Misplaced Pages

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT

• WT:Israel

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Proposed merge discussion

• False Moshe Ya'alon quotation

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:False_Moshe_Ya%27alon_quotation

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicist (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yehuda Amichai article dispute

There is/was an edit war at the Yehuda Amichai article that led to it getting locked; the issue is whether a biography by Nili Scharf Gold, that some other scholars consider unreliable, should be cited. Additional opinions would be welcome, at the article's talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The blanket reversion of sourced information in this page continues, after an administrator locked the page instead of addressing the problem. Is there anyone who wants to get involved? I am getting tired of being the guardian. Some "editor" with a personal grudge against Nili Scharf Gold is on the rampage, leaving bizarre comments and cooking up wacko conspiracy theories.--Gilabrand (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of left-wing parties in Israel

Having seen this diagram on the Hebrew wiki, I decided to make my own version of it - I have done two versions, one including the communist parties and one without. If anyone has any comments or corrections, please let me know. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work! A couple things:

1. The diagram should be chronologically sorted (IMO), so 1965 (Rafi) can't be above 1948 (Mapam), etc.
2. The bottom-right lines make it look like Meretz transformed into Shinui, which is misleading and not exactly like they did it on HeWiki. Basically you would have something like:

Meretz (1992)
   |
   |_______________
   |                          |
   V                        V
Meretz (1997) Shinui (1997)

Or something. —Ynhockey 13:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the communist parties table doesn't include newer parties like Hadash. —Ynhockey 13:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The National Liberation League basically reunited with MAKI in 1948--it's complex, but it would probably be better to show it merging with MAKI rather than being a dead end.Prezbo (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Also it's not really clear from the current version that MAKI split in 1965, it looks like it just changed its name. Thanks for doing this though.Prezbo (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Communists needs to be added to the chart. --Soman (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done a new version of the one excluding the communist parties. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better! There are a few small modern parties missing though (not sure if they'd be important enough for the chart), notably Meimad and Hetz. I'm sure that many smaller parties from earlier years were also missed, but my political history knowledge isn't that vast. Cheers for the job well done! —Ynhockey 00:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to exclude the communist parties. There were, after all, a number of notable splits and mergers between the "mainstream" left and the communists. Also, the graph should probably be in SVG format. Otherwise, looks good. Rami R 06:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to include them and the smaller parties mentioned above, but it's really a question of size - the diagram is almost too large already to include in an article. Also, I don't have the programmes necessary to turn something into an SVG! пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I do and have uploaded SVG files for both. Not sure if I should have uploaded over the current file. If not revert it and will upload to commons, if that is fine could an admin please move File:Israeli Left II.PNG to File:Israeli Left II.SVG and File:Israeli Left.PNG to File:Israeli Left.SVG? nableezy - 02:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That kind of defeats the whole point of SVG though... since the text isn't in SVG as far as I can tell. I am waiting for the final version from Number 57, then it won't be a problem to remake this in SVG. —Ynhockey 11:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

aight then, revert it. nableezy - 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm happy with the non-Communist version if you want to SVG it - it would be nice to include Hetz, Meimad etc, but there just isn't enough room unfortunately (and they are all quite minor in comparison to the size (at some point) of Mapai, Rafi, Ahdut HaAvoda, Mapam, Meretz and Shinui. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

here is my attempt at an SVG version. I still can't figure out what problem this thing has with the Arial font... I tried two methods to fix this, and it didn't work. If you have any ideas, please let me know, although I believe the current version is also possible to work with (but the PNG is better for now). —Ynhockey 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Is it possible to make parts of an image into a link (I think I've seen this done elsewhere, but not sure if it was something like the links on certain maps)? пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, in cases like this it's only possible by putting the links on top of the image in a template (see Template:West Bank). If you make links in the actual SVGs, it won't thumbnail links. Anyway, I'm not up to the task at the moment, but you have an example of how to make this :) maybe I'll do it later. —Ynhockey 11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Israeli fascists

On September 18, a new category, "Israeli fascists", was created by “Scottish Wikipedian” User:MacRusgail and two individuals were placed in this category, the Israel Prize laureate, Uri Zvi Grinberg, and Abba Ahimeir, a co-founder in the 1930's of the Revisionist Maximalism faction. In addition, these two individuals were, respectively, added to the categories, “Austrian fascists’ and “Russian fascists”, sharing such categories with certain odious characters. I query whether either of these two individuals can be considered as fascists (let alone Austrian or Russian fascists, which terms has somewhat more specific connotations), having regard to the current understanding of the term and its clearly pejorative nature and, indeed, I question whether the category itself should not be deleted. As I do not consider my self to be an expert on these two individuals, I have not, for the time being, taken any action as I would prefer those users more acquainted with this aspect of the history of the Palestine Mandate to initiate the appropriate action. Davshul (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The categories should be deleted, if they haven't been already. Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion. —Ynhockey 00:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The category: "Israeli Fascists" was deleted, but has been recreated by its original creater (and the two individuals mentioned above placed in it). The issue is now under discussion in Categories for discussion - Israeli Fascists, having been moved there from an initial discussion on speedy renaming. Davshul (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This matter is still under discussion, and comments on the Cfd page would be welcome. Davshul (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yom Yerushalayim move suggested - again

Current: Talk:Yom Yerushalayim. Editor is reopening old move discussions to move this page to Jerusalem Day. In the past, the original Hebrew Israeli civic holiday names have been attacked and attempted to be anglicized and Yom Hashoah, Yom Hazikaron, Yom Ha'atmaut are all an inherently related package on this argument. --Shuki (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the page has been moved to Jerusalem Day for some odd reason, even though numerous move requests have already been turned down. Yossiea 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I commented on the admin's talk, as well as on the talk page. The only word I can think of is 'absurd'. This admin has justified going against the 'majority' by telling us what the common name of this day is, as if he knows better than us. Given his admin 'justification', what will prevent other admin with POV to 'translate other pages? --Shuki (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the closing text, he justified it by the actually taking into account the evidence given proving that Jerusalem Day is the common English name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the guy who repeatedly suggested to move the page is happy the page was moved. I agree that this move is absurd. The activists who try to dilute everything Jewish and/or Israeli on Misplaced Pages can mark another notch on their belts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.153.187 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the closing admin was so 'justified' in his explanation, he had to re-explain himself. We only have his POV that decided for the Israeli, Jewish, and other related editors that the common name is something that is not common at all, and at least a wrong usage. His justification was that the oppose editors (who were the majority) were just annoying 'me too' votes.--Shuki (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, in fact WP:CONSENSUS specifically says Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons. And this is not a Misplaced Pages just for Israeli, Jewish, and other related editors, it is a Misplaced Pages for all English readers, so if the most common name in English is "Jerusalem Day" the name of the Misplaced Pages article will be "Jerusalem Day". Reasons and evidence were provided that this is the case, nothing was offered to rebut that evidence besides users jumping up and down saying "NO NO NO". WP:CONSENSUS also says that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Use common names is part of site-wide consensus. That said, I am more than a bit shocked that an admin did what they were supposed to do and not just count votes. nableezy - 20:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. The best of you couldn't abstain from adding your two cents here, and given especially after what 24.120.153.187 above said.

Googlehits, several examples in the world, and secular Israeli newspapers supported your suggestion over uneloquent Israeli / Jewish supporting people who identify with the holiday or otherwise people know something about it. The Bastille Day is certainly not the rule, just one example bordering on WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are many more 'ethnic named' days on WP that 'English' editors respect and don't push their POV under guise of 'commoname'. Apparently, I did not take this discussion as serious as I should have. I was so sure that your past actions and reputation as related by 24.120.153.187 above would be evident on top of the fact that this is clearly a case of the ignorant world telling a country how to name its holiday. I was so sure that common sense would win that I specifically did not apply your tried and true tactic to WP:GAME discussions by badgering opposing editor's comments and reply to you further into the discussion/vote. Move/delete 'vote discussions' are usually characterized by single comments and few people ever come back to reply since it is not on their watchlist. And FWIW, the exact policy you just quoted from 'CONSENSUS' is why the outcome should have been opposite. There was no limited group of editors, there had been several past discussions with outcomes opposing name changes so that one place and time is not true here, and there is definite community consensus to keep the Israeli/Jewish names as seen with all other Jewish and Israeli holidays except Passover and now Jerusalem Day. --Shuki (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not. Community wide consensus trumps what a group of editors tries to force on a set of pages, and there was no "badgering", there were requests to actually back up assertions that were shown to be false and yet repeated continuously. Policy trumps what a few editors want to do and policy was correctly applied in this case. If you or anybody else had made any effort at all to show that I was wrong the decision would have been different. But you instead relied on a call to arms against an "attack" on "Israeli civic holiday names" and what you got from that was a few people lining up giving the same bogus argument without a single shred of evidence. Consensus is not a vote, and no matter how many people you get to say "me too" reasoned application of policy will trump assertions without any factual backing. nableezy - 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. We have a lot of terms from the Arabic as well. "Intifada" instead of "uprising" "Al-Nabka" "Al-Quds" the various Muslim holy days etc. What's the big deal that vernacular more specific to Israel can't be permitted on Misplaced Pages? Stellarkid (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such deal. "Intifada" was used in English as the name of the uprisings, "Nakba" is not in a title of an article, the only reference to "Quds" in a title that I have seen is Quds Day which is used in English as the name of the event. Page names are dependedent on the most common English name, and in this instance it is "Jerusalem Day". For other events, such as Eid ul-Fitr or Yom Kippur the most common name used in English are "Eid ul-Fitr" and "Yom Kippur" respectively. So those are the titles of the articles. nableezy - 15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Jewish homes, outposts, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, and cities

Coming off a grand victory of the Yom Yerushalyim move, Nableezy now takes on Jewish villages as well. His rationale is that 'Israeli settlement' is the most common description given the ghits around the internet. While no one is denying the use of that term, it is OR and POV to emphasize that vague general label over the actual type of locality - its essence - a place where people live, study, and work. Emphasizing that all these houses, outposts, neighbourhoods, villages, towns, and cities are primarily 'Israeli settlements' and deprecating a more accurate description of the subject of the articles is POV. It assumes that they are all the same 'questionable' efforts when in fact, each one is a completely different story by itself. Using a vague descriptive label over a term to describe the residential type is dehumanizing of the subject. This is not an accusation of anti-Semitism (as Nableezy assumes), and given AGF, I say that it is rather a POV attempt to degrade all these localities to the same general less meaningful status. Since Nableezy's edits are characterized with a record of edit warring and tiring out other editors on articles he targets, I plan on opening a WP:DR early next week (unless someone wants to attempt to do it first) to get a WP community for consensus. I've reverted most of his changes and hope that Nableezy will stay calm and show some maturity by taking part in peaceful dispute resolution. --Shuki (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TBH, he has a point - they are primarily (and almost exclusively) known as Israeli settlements - I'd imagine only Israeli right-wingers would describe one as a "Jewish village" or something similar. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Number57, I'm sure you know that this is A) an encyclopedia and B) an NPOV encyclopedia. If I show you a myriad of geographical localilty articles around the world, the first term I would expect anyone to describe the subject of the article is as a 'city' or a 'village' or a 'district'. But when it comes to Israeli settlements, for some reason, this is an exception to the rest of WP. I can show you a couple of hundred articles about Jewish residences in the disputed land, and you are claiming that we should merely say: Jewish house in Ras el Amud: 'Israeli settlement' and house; Jewish city in Samarian Mountains: 'Israeli settlement' and city. (Though the effort is to even reduce this as well) Again, the vague settlement term is not denied, but it poorly reduces the type to the vague label, and reduces the accuracy of the geographical article. Is that quality? When colonies will be set up on the moon in several years, will there lead be; Tranquility is a moon settlement and village, or the better format - Tranquility is a village on the moon. Moon settlements are ... etc...? --Shuki (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but places like Elon Moreh are primarily known for being Israeli settlements rather than a village, moshav, town or whatever. Other geographical localilty articles around the world do not have this issue because Israeli settlements are almost unique by their virtue of being illegally constructed on occupied territory (I suppose the only equivalent would be Moroccan settlements in Western Sahara, but I'm not sure how far recognition of Morocco's occupation goes). And yes, I would expect to see Tranquility is a moon colony, not Tranquility is a village on the moon, as a moon colony has far more meaning! пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What crazy logic! Jewish and Israeli villages are not unique for being villages with people, schools, and houses of worship, but instead are almost uniquefor being illegally constructed on occupied territory. No POV there surely! Stellarkid (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)