Talk:Israel/Archive 13

message: Okay, I'm really confused now.  I posted a comment the other day asking why the content on the invasion of Lebanon had been removed from this article without comment or discussion.  This then resulted in my COMMENT being deleted without comment or discussion.  So, I place it here again, with a request that no one arbitrarily delete it; what happened to the invasion of lebanon section of the main article?  Why was it deleted without comment or any information or discussion on the subject?  I was trying to use it as a resource for an article I'm writing yet the arbitrary deletion of it has thus ruined that thought, Wikipedia is usually a good resource, but sheesh, what's going on here? 211.30.80.121 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted because it was a fact... and (shhh! don't tell anyone) but it made Israel look bad and that's a No No... cause it is anti-Semitic ...GASP! Wikipedia is usually a good source except when it comes to any article even remotely connected with religion... like this one that are taken over by the religious fascists. Just about all of them are worthless.24.6.23.248 12:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of content & comments

message: First of all, a search of "China" brings up Chinese history.  However, when viewing the page of the People's Republic of China, their is clearly a human rights section.  
Secondly, many human rights articles are linked to from their country's main article.  See List of human rights articles by country.
To be fair, a section such as this must be created and linked to from the "Israel" article.Smitty Mcgee 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an article on Human Rights in Israel would be fine if it follows NPOV, RS and other policies, especially in light of the fact that there are "human rights" articles about a number of other countries.  Please note however, that List of human rights articles by country is somewhat misleading.  I clicked on a few of the articles and found two where there was no article at all (Canada, South Africa (although obviously there is an article on South African apartheid as we know)), and one stub (Mexico) that barely even qualifies as a stub, it really just says there will be an article there in the future.  Several of the other listed articles seemed pretty comprehensive.  I noticed that the UK's has a POV tag though I did not read it to find out why.  I think that all of these articles should summarize at least the introductory paragaph of the appropriate page in the U.S. State Department report, as these provide a common frame of reference, with the one flaw that there is no page in that report on the United States.  Some of the articles may already have it, and I believe there was an attempt yesterday to put some sentences from the Israel section of the State Department report into the Israel article, although it was not cited and the excerpting was not very well done.  (The paragraph has since been deleted.)  6SJ7 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see a more balanced and detailed source than the US Department of State. - MSTCrow 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Smitty, your previous comments and accusations against Israel show that you are not working in good faith, but instead attempting to paint Israel, which can be rightly proud of its human rights record, as some sort of evil totalitarian country.  Israel bashing will never get beyond here. - MSTCrow 02:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You've done nothing but smear and slander Israel with ad hominem attacks. - MSTCrow 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't debate an issue, you've made baldly anti-Semitic attacks against Israel that have no basis in reality.  You have a heavily anti-Semitic POV, which isn't desired or required. - MSTCrow 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nor are your personal attacks, MSTCrow. Calling someone an anti-Semite is a personal attack, regardless of whether you think it is true. Please desist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not called anyone an anti-Semite, only their POV and smear attacks as being anti-Semitical in character.  - MSTCrow 07:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this section, at least, Smitty has said nothing even vaguely anti-semitic.  I haven't read everything he's written, but I haven't noticed anything obviously anti-semitic.  Being sympathetic to Palestinians does not make one an anti-Semite. john k 10:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Cease and desist from personal attacks, john k.  You're making comments just to provoke people.  - MSTCrow 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming both sides can agree on what constitutes a reliable source. - MSTCrow 01:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should not be a problem. State Dept reports, Amnesty International, International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Committee, etc, are citable sources, even if some of us may disagree with their findings. We can even describe Israel's government position in this matter. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider all of those credible sources, apart from their position on Israel. - MSTCrow 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not really matter what you or I think. As per NPOV, we are here to describe what reliable sources have to say on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is brave, but hopeless, Jossi.  For Crow, none of these groups are "reliable sources" because they criticize Israel.  This conveniently leaves us with no reliable sources to report on Israel's human rights record (except perhaps David Horowitz's widely respected human rights reports, I would imagine).  It is useless to try to get Crow to act constructively in writing a human rights section to this article, because all he is trying to do is to prevent such a section from being written by a priori rejecting all possible sources for such a section as "anti-Israel."  john k 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: (Remember that he's already said that the United States Government (or, I suppose, to be fair, one particular part of it) is too anti-Israel a source to be validly cited in this article.  If that's the starting point, I just don't see how we can possibly get anywhere. john k 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: john k, I have already repeatedly stated that not all sources are unacceptable.  You are attempting to generate prejudice against users who are not convinced by your argument.  If you are incapable of convincing anyone of your POV, at the very least do not then turn around and disparage them. - MSTCrow 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that you've rejected both the foreign ministry of Israel's closest ally, the United Nations, and the leading human rights NGOs as being unacceptable sources, I think it's fair to say that you are pretty much unwilling to accept any sources as legitimate.  It seems to me that whether or not you agree with the conclusions of the State Dept, the UN, AI, and HRW, they all constitute reliable sources in the sense we use the term in wikipedia (where it is, I guess, something of a term of art).  I don't see how this is even arguable.  I am not saying that we should report what any of these organizations say as though it is the gospel truth.  But we can certainly say something along the lines of "International human rights monitoring groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have said such and such."  If you'd be willing to accept such formulations, then perhaps we have been merely talking past each other.  If not, can you name any groups which would be acceptable sources on Israel's human rights record? All you seem to do is criticize every source anyone has brought up as being "anti-Israel" and thus unacceptable. john k 22:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you ever make a human rights section page please include this article. " For Homosexual Palestinians, Israel Is Their Best Shot at Safety". --66.68.115.39 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Rights

message: My specific objection is that the article does not have a section on human rights, nor is there an article entitled "Human Rights in Israel", to which we could link.  The fact that one or two editors refuse to recognize the neutrality of independent human rights organizations should be of no matter.  While I do feel that the article as it stands now is in need of a tag, a human rights section would be a permanent improvement.Smitty Mcgee 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments' only purpose is to provoke users, and will be ignored. - MSTCrow 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to repeat an earlier suggestion in this regard. There is a small article called Genocide and ethnic conflict in Israel and Palestine, but it isn't really about that...it's about allegations of human rights abuses on both sides. I think there is a great opportunity here to rename it and use it to showcase the strengths and weaknesses in human rights issues in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. To me, this is vastly superior to including a section in the Israel article itself, since this is not common practice for country articles, and since it would not include human rights abuses by Palestinians. I think we should try to reach a real consensus on this and build a balanced article that highlights both the good and the bad on all sides. For this to work, though, we need co-operation from a lot of people with wildly differing views. Anyone up for it? Schrodingers Mongoose 02:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A section with a short summary about this issue can be worked out, if editors are willing to work together. Both sides of the dispute are missing to appreciate the power of WP:NPOV. One good exercise is to "write for the enemy". The pro-Israel faction can do the research about what sources are critical about the human rights record of Israel, and the anti-Israeli faction can research the sources that have a positive outlook on that record. Try it. You may be surprised at the results. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Objection

message: ;Note to all editors:
This page is not a discussion forum to debate Israel's foreign policy, it is a page for discussing the article's content. If off-topic comments persist, these will be refactored out of the page. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stay on topic

message: I can guess the consensus among the Jewish Israelis on this word... BUT I would point out that Muslims/Palestinians probably just as strongly consider people labeled as "terorists" on this article as "freedom fighters."   If the criteria is that unrelated/innocent civilians are killed in vast numbers by bombings/explosions then unfortunately many Israeli soldiers also meet this definition.   I would propose we arrive at an alternative so the wording does not convey a solely Jewish-Israeli POV.    The media often uses "militant."    I see for the Rabin Assassin the wording is "militant Jewish nationalist" .. if we started getting into "militant Islamic nationalist" and all that, I think it is too wordy.    Just "militant"?   
Sarastro777 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the above. If we say "terrorist" we need to attribute that distinction to a reliable source. If we say "freedom fighters", or "militants", ditto. If there are (as it is the case) controversies on how to label these people, we need to describe these controversies as well. See WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem in using the term terrorism, if that term is attributed to a reliable source. For example, I really believe as Schrodingers Mongoosem does, that these are act of terrorism. But Wikipedia is not a place to assert my views, but to report on what reliable, verifiable sources say about a subject. So, we can say "According to several sources [add sources here], these   Palestinian groups peform terrorist attacks on the civilian population of Israel", which can be followed by: "Other sources [cite sources here] assert that these are not terrorist acts, but acts of resistance against occupation". That is the way an NPOV article is written. (For the record, I lived in Israel for 13 years, and I have relatives in Naharyah, the town that is being bombarded by the Hizbollah, so do not see me as an Israel basher, as I am not). ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't need to have the argument.  In a NPOV encyclopedic article you would write "Osama bin Laden blew up the WTC" and leave it at that.   Then you personally can call him whatever you want.  I call him whatever I want.. but the article is free of our points of view.    This is more informative than something like "the evil bloodthirsty terrorist Osama bin Laden.."     It's obvious :-)   You have to realize one can advocate neutral phrasing without condoning the behavior.   The point is article objectivity.   Coincedentally the Osama article itself seems to have labeled him with "militant" and "fundamentalist" but not "terrorist"   These type of things are not so objective as "he is 6ft tall" so it is prone to bias.Sarastro777 06:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of Terrorist