Misplaced Pages

Talk:Avigdor Lieberman

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 1 January 2010 (→Treason in context of Hamas). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:38, 1 January 2010 by Nableezy (talk | contribs) (→Treason in context of Hamas)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avigdor Lieberman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Avigdor Lieberman. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Avigdor Lieberman at the Reference desk.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Avigdor Lieberman article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

WP:SOAPy descriptions in the article

Following User:Jaakobou's re-insertion of a rather WP:POVis description of Hamas (here) I followed his lead regarding Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu (here).

Please discuss this here before reverting.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 23.02.2009 17:02 (UTC)

Length

The "term as a FM" section is growing too long. You might want to move it to a separate page keeping only the essentials on the main bio page. Mhym (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) -This comment by Mhym is a perfectly reasonable point that I'd like other editors to consider. Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has balance problems. At this point I wouldn't promote moving material so much to new article as I would argue that content should be given its proper weight for a biographical article. Jaakobou 10:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should explain. As it stands, the article is over 50K and considered too long by WP standards (see WP:SIZE). Relative to other articles, it also stands out. See e.g. Tzipi Livni, an article on arguably a more important figure in Israeli politics, which is about half the size and much better balanced. Let me now explain why I am insisting on this and what do I propose.

As it stands, the article is split into sections whose relative size is disproportional to their importance (see WP:UNDUE). The "Controversies" section is especially long and contentious. Due to the nature of this section I do not envision shortening of it without moving the material to a separate page. The 4-month long "Term as Minister of Foreign Affairs" sub-section is about half of the "Biography" section. As I see it, it is full of recentizms. E.g. it is hard for me to envision 10 years from now people caring about a recent joint press conference of AL with Hillary Clinton in the context of AL's biography, but it might be useful to know in the context of "AL's term as a FM" article. This sub-section needs to be made into a separate WP page. In both cases, someone would need to cut-and-paste these two sections and replace them with a careful and NPOV summary. The last part is tricky and delicate. I am not sure I can do that.

P.S. An important bonus: most of the 88 refs which occupy over a quarter of the article would also move into two new WP articles. Mhym (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a separate article. With all due respect to reliable sources, not every sourced statement needs to go in any Misplaced Pages article. We are not a dumping ground for any information found in any source. About half the article needs to go, but I'm afraid this won't happen unless all sides agree on which content is absolutely necessary. Personally I'd remove the part about the Clinton meeting entirely. —Ynhockey 06:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-adding of fact tag

A certain new editor keeps adding a fact tag to a sourced statement in the article. To be fair, the source is an interview with Lieberman, but it is used for a lot of the statements in the article and is published by an independent body. Are there specific concerns about the source? I don't mind adding to the article that he said this in an interview. —Ynhockey 06:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The allegation that the University of Kiev refuses to admit students that are Jewish is extremely serious and, if untrue, defamatory.

To publish such a claim on Misplaced Pages on the basis of a single source of dubious reliability is an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE. Halfacanyon (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The allegation is Lieberman's. Don't attribute it to the source.PluniAlmoni (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: antisemitism at Kiev University, "extremely serious" allegation, "defamatory", etc. No need to be shocked or even surprised - this only shows your ignorance. Please read History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Effects_of_the_Cold_War, which is about the right time frame. Mhym (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Generalizations about anti-Semitism in Russia in no way support specific claims about the University of Kiev's treatment of Avigdor Lieberman and policies toward Jewish students. Halfacanyon (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you removing the fact tag?

As I said, the the claim is very serious. To mention it in Misplaced Pages requires more than one source of doubtful reliability and expertise (WP:UNDUE). And at the very least both sides must be represented (WP:NPOV). Halfacanyon (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

POV and offtopic

Just two quick objections: a. The section "Year of aliyah" is clearly POV, the concept itself is of inherently "Israeli" perspective and not neutral. b. The picture of Berlin Holocaust Museum is totally offtopic. This Soviet emigre has nothing to do with Second World War being born after that.

Maybe some nice pictures of Kishinau and Leonid Brezhnev, who was also of Moldavian origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magabund (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Treason in context of Hamas

Me (Jaakobou-Israeli) and Nableezy (an Egyptian) know who or what Hamas is and what they stand for.

  • I believe outside readers do not always know that Hamas main point is replacing Israel with an Islamist "Palestine". This, IMHO, needs basic clarification on the article in the given context (per "Lieberman called for those Arab members of the Knesset which met with Hamas, which advocates the destruction of Israel, to be tried for treason." - emphasis not in original).
  • From the edit summary I understand that Nableezy feels "the wikilink provides all the context needed" but I disagree. A reader needs to review the entire history of Hamas in order to understand the context for that one liner about treason. Jaakobou 10:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC) rework 10:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC) focus 10:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC) better 10:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not particularly appreciate being labeled up there. nableezy - 18:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need to paste the entire charter of Hamas to provide context for Lieberman's call, but a wikilink and a few simple words like "which calls for the destruction of Israel" (or something) should be enough. Not including these would not only be a POV problem, but would also violate the spirit of BLP, because it goes further to paint Lieberman as an extremist (adding these simple few words balances it). —Ynhockey 11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no consensus on whether or not Hamas "advocates the destruction of Israel". While their early charter did seem to support such an end, their more recent statements indicate a willingness to recognize and negotiate with Israel. It is highly POV and inaccurate to try to summarize their complex goals in those few words. I think Nableey is right to suggest that it is best to let readers click on Hamas and see what it is about to determine for themselves why Liberman views meeting with them as treason. Tiamut 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Tiamut,
With respect to the one year PR march, you're way off about Hamas. They've been advocating muqawama quite publicly as recently as December 15, 2009.
With respect, Jaakobou 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, muqawama (i.e. "resistance") does not equal destruction of Israel. I'd also appreciate it if you could stop using that word, as you tend to bring it up in every comment you make, whether its related to the subject under discussion or not and I find that a little provocative, to be honest.
My point remains unchallenged and the ambiguity is discussed in the section of the Hamas article on the charter that you linked to above: there is no consensus on whether or not Hamas actually does advocate the destruction of Israel. That's just one POV which should be balanced by including others if it is to included here. I don't think it should be, because that will lead to a lengthy tangent that is best covered in the article on Hamas itself. Given that both Nableezy and I believe its inclusion is POV and inappropriate, I'd appreciate you removing it until we can agree on how to include a note, if at all. Tiamut 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Heyo T,
I gave an official Hamas source (no less) showing that you are wrong about Hamas. No? We can't remove something based on a baseless claim made against it.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 15:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the rhetoric used in a speech where a Hamas leader discusses liberting all of "Palestine" without defining what that is, is not proof of the veracity of your argument. Furthermore, even if Meshaal did say explicitly that Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel (which he did not), there are other Hamas members and scholars on Hamas who dispute the notion that their objective is as such. I'd appreciate you rethinking NPOV, which states that all significant viewpoints on an issue are to be represented. Including only one as though it is the gospel truth in an article where space cannot be given to others is very POV. I retierate my request that you delete the piece of text being challenged by two editors. Per WP:CONSENSUS, when there is no consensus for its inclusion, it should be removed so as to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Tiamut 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tiamut,
  1. But Hamas (and their head leader) does say it is their goal. Can you review relevant sources?
  2. I'm sure WP:consensus doesn't say you and your partner can impose something baseless and the given source shows it exactly as that.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 16:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, characterizing the objections of your fellow editors as "baseless" isn't helping here. Care to stop doing that please?
Also, I've already reviewed the relevant sources cited in he Hamas article where the differences in opinion as to the applicability of the charter and their long-term goals is covered in depth. Again, highlighting only one POV is not NPOV. So please remove it, or I will. Tiamut 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, Jaak and Yn agree that "advocates the destruction of Israel" is a neutral description of Hamas? Forgetting that for a second, why not instead include why Arab MoK would meet with them in a similar "NPOV" way, such as "the government of the Gaza Strip, which has been under Israeli siege"? For some odd reason I dont see this being accepted. nableezy - 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that you are correct and there should be a footnote about the context in which Israeli-Arab MKs wanted to meet Hamas officials. I don't think it should be written instead though. That doesn't really make sense in explaining why an Israeli MK (Lieberman) would call their actions 'treason'.
Regards, Jaakobou 16:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I am going to delete the fragment to which Nableey and I object. We can discuss here how to include the different POVs if at all and once we agree, we can add what we agree on to the article. Tiamut 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Your Third Opinion request has been declined and removed from the list of active disputes:
Reason: WP:3O says: "This page is for resolving conflicting viewpoints involving only two editors. ... For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process." More than two editors are involved in this dispute. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hamas still calls for the destruction replacement of Israel (what is the difference?) talking nice in English and frank in Arabic . Tiamut, this is not a vote or a popularity contest ('2 against 1'). Nableezy's current suggestion is too long. --Shuki (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference, Shuki, is neutrality. nableezy - 18:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort Nableezy, but I don't think such a description is needed, and I'm still not sure its accurate, given that Hamas has made public statements that indicate their willingness to accept state in the territories occupied in 1967 for a long-term truce. I think its unnecessary detail and unlike Jaakobou, I think most people know who Hamas is and why Lieberman might not like it if Palestinian citizens of Israel met with them. If they don't, well, the wikilink to Hamas lets them know. Anyway, so as to avoid further edit-warring, I'm not going to touch you last edit which I appreciate was an effort to put forward a compromise to stop the back and forth reverting that was going on. But I do think it should eventually be removed and we should avoid giving any sentence fragment descriptions of Hamas. People are not that stupid and if they are, there are wikilinks to enlighten them. Tiamut 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality is not the issue here, but rather proper context for Lieberman applying the label of treason. A short description is necessary besides the wikilink in this sentence. Tiamut, it's an encyclopedia, and we do not assume anything or any previous knowledge of the reader, unless context already above that section in the article which it is not at this time. That paragraph with his controversial statement is simply incomplete right now and Nableezy's addition is a bit long and awkward. If a short description is not included in that sentence, then a subsequent follow up additional sentence is necessary. --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality is the issue, it is non-neutral to say that Hamas advocates for the "destruction" of Israel. Why is it non-neutral? Because that is a statement that is disputed by both Hamas and by reliable sources. nableezy - 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Heyo Nableezy,
Above was noted a speech made by the main Hamas leader just a couple weeks ago in which he talks about driving the out of Gaza, the West Bank and all of Palestine. There's no double meaning here and you and Tiamut are making baseless assersions that Hamas is somehow not about taking over Israel. This edit-warring and the use of meatpuppets to try and impose this baseless assertion is innapropriate, more-so when you're writing that Hamas is somehow promoting the one-state solution which is quite an extraordinary claim. If you're dissatisfied with the text, you should start by building a case for your perspective on more than just the word of yourself and Tiamut.
Tiamut,
Please do not edit war to impose a change in the article. There's clearly no consensus for your preferred version of hiding why collaboration with Hamas could be viewed as treason.
With respect, Jaakobou 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
p.s. nableezy, are you still interested in adding a footnote to why Arab MKs wanted to meet with Hamas officials? I've no objections to adding it per your suggestion above.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 20:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, you are the one edit-warring to impose your POV on what Hamas stands for while ignoring what other sources and other editors have to say about it. Please gain consensus for a formulation acceptable to everyone here before re-inserting the text that was there, which is both POV and inaccurate. Please also avoid using primary sources to support this editorializing. Thanks. Tiamut 20:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I've made an edit here that people can revert if they feel it is inappropriate. What I've done is added comments in response to Lieberman's, one of which includes the idea that Hamas is an enemy of the state. My objection to Jaakobou's edits is that it presents the view that Hamas seeks to destroy Israel in Misplaced Pages's neutral voice, when this is in fact a disputed claim, and therefore it violates NPOV. Including that same idea, but attributing it to a speaker defending Lieberman's comments, is in my opinion, a potential solution. As I said, people may revert and discuss the merits or demerits and other options here should they find the edit to be inadequate. Tiamut 20:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed much of the edit, because it is not clear why the Mossawa center's opinion is notable here (takes up a huge amount of space), and also removed Tartman's defense for the exact same reason. Let's keep this short but to the point. I remind everyone that the article is about Lieberman, not about the relations between Jewish and Arab MKs, or a "List of reactions to quotes by Avigdor Lieberman". I believe reactions to Lieberman's quotes (both in support and in opposition) shouldn't have much place in the article, if at all. Verbal assaults by Arab MKs on Lieberman should be added though, if notable. —Ynhockey 22:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well how do you propose we deal with the requests of Shuki and Jaakobou for more context to Lieberman's statements, while satisying the concerns raised by Nableezy and I about the need to be NPOV about it? I suggest we consider reinstating part of the statement of Estherina Tartman. Perhaps simply noting after his comment that: Estherina Tartman, fellow Beitinu MK, explained that, "There is nothing strange about this statement. When you have enemies who seek to destroy the state, you have to deal with them, whatever their ethnicity or religion."
I do, by the way, think the comments of a major organization representing the Arab population in Israel (Mossawa) are relevant. But I won't press that issue since the main one to be resolved, which is causing people to edit war, is how to provide context for the reader on how Hamas is viewed by Lieberman without presenting his viewpoint in Misplaced Pages's neutral voice. Tiamut 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, there are people in this world who do not feel that a one-state solution is equivalent to the "destruction of the state of Israel". You are using overly emotive language when a neutrally worded description will suffice. A neutrally worded sentence is what is used in the Hamas article: Hamas's 1988 charter calls for the replacement of Israel and the Palestinian Territories with an Islamic Palestinian state. And if you want to say "OR", I say the entire inclusion of the description is OR by SYNTH. The sources you cited about Hamas advocating the "destruction" of Israel does not make any remark about the comments by Lieberman. And I refuse to take any accusation of edit-warring from you seriously, I know this game and I will not play it. I have made exactly 1 revert to the material in question. You have made at least 3. nableezy - 02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories: