Talk:Balad (political party)

message: There is clear racism in editing this page  by people who can neither read Arabic or Hebrew.
There is racism in the description of the idology of Balad. 
Balad's idiology is clear. They see themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel.   This must be mentioned and deleting it is racist, it denys their
adgenda based on racist views. 
It is anti Palestinian racism to try and restate their idiology. This type of racism is precisely what balad sees itself as fighting against.
I suggest that people who cannot read Arabic or Hebrew should not edit this page. Their literature is in Arabic and Hebrew. That is the primary source 
concerning this political party. We don't want is to have a racist page that is not accurate.
This is an Israeli political party and if you can't read both Arabic and Hebrew, then I can't see how you can positively contribute to this page. {unsigned|71.98.67.115}}
Please do not accuse others of rascism, as it doesn't show good faith.  The comment about them being Arab nationalist has adequate and reputable sourcing so that should stay.  I am keeping your passage about how they define themselves but I am removing the comment that they "are one of the most popular arab political parties" since its meaning is kinda ambiguous.  In the future please sign your comments by typing this at the end of your addition to the talk page- ~ ~ ~ ~ (except no spaces).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism in  editing this page

message: "viewed by many", "alleged by some" — we could definitely use some references here. —Ashley Y 10:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, since even the original claim is a bit weasely to begin with, I went ahead and re-added a statement saying that the claims had not been substantiated.  Unless someone would like to cite some sources to substantiate the claims, I think that's how it probably should stay.  However, I would have no problem if we just deleted this section entirely since it doesn't seem to be sourced.  --Jakob Huneycutt 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: They are called "weasel words" because they are used in order to "weasel out" of providing a reference to support a statement.  By using vague or unclear words or statements, the impact of the statement is softened, but the point is clearly to allow something to present itself as factual without taking a "hard stance" on it.  The new version is even worse than the version with "some" because it states that there are 'allegations' but never cites who the allegations come from.  The way it is presented, it might lead one to believe that there is a credible widespread belief that this is the case, when that is not, in fact, necessarily the case.  I'm deleting the paragraph entirely.  I'm not going to play games with it.  If it can't be sourced and people are unwilling to try to craft a reasonable statement, then it should just be left out of the article entirely.  Better that than to allow this to become a propaganda piece.  --Jakob Huneycutt 12:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't we already go over the weasel words thing?  You seem awfully determined to use words like "most" and "often" in vague, ambiguous contexts.  Hopefully, this revision works.  The one unsubstantiated statement was removed.  We now have that the 'election committee' is the entity making the allegation, and Bishara's statement on the allegations is now given.  --Jakob Huneycutt 14:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I used often because I thought it sounded better, I really don't think either of our ways changed the meaning much.  Also I added non-partisan before Israeli election commitee so that readers won't think it represents the Israeli right wing or anything, and I re-added the phrase mentioning Bishara's past expressions of support but I added who said it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Alleged by many" - Weasel Words

message: Here's my beef with Moshe's particular wording of the Cheshin comments.  Cheshin is only relevant in that he chaired the committee, first off.  Cheshin seems to believe that Bishara had made pro-Hezbollah statements in the past (this is his own personal view - not the Court's view), but that those moving for the ban had given insufficient evidence establishing that Bishara and Balad actually supported Hezbollah.  Hence, while Bishara (Cheshin believes) has made pro-Hizbollah statements before, Cheshin also believes that there is no evidence that Bishara does in fact support Hizbollah.  Given this, Cheshin votes against the bans.  This is a subtle distinction but it's important.  For instance, I can state that I support the ACLU's efforts to fight against censorship (that statement could be characterized as a pro-ACLU statement), but this does not necessarily mean that I support the ACLU in general.  In fact, I could detest them for other reasons.  To simply use the 'pro-Hezbollah' quote out of context is misleading because it does not allow the reader to know the totality of Cheshin's view on the subject. So that's my major qualm.  Cheshin speaks only for himself and his views are not established facts; though the presentation of them does not support this.  
Moshe's insertations seem to always imply that Bishara and Balad are pro-Hizbollah and that this is fact rather than a personal opinion of one person (Cheshin).  Bishara himself does not claim to be pro-Hizbollah.  While it is acceptable to mention that Cheshin believes Bishara has made pro-Hezbollah statements in the past, it should be done in such a way that is not misleading.  Moshe's version does not do this.  Instead, it sounds as if this is an official view of some body or that it is accepted fact (and it's not).  
Additionally, Moshe's last version is a direct quote that can not possibly be a direct quote as according to Moshe, Cheshin says "Bishara's past expressions of support of the militant pro-Iranian Hezbollah in Lebanon had angered him."  Why would Cheshin directly say that?  Does he talk about himself in the third person normally?  It's not a direct quote at all.  It's a paraphrase by Ha'aretz.  
Personally, I don't think Cheshin's comments were even that relevant.  But I've kept the comments around because Moshe inserted them.  --Jakob Huneycutt 14:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheshin comments

message: I have deleted this:
:These aims are described as nationalistic .
Who describes their aims as nationalistic? The BBC? —Ashley Y 05:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But who describes their aims as nationalistic? If there's no answer to that, surely the statement should be deleted? —Ashley Y 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. The statement is "these aims are described as nationalistic". That implies that someone is doing the describing. Can you tell me who that is? —Ashley Y 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nationalistic aims" 

message: The article is categorized as Palestinian nationalist party, however there is nothing in Balad's description to make it neither Palestinian or Palestinian nationalist - it looks like a simple case of over-categorization, without checking the deeper ideology. First of all, the party denies Palestinian nationalism in favor of pan-Arabism, and it was constantly stated by former chairman Dr. Azmi Bishara and also stated by current leader Dr. Zehalkeh. Secondly, this is a party, operating in Israel (not in Palestine), thus its location can't be used for Palestinian categorization as well. Should be changed to Arab (or pan-Arab) nationalist party category.GreyShark (dibra) 21:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian nationalism?

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Balad (political party)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "TOI1":
From United Arab List: 
From Israeli legislative election, 2015: As Arab MKs unite, a new political landscape emerges Times of Israel, 28 January 2015
From October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll: Elhanan Miller, 'Haaretz changes tack on major story that alleged widespread ‘apartheid’ attitudes in Israel,' at The Times of Israel, October 30, 2012.
From Joint List: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Balad (political party)]]