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)

I know I'm just an ignorant American but I have almost never seen and certainly never used the expression Eid ul-Fitr. Of course we do have Ramadan and then there is the Hajj and we have expression like the Ummah and Dar al-Islam that demonstrate to me that WP has room to express many (both) cultures. Stellarkid (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The culture is not the issue, it is what name is used in English for an event. For "Eid ul-Fitr" take a look at what BBC, The Guardian, NYTimes, Reuters, Chicago Tribune and any number of other sources use. I showed on the talk page of the article that major English sources, including Israeli sources that publish English version such as Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz use "Jerusalem Day" as the name of the event. English sources use "Eid ul-Fitr" (sometime "Eid al-Fitr") as the name of that event just as English sources use "Yom Kippur" as the name of that event. But the common name used in English is what the title of the article is, and in this instance it is "Jerusalem Day". Besides sophistry, is there an argument that shows that this is not the case? nableezy - 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Generalising somewhat, it is common for the names of holy days to remain in the original language, but for secular public holidays to be translated. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, you just said that the issue "is what name is used in English for an event." And yet we have just spent the last week and a half trying to express just that in the Gaza War article with you where you have been insisting on calling it "The Gaza Massacre" in the lede despite the fact that it is generally not called that in English RS. You had to go to the Arabic and translate it yourself to come up with evidence to maintain a massacre in the lede. This despite the fact that most everyone was quite willing to include the massacre concept in the body of the article and to acknowledge that it was widely described that way in the Arabic press. Now here you are insisting on calling something by its English name. I guess it all depends on your POV. Yours seems quite consistent. No one is accusing you of antisemitism but your antiIsraelism is clear enough. It is probably understandable considering what I think I read was your background but it is not neutral nonetheless. Stellarkid (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if you are purposely being obtuse but let me break this down for you. The name of the article is determined by the most common English name of what the article is covering. "Gaza massacre" (and I never capitalized the m) was never presented as a common English name and nobody suggested that the name of the article be "Gaza massacre". The name of the article was the issue with "Jerusalem Day" and nobody even suggested that "Yom Yerushalayim" not be included in the lead as the name in Hebrew. And I completely reject the label "anti-Israel" and I consider it a personal attack. Kindly refrain from spouting such inanity in the future. nableezy - 20:51, 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 unique for being illegally constructed on occupied territory. No POV there surely! Stellarkid (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The POV expressed is the POV of the vast majority of the world. These places are, almost without exception, called "Israeli settlements" before any other description. You think there is "no POV" in calling these places "villages" before the most common description? This is not about "Jewish and Israeli villages", this is about localities built in occupied Arab lands. The words used to describe such localities is "Israeli settlement". nableezy - 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I do recommend checking your dictionary for the definitions of villages, towns, cities and neighborhoods. These are neutral terns which contain considerably more information for readers than the expression "settlement", which besides being vague and overly general in its meaning has political overtones in the region. The (political) implication is that Jews have "settlements" and Palestinians have "villages." While of course the political can & probably should always be mentioned, these are still Jewish villages and towns outside of the political context. It would be nice to get the politics out and the people in. This dehumanization of the Jewish community in and around Israel is really very troubling. Stellarkid (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No they do not provide "considerably more information for readers" and I am not using the generic term "settlement", I am using the specific term Israeli settlement which has a specific meaning. That meaning is Israeli locality built in occupied territory. There is no logical explanation of how "village" gives more information to the reader, and nobody is removing the word "village", just placing it after the most common description ("Israeli settlement"). These places are called "Israeli settlements" by nearly all reliable sources before any other description and usually without any other description. And "Jews have villages", but the "villages" (more accurately known as "colonies") that Israel has built in the occupied territories are called "Israeli settlements". This is not about "Jews" or any other association, this is about where these places were built. And the "implication" is that colonies that the occupying power builds in occupied territory have a name, and in the lands occupied by Israel that name is "Israeli settlement". And there is no "dehumanization", there is accuracy. I caught a speech by Robert Fisk in which this very issue came up. It discusses the way that certain extreme right-wing Israelis and their American supporters attempt to change the language used to convey certain meanings. He had a line that was close to this: Colonies become settlements and now there is an attempt to change settlements into "neighborhoods" or "villages". And I dont care what troubles you, but if we are sharing our feelings Ill let mine out. A number of users are adamant that NPOV means that whatever Israel says goes. That even though the world agrees that the West Bank (including E. Jerusalem), Gaza and the Golan remain occupied by Israel that because Israel "disputes" this it is non-NPOV to say the lands are occupied by Israel. They demand that we instead use the language of a fringe-sized minority and say "the disputed lands of Judea and Samaria" instead of "the occupied territory of the West Bank". That is what is in violation of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that we treat fringe views on the same level as what is agreed by nearly the entire world. It does not mean that words a certain set of people do not like should not be used. NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT in fact says the exact opposite of this. What is troubling is the number of users who try to distort policies into saying that if their POV is not the one presented then NPOV is violated. That is what is troubling. I will also add, as you seem to have trouble understanding the point, that this has nothing to do with "Jews in Israel", I would not say that a village in Israel is an "Israeli settlement". The localities that Israel has built in occupied lands outside of Israel are however "Israeli settlements". And this is the last time somebody implicitly accuses me of racism before this gets taken to WP:AE. nableezy - 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, playing the anti-semitism card is a really poor way to conduct an argument. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the verdict on settlements, Nableezy is wrong to have made those edits. When you know an edit is going to be as controversial as this (and Nableezy should know this better than anyone, after the major ArbCom case where 8 users were banned as a result of a very similar dispute), you don't go on a willy-nilly and made a bunch of similar edits where consensus has not been reached. Other than that, I agree with Stellarkid, but firstly request that Nableezy ceases to make further edits like he did, before discussing them in depth with other editors and gaining clear consensus. —Ynhockey 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BS. Most of those articles had been changed from having "Israeli settlements" first to having "town" or "city" or "village" first. Is that not controversial? Is that not going "on a willy-nilly" and making "a bunch of similar edits where consensus has not been reached"? Yn, if you expect people to show you respect it would be wise to actually look at the circumstances and not just provide automatic backup consistently to those who express a certain POV, especially as those users are freely implying that I am a racist (and apparently agreeing with them). But BS on how I should not be doing these edits. Shuki should not have put village first, especially after having the same argument at Moddin Illit with most users agreeing that "Israeli settlement" is the most common description and should be first. nableezy - 23:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate a policy-based argument instead of personal attacks. Thanks, Ynhockey 23:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As would I. Mine is that the most common description of these places is Israeli settlement and using the language of the occupying power in place of what is most common throughout the world is in violation of WP:NPOV. Would you like to try or would you rather say "me too" along with people calling me a racist without any rational reason? And perhaps you would like to give a policy-based argument as to why my edits should not have been done but Shuki adding "village" before "Israeli settlement" is just fine. nableezy - 23:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It only adds to the confusion when you reply to my concern of behavioral issues with your rationale for the content changes. Please focus on just one topic.

The reason why your edits were inappropriate is simple, and it's not helpful that you're trying to divert attention from that by saying that "Shuki was also wrong". Perhaps he was, I made no comment about Shuki's edits, but about yours.

I am fully aware of how this unfolded, having most of the articles on my watchlist; Shuki made some changes to a number of articles about settlements in late August. For over a month, these edits were uncontested and no one raised an objection, and I refuse to believe that nobody noticed them since they were made to about a dozen (or more) articles. So, while the appropriateness of those edits can be disputed, what cannot be disputed is that for over a month no one cared. Then suddenly you followed Shuki to each of these articles (as far as I can tell) and reverted him without discussion. Now, ignoring for a second that the revert was in itself inappropriate (mass reverts should simply not be made except to clear vandalism, without prior discussion), you did not attempt to start a discussion even after the revert, and instead Shuki started one in the appropriate location.

All of the above demonstrates a very clear behavioral gap, and this is why I singled you out in criticism. This is irrelevant to the actual content dispute, which should be settled separately. Therefore I again request both editors to stop edit-warring over these articles (might not have been clear from my above post), and present concise arguments on why their positions are correct. Personally I have already presented my position in the past, and will do so again in the framework of the content-based discussion.

—Ynhockey 02:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Again BS. I did not follow Shuki, and for you to say that I did is hopefully an unintended falsehood and not an outright lie. I can tell you exactly how I got to these pages, I was looking through pedrito's edits to see where the J+S problems arose. These articles were all edited in a set by pedrito, so I looked at them, and corrected the errors that I saw. So please stop saying things that you do not know, they can easily be mistaken for lies. And my edits were for the most part not reverts. Shuki added "town" "neighborhood" or whatever to the articles, placing them in before "Israeli settlement". I changed that order, but did not undo any part of Shuki's edits, I left "village" "town" or whatever, but I modified that placement. And where do you get off asking me for a policy based argument and then complaining when I provide one? This was by no means a "mass revert" as most of the edits were not even reverts. However, Shuki's reversion of these edits would be categorized as a "mass reversion" by your definition (though I would not say that they were), but you again take no issue with that. I am not going to stay here and argue the point with you, I dont exactly have a whole lot of faith in your objectivity or fairness so I dont see the point. You have said you "agree" with a user that has implicitly called me a racist in the post you apparently agree with and then have the gall to chastise me for things that are simply not true. There is no point to continuing with you here, so bye. nableezy - 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I take exception to the accusation that I called you an antisemite or racist, implicitedly or otherwise and to number57's assertion that I "played the antisemite card." I challenge you to find anything even vaguely resembling a personal attack in my post. I do stand by my belief that your posting and editing clearly shows an anti-Israel bias, and if you insist that stating that I see a bias in your work is the same as calling you an antisemite or a racist, go ahead. I would just remember to take a look at everything that you have said of me regarding bias (and I can find them for you), and you will see that at best you will be seen as the pot calling the kettle black. (No racism intended, implicit or otherwise.) No one has called you a racist, so you should get off your high horse and start making good WP edits and policy-based arguments instead of attacking other editors because they disagree with you. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

saying "this dehumanization of the Jewish community in and around Israel is really very troubling" in reference to nableezy's justified insistence on using the most notable, common descriptor is an accusation of racism. full stop. untwirl(talk) 04:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all then you must convict me for the accusation of racism against number57 since it was his post

"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!"

and his dehumanizing of real villages with real people in them as "almost unique by their virtue of being illegally constructed on occupied territory" rather than unique as villages with real people in them, was my original motivator. I suggest you try to put the shoe on the other foot if you can for a second, and see if you would like it if someone said something similar, about a Palestinian "encampment" in Israel for example. Refusing to see a village as a village or a neighborhood as a neighborhood simply because you disagree with those people politically or even a lot of people feel that way, it is still a village first and a settlement later. If you want to take this as a personal attack on my part that is your prerogative; but I must say that to do so is to make a personal attack of your own. I made an argument for an edit and said I was troubled by what I see as an attempt to dehumanize Israel and Israelis by turning them from human beings into "illegal occupiers" everywhere in WP, using any and every conceivable argument. Stellarkid (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am not dealing with this conversation anymore, but a tip for you. If you intend to reply to somebody you should indicate that by the level of your indent. Immediately following a comment with an additional indent is usually take as a reply to the comment you followed. So your comment looked like it was a reply to mine. But your argument is even more ridiculous when applied to Number57, but I'll leave it to you to figure out why it would be silly to accuse N57 of "dehumanizing Israel and Israelis" (this would give you an idea of why that would be a silly accusation). nableezy - 05:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

<- I find it baffling why people get so aggravated over this issue. It's really rather routine for the Supreme Court of Israel to refer to Israeli settlements as 'Israeli settlements' and Palestinian villages as 'Palestinian villages' in their rulings. This is typical but just have a look through their rulings. If they're quite happy to talk about 'settlement activities' producing 'Israeli settlements' in areas they recognise as being governed by the 'law of belligerent occupation' what's the problem ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Sean.hoyland that was an interesting Supreme Court of Israel ruling in a number of ways. You are quite right that they regularly (certainly in this ruling) refer to Israeli "settlements" and Palestinian "villages." However I do think it is easy to understand that in the context of a legal and political document such as this one -- that legal and political terms would tend to be used. I did a quick count just as a point of curiosity, and see they refer to "villages" some 42 times and "settlements" some 23 times. They did however refer to these settlements as "neighborhoods" some 78 times. Neighborhoods certainly has a more human ring to it than does "settlements." On another note, I ran a quick check on Judea and Samaria - fourteen times, and West Bank, twice. Make what you will of it. Stellarkid (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Number57 (and others), let us look for more/other NPOV, accurate, good writing examples on WP to strengthen the argument that we should open the lead with the more specific description rather than an ambiguously vague one: Chemists who come from France, for example. In most of the articles in that cat Category:French chemists, the subject of the article is described: 'ABC is a French chemist'. The lead is not 'ABC is a French scientist', or 'ABC is a scientist from France', or 'ABC is a French scientist and chemist', etc... Now for some exceptional reason, on Jewish locality articles the WP community enforces the idea that 'Modiin Illit is an Israeli city' implies that Modiin Illit is 'in Israel' but 'Modiin Illit is an Israeli settlement' somehow does not imply that the settlement is in Israel (settlement being a noun widely used in WP to describe all other human localities). Since it is better and more accepted editing to refer to the persons above specifically as French chemists, chemist being the most specific name to describe what they do as opposed to the vague 'scientist' term than likewise for the Jewish locality articles, it is more reasonable to use the more specific type of locality. I do not deny the general term 'Israeli settlement' and there is no attempt to remove it from the lead paragraph, even if it being in the lead sentence is a bit of awkward. But it is misleading to blanketly give this generalized label (which means any Jewish residence built by Israel or Israelis) to lead the lead. --Shuki (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK

FYI --Nsaum75 (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I always assumed that DYK was an interesting 'trivia' bit from a random article. Now I see that it is simply some sort of recognition for good work on expanding an article in a short time. The work done on exapanding Ayn Ghazal should be commended as all other editors who contribute time on WP to write good articles, but I don't know what is so special about it to deserve a mention, especially a non-exceptional sentence being singled out for publicity. --Shuki (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)