Talk:Zionist entity/Archive 1

message: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, even less a dictionary of pejorative terms. This article should be deleted. --FvdP 21:59, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll note that terms cited in "List of pejorative political slogans" tend not to have their own article, e.g. "islamofascism": instead, islamofascism redirects to LoPPS. If I remember well, this was the result of a request of deletion for Islamofascism, which I supported as well BTW. I think people who read "zionist entity" know pretty well they're actually reading "israel", they do not need this article to enlighten them. The term "zionist entity" might well be cited somewhere in Wikipedia though, but I don't like the idea of Wikipedia be used as a receptacle for hate speech. --FvdP 23:49, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Bertilvidet, I'm rather surprised. The combination is pejorative. Only anti-zionists use this combination, and it must be emphasized in the article.  --Gabi S. 11:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I can not see how it is a pejorativ. Both terms seem neutral. It is completely different from "Zionist pigs" (a title that I immediately would nominate for speedy deletion) that you suggested in an edit summary. Bertilvidet 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking for the quoted term "Zionist Entity" in a well-known search engine, the first 100 references are mostly from Muslim countries or, peculiarly, from Germany. It seems that the term is not used in any of the Americas, Africa, Central Asia, Eastern Asia, most of Europe, Australia and some small Middle-Eastern countries. And wherever it is used, it is usually in a negative context (, ,  and more). I rest my case. --Gabi S. 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 237.000 hits on Google should make it clear that the term is used. The first hit is "Global Security". It will be an exhausting task to analyze how it is used. I would also expect the term to be used mainly in Muslim countries, and so what? The term is clearly used to describe the state of Israel. Bertilvidet 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is used, no one disputed it. But it is used as a pejorative term by Muslims and anti-Zionists. The "Global Security" article uses the term as tongue-in-cheek. I did analyze the first 100 entries, and the results clearly show that wherever the term is used, it is usually in a negative context (I gave some examples above). To claim that it's a neutral term is incorrect and misleading. --Gabi S. 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I believe you. The term might primarily be used by people who question Israel's right to exist. But I can still not see how the term per se is pejorative. Bertilvidet 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving the "pejorative" issue aside, the definition "Term used by anti-Zionists to portray Israel as an illegitimate state" is accurate and NPOV. Redirecting it directly to Israel is taking the term out of context, and misleading. --Gabi S. 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Go ahead. As for your previous question, many terms look pejorative to one side but perfectly neutral for the other side. For example, Final Solution probably sounded like a good solution to some European problems at that time, at least to Nazi supporters. --Gabi S. 17:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Why should this have its own page, when the one line description (already) fits easily into the List of political epithets#Zionist entity? If the entry there expands significantly, then we should perhaps consider a separate page. In the meantime, is anyone opposed to a redirect? TewfikTalk 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me, obviously. It's not "another term for the State of Israel", it's a disparaging epithet used by those who can't bear to let the country's name cross their lips, lest by so doing they somehow give it some legitimacy. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with redirect per Tewfik and Jay.  6SJ7 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it re-directed to the List of political epithets, which is what "Zionist entity" is, and which discusses "Zionist entity". Please stop changing this against consensus, and pretending that your reversions to your previous versions are "compromise". Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, there is no consensus. For this reason there is a request for mediation. So far may I suggest that we find a compromise. IMO a compromise is a little sentence about the expression, rather than any of the redirects we would prefer. If each of us impatiently opt for our own preference it will just be a never-ending revert war. As you can see here on the talk page Gabi S agreed on the compromise. It isnt my preferred option, but I realize that we need to seek compromise here. Bertilvidet 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is a consensus. 4 editors have stated it should re-direct to List of political epithets, and one (you) wants it to be something else. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wikipedia articles are not dictionary definitions. Gabi S was beaten down by your constant reverting, and your particular version was indeed your version, not a "compromise". Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not analyze on Gabi S' reasons to agree with my suggested wording. As I understand you don't agree may I ask for your suggestions? Bertilvidet 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't need to analyze her reasons, I just need to look at her edits to see her preference:   My suggestion is that you respect the consensus. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I kindly urge you to have a look at the talk page. Indeed, Gabi and I had debates about to where this article should redirect. However, I deeply respect Gabi for taking the time to engage in debates and searc for a compromise rather than blindly reverting. This is how we reached the sentence Another term for the State of Israel. The term is primarily used by individuals, organizations and states who question the legitimacy of Israel. You have of course your right to dispute this compromise. But may I then suggest you to come with other proposals than starting from the very beginning. Bertilvidet 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My I kindly urge you to look at the dates of Gabi's reversions; she reverted you days after the alleged "agreement" on this Talk: page. As explained above, "Zionist entity" is not just "another term for Israel", it's a pejorative epithet.  The fact that Gabi took my response to your "compromise wording" above and inserted it verbatim in the "list of political epithets" while thanking me should tell you something. The fact that a number of others disagreed with you should also tell you something. But don't call your particular POV version, which no-one agrees with, a "compromise". My personal preference would be to delete and protect this article against re-creation; the fact that it exists at all is a compromise. Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for the confusion. I agreed to Bertilvidet's suggestion on 29-Aug-2006, then I thought it over, and changed my mind (as explained right here, below - Zionist entity DOES NOT EQUAL Israel). I think that "Zionist Entity" is more than a term "used by those who question Israel's legitimacy"; it is something worse, a disparaging epithet, and that's why I changed it to redirect to List of political epithets. Due to this disagreement with Bertilvidet I filed a request for mediation on this issue. I hope that whatever is suggested by the mediation comitee will be regarded as a long-term solution. Ah, by the way, and irrelevantly to the discussion, I'm male. --Gabi S. 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I stand corrected, and will thus refrain from changing the page until the request for mediation has been adressed. Bertilvidet 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early comments 

message: Zionist Entity is a term used by Anti-Israel persons, because they are afraid that saying "Israel" might mean they support the State of Israel. I have a similar example: If person A calls person B a "nigger", he doesn't mean just to say that B is a black person of African origin. It has a negative context that cannot be ignored. So claiming that "Zionist entity" is Israel is wrong. The negative term "Zionist entity" is a political epithet, and that's where it belongs. --Gabi S. 07:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also reaffirm my position - this should be a redirect to List of political epithets#Zionist entity. TewfikTalk 19:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionist entity DOES NOT EQUAL Israel 

message: I have archived the old version of the talk page from before the mediation.  To see what was there beforehand click here.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Wouldn't it be more helpful to have actual quotes from people opposed to Israel's existence using the phrase, rather than people attacking people who oppose Israel's existence?  I'm sure that there are people who use the phrase to describe Israel, but from the quotes here, it makes it seem as if the phrase is only used in polemics against those who deny Israel's legitimacy. --Jfruh (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The account of the term's origin is unsourced, and I believe, wrong.  This URL  gives a 1947 Arabic usage translated as "Zionist Entity."  The reference to the Rogers plan is mysterious and wrong, at that date the US just thought the West Bank should go to Jordan, so I removed it.John Z 08:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now just a list of quotes denouncing the use of the term. This is POV, not to mention useless and irrelevent. Kauffner 07:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: The quotes have been converted to references, but what they say is still highly emotional and quite misleading. There is no taboo against using the word "Israel" and it is easy enough to find examples of Arafat, Nasar, Khomeini and other leaders using it. The word "Israel" is even in the PLO Covenant. The origin of the term "Zionist entity" is most likely a turnabout of the phrase "Palestinian entity." Kauffner (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Israel" as a taboo word 

message: User:Kauffner keeps removing the word "existence" from the phrase "denying Israel's existence", despite these reliable sources which use it:
*Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. pp. 161. . "Nations can be ignored by not recognizing their existence. Some Arabs would prefer not to speak of 'Israel', but of the 'Zionist entity'."
* Kirkpatrick, Jeane (1988). Legitimacy and Force: Natural and International Dimensions. Transaction Publishers. pp. 7. . "In this Arab world where faith and politics are linked, traditionalists and radicals, Saudis and Libyans, can unite in hostility against the state of Israel - whose right to exist they deny, whose very existence they refuse to acknowledge, whose name they refuse to utter, calling Israel instead 'the Zionist entity' or 'the deformed Zionist entity'."
* Sank, Diane & Caplan, David I. (1991). To Be a Victim: Encounters with Crime and Injustice. Plenum Press, 289. . "The very phrase 'Zionist entity' reveals the ultimate intention of those who use it. The State of Israel cannot be dignified by being called by its proper name. To refer to it as 'Israel' is to acknowledge its existence as a legal entity."
Please don't remove factual, reliably sourced material again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No one gets works up about a thing that they don't believe actually exists. It's a ridiculous claim no matter how many authors make it. Look at the examples of actual Arabs using the word: "The Zionist entity now feels that its end is near and it is acting in hysteria." If something doesn't exist, how can it be "acting in hysteria"? The people that you are quoting are political writers, not linguists. Kauffner (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Kauffner here. Refusing to recognize a country as a legal entity is not the same as "denying its existence". Israel obviously exists, nobody in their right mind would deny that, the Arab states just refused recognition, which is a diplomatic denial. The phrase "denying its existence" makes it sound as if Arabs are suffering from some sort of mass hallucination, which is surely not the meaning you are intending to convey. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter if you and Kauffner agree that the claim is ridiculous. Numerous reliable sources have described the claim exactly so - and we can't indulge in personal research, to change what reliable source say. NoCal100 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to understand Wikipedia standards. The person who wants to include the material has to justify it. What "reliable sources"? None of these sources are authorities on language use. Of the quotes listed, it is only Kirkpatrick who states clearly that Arabs don't believe Israel exists. In fact, the last quote says the opposite: "To refer to it as 'Israel' is to acknowledge its existence". I can assure you that Arabs often refer Israel as "Israel." The word is even in PLO covenant. Kauffner (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand Wikipedia standards very well, apparently, much better than you do. The standard on Wikipedia is verifiability - and it has been verified that multiple sources have said the phrase refers to non recognition of "Israel's existence". End of story. NoCal100 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but that's exactly my point NoCal. They deny recognition to Israel, they do not deny that Israel exists. Only a lunatic would do the latter. Gatoclass (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources very clearly say they deny Israel exists. You may think it is lunacy, but I disagree - and the bottom line is, on WP, we go by what reliable sources say. NoCal100 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, they don't say that at all. One says "The State of Israel cannot be dignified by being called by its proper name". That's not the same as denying the country exists. Another says "whose very existence they refuse to acknowledge". If I refuse to acknowledge you when I pass you in the street, does that mean I am denying that you exist? No, it just means I am withholding recognition. Choosing to ignore something and denying its existence are different things. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at what you have just quoted: ""whose very existence they refuse to acknowledge""". That is very explicitly what our article claims - that they refuse to acknowledge the existence. NoCal100 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but again, that is just my point. "Refusing to acknowledge" something is not the same as denying it exists. When Ehud Barak went to Camp David to meet Arafat, he sat with his back to Arafat the whole time. That was refusing to acknowledge his existence. But does that mean he would deny that Arafat existed? Of course not. He spoke about Arafat numerous times, what he was doing was denying Arafat respect. Gatoclass (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have reliable sources that say that Barak does not acknowledge Arafat's existence, we'd quote them, regardless of what we think of Barak's actions or the sources. the sources we have here say that those using the term 'Zionist Entity' refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel. If you'd like to change "denying Israel's existence and right to exist." to denying Israel's right to exist and refusing to acknowledge Israel's existence", I think I'd be fine with that. NoCal100 (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gatoclass, you seem to be ignoring the first source too, which states "Nations can be ignored by not recognizing their existence.  Some Arabs would prefer not to speak of 'Israel', but of the 'Zionist entity'." Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  Clear example of the tendentious editing by inserting misconstrued and/or highly selective quotes that has become popular in a certain WP camp lately. The last one is particularly laughable, but to the credit of the editor, at least he didn't truncate the last four words even though he could theoretically have. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to think about it too, but he is talking about the Sank and Caplan quote, the "last four words" of which are "as a legal entity". In other words, the quote implies that people who use the word "Zionist Entity" do acknowledge that Israel exists, it is just the legality that they deny. Kauffner (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire first sentence is a personal attack on contributors. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a comment on edits, such as this one. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: That was a comment about content, unless you count "credit to  the editor" as a comment on the contributor. The suggested new content, that had no support even in these highly selective quotes, has now been changed, which is good. MeteorMaker (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At least the text now agrees with what one of the purported sources says, which is a step forward. But what it says is still nonsense. Arabs use the word "Israel" all the time. Look at Daily Star of Lebanon, Saudi Gazette, or Arab News. An Arabic-language Google search reveals 95 million hits for "Israel" () versus 1.2 million for "Zionist entity" () So "Zionist entity" really isn't mainstream usage at all. (On a lighter note, I discovered that on Arabic Wikipedia "Zionist entity" is a redirect to "Israel.") Kauffner (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What, specifically, do you find to be "nonsensical"? NoCal100 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, "Zionist entity" is described in the text as a "euphemism". This implies that from an Arab point of view, "Israel" is a dirty word and they avoid using it. Second, the Kirkpatrick quote, which is the number one most prominently displayed source, states this idea explicitly -- that Arabs use "Zionist entity" because "Israel" is a "name they refuse to utter." Finally, the Sank quote is comically wrong: "To refer to it as 'Israel' is to acknowledge its existence as a legal entity." If only this was true! Kauffner (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a half-dozen other reliable sources discussing the phrase. Have you had a chance to review them? Do you have any which have differing views? Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think it needed any more refs, the article already looked untidily overreferenced without them. I don't think Kaufman's criticisms have any substance, it doesn't matter whether or not Arabs sometimes refer to Israel as Israel, all that matters is how and why the phrase "Zionist entity" is used, and that has already been adequately documented. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof should be on those who want to put this stuff in, not on me to find a source that justifies removing it. I notice that when I point out that your sources are mistaken, you don't even try to defend them. Even Hezbollah can use the word "Israel", as in "Israeli Domain Registration Server Hacked". So what Kirkpatrick writes can't possibly be true. The fact that you have a source is not a sufficient reason to add material if it can be shown that the source is mistaken. Kirkpatrick certainly isn't an expert on Arabic language use. Finally, to have footnotes filled with one-sided political commentary that are three or four times the length of the text they supposedly source is at very least an unusual format. Kauffner (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please familiarize your self with the basic wikipedia policies. The standard we operate by is verifiability, not "truth", whatever you imagine the latter to be. Every single statement in the article is verifiable, and impeccably sourced to reliable sources. If you think those sources are wrong, and want to argue against them - start a blog, post to usenet, write a letter to the editor. Here, we go by what reliable sources say. NoCal100 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Impeccably sourced"????? Please tell me you are kidding. Kirkpatrick is no one's idea of an Arabic language specialist. Kauffner (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so you don't understand the wiki concept of a reliable source - that's why I asked you to familiarize yourself with our basic policies. Kirkpatrick is quoted in Legitimacy and Force: Natural and International Dimensions, which is a reliable source. Seriously, do yourself a big favor and understand the concepts and principles this project is built one-  otherwise you will not only be very frustrated in your editing, but will likely get into trouble (read: blocked or otherwise sanctioned) sooner or later. NoCal100 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So Legitimacy and Force: Natural and International Dimensions is where language specialists publish? I didn't think so. Even if they did, it doesn't necessarily follow that we have to include the quote in the article. Kauffner (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Verifiability does not override neutrality. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting irrelevant pieces of policy is not helpful; in this case the material is both verifiable and neutral. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality doens't mean the source must be neutral. It means we have to report without taking party and in giving them their due weight all the relevant material on a topic... But I think that is what is done in Jayjg's version. If somebody wants to add something, because there would be another analysis of relevant information, he has to (globally) : 1. provide a wp:rs - 2. argue there is no undue:weight... Ceedjee (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Existence" 

message: Regarding Kauffner's edit, not only is the term "Zionist entity" a euphemism for Israel, but reliable sources say it is. Please stop removing cited fact in favor of your own views. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Euphemism" 

message: This article, 8 paragraphs long, devotes 7 paragraphs to discussing how Arab textbooks avoid using the term "Israel", and one paragraph mentioning that in contrast, Al Jezeera and other media do use the term. The term "Zionist entity" does not appear once in the article. Either this article is not appropriate for use as a source, in which case all quotes sourced to it go, or, if it is acceptable to use its final paragraph, it is equally valid to use the other 7, which are the main theme of the article. Removing the latter, but keeping the former is not acceptable. NoCal100 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those textbooks are for beginning speakers of Arabic. It is a very small niche compared to Al Jazeera. The article on Wiki repeatedly implies the reason Arabs use the phrase "Zionist entity" is because they wish to avoid using the word "Israel." So the fact that the Arab media freely uses the word "Israel" is, I think, relevant. I don't see what counting paragraphs in the Weekly Standard article is supposed to prove. Kauffner (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows that you are cherry picking a certain piece of the article, which is a side-note to the main theme, while the main theme is that Arab textbooks go to lengths to avoid using "Israel". The article does not once mention "Zionist entity", and it is original research to use it as a source in this article. NoCal100 (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the word "Israel" is standard usage on al-Jazeera, then obviously "Zionist entity" is not. So an article can say something about "Zionist entity" without actually using the term. If you think this is cherry picking, you can confirm it by checking the Daily Star of Lebanon or pretty much any other mainstream Arab news site. The common practice is to use "Israel" in news articles and "Zionist entity" only in quotes and opinions. Kauffner (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out to  you time and again, the above is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed on this project. In order to include something along those lines, you need to find a reliable sources that says it, explicitly. If the Weekly Standard article said something like "the word "Israel" is standard usage on al-Jazeera, who do not use "Zionist entity" " - it would be Ok to include it. But for Kauffner to deduce it, is original research. The cherry picking I am reffering to is taking one line out of a long article that discusses how Arab textbooks AVOID using Israel, in order to push the opposite POV. NoCal100 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You cite the part of the source that is relevant. If you think this is "cherry picking," you don't understand the concept. Textbooks for second language beginners are a tiny niche, not representative of mainstream language usage. But if you want to include them, that's fine with me. There is no rule to the effect that all cited sources must have name of the Wiki article in them. We can just present the evidence and let the reader make the deductions. Before the issue was secondary vs primary sources. Now that I've come with a secondary source, lo and behold, a new set of nonsensical sourcing rules. NPOV and verifiability are the core principles on Wiki, yet this article consists of 15 opinions representing one side of a controversial issue. Kauffner (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And who is to  say that the single line you cite is "relevant", but the 8 paragraphs you ignore are not relevant? where is the reliable source that claims "Textbooks are a tiny niche"? Please review WP:SYNTH, as your editing violates this basic policy. NoCal100 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left the original research material in for now, but restored the main thesis of the article. It's quite obvious that if the side-note that a couple of Arab media sources use the term "Israel" is relevant, then the main thesis of the article (the fact that Arab textbooks avoid the term "Israel") is relevant. In fact, it's even more relevant, since this article is about exactly that; Arab sources which avoid the term "Israel". If the main thesis of the source is removed again, then I will remove the entire source. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be relevant if the textbooks used the term "Zionist entity", but the quoted article makes no such claim. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor do the two Arab news sources use the term "Zionist entity". In fact, the cited article doesn't refer to the phrase "Zionist entity" at all. By all rights it should be removed entirely from this article, which is about the term "Zionist entity", a euphemism used by Arab sources to avoid saying or writing "Israel". Now, the fact that the cited article spends 90% of its contents noting that Arab textbooks also use euphemisms to avoid writing "Israel" is obviously directly relevant to this article; if the OR argument works at all, it is for the material that discusses Arab sources that use the term "Israel", which is not the topic of this article. In other words, contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, the main thesis of the article (and the least OR piece of it) was removed, while the side-bar (and most OR piece) was retained. Now, as I said, I think it should all be removed as OR; but if it's going to be included, then the article will certainly not be selectively cited in order to leave out its main thesis, and the facts in it that are most salient and relevant to this article. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you say "the fact that the cited article spends 90% of its contents noting that Arab textbooks also use euphemisms", what exact passage in the text are you referring to? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is that the textbooks avoid saying "Israel", as do those who use the pejorative euphemism "Zionist entity" instead. For example: The broader question raised by the acrobatic cartography of these textbooks is why the authors are so determined to avoid the word 'Israel.'. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you said it was a fact that the article "spends 90% of its contents noting that Arab textbooks use euphemisms". Isn't that a fact any more?  MeteorMaker (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article does point out that in a couple of cases the term "Palestine" is used instead, rather than the more common tactic of simply omitting any reference to the name. In any event, as I said, this article is about the term "Zionist entity", a euphemism used by Arab sources to avoid saying or writing "Israel". Did you have any comments you wished to make about article content, or did you just want to continue making meta-comments about my own comments? Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an unusual (and IMO improper) way to dismiss valid criticism of the premises of your edits. You prop up inclusion of an irrelevant fact in the article with "90% of its contents [notes] that Arab textbooks also use euphemisms to avoid writing "Israel"", and when it turns out that the figure instead is exactly 0%, basic honesty demands that you withdraw that premise as support for your conclusion. If the textbooks actually used "Zionist entity", you would have a case, but again, that is not what the article says. What it does confirm, however, is that "ZE" is not standard terminology in Arab news, which is otherwise an impression the article reader is left with. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "premises of my edits" were explained quite clearly above, when I quoted myself. I'll repeat them. This article is about the term "Zionist entity", a euphemism used by Arab sources to avoid saying or writing "Israel". As for your argument regarding "standard terminology in Arab news", not only is your conclusion WP:NOR, but the source in question in any event doesn't support it. Rather, it points out that exactly two Arab news sources uses the term "Israel". Both, as it turns out, are Western oriented. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Does it bother you at all that the claim that the Arabs avoid using the word "Israel" is factually nonsense? I can list any number of Arab news sources where "Israel" is standard usage. Even on Hamas and Hezbo sites, "Israel" is used at least as frequently as "Zionist entity." Someone above argued about that we have to go with the majority opinion, just like Earth going around the Sun vs Sun going around the Earth. But this article makes rather serious accusations against Arabs as an ethnic group which I think puts it in a different category. It's not like Kirkpatrick and the others are Arabic language specialists whose opinions can command respect on that basis. Kauffner (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: we report what reliable sources say. This article makes the verifiable claim that ZE is a pejorative term used to avoid using the word 'Israel'. It does not say 'Israel' is never used, so even putting aside the clear wikipedia policy against the kind of original research you are engaging in, from a pure logical perspective, you are arguing against a strawman. NoCal100 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone with no background on the issue who reads this article is likely to conclude the ZE is standard usage, which is misleading at best. Just because verifiable material doesn't fit your agenda doesn't mean it is original research. Kauffner (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: why would they conclude that, when the article does not say that? And you are simply incorrect - verifiable material which is strung together in order to reach a conclusion not made by the sources themselves is most certainly original research - read WP:SYNTH NoCal100 (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would a reader conclude that Arabs avoid saying the "Israel" and generally use ZE instead? Have you, well, read the article? The Kirkpatrick quote says the Arab world is "unite[d]" in "refus[ing] to utter" the word "Israel." She is cited as if she is a leading authority. I just summarize what the sources say and put that in the article. The conclusion is up to the reader. You seem to be confusing my article edits with what I write on the talk page. Kauffner (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources say that major Arab News media use "Israel". The article says exactly the same. No obvious issue with WP:SYNTH that I can see. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not Arab media, nor is it Israel. Feel free to add this claims to either one of those articles. NoCal100 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anybody claiming that either. Is your position still that it's WP:SYNTH to include the quote, and, if so, what conclusion do you see that wasn't in the original text? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source in question no-where refers to the phrase "Zionist entity". Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekly Standard article 

message: It would be interesting if the article could determine whether the term has ever been used by prominent people in the West, as well by Christians in both East and West. There is an important following of right-wing Christians led by Pat Buchanan in the United States and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France which more or less tends to regard Israel as a Zionist entity. There are also groups of Arab Christians in Lebanon that are strongly anti-Israel and that have adopted similar positions to those of the organization Hezbollah. ADM (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat Buchanan, as virulently anti-Israel as he is, says "Israel."  He may also use the term "Zionists" but I have never heard him use "Zionist entity" instead of Israel.  I don't know about any of the other people or groups you mention, but the use of "Zionist" entity in the U.S. is very rare.  6SJ7 (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage in the West and by Christians 

message: Above, Kauffner wrote:
Tilley is a very pro-Arab author. The material quoted in the article is her attempt to explain the Israeli POV. I suggest we replace it with a Tilley quote where she gives her own opinion: "The 'Zionist entity' later denounced in Arab rhetoric was the Jewish state, not the Jewish presence." (The One-State Solution, p. 202.) Kauffner (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tilley quote 

message: It seems that I have to explain WP:NOR yet again. No, it does not ban the use of primary sources. I quote: They "may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." The kind of the primary source NOR is referring to is material that is difficult to verify, such as witness testimony, unpublished information, archival data, and ancient documents requiring expert interpretation. A published example of a particular word usage is not in the same category. The purpose of a Wiki article is to present useful, NPOV, verifiable information to the reader. But here we see arbitrary sourcing rules used as a pretext to generate a one-sided article full of misinformation. Kauffner (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem using the Charter as a source, but only as to what it says. What it does not say is, obviously, not in the Charter, and thus, a violation of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. I know, it is frustrating, but with I/P articles we are all best served by strictly adhering to policy and guideline in all cases. Once we make an exceptionin one article, it is hard not to start making larger exceptions in other articles. Therefore, on order to be absolutely compliant with plicy and guideline, please find a source that makes a reference specifically to the Charters NOT using specific terms; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLO Charter 

message: Kauffner, this is not a quote farm. There are a few quotes but it most definitely does not constitute a quote farm. Not even a full sentence is a quote. It didn't seem to be a quote farm when the Tilley quote you inserted was there . Does not make sense. ShamWow (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference section is being misused as a quote farm. It includes numerous quotes that aren't needed to source anything. There are three full-length quotations just to establish that Arabs use the term. If you look at the history of this article, the quotes came first and then text was written to justify using the quotes as references. Show me another article where the reference section is four times as long as the text it is referencing. The highly emotional tone of several of the quotes is out of synch with the material being sourced.Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote Farm 

message: Opinionated or controversial material should not be in the "unqualified narrative voice of the article," as they call it on the notice boards. The sentence, This phrase is seen as a means of expressing hostility towards Israel, refusing to acknowledge its existence, or denying its right to exist certainly sounds like some sort of language expert or reference has been consulted. But in fact the cited sources are political polemics, some which strike me as overly emotional for this purpose. At very least, this material should be labeled in a way that clarifies where these people are coming from. Kauffner (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the sources describe themselves as 'pro-Israel'? Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article in the Washington Post about Jeane Kirkpatrick entitled "Israel's cheerleader" (February 25, 1989). "The doubts about Bush's approach arise even among generally pro-Israel conservatives like [Jeane Kirkpatrick]" (WP, Aug 24, 1990). Most of the other authors are actual Israelis, so perhaps we can say, "Israeli and pro-Israeli authors." These people are not authorities on either language use or Arabic, so the only basis I see for using them at all is if they are treated as representatives of the Israeli view. Even the PLO had the word "Israel" (and not ZE) in its charter, so Arabs clearly don't think the same way Kirkpatrick does on this issue. Kauffner (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Israel 

message: Tilley was the only pro-Arab source. Now the article has a dozen pro-Israeli sources and no pro-Arab sources. Not that I liked Tilley much, but there needs some sort of balance. Kauffner (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't believe quoting Tilly, a biased and fringe source when it comes to these matters ("The Case for Boycotting Israel"), is an appropriate for this article. It would actually detract from the piece. This article need not be "pro-Arab" or "pro-Israel."ShamWow (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the sources reflecting the sources on the issue in the RSs.  That is what we seek on wp.  Not a 50/50 balance based on any leanings, but a general mirroring of the RSs on the subject at hand.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia Tilley 

message: Should there be? Aonana (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, is there WP:RS that discusses this? LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would any source discuss why such self evident terms have different meanings? Zionist Entity is perjoritive and means the entire state of Israel and it's population. Zionist Regime is exactly that, a ... Zionist ... regime. Some might see no difference in the terms but most of the world would see one as perjoritive and the other as an accurate description with no perjoritive meaning. At the moment there is no way to link Zionist Regime to anything that is not both POV and perjoritive. The redirect for Zionist Regime to this article should be cancelled and replaced with Zionist Regime (disambiguation) where, as there would be insufficient cause to warrant it's own article, the two words can be linked individually.Wayne (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Wayne. The two things are different, although to be on the fair side, you wont hear the term "Zionist Regime" much outside Anti-Zionist circles, where it is quite common, usually coupled with the word "destroy", see   . A dab page would seem to be the best solution (though not with the two words, see MOS:DAB). Of course, take it with a grain of salt as I am a citizen of the "Zionist Regime". --Muhandes (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. Zionist entity and Zionist regime have used interchangeably by many people including Iranian government and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Any attempt to excuse this pejorative term avoiding use of proper name Israel is just POV push. Redirect is only logical action. LibiBamizrach (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to think that Libi is correct, but could be persuaded by more diffs on either side.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between Zionist Entity and Zionist Regime 

message: The citations should be cut down to the book info and page number. The quotes are unnecessary.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some quotes could be kept as footnotes, such the first recorded usage in 1917. But something is wrong when the references are several times longer than the text they reference. They were originally a list of somebody's favorite quotes and turning them into references was an afterthought.Kauffner (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's nothing wrong with the quotes; on the contrary, citation templates have a specific parameter for them, because they improve citations. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We really need three multi-sentence quotes to establish the fact that the word is "sometimes used by Arabs"? The reference section is being used as a quote farm. Kauffner (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  I've seen quote farms, and this isn't one.  Simply careful support for propositions, well-cited.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'm not sure about the current last sentence: "Several internationally read Arab media outlets currently refer to the country as "Israel" in both English and Arabic." While I expect this is quite true, it seems like a bit of OR. IronDuke 01:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It directly paraphases the reference given: "On the Al Jazeera homepage, you can find the word 'Israel' in both English and Arabic. The same is true of the homepage for Asharq Al-Awsat, the internationally-read Arabic newspaper headquartered in London." From the context, it is apparent that the author picked these two sites to be representative of the Arab media. A search of Arabic Google will reveal that "Israel" outpaces "Zionist Entity" by seven to one. What's more, the vast majority of sites that use ZE also use "Israel". Check the site of the Lebanon Daily Star or that of any other major Arab paper. The all use "Israel" as their standard usage. A site that uses ZE is typically something Hamas or Hezbollah oriented. Readers should not be given the impression that ZE is a standard usage in the Arab world. Kauffner (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "It directly paraphases the reference given..." Right, I'm not disputing that. It's more a question of whether "Readers should not be given the impression that ZE is a standard usage in the Arab world" is in fact true. I can well imagine that you could go out and do a pretty spiffy roundup of what's out there, in terms of usage, but that's exactly what OR is. Can we get a source saying "No one outside of terrorist or Islamist orgs really uses 'Zionist Entity' anymore," or words to that effect? IronDuke 23:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All kinds of decisions on Wiki are made based on Google hit counts. Are you arguing this process is OR? Kauffner (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Google hit counts are really part of my argument at all. IronDuke 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: A couple of questions.  Can either of you explain how this directly relevant to the topic of the article, and not a fork, if it does not appear in an RS treatment of the article subject?  Also, K -- can you explain how "two" to you is directly paraphrased as "several"?  And how you conflate mention of two to an assertion that the author "clearly" meant to say that it was representative of the Arab media?  I read a fair amount of the Arab media, and can tell you from my own OR those two publications are anything but representative.  They are in my view two of the best publications in the Arab media.  But that like saying that the NYT and the Washington Post are representative of the US media.  Not quite ... they certainly are not representative of the vast majority of the US media.  As to google searches, we do use them as a toll in certain respects.  But we don't use them to support OR we put into an article.  I know its troubling -- as OR often yields information that would interest me as well.  Unfortunately, we need the RS to do the research and print it -- that's the wikipedia way.  Frustrating at times.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the wording is not ideal - although IMO it's too conservative if anything. I do think it's important to emphasize that this is not "standard usage" in the Arab world anymore - at least not to my knowledge. But certainly, I'm flexible on the wording and open to ideas. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you present an RS that says what you have in mind that you would like the article to reflect (avoiding synth/OR issues), I'll be happy to take a look at it and work on the language with you. I had btw already attenuated the lede, with the addition of another "some".--Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was helpful, thanks. However, I had to revert the following edit as the source did not actually state that the word "Israel" is not used in US Arabic textbooks. My apologies, I failed to read the entire article, and missed the fact that it does in fact say that. However, I still believe the statement is not relevant because the source is referring to books published by US publishers. Gatoclass (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't know who the books are by, because the source doesn't say. However, I hardly think that Arabs can be held responsible for what U.S. publishing houses decide what to/what not to publish. Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence 

message: This article contains a discussion of the use of the term, which someone may wish to weave in.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an interesting read. According to those sources, the term Zionist entity in Arabic is only meant perjoritively if enclosed in quotation marks. The pdf also mentions that the Arabic media sometimes adds the quote marks regardless of what the speaker meant to further their own view. Wayne (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another ref 

message: Hi! 
In the USSR's media the Russian direct equivalent to "Zionist entity" i.e. "сионистское образование" was never used. The USSR on the other hand, frequently used the term "Zionist regime". I think this is because the USSR recognized Israel as a state and not as and "entity", but expressed hostile attitude towards its pro-Western government (i.e. the regime).
:The source says only the word Zionist/ism was used as a perjoritive and doesn't mention regime. Russia may have used the term "Zionist entity" but you admit it refered to the government not the state. A country expressing a hostile attitude to the government does not make the term perjoritive unless the term is only used to express hostility which it is not. A similar example would be the term right wing which is a neutral descriptive of a political stance but can also be used to express hostility, without the term being regarded a perjoritive in all uses. Wayne (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionist entity vs Zionist regime 

message: Cs32en has argued that the phrase "Zionist entity" is primarily a description, not a pejorative term. At the same time, the description is (often) being used in a pejorative way. To begin with, it's not actually a "description" of a country; "Zionist entity" could mean pretty much anything, including an organization, a religious movement, a building, or many other things. Israel is a country, not an "entity", and it politics are neither solely nor exclusively Zionist (at least 1/4th of its citizens are either non-Zionist or explicitly anti-Zionist). Most importantly, however, is that that is not what reliable sources say "Zionist entity" is. They're all quite clear it's a pejorative - for example, they refer to it as a "pejorative metonym", a "pejorative phrase", and a "derogatory term", and none say it's merely a "descriptive term that is (often) being used in a pejorative way". Please discuss this proposed change here, basing any discussion on what Reliable Sources explicitly state regarding the phrase. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A "pejorative metonym" is not a "pejorative". (I suggest to continue the discussion in the section below.)  Cs32en Talk to me  21:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Reliable sources refer to it as a "pejorative phrase", "derogatory term", etc. I can provide others, but I don't think its really required. The :pejorative article defines a "pejoratives" as "words or grammatical forms that connote negativity and express contempt or distaste", which is obviously (and exactly) what "Zionist entity" is. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A "term" is something different from a "word" or a "grammatical form".  Cs32en Talk to me  19:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not seeing the relevance, though - a "term" is "words", and it's still a pejorative. Jayjg (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "primarily a description, not a pejorative term" 

message: User:Cs32en has argued that "Zionist entity" is a "term", not a "phrase". I'm not sure why it cannot be both, though. Reliable sources found in this article refer to it as (among other things), "the pejorative phrase, 'the Zionist entity'" and "The very phrase 'Zionist entity'". Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the sources that have been used in the article also use the terms "expression" and "reference", and at least some of those sources should be cited inline anyway. "Term", although not used by the sources cited in the text (which differ with regard to the choice of words), seems to be a neutral description of what the sources say.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't think I understand again. It's a "term", "phrase", "expression", or any other synonym. I don't understand why you think "phrase" in particular is inappropriate, but "term" is appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles Terminology and Phrase may help to understand the difference.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The first says a "term" consists of "words" or "compound words", and the second says a "phrase" is "any group of words". Jayjg (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Phrase", not "term" 

message: I've moved the following material here for discussion:
In 1917, a preacher at Al-Taqwah Mosque in Algeria used the term in his Friday sermon in reference to the Balfour Declaration."North Africa: Roundup of Friday sermons", BBC 3 Nov 1917. The sermon was relayed live to mosques nationally. "The preacher followed on by saying that as a result of the weakness of the Muslim nation, the Balfour Declaration was announced on 2 November 1917 to pave the way, he added, for the creation of the "Zionist entity" in the heart of the land of Islam."
As is fairly obvious, the material suffers from two primary problems:
#The citation is dubious at best: "North Africa: Roundup of Friday sermons", BBC 3 Nov 1917. What is this? Where can it be found? Where can it be verified?
#Even more seriously, the material is allegedly an example of the term's use, based on primary sources. Did the speaker mean the same thing by it as is meant in a post-1948 context? Why would this use be relevant or notable? In accordance with WP:NOR and WP:V, we have been very careful in this article to use only reliable secondary sources that discuss the phrase, rather than inserting examples of primary sources merely using it. If we wanted, we could add hundreds of examples of primary sources using the phrase, but to what end? Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING - we don't need random lists of examples of phrases or terms being used. If you think a specific usage is relevant or notable, please provide a secondary source that shows this to be the case.
Thanks, Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is. Title, source, date -- it is perfectly good citation. We can certainly cite material that's behind a pay wall. The problem with primary sources is verifying them, which is not an issue here. They may be used "with care," according to the guideline. The earliest recorded examples of a phrase are always significant, if you know anything about etymology. There are so many problems with the other sources for this article. To pick this source out as the problematic one strikes me as quite agenda-driven. Kauffner (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In summary, then, you have not seen the source yourself, and you have no secondary source confirming it as "earliest recorded examples of a phrase", or indicating its actual meaning or significance. Also, you have given no reason whatsoever why this primary source should be the only primary source used in the entire article. Finally, you have provided no evidence that any other sources here have any "problems" (much less "many"), and completed your "argument" with a personal attack, "agenda-driven". Well, that was very disappointing. O.K., come back when you have reliable secondary sources for this article that discuss this phrase. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Kauffner, given that you have not seen the material itself, and have no reliable secondary source for this material, why have you restored this OR? And why did your edit summary not mention you were making this edit? Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improperly cited [[WP:PRIMARY]] [[WP:OR]] moved to talk 

message: Kauffner has removed a source and confirming quote from Jean Kirkpatrick's book Legitimacy and Force: Natural and International Dimensions, using the edit summary Reducing the use of the reference section as a quote farm for expressing political opinion. Kauffner, can you explain this edit in terms of policy? Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support his position (User:Kauffner) that the reference section is bloated with opinionated cherry picked quotes. I will trim it if no one objects - and then I will merge and redirect the couple of lines of text that I would have left about this little used phrase to a section in more notable related article.  - Clearly I am not going to do that as I couldn't stand the heat that would likely be generated, but that is what I think is the correct weight to give this expression. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean "cherry-picked quotes"? Do you have a specific objection to that source? Do you have any other sources that discuss the term "Zionist entity"? I haven't found any. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps cherry picked was the wrong expression. If you are stating that all the sources available that discuss the expression are already in the article that would support the rest of my comment. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources I could find. There may well be many other sources that discuss the term - I welcome you to find and add them. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay - this so called article is basically a few lines of content that can be cited with a couple of externals with a massive bloated external section -- this article is not an article at all - its a cite farm , a quote farm  - actually it appears more as promotion of the phrase with perhaps historic context than a correct weight report about it.  - enjoy it if you like but its not correct as per standard  wikipedia article - Off2riorob (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Kirkpatrick source 

message: I have removed some materials from the Weekly Standard from the lead section. The materials don't talk about the term "Zionist entity" at all and their relevance to the article is debatable. Even if it is relevant though, it shouldn't be in the lead section per WP:LEDE, because it doesn't summarize any other content in the article. There were actually discussions about it here and here, so I'm not sure why it keeps being re-added. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The deleted passage simply paraphrases what the source says. There is no guideline that says that the title of an article must be mentioned in every source. The article is now full of statements by Kirkpatrick and others to the effect that Arabs refuse to use the word "Israel." A whole series of dubious claims are based on this premise. But in fact everyone from the Daily Star to Hezbollah uses "Israel". On GBooks, there are 600,000 post-2000 hits for "" (Israel) , 30,000 for "" (Zionist entity). "Zionist entity" isn't popular usage either. On Google Trends, the search ratio is 25 to 1. Kauffner (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kauffner, doing an analysis of Google search results like this and using it in the way suggested runs counter to WP:NOR.  We can't do our own research to come up with new data that isn't already published in a reliable source, and use it to counter or weaken the strength of statements found in reliable sources.  (We sometimes do this sort of analysis for measuring weight when the concern is whether the article has WP:UNDUE problems, but that's not the concern being brought up here.)  And, we actually already have a source, Jesse & Williams 2010, which comments directly on the change in the frequency of the use of the term over time.  If you could find more of this kind of source, that would be helpful for the article.Regarding "There is no guideline that says that the title of an article must be mentioned in every source.":  Please review WP:SYNTH.  The removed passage was implying that the material found in the reliable sources used is out of date or irrelevant.  A claim like that would need to be sourced to a reliable source stating that explicitly.Taking a step back, I think the thing you are concerned about (if I understand it right) isn't really present in the article.  You appear to be saying that the term "Zionist entity" really isn't used that much any more and you are concerned that the article is saying something like "All Arabs and Muslims say 'Zionist entity' and never say 'Israel.'"  But that is not what the article is saying.  The article is only saying, "There's a term called 'Zionist entity' and here's what it means when it does get used..."  Cheers... Zad68 04:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source needs to be reliable for the purpose that it is used, per WP:IRS. Kirkpatrick, Sank and many of the other writers quoted are giving political commentary, although they are being used here as if they were authorities on Arabic language usage. I have to wonder if you have read the article. It describes "Zionist entity" as "standard usage". The quotes given in the reference section claim that Arabs "refuse to utter" the name "Israel", that "The State of Israel cannot be dignified by being called by its proper name." etc, etc., although I have rebutted such claims above. Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is, of course, supposed to be an encyclopedia article explaining the significance of the use of the term, and not just a dictionary definition provided only by Arabic-language linguists.  What I said previously still stands:  Take a closer look at the article, it doesn't say "It describes 'Zionist entity' as 'standard usage'" as you stated--actually, it says "Before 1967, 'Zionist entity' was the standard term...".  I've now had a chance to review the archives for this article talk page (I apologize for not having done so in the first place!) and I see that I have independently come up with the same Wikipedia policy-based points regarding the proposed content that have been brought up for nearly four years now.  Please consider that this might be an indication that the points being brought up by your fellow Wikipedia editors have merit.  As nothing new is being added to this discussion, I'll decline further engagement per WP:EXHAUST.  Zad68 15:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Perhaps Mathlouti made this claim to get attention. Many people might tune in to confirm whether the station really does this or not. I'm sure he got viewship boost out of it. There is only one hit for "entité sioniste" on the site, and that's in a quote, see . Kauffner (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could amend this section to state that the station's owner (and not necessarily the station itself) has stated that he only uses the term "Zionist entity" instead of Israel.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: *The article states that Radio Méditerranée never uses the word "Israel", but their website has 212 examples in French () and 12,000 in Arabic (). So this article is full of ridiculous claims, all of which can apparently be defended with an alphabet soup of guideline cites.  Kauffner (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Mathlouti made this claim to get attention. Many people might tune in to confirm whether the station really does this or not. I'm sure he got viewship boost out of it. There is only one hit for "entité sioniste" on the site, and that's in a quote, see . Kauffner (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could amend this section to state that the station's owner (and not necessarily the station itself) has stated that he only uses the term "Zionist entity" instead of Israel.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio Méditerranée 

message: Primarily because the two have nothing to do with one another. "ZOG" is a conspiracy theory largely touted by neo-nazis or white supremacists based around the idea of the "secret Jewish government behind the scenes" and with emphasis on the Jews supposedly wanting to "pollute" or destroy the white race. Standard white supremacist fare, really.
But completely unrelated to this term for Israel.
70.27.7.64 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the removal was appropriate. Thanks Shalom11111 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link to the "ZOG" wiki page 

message: Well, I know some people that see this as racism towards the Jews. Should this count as being racist? 58.170.108.95 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say that it should be classified as such. The term, when it is used, is used in relation to the creation of the Israeli state at the expense of the Palestinians on a massive scale.  Some of the people who end up using the term could end up being racists, but "Zionist entity" by itself is not inherently racist. 70.27.7.64 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last point is correct. But saying the term is "used in relation to the creation of the Israeli state at the expense of the Palestinians on a massive scale" is not politically correct, if not morally and factually wrong. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: That sounds a lot better, I can understand now what you meant. Shalom11111 (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism? 

message: I removed the category because (1) it is not supported by the article, and (2) it is a blatant POV violation. 
, since you are insisting on restoring it, the onus is on now on YOU to justify its inclusion. Also, is Tsaika a alternate account for you? Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be surprised at all if he was running multiple accounts. Luckily, the spurious inclusion to the antisemitism category hasn't been re-added to date. 2607:FEA8:A4E0:11EC:DCD4:645F:5F8B:9692 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  IP editor,  is an editor in good standing, and the account Al-Andalusi mentioned was a sock of another user. Regardless, I wanted to comment here to inform you that you can’t edit the article page directly until you’re WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. I presume your IPs are dynamic, and that the user(s) who made the last several edits were both you... I did leave one of your contributions though, the Farsi transcription; I’m unable to read it, but I assume it’s accurate. See my edit summary why the other two were inappropriate. Most claims, especially extraordinary ones, need to be sourced, especially in a contentious subject area such as this; your most recent edit didn’t meet WP:V, and used an existing reference that said the opposite of the claim you added. No worries, though. The learning curve can be kinda steep here for new editors. As to this particular subject area, please read WP:ARBPIA4 for the editing restrictions. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Name one thing I said in my edit that's an "extraordinary claim". Also, no I didn't add the farsi translation, so it must be coincidental that that person's IP is similar. For the record I've seen enough blatant violation of the POV rule from pro-israel editors so to be honest I don't really take Wikipedia's rules on this issue all too seriously as they're not remotely universally enforced. Look at the talk pages for the individual incidents of Palestinian militancy against Israelis that apparently warrant their own separate pages for example. Just being honest here.2607:FEA8:A4E0:11EC:DCD4:645F:5F8B:9692 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism category 

message: As others have noted before, this article has some problems with regard to both and content and to sourcing. The sources are all very partisan and political. Several sources refer to the language used by the Arabic media at the time of the 1967 war in a way that treats the propaganda usage of this period as a linguistic standard for Arabic. To the extent that this is a language article, it should be based on linguistic sources. This is from “Pre-Peace and Post-Peace Referring in Jordanian Journalistic Arabic” by Ibrahim Darwish in Names, Vol. 58 No. 4, December, 2010, 191–96.
In the past, references to Israel in the Jordanian press included Filastiin “Palestine,” al-ardh al-muhtallah “the occupied land” and al-kayaan as-suhyuuni “the Zionist entity.” These names were used to not only deny Israeli land claims in the conflict with Palestine, but also reflected the state of war between Jordan and Israel at that time. They also reflected the writers’ ideologies during this period of armed conflict.
On October 26th, 1994, Jordan and Israel reached an agreement that ended the state of war between them. This political event has left traces on Jordanian journalistic language. More specifically, new neutral nomenclature such as Isra'il “Israel” and daulat Isra'il “the state of Israel” was employed to refer to Israel, replacing older, hostile names. This study is intended to compare and contrast the names employed in the Jordanian press to refer to Israel and Israeli symbols prior to and directly after the signing of the 1994 Peace Treaty between Jordan and Israel.
 Tunnel of fun (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source to rewrite article