presented below either are not independent or failed verification. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually did provided sources. The fact that there is a new CEO is very easy to verify, You just need to read Hebrew. Here is a link for that: https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/politi/1.6219992. The question of the funding is also very simple, just go to the links above. I would have done myself if I could. עומר תשבי (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Done for Moraq, just used Peace Now as a source. nableezy - 22:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Peace Now

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/4129 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/the_100_year_betrayal_of_israel_by_the_west.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.38 (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Those arent really usable sources, sorry. nableezy - 02:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)