Talk:Human rights in Israel/Archive 2

message: I disagree with the statement that there is consensus on the addition of this.  It is quite important in a human rights article to give some context about the greater societal framework.  It matters for interpretation about what comes next.  Here's an example of why.  In the US, where I live, there is a huge outcry when the government does something like wiretapping for security reasons, in a totalitarian gov't, this might be completely routine and hardly worth mentioning.  I vote for putting the D of I back in the article.   Elizmr 17:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Context is appropriate, but is this the best way to provide it? john k 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "the whole thing" was not quoted here. Surely a short paragraph about the declaration is of crucial importance to the subject. The namecalling and repeated removal of relevant information that doesn't serve certain political agenda should stop. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 1) Sorry if I was not clear: "judeo-romanticism" was the namecalling. Would it be fair to call you "Israel hater"? 2) I see that someone already explained where you were wrong and you admitted "I'm not qualified to know off-hand if this is misleading things..." 3) FYI, I don't do "under the cover" edits. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NPA. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Declaration of Independence

message: Is this article about Human rights in the state of Israel? In which case Palestinian terror attacks in the state of Israel need to be included, or is this about the human rights record of the state OF Israel, in which case the title is wrong? -- Avi 22:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is about anything Israel has done which is bad.   Isn't that clear to you?  Elizmr 22:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the title "Human rights in Israel" (emphasis added) is what it's about. It seems to me that certain editors want the territories to be part of Israel when it suits their purposes, yet not when it doesn't. This is complicated by the fact that human rights aren't only a function of government policy. I also wish - for the sake of the people there - that as much effort was put into writing about human rights in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iran, etc., as for Israel. --Leifern 22:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to your second sentence, isn't that pretty obviously true of people on both sides?  I think the basic issue is that those who created the article wanted to discuss the human rights record of the State of Israel, but the format for human rights articles is "Human rights in X".  The idea of an article on human rights violations by the Israeli government seems perfectly reasonable, but given the way other articles on the subject are organized, the article couldn't really be titled in that way.  Given the fact that most of Israel's human rights abuses do not occur in Israel proper, this makes for difficulties. I have repeatedly suggested that the article be changed to Human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories.  If this is not done, I'd be happy to suggest moving most of the material on the Occupied Territories to its own article, but only so long as there is some mention of the Occupied Territories here, as there is, for instance, of Morocco's behavior in Western Sahara in Human rights in Morocco.  john k 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And you are of course free to right on the human rights situations in other countries - Human rights in Iran is in a somewhat better state in this article, but still needs a lot of work. Human rights in Syria and Human rights in Lebanon are merely stubs.  There are no articles on Human rights in Egypt and Human rights in Jordan.  It would, of course, be excellent to have articles on those subjects.  But that those articles aren't in a good state is no particular reason that we shouldn't try to write a good article here. john k 00:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the sarcasm.  Elizmr 23:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: It is fascinating what one can uncover with a little research. A figure of 70 patients sounds horrible, and it is, but in the context of over 18,000 hospital admissions, or a rate of under one-half of one percent, it takes on a different tone, does it not? The context is critical to presenting the statistics in an NPOV manner. -- Avi 23:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One half of one percent seems like a fairly high rate for such things.  What kind of rates would you expect?  The real question would be how this compares to other developed countries. john k 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A figure like this is entirely meaningless without some means of contextualizing it, as nobody has any gut sense of what a good figure or what a bad figure would be.  I personally have no idea if this is a good figure or a bad figure, which is why I suggested comparing to other developed countries (a comparison to Jordan or Syria would seem completely useless - I'm sure Israel is better than them, but I don't think that's saying very much). john k 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And, I mean, the comparison in question seems dubious.  What does "18,000 hospital admissions" mean?  Why is it meaningful to compare this number with the number of patients in hospitals who should've been released? It seems arguable that by creating this "rate", you are engaging in original research, and original research of dubious validity - plugging the wrong numbers together can create some seriously dubious statistics. john k 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, what about the total number of people in a hospital at any given time?  At any rate, my point that this is OR still stands - you have put two numbers together to create a new statistic not found in any secondary source.  That's blatantly OR. john k 01:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not saying to remove the section; I agree that the only acceptable number is 0. But to say 70 people, and not give context, is to implicitly paint a POV picture. Leave the statement in, but let it be seen in the greater context of the entire Israeli in-patient psychiatric system. -- Avi 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Avi on this point, throwing out a figure does little to contexualize it. Throwing in countries with "poor human rights records" against it is POV. Can someone find a world average or something? Take a look at GDP stats for countries. The stats mean very little without some form of comparison on a global perspective. That said, It would be wrong and very POV to compare to specific countries. I think global averages with suffice.--Oiboy77 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A global average would be useful, as, I think, would be a global average of developed countries, since Israel is generally considered to be a devveloped country, assuming such a thing exists. 86.217.1.50 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any such thing as a global average on this.  There is also no gold standard on what is too long or too short for a psychiatric hospitalization; it is very individualized.   I'm actually finding the debate kind of amusing.  As a primary care doc in the US, the biggest issue with psychiatric hospitalization is that  insurers do not want to pay for it and it is hard to KEEP anyone in the hospital for long ENOUGH.  To drag a very beleaguered country through the mud because some private hospital kept 70 people in the hospital for TOO LONG and government oversight was not what it maybe should be seems to be a really minor thing to mention in a encyclopedia outline of Human rights in a whole country.  This thing should be deleted from the article  Elizmr 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychiatric hospitalization 

message: I commented out a section that says that the OT are under miliatary law which prohibits this.  I believe this applies only pre Oslo.  Cities are now under PA control and protests are quite common.  Elizmr 12:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedom of Speech

message: I have removed the links to human rights articles of other countries in the region.  None of the linked articles have a link to this article on their page, so this juxtaposition seemed extremely unfair.  Anyone interested in the human rights records of these countries can look them up.  To link to these articles is obviously a POV move, as if to say, "Before you criticize Israel, make sure you look how bad its neighbors are."Smitty Mcgee 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Human rights in Syria has a template at the bottom which links to this page, e.g.  That would be appropriate, right? john k 16:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Having a template listing countries a the bottom of a page and adding comparison between the human rights records of specific countries in an introductory paragraph is two very different things. I agree with User:Smitty Mcgee on this one. It has no real place in an article about Israeli Human Rights. It doesn't really do anything for the article and just is an attempt to dillute what in cited within the article.--Oiboy77 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, a link to the PNA article is most likely warranted, even up top, as they are indelibly linked. -- Avi 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just saying that a template at the bottom is appropriate.  I wasn't completely clear on what Smitty was saying. john k 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory Statement

message: Here are some links to "not so original" research that may help with the article.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
(mostly official UN reports)
Hope this helps!
--Oiboy77 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN CHR was so messed up that even unreformed UN admitted it and recently disbanded it. It was notoriously bad in this particular area. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some not-so-original reaseach

message: We're having a discussion over at the recently created Talk:Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority article over the question of what exactly should be in this article, and what in a prospective other article about the Palestinian Territories, or what not.  I think a lot of the arguments we've been having (certainly not nearly all of them, but a lot) have revolved around the question of what exactly this article should cover.  Hopefully, if we clarify this issue, we will have less disagreement on what exactly each article should cover, and can focus more on improving the actual content of the article, so all input is welcome. john k 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tibet is explicitly part of China, and has been recognized as such internationally for hundreds of years (since the 18th century), although effective control was only estalibhsed in 1951.  Beyond that, the naming conventions should not be some kind of abstract thing separate from the content of the page.  Also, I pointed to the other talk page for a reason, because I posted in a lot more detail over there on this subject... john k 23:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you looked at maps from the 19th century?  They all show Tibet as part of China.  It is not part of Han China, but then neither is Inner Mongolia, or East Turkestan.  Beyond that, Tibet is internationally recognized as a part of China, while the territories are not considered by either Israel or the world community to be part of Israel (for somewhat different reasons, natch).  Beyond that,  I'm not sure what your last question means.  And I think that human rights issues with respect to Palestinian violations of human rights are a perfectly valid topic for an article.  The important thing is to figure out the best way to organize it so that everything gets covered in a fair and comprehensible way.  If you'd go over to the other page and read what we've discussed there, and gave your input, that would be helpful. john k 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, Amnesty's annual report on Israel includes a section about Palestinian terrorist violence in Israel.  It would seem appropriate to include a discussion of this, no matter whether this articles ends up being just about Israel or about Israel and the territories. john k 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper jurisdictional issues 

message: Please stop now or this will get reported and protected. Use talk page for your proposals to improve the article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The system wasn't working right a few hours ago when I kept trying to edit the article but for some reason it wouldn't register, when it started working again all the previous attempts must have appeared at the same time. I guess Sarastro was doing the same thing I was and so it looked like a revert war when both of us thought we were only making one reversion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war and 3RR 

message: This unbalanced article is specifically written to make Israel look bad.  Reference,  the State Dept bullets which are arranged to put all the bad stuff first.  The stuff on the territories belongs in the article, or somewhere on Wikipedia, but the presentation is completely and totally unbalanced.  The article treats Israel as a corrupt  evil wicked entity which harms innocent Palestinains because they want to and because they can.  It gives no sense of any other forces which might be part of the problem.  This tag should NOT be removed until these problems are solved.  Elizmr 13:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My recent edits have ameliorated some of this, but more needs to be done on the territories section.  There are important security reasons behind some of Israel's actions and these need to be commented on.   Also, the record of Israel regarding its Arab minority compares very favorably to the Arab countries records regarding their Jewish minorities.  This needs to come into the article before it can be deemed NPOV and the tag can come off.  Elizmr 16:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article tagged 

message: Someone broke the political parties and election section into three chunks to set off controversial party names.  the intent of this section is not to offer a description of all of the political parties participating in israeli elections.  this would be appropriate in an article about israeli political parties.  This, however,  is a human rights article.  The point of the Kach stuff is to point out that the openness of the system has limits--when a party arose that was blatantly racist (ie--interfering with human rights), it was disallowed from participation in the election system.  anotehr controversial party (which wanted to abolish the character of israel as a jewish state) was also disallowed, but this judgement was not felt to be sound and the decisioni was was overturned by the judicial system.
:OK, I can agree with that. -- Avi 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THANKS Elizmr 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: overformating in the election system.

message: Please don't use  tags in the article. If you would like a new paragraph, keep a blank line in between. The WikiMarkup Language will take care of the rest. -- Avi 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry Elizmr 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HTML tags

message: Just a quick question: What must be entered in the search box to hit this article?  I typed "human rights in Israel", but it didn't seem to turn up.Smitty Mcgee 15:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It worked fine for me, Smitty. Did you spell it properly? -- Avi 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I tried it again with the same result.  But perhaps it works for most people.Smitty Mcgee 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Search