Talk:Avigdor Lieberman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV discussion

This section (Best known in Israel for ...) is clearly POV - comments, anybody? The preceding unsigned comment was originally added by Danielcohn.

Please be more specific. Quote the POV part exactly, if you will. --Chodorkovskiy 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article that quoted someone saying that Lieberman is a racist should not be there since this position is same as Hamas and many other Arabs vis a vis the Jews. No one says that they are racists so samthing should be done with Lieberman.

He has recently generated harsh reactions also by demanding the execution of Arab MKs [1] who meet with Hamas officials.

He demanded Arab MKs to be tried, not executed as stated in the article.

I strongly object to the first paragraph as written (the one which describes Lieberman's "transfer" plan for Israeli Arabs) as it contains no balancing statement from the many Israeli political leaders who object to Lieberman's plan. I have written a 2nd paragraph which provides some of that balance. If anyone tinkers with my 2nd paragraph I will want to know why. If it is changed or removed I will register a POV dispute about this article.

I removed the passage "and transfer their sovereignty to a future Palestinian state" because there is no concrete indication that this will ever happen beyond rhetoric. Furthermore, Liberman has no desire to help create a Palestinian state, from here http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2811 There is also little mention of his constituency, and no mention of his critics often calling him a "fascist". Kareem

Karim, you are mistaken - Lieberman accepts the inevitability of some sort of Palestinian state (as opposed to Likud party, which for some reason is considered more to the left then Yisrael Beitenu), and his plan - call it rhetoric if you will - advocates exactly what you have removed. As for people calling him names, there is not a single polician on left or right that has been spared such slurs as "Nazi" or "fascist", and it should never be a part of a neutral article. Eliyyahu 23:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Eliyyahu, you bring up two points. With the issue of the Palestinian state, I refer you to his recent statement of which I posted the link above. Surely one who describes destroying the infrastructure of a territory in such detail has no interest in building a state, beyond lip service. And this is not the first time he makes sucj statements. Secondly, there is a difference between calling someone a Fascist and a Nazi. Calling an Israeli politician a Nazi would be a slur, yes, although fascism is a political ideology that befits Liberman's thinking. And while you may be right that no politician has been spared "slurs", fascism is quite a different thing. In fact, it is a very real concern that some Western democracies are creeping into that ideology. I refer you to Wikipedia's definition of Fascism. --Kareem najjar 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kareem, the Yisrael Beitenu website clearly states their program (http://www.beytenu.org.il/content.asp?NID=2&CID=9) - unfortunately available only in Hebrew and Russian, but if I can translate it if you like. It states that there will be a permanent border with the Palestinians based on whether the majority of population is Arab or Jewish in a given area. According to the programme, Arab towns transfered to Israel by Jordan in 1949 will be given up by Israel and become part of a future Palestinian state in exchange for retaining Jewish settlement blocs. Lieberman is the author of this plan, and whether he changed his views or not, this is still his party's platform and therefore should be properly reflected in our website description.

The wikipedia definition of "fascism" is not academically reliable. These words have lost their meaning, with everyone left and right calling each other names (cf. Islamofascism). The Oxford English Dictionary defines "fascism" as "the totalitarian principles and organisation of the extreme right-wing in Italy". It also notes that the loose use in the sense of "any system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views" is considered unacceptable by some people. Therefore, even if Lieberman was either authoritarian or extreme right-wing, it would have been questionable to call him a fascist, but since his position on a Palestinian state is to the left of the Likud or the National Union (Yihud Le'umi), he is best identified as a right-wing secular Zionist.Eliyyahu 05:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points, however: whether or not the party platform states that there should be a future Palestinian state, the article is about Avigdor Liberman, not the Yisrael Beitenu party platform. Given your point, it seems imperative that a distinction should be made between what he states and what his party's platform is. Again, I refer you to the links I had mentioned earlier. In addition, as I mentioned before, it is highly unlikely that a Palestinian state will be formed anytime in the future. If the sentence should come back, it should perhaps come back as "future theoretical Palestinian state". but since the facts on the ground are what they are, it does not make sense to have it in there. Perhaps the term "fascism" has lost its meaning in a general sense, yet it still is a political ideology that is associated with certain parties or movements. your example of Islamofascism is not a good one in my opinion, because as the link you provided states, it is a neologism and not necessarily a political ideology per se. It is more of a bigoted, almost nonsensical statement in line with calling someone a Nazi. --Kareem najjar 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Kareem, I'm sorry, but the article link you provided is rather biased and provides only fragmentary, and, more importantly, outdated quotes from Lieberman, whose position before 2004 was more hard-line than it is now. The sentence in question is about his population exchange proposal, not other statements, and his plan is spelt out in detail on the Yisra'el Beitenu website. I don't know if in his heart he believes that an independent Palestinian state will be formed, but the idea of ceding Arab towns to some sort of entity that is not part of the State of Israel implies just that, and is closer to the Olmert "convergence" plan than positions of Effi Eitam, Benny Elon or Baruch Marzel who believe in one, Jewish state west of Jordan.

I agree that Islamo-fascism is a bigoted term, although no more nonsensical than calling Lieberman one. He is a nationalist and a Zionist, but not a xenophobe; otherwise, how would you explain his friendly relationship with the Druze, and his party goal to create more housing for them?

To round up the discussion, I suggest we say something like "transfer their sovereignty to the Palestinian Authority", which may become an independent state. Eliyyahu 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds like a fair compromise, thank you. However, I do feel that something has to be said about 'fascist-ic' tendencies, of which there is ample evidence. But I will leave it alone for now, and hope that someone else could contribute. Thanks for your time.--Kareem najjar 02:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascistic tendencies are complete OR. Find a source and you can cram the article full of such claims. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC) --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's one from a few days ago: "Israeli Arab leader calls Yisrael Beiteinu 'fascist party'". El_C 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman vs. Liberman

In view of the fact that Lieberman has become the standart spelling of his name in the anglo press, I suggest that the article be renamed "Avigdor Lieberman" and Liberman would be redirected to it. Any objections? Eliyyahu 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can anyone explain the thinking behind spelling his name "Liberman" rather than the way I've seen it in the Israeli & world media, "Lieberman?" I don't believe I've seen it spelled "Liberman" anywhere other than here. Richard 22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. I think official translators opted for the spelling to avoid confusion with someone whose name, phonetically, sounds like Lie-berman. El_C 10:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer going with the Knesset's spelling. El_C 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason for the phonetic spelling "Liberman" is that neither Hebrew or Russian use the Latin alphabet, and therefore the long vower "ee" is not reflected in their respective spelling. Of course, Lieberman is a German/Yiddish Ashkenazic surname and etymologically Lieberman or even Liebermann is the correct spelling. In my view, the article heading should reflect the prevalent spelling, while within it we can add variant spellings for clarification purposes. Eliyyahu 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Авигдор Либерман (Abīgdoŭr Līberman, Avigdor Liběrman). See Ynet Encyclopedia Why not seek clarification from aliberman@knesset.gov.il? El_C 20:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Che Guevara, a simple Google search yields 321,000 hits for "Avigdor Lieberman", but only 27,500 for "Avigdor Liberman". That's more than 10:1. Still not convinced? Eliyyahu 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to designated usernames. In answer to your question, I don't care if it's 100:1, I care about official usage and accuracy, and phonetic comprehensibility. El_C 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The AE pronunciation of Lieberman has the first syllable like Robert E. Lee, I'mnot sure that phonetic comprehensibility is an issue here; and most of the links use Lieberman. So does the BBC. Septentrionalis 23:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is so special about the BBC? (who uses both); their translations are of an unofficial nature. El_C 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

An eminent news source that speaks BE, so it's not just AE. Septentrionalis 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Lie is phoentically clear to native speakers. But that is besides the point. What is written on his passport, however, is an important indicator. That Knesset page / email address is as verifiable we get to what the correct English spelling for his name is (Li). As well, while the Party's website English page is down (not sure if it was ever up), as for pictures of him in the Hebrew and Russian pages, I've only seen the Li in the file name. Which is why I suggested asking aliberman@knesset.gov.il. El_C 04:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, both spellings will be included in the article, but the Wikipedia policy is to use the most widespread spelling for article headings (e.g. Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Che Guevara etc) - it really doesn't matter what's written in his passport: Yasser Arafat's real name was Yasser al-Qudwa, but I don't see any entries under that name. Eliyyahu 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

YB website lists him as Avigdor Lieberman. Since it is "his" party, I would assume that is the spelling he prefers. With all due respect to the Knesset, translit. on their website could be a whim of some translator, subcontractor or webmaster. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Link? El_C 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not policy but guideline, in this case involving a subtle difference (1 letter). El_C 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's WP:NAME, which is policy. Septentrionalis 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yisrael Beytenu website [26] lists him as Lieberman. The site is currently down, but you can read the cached version on Google. Eliyyahu 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, on all fronts. El_C 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I propperly moved the page; someone WP:CPMV'd it. El_C 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and allegations of anti-Arabism

I've previously added {{fact}} beside the unsourced statement that Lieberman's population exchange proposal was a reason for the requested invistigation by Tibi. Both the Ynet and Guardian articles used as references have no mention of this at all. The only reason mentioned in both articles is Lieberman's remarks of the Arab MKs. Actually, the Ynet news article [27] says "Lieberman said that the fate of the collaborators in the Knesset should be same as the fate of the Nazi collaborators. Immediately after these words, Tibi approached Attorney General Mazuz and demanded that a criminal investigation be initiated". Ynet and the Guardian are reliable sources. On the contrary is the israelinsider which is an online news magazine! Besides, the article cited by israelinsider [28] talks about the separation suggested by Lieberman but does not mention at all that this was a reason for the investtigation. I've also added {{fact}} besides " who comes from the town of Tayibe, which Lieberman wants transferred to the Palestinian Authority " which is unverifiable, unsourced and its addition in such a way to imply that it was the reason behind Tibi's demand of investigation constitutes Original rearch. The template {{fact}} was removed with no explanation. I'm removing both now.--Wedian 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are correct that Ahmed Tibi went to State Prosecutor's office in connection with Lieberman's statements against Arab MKs that met with with the Hamas (Tibi being one of them) and not in connection with his Population Exchange Plan, but it is definitely relevant information for any reader that Tibi lives in Tayibe [29], because under Lieberman's proposal he would become Palestinian and lose his job in the Knesset. Eliyyahu 05:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this kind of information belongs to Ahmed Tibi article not to Liebermann's article unless reputable sources -and not wikipedians- have directly linked or attributed Tibi's accusations to him being from the Tayibe town which would be transfered in the population exchange plan. If you take a look at WP:OR you 'll find that an edit counts as origoinal research if It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Ahmed Tibi is from Tayibe is a fact. He accused Lieberman of being a racist and anti-arabist is another fact. If you put up these two facts in such a way to suggest that the first is the reason behind the second just as you've said above "Ahmed Tibi accused Lieberman of anti-arabism but he is from Tayibe, & according to Lieberman's proposal he would become palestininan and lose his job at the knesset" then, this is purely an Original Research and doesn't belong to wikipedia.--Wedian 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, Wedian, I see your point. Although this is not original research, I cannot currently find a source explaining that Tibi's remarks are motivated by the fact that Lieberman's proposal would affect him directly. Shokran. Eliyyahu 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Triangle?

This would be easier for non-Israelis to follow if it said where the "Triangle" is; the Wadi 'Ara link is red. Septentrionalis 03:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Triangle and other Arab regions

In a 2004 speech Lieberman suggested that 90% of Israel's Arabs would have their citizenships annulled. At most 40% of Israel's Arabs live in the Triangle however. Search for "90%" and "Avigdor Lieberman" on Google and there are plenty of references to that speech. Handing over the Triangle is nothing controversial and has been suggested by Shimon Peres and others.

This means Lieberman wants to exclude the Arabs of the Negev and Galilee from Israel as well. Borders as mentioned above by someone else should according to the party be drawn according to whether the majority in a given area is Jewish or Muslim. This includes present-day Israel.

The English-language website of Yisrael Beytenu mentions Wadi Ara as an EXAMPLE of Arab areas that should be turned over to the Palestinian Authority.

The Wadi Area is only a small part of the Triangle. The Triangle is a term which was originally used under the British mandate. It included the West Bank north of Ramallah. The term Triangle now refers to a number of Arab Israeli towns that border the West Bank. Actually it looks much more like a line than anything else, certainly not a triangle. The term "Triangle" is a misnomer that should be avoided.

Again, Wadi Ara is only a small part of the "Triangle".

There is no evidence from any reliable sources that Lieberman suggests turning areas other than the Triangle to the PA in exchange for annexation of settlement blocs. There is absolutely no evidence that he support giving up parts of Galilee or Negev. In fact, many Galilee Druze support him and he has pledged to create more housing for them. The actual plan can be read on Hebrew, Russian or English version of the party website. For the time being, you are extrapolating information, and it is pure OR. Eliyyahu 01:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

90% is 90%. Haaretz is a pretty reliable source. The party platform says borders should be drawn according to whether Jews or Arabs constitute the majority in any given region. There are many reliable references to the 90% speech (see above). The Yisrael Beiteinu web site is not very specific, it only states the general principle. By the way, the main Druze region is close to the Lebanon border (not in southern or central Galilee) and as Israeli patriots Lieberman obviously want the Druze to be part of Israel. This has been stated by him many times. This applies also to some other "patriotic" minority villages. Note also that he wants to keep half of the West Bank not only settlement blocs. This is the "population exchange". Palestine incorporates Israeli Arabs, Israel incorporates Jewish settlers. Perhaps it is time that we ask the party itself so as to find out. Again the speech is widely quoted. Nowhere does the party claim that the handover should be LIMITED to the so called Triangle. The term "Triangle" is a misnomer that was relevant in the mandatory period when the Triangle extended all the way to Ramallah.

The web site EXEMPLIFIES when mentioning the Triangle and Um El Fahem: "Trading Spaces Moving the Border Between Us, Not Among Us. The responsibility for primarily Arab areas such as Umm Al-Fahm and the “triangle” will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority. In parallel, Israel will officially annex Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria. Israel is our home; Palestine is theirs."

None of the other mentioned political parties favor forced population transfer.

I suggest you read the Hebrew version of the party website (if you read Hebrew)[30]. It explicitly states that (1) the area of Wadi 'Ara and the Triangle should come under Palestinian sovereignty. (2) Jewish settlements blocs close to the former Israel-Jordan ceasefire line will be annexed (Maale Adummim, Ariel, Gush Etzion) (3) 170,000 Arabs in the Metropolitan area of Jerusalem will be included in the Palestinian Authority (3) All Israeli citizens will be required to pledge allegiance to the country, its anthem and its flag, or have their citizenship revoked. In that case, they still may be able to qualify for permanent residency without citizenship. (This can also affect Arab Israelis in other areas). To my own surprise, the website also states that all the territorial exchanges will be part of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and will require approval of the UN and the international community.

Make of it what you will, but there is not a word about Negev or the Galilee in the program. Eliyyahu 06:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The mention of the Triangle is for legal reasons, because Israel originally acquired the area through territorial exchange. (They traded a Jewish area north of the Dead Sea.) The reference is to "Jewish areas" not settlement blocs. (BTW there are more Jewish settlement blocs than the 3 biggest.) There are only 3 Arab regions in Israel, the Triangle, southern and central Galilee and northern Negev. The 90% includes all the 3 regions. (10% of Israel's ethnic Arabs live outside the 3 regions, mainly in Jewish cities. I checked successive censa.) The Triangle is only one region and the program refers to regions in plural. Whatever one thinks of Lieberman's policies, he is terribly misunderstood. My only concern is to set the record straight as I deplore the way he is misunderstood by the Israeli left and the media, something which I personally think is a shame. If you live in Israel, please do take the opportunity to call up the party and verify. All the best.

WikiProject Palestine

How is this article in the scope of WikiProject Palestine? Granted, I don't know of any restrictions about what WikiProjects can include in their scope, but this is nowhere near the project's scope, which says: The project covers all articles about Palestine geography, culture, history, politics, sports, and modern events.

Lieberman has about as much to do with Palestine as someone like Ibrahim al-Makadmeh has to do with Israel. Not he, and not even Palestinian leaders directly related to Israel like Ismail Haniya, Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, are included in the scope of WikiProject Israel.

What is the reason for this inclusion? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up to the above, I just noticed that List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was ranked as 'high' on the WikiProject Palestine importance scale, while Turmus Ayya, a fairly well-known Palestinian town, was ranked 'low'. Does anyone else get a feeling that the project is mostly political in nature? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this with AWB but having looked at it again it does fall within the scope of WikiProject Palestine. I'm surprised that articles on the people you mention have not been incorporated into WikiProject Israel. Could you make sense of modern Israeli history without discussing them? --Ian Pitchford 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Arafat, Abbas and Haniya should be included in WP:Israel, simply because you can't include everyone who seriously influences the country into the WikiProject. I mean, imagine including George W. Bush or Condoleezza Rice into about 50 individual country WikiProjects. Or Kissinger, or any other such person. Yes, Lieberman is indirectly (at least for now) related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is related to Palestine; but mostly he is related to Israel, its politics, etc. Putting him in WikiProject Palestine is undue weight - even if you consider the Lieberman plan to be within the scope of this project, it shouldn't cover even a quarter of the article on Lieberman, who has many other political plans, which will probably not be implemented. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; these inclusions seem political in nature. Should people be included in the Wikiprojects of every single country they might have influenced in some way? Is Wikiproject Palestine simply a duplicate of Wikiproject Israel? If so, it shouldn't exist. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

racism section

I just noticed the "racism" section and it looks like an assortment of random quotes and misquotes referenced also to The Independent?! and a Gideon Levy remark about an article he'd seen?!. Sure, there's room for "criticism of anti-arab behavior/commentary", but currently the section reeks of ridiculous POV pushing in what looks like a sad attempt to replace Ariel Sharon with a new subject for hate iconography. I'm not a huge fan of Liberman, but this should be fixed. p.s. Ynhockey, I hope I answered your question about the reason for this inclusion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, the reason for changes is due to misuse of sources and POV. If you have reason to believe the sources are worthy of inclusion, please state proper reasoning, and proper text. Wiki-articles are not meant to nitpick at unimportant quotes and you need to establish relevence and notability - with reliable sourcing. Thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, Lieberman is a genuinely and extremely controversial figure both in Israel and abroad. He was also a government Minister when he was making a lot of these comments. The Independent and Haaretz (different Gideon btw) pieces document this and they are both utterly reliable mainstream sources, referring to quotes from other MKs and arguments with Shimon Peres. Oh and finally, you of all people have absolutely no right to complain about "unimportant quotes" etc supposedly being pulled together to create a controversy or criticism sub section. You created massive ones on Gideon Levy, Saeb Erekat etc - who are far less controversial figures (to mainstream thinking, even if not to you personally). --Nickhh (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

I disagree with your recent revert [31]. The text was mucked up with misuse of sources and needed an NPOV rephrase.

Source 1: independent.co.uk

• (a) Source is misrepresented within the article - per "Mr Lieberman urged that Palestinians be told to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks." being POV presented as "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers..."
• (b) Source does not establish notability and relevance of racism allegations or "controversy".

Source 2: haaretz.com

• Source uses a vague 3rd source for the inflammatory "prisoners should be drowned in the Dead Sea" claim registered within the wiki article - find that original source or at least a few other reliable sources that support this, otherwise this is WP:BLP.

Source 3: Reuters

• Source is misrepresented within the article - per "[Avigdor Lieberman], said he was ready to evacuate his West Bank settlement home to achieve his [population transfer] proposal." being POV presented as 90 percent of Israel's one million Arabs would "have to find a new Arab entity"

I'd appreciate an explanation on why you believe that despite your revert reinserting these misrepresentation of sources, that it was the correct move. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They are all undoubtedly controversial quotes, attributed to Lieberman in reliable mainstream media sources. Some of them prompted on-the-record complaints, including about "racism" or "fascism" from other MKs (both Jewish and Arab), in one case through formal channels. You may well be able to pick out other, seemingly less controversial, quotes via these articles. So what? He still made the other comments. --Nickhh (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between partial citation of article content and selective POV representation of that material. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. And don't write shouty edit summaries ordering other people "not to revert without gaining consensus", when you are doing precisely that yourself, as you so frequently do. You've got some cheek. Anyway I'll just add this article to list of ones you own, and won't continue to engage in yet another of your childish edit wars. --Nickhh (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I heartily suggest you go over the WP:BLP page. To repeatedly insert BLP violating material -- esp. after the problem is clearly explained -- is poor form, to say the least. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't explain anything clearly if you tried. And you certainly haven't explained why directly quoting some of Lieberman's own words, and documenting the reaction of fellow MKs to some of those comments - all of which is sourced from mainstream media reports - is in breach of WP:BLP. --Nickhh (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles are misrepresented by taking quotes out of their article's context, this is explained above.

p.s. I repeat my request that you desist of making snide personal remarks. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC) clarify 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the same claim you make every time an unflattering quote comes up from an Israeli leader. Jaakobou, quoting "out of context" means quoting selectively in a way which distorts meaning, not quoting the most significant portion of somebody's remarks. You're not making sense here. <eleland/talkedits> 23:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And Jaakobou I also explained why the "context" argument you are trying to push is irrelevant in this case - he has clearly, as documented in the sources cited, made some highly controversial statements which have provoked significant political reaction in Israel and abroad. It makes no difference if those remarks were made in the context of other, less immediately offensive remarks. A lot of them seem to have been standalone outbursts anyway. And it's desist from btw. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want strong criticism included, you must have very good sources - not misrepresentation of random (or vaguely sourced) quotes taken out of their article context. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Breathtaking inanity. The sources are the Independent, Ha'aretz, and Reuters, they're reliable, and they're not remotely vague. Taken seriously, your claim would disallow all quotations from Wikipedia, since we'd have to paste in the entire "article context" every time we wanted to say something. Your argument is intellectually dishonest, of course, and not meant to be taken seriously. <eleland/talkedits> 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Article protection

I've protected the article, because of the edit war. The version I protected had a missing citation, and I've removed the citation, and the unsourced sentence. I'll post on WP:AN to get comments, but if another admin wants to revert or take other action, that would be perfectly ok. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The "bundles" quote is used in a Jerusalem Post op-ed by the president of American Friends for Peace Now[32], and by former Israeli MK Azmi Bishara in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.[33] It was also in The Nation's online edition.[34] It may have been broken to the English-speaking world by freelance journalist Jonathan Cook. At least two other freelance journalist, writing in the Guardian's Comment is Free, uses the quote,[35] as does the Institute for Middle East Understanding.[36] (In fariness, another freelancer in the Guardian's blog used the quote citing a Wikipedia mirror! [ [37])

I didn't find any "straight" news articles mentioning it in mainstream English-language press. There may have been a scholarly article in Journal of Palestine Studies [38] but I don't have access to that right now. There are a lot of mentions by NGOs, tabloids, blogs, etc, but that doesn't add anything.

In all it's decently sourced, but this is a BLP, and with what I've found thus far I can't justify stating it as fact. I'm not sure if it's solid enough to include as attributed to somebody else (and who would we pick?) <eleland/talkedits> 02:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem of course with the removal of any individual quotes that aren't accurately sourced (and thanks for making the effort to deal with this one, and look into it in some detail). But equally anything that is reliably sourced and relevant - as most of the rest of it is - should stay in, not be edit-warred out a whole paragraph at a time with vague assertions of BLP violations, which is what was happening here over the last couple of days. --Nickhh (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations

{{editprotected}}

Related diff is here: [39] under anti-Arab racism Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There are currently several out of context quotes and synthesized criticism in the article. As a result, the Avigdor_Lieberman#Controversy_and_allegations_of_anti-Arab_racism section has multiple WP:BLP violations which must be removed and discussed/fixed to encyclopedic standards rather than locked into the article.

Sample 1: Signs of deep rifts within the Israeli Cabinet (March 7, 2002) are not allegation of anti-Arab criticism or much notable "controversy". The article has no secondary source that criticizes Liberman apart from a one time response by Shimon Peres -- even that, response that the suggestion is dangerous -- who replied to Liberman's emotional suggestion on how to respond to a war campaign, a wave of the 9 separate terror attacks in a span of , killing 28 Israelis (March 2,3 and 5). March 2-3 were even dubbed "weekend of terror" by the NYT [40]. Meantime, Marwan Barghouti, at the time the secretary general of the Palestinian Fatah, was busy on Al-Jazeera congratulating these attacks.

Sample 2: According to another report, Lieberman said the prisoners should be drowned in the Dead Sea, an unknown report by whoever (possibly the same people that reported the Ouze Merham quote) was used for Arab MKs to blast Liberman. Arab MKs from Arab political parties in Israel blast practically everyone at the Knesset (and get blasted themselves also)- the quote however, sounds bogus and should be removed until there's a less vague reference to it.

While there is no serious attempt to pursue a normative way to present quotes and allegations within proper criticism, I request this section reverted to this version [41] which removed the BLP violations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC) mild edit. 12:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sample 1: All our article says on this topic is,

In 2002, at the height of the Palestinian al-Aqsa Intifada, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting saying that the Palestinians should be given an ultimatum that "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers...at noon we'll bomb their gas stations... at two we'll bomb their banks....”

And what does our source say?

A newspaper report of Mr Peres' bitter exchange with the infrastructure minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was confirmed yesterday by Mr Lieberman's spokesman.
According to the report in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper, Mr Lieberman urged that Palestinians be told to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks.
"At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centres... at noon we'll bomb their gas stations... at two we'll bomb their banks," Mr Lieberman reportedly told the meeting before Peres interrupted

So what exactly is "synthetic" or "out of context" about this quote? And what on earth do your opinions about Arab terror have to do with it?

Sample 2: Our article says, fully,

In 2003, Ha'aretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.[12]

And what does Ha'aretz (the most respected Israeli newspaper) say?

A storm erupted in the Knesset plenum yesterday, following Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman's reported proposal to provide buses to take the Palestinian prisoners that Israel releases to a place "whence they will not return."
According to another report, Lieberman said the prisoners should be drowned in the Dead Sea and he would provide the buses to take them there.

Claiming that the quote "sounds bogus" is a total misunderstanding of WP:V in favour of a personal campaign for WP:TRUTH. Jaakobou, you're a veteran editor, you can cite policy, you know that it's not about what "sounds bogus" but what's verifiable. Please cease and desist from this. Technically, the line should say, "In 2003, according to Ha'aretz, it was reported that..." rather than "In 2003 Ha'aretz reported that..." but you've been mass blanking, not making minor semantic corrections. Once the protection which you've forced to be implemented is lifted, I'll gladly make that change. And again, irrelevant accusations about Arabs (Ouze Merham, wtf??) will not distract from what is a paper-thin rationalization for tendentious behavior. <eleland/talkedits> 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The drowning quote was widely reported as fact by reliable sources. The Guardian, [42], The Jerusalem Post, [43] the Wall Street Journal [44], the Telegraph, [45] and even Jaakobou's favourite non-RS Israel Insider [46] all report it. It should be included as fact. <eleland/talkedits> 16:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eleland, I agree there appear to enough reliable sources for the drowning quote, however I'll wait for another admin to handle the protected edit request. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple when you look up proper sources and rephrase to an encyclopedic version. However, While there is no serious attempt to pursue a normative way to present quotes and allegations within proper criticism, I request this section reverted to this version [47] which removed the BLP violations.

Sample 1 - A Cabinet meeting - a single Yediot Aharonot quote from a cabinet meeting. Are there any sources in which he is criticised for anti-Arab racism for this cabinet quote? who criticizes him? - what makes it valid to use this quote as a ramming tool to claim anti-Arab racism? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. it would make just as much sense to take cabinet quotes by Mahmoud Abbas and place them under Anti-Jewish racism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, I've trimmed the section heading, because of concerns you've raised. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The "At 8 am.." quote was widely reported, too. Most major news sources picked up the YA story and AL's spokesman's confirmation, including the Associated Press and Fox News, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and others. ("... before Peres interrupted to say: "And at 6 p.m., you'll receive an invitation to the international tribunal in The Hague." Snappy! Where has that Shimon gone?) - (unsigned by Relata)

That's a nice start but it really doesn't cover the problem.

There's currently [48] no establishment of controversy and/or notability on non of the sources in this article.

• not the "we'll bomb all the commercial centers" single cabinet argument source - where Liberman's heated suggestion on a response to the Palestinian war efforts was shot down by Shimon Peres.
• not the "[prisoners] drowned in the Dead Sea" vague reference in a single source, attacked by Arab MKs - nothing notably unique there as the two camps exchange "affectionate responses" on a daily basis.
• no context (regarding territory swap and his willingness to leave his own home) on the "have to find a new Arab entity".

This material should be removed until it's re-written with proper context and sourcing - currently, it's an array of misused and un-notable quotes registered as a BLP violation where no controversy has been established. The current options I see are either to re-establish the previous non-inflammatory version [[49] or remove the entire material until it is properly cited and established within the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

N Request declined as overly broad. Also, the section at issue, currently Avigdor Lieberman#Controversy, has been edited since the request and it is not clear to what extent the request still applies. Prima facie, the section appears to have several reliable sources. Please make more specific requests for changing individual assertions, if you think it is still necessary. Sandstein (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The "at 8 a.m." quote should have AL's whole statement including the preceding sentence "According to the report in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper, Mr Lieberman urged that Palestinians be told to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks". And Ha'aretz doesn't report "that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there" . Ha'aretz says "according to another report, Lieberman said etc. There's a big difference in Ha'aretz saying Lieberman called for something and it reporting that someone else claimed. As they stand, the quotes in the article are "conjectural interpretations of a source" and therefore not suitable.Momento (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, Ha'aretz said "according to another report," as I already pointed out above. I also pointed out a slew of reliable sources which reported the "Dead Sea" quote as fact, making it suitable for inclusion as factual, rather than "according to..." any particular source.

Personally I don't think the "all terror activity" part of the quote needs to be included, but I'm fine with it. It doesn't however turn the entirely accurate remainder of the quote into a "conjectural interpretation," since Lieberman clearly did propose an "ultimatum." That language is only as "conjectural" as the Washington Post's language: "hard-line minister, Avigdor Lieberman, urged Sharon to issue the following ultimatum to the Palestinians: 'If you don't stop the terrorist activity within 24 hours, we will do the following things: At 8 o'clock in the morning we will bomb the commercial centers...'"[50] ::::::::::::As I already said above, the sources which are currently in the article may not be adequate to support some of the claims made, but except for the one already removed, all of the claims we've examined are entirely supported in reliable sources. It's just a matter of including those additional sources.

All of this would have been accomplished already, had there not been massive blanking without coherent explanation. <eleland/talkedits> 10:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What matters is that the current version of the article is using material inappropriately and out of it's original context. There's nothing incoherent about this statement and the previous explanations and clearly more than one person agrees that there's a seeming problem. Current BLP violating version must be removed until a normative encyclopedic version is presented on the talk page; At which time, it can be inserted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I read in the article I agree with Jaakobou. The responsibility for getting sources right in a BLP article lies with the person who adds them. As Jimmy Wales says in WP:VER "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons". The appropriate action is to remove the material until it is correctly sourced. And care must be taken when resinserting it that important context is not lost. Saying "I'm going to kill you" is not the same as saying "If you harm my child, I'm going to kill you". Momento (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Loyalty tests

No explanation on why this material is controversial; notability of issue not established. See WP:BLP.

• Lieberman advocates giving the Palestinian Authority Arab-Israeli towns near the West Bank and having Arabs who remain Israeli citizens take loyalty tests..

Removed] until the material is properly established; per WP:BLP. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting about the notability of this item, however the sources that have been added to the article now indicate the comments were criticized as ethnic cleansing and racist, so I'm not convinced that you can exceed the 3RR on this. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you mentioning 3RR and exceeding it? I'll go over the new material when I have time. Anyways, while I'm not sure that current phrasing is still acceptable per WP:BLP but I have no intention on edit warring. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Drowning prisoners

Source material for this is extremely vague. Material is beyond controversial and needs far better sourcing and phrasing. See WP:BLP.

• In 2003, Ha'aretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.

Removed until the material is properly established; per WP:BLP. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Jaakobou, it isn't vauge, as has already been shown above. I'm going to restore it shortly with a great many reliable sources; if you remove it again, you'll simply be vandalising the article in accordance with your own extremist POV. <eleland/talkedits> 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently added sources have not changed the phrasing at all. Current phrasing is misleading, being innaccurate to the sources and also by not mentioning the reasoning (who and why) for the "dead sea suggestion" and also the reasoning that it is indeed controversial. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not clear-cut, according to that Haaretz article, that he used the word "drown" (actually it mentions a version that doesn't use the word first and the drown on second). Although I'm not sure how much it takes away from the ominous meaning, it's possible that further meaning was added. This is why I like statements on television or the radio — then I know exactly what was said by whom, irrefutably. El_C 21:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Still WP:BLP - Dead Sea

Article text has no context from the sources and is also incorrectly reporting the statement and whoever saw it as problematic/controversial. Just tagging sources doesn't mean that the text doesn't need to be fixed up per WP:BLP.

• In 2003, Ha'aretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.

Removed until the article material is properly established within it's original context; per WP:BLP. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) fix diff 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're getting at... You're removing a well-sourced statement since you can't find a context that makes it ok? He made those statements during an interview on "Israel Radio" on July 7th, 2003. There is no transcript of this interview (in English at least) but the statements were independently reported worldwide in different sources and neither Lieberman nor anybody else has made any effort to deny them. Can you give us a source of any such denial or contextualization?

Btw, as per WP:BRD, you boldly removed the statements and I reverted, so now no more removal until this discussion concludes. That's the way it works.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.04.2008 07:11

Pedro, can you show me where exactly do the sources say "drown thousands of Palestinians" and also where the context of the statement is registered within the article?

p.s. WP:BLPSTYLE is the section you should pay attention to. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Should this citation be included also?

• Harry de Quetteville. "Jews and Arabs can never live together, says Israel's vice PM". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2008-04-04.

PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC and CNN had once reported of a "massacre in the Jenin refugee camp" and "The Guardian" had once reported that 60+ people were killed in Qana during the second Lebanon war incident; both reports were false as is this Telegraph source.

The quote is given with some proper level of context (cabinet discussions over amnesty for 350 non successful terrorists and possibly a few people who killed) in this source. This amnesty does not include "thousands of Palestinians" but rather "350 terrorists about to receive amnesty". Current representation of events is false, without context, and clearly overstated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Any living person concerns would, however, become the responsibility of CNN/BBC/Telegraph/etc. in that instance, no? El_C 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave policy based queries to admins though I can't see this as justification to promote material we know -- based on reliable sources -- to be improperly mis-attributed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Intentional mis-attribution re: a living person isn't exempt from wp:blp. I'm referring, rather, to when it's disputed. El_C 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:El_C, I'm unable to follow your argument, please clarify.

Regardless, This edit by Eleland certainly does not comply with the Purpose of Wikipedia. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell what's what. I'll gladly give my opinion if pointed to the Hebrew original (no Russian, please). El_C 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Still WP:BLP - Bombing commercial centers

Discussion #Discussion over bombing versions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussed versions

• Current Article version [51]

On 4 March 2002, at the height of the Second Intifada the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting as suggesting that "if it were up to me I would, for example, notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at ten in the morning we will bomb all their places of business in Ramallah". Lieberman's proposal for an ultimatum to the Palestinians to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks on commercial centers, gas stations, and banks led Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to respond that excessive military measures could lead to accusations of war crimes.

Furether information version

• Previous version which includes context of quote [52]

On 4 March 2002, at the height of the Second Intifada and following what the New York Times described as a "Weekend of Terror" in which 23 Israelis were killed and more than double of that injured by 4 separate terrorist attacks, two of them by the Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, within less than 24 hours; the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting, suggesting that, "if it were up to me I would, for example, notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at ten in the morning we will bomb all their places of business in Ramallah". On 5 March another four separate attacks on Israeli civilians caused 5 deaths and 46 more injured, including an attack on two adjoined restaurants by a Palestinian gunmen originally released as a result of the Oslo Accords led to Lieberman proposing an ultimatum be issued to the Palestinians to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks on commercial centers, gas stations, and banks. His comment led Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to respond that excessive military measures could lead to accusations of war crimes.

Discussion over bombing versions

The first Hebrew source [53] clearly asserts a connection between the weekend of terror and Liberman's statemetns (which were accompanied by some fairly hard-line comments by both Israeli right wing politicians and also by Fatah military wing leader Marwan Barghouti), so therefore my objection to this revert stems from a clear POV removal of context to make Liberman's statemetns appear far worse than they actually were. I consider removal of proper context, as stated in the cited material, to be a BLP violation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That connection notwithstanding, there's no blp violation. S/he wants minimal context (at the height of the Second Intifada), you want maximum context (Weekend of Terror) — try to compromise somewhere in the middle. As a public figure, he could have exercized restraint with these outburst. We, as a publication, are under no blp obligation to go at length into the context. That's an editorial choice. El_C 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

El_C,

No context=clear BLP violation, not a minimum/maximum content dispute. I'm surprised at how open you are to support the "at the height of the intifada" version considering the Hebrew source says:

"בעקבות הפיגועים בימים האחרונים מציעים פוליטיקאים מהימין לפתוח במלחמה, להפציץ מטרות אזרחיות ברשות ולכבוש את הגדה."

btw, summary of these attacks with "weekend of terror" is not the issue here since had I wanted to expand, I would add that Marwan Barghouti appeared on Al-Jazeera celebrating these 9 attacks in 3 days, and Yasser Arafat appeared on Palestinian television chanting "jihad jihad jihad". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's an editorial choice. As myself and Eleland have both pointed out, we could just as easily add context highlighting how many Palestinians (civilians included) had already been killed at that point by the IDF, but in what way is that moving this article forwards? Is using this page as a soapbox for each supposed "side", with more and more specific detail, really helpful? "At the height of the Second Intifada" covers the fact that this was, in large part, an extremely violent period in the conflict, and that Lieberman's comments were made in that context. And you haven't addressed the point of the problems with the sources you have used (and in one case misattributed) to weigh this paragraph down. --Nickhh (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to either version and I don't really have a preference. That Hebrew source is a news story from that day, it's not structured as an historical summary of an event that's now six-years old. Nor are we, as a publication, obliged to follow it exact narrative. Anyway, I reject this as being a blp issue. And I don't intend to argue about that any longer. El_C 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, but if the original clearly states the reason for the statement, than eliminating that reasoning from the article suggest the man made that statement into the thin air. Considering there are an array of racist quotes on Yasser Arafat, Marwan Barghouti, Mahmoud Abbas, Ismayil Hennieyh and many others from all sides of the spectrum. I am dismayed that you suggest there is no problem with removal of the source given context. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

El_C, you can read Hebrew, right? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"[During] the height of the Second Intifada" is the generalized impetus; getting into greater detail is an editorial choice. El_C 04:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative, fluently. El_C 04:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the source given context issue. I won't give examples on where this "ignore the sources" attitude might lead us to so not to offend any of my fellow editors with anti-Palestinian soapbox. However, the current version of the article is unnacceptable being that it falsly represent a quote out of it's original context - a response to 9 terror attacks on March 2-5 in 2002 which included 4 attacks in March 2-3, a rocket launching incident at Sderot on March 4 and another 4 terror attacks on March 5. On March 4 Barghouti, head of Fatah's Tanzim was on al-Jazeera celebrating these attacks on civilians. summerising this context as "height of the conflict" is a major violation of WP:NPOV, and in my opinion, a WP:BLP violation attempt to make Lieberman seem like a terrorist rather than a person making a retaliation suggesting during war. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, definitely, it should work both ways. I highly doubt you will find another sysop who thinks we have a blp issue here, but by all means, feel free to solicit views from another admin. El_C 07:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

$\leftarrow$ Uhm... Why are we using a Hebrew-language source that only a minority here can read? This is the English-language Wikipedia and we have an English-language source (The Independent), which, judging by the text inserted in the article, has a more complete quote. User:El_C, can you check if the text is indeed correct and complete and if not, add the rest of it (i.e. the list of what to bomb and when)? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 06:41

Not sure I understand what you're referring to. The bit directly above reads: "following the attacks of recent days, politicians from the right are proposing to open war, bomb civilian targets in the [Palestinian National] Authority, and occupy the [West] Bank." Whereas the bit with his quote (from the article) reads: Infrastructure Minister Avigdor Liberman said: 'if it was up to me, I would notify the [Palestinian National] Authority that tommorow, at ten in the morning, we will bomb all their shops in Ramallah, for example.'" El_C 07:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's the second part I'm referring to. The Independent (here), which is also used in the article as a source for Shimon Peres' statements, quotes him saying

At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centres... at noon we'll bomb their gas stations... at two we'll bomb their banks, [...]

which is also the quote used by other media outlets. The Independent sources this as "According to the report in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper, [...]". So which statement/quote is correct? Is there more than one YA-article on the subject? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 07:29

Not to my knowledge. There's two statements: the 10am quote is from 4 March, and the 8am-noon-2pm quote is from 5 March. El_C 08:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs clarifying I guess, although isn't it reasonable, per WP:RS and WP:V, to assume that the Independent sourced and translated the quote correctly from Yediot Ahronot? As to the "context" point again, the suggestion of including specific references to recent attacks on Israelis is a) overloaded with detail; and b) totally selective, in that out in the real world there was an equivalent "context" in which Palestinians were suffering a high level of civilian casualties - and then an Israeli Cabinet Minister was threatening a deliberate policy of causing even more. Nor do I see any point in adding "but Marwan Barghouti also said .. and Ismail Haniyeh said this ..", as if this article was as much about them as it is about Lieberman. I can't see why the current phrasing of "At the height of the second intifada .." isn't sufficient to make the point - it highlights the general situation, without favouring one "context" or perspective over the other. We don't need to add anything in an effort to make the words look even worse, and nor should we build in supposed mitigation via sources such as CAMERA and gamla.org. And for the record, my personal view is that having a government official threatening to bomb Palestinian shops or commercial centres, presumably with shoppers in them, is pretty shocking, regardless of the context. --Nickhh (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

El_C, why are you translating "shops" instead of "places of business" (Hebrew: בתי העסק)? This is not the first time I've seen you mis-translate, what exactly is your level of Hebrew? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did so because it's interchangeable. I have read probably a hundred times more in Hebrew than I have in English, but I have several university degrees from English-speaking universities; I also I translate professionally. Feel free to point out what you feel constitute mistranslations and I will gladly address these. But how is any of that relevant to anything again? El_C 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried a serious dictionary? They are "interchangeable" depending on context and apparently you've missed that context since you've mistranslated the text. To answer the question, your missing of the context seems relevant here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't try any dictionary, I did it on-the-fly. Using that synonym looks fine to me in this context. El_C 12:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify your error:

heבית-עסק - מפעל, חברה; בית-מסחר, חנות, מרכול

Ramallah Palestinian Authority "Batei-Esek" (places of business) include racketeering, international aid funds thefts, and arms smuggling projects: [54], (Note March 2002).

Your translation to "shops" is clearly a mistake. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't concede it was an error. I maintain that it suited the context just fine. El_C 12:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, your "pretty shocking" soapbox seems to say that you are unaware of Fatah's Tanzim and a man under the payroll of Yasser Arafat making a celebration of "martyrdom" missions (including a suicide bombing) on al-Jazeera; with this war campaign killing more than 20 civilians and injuring about 100, targeting mostly women and children. There's plenty of shocking incidents when "an authority" commits deliberate war crimes and attacks civilians and usually, such attacks receive a major response. Last I checked, the neighbors of Israel were doing far worse than just make threats when terror cells were targeting their civilians, or when they were just making disgruntled noises; Kuwait, to remind you expelled 400,000 Palestinians within 2 weeks for their insurgency and Jordan wiped out 20,000 Palestinians in 11 days. Lebanon completely destroyed a Palestinian camp (Nahr al Bard) just recently... the list of shocking events goes on, so frankly, I'm not so shocked by a mid-war quote by Lieberman. I can' accept a version that uses "at the hight of (a 7 year long time span)" someone said XXX. The source used gives direct context to the quote, per: "Following terrorist acts in recent days right wing politicians suggest to open war, bomb civilian targets in the Palestinian Authority and conquer the West Bank".

"בעקבות הפיגועים בימים האחרונים מציעים פוליטיקאים מהימין לפתוח במלחמה, להפציץ מטרות אזרחיות ברשות ולכבוש את הגדה."

This is the direct source for the quote. Frankly, I'm not aware since when we take as reliable source (regarding Israel), the same paper that publishes Robert Fisk and cartoons from Carlos Latuff. This source didn't even bother with a retraction after a malicious "uranium bomb" blood libel. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I can't deal with this off-topic rambling, and endless screed about things other people totally unrelated to this article may or may not have said and events in other countries .. especially when it comes with an accusation of "soapboxing" against me. I mean, take a step back and read what you're saying and then look at the accusations you're throwing at other editors. And if you really want to claim that The Independent is not a reliable source, you're going to have to single-handedly rewrite the whole of WP:RS. Good luck with that. --Nickhh (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

On March 4 and 5, following 9 attacks on Israelis (XX deaths, YY casualties) at the hight of the Second Intifada,^[refs] Avigdor Lieberman suggested to declare war and to "bomb their places of business" (replace with more accurate quote). Shimon Peres responded that ...

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You've still failed to address the point that you are being incredibly selective with what "context" you want in. Maybe this paragraph should also point out that 1,000 Palestinians had already been killed in IDF attacks in Gaza & the West Bank when Lieberman came up with his calls for more attacks on civilian centres? This problem has been pointed out to you at least three times on this talk page, but as usual you have just covered your ears (or eyes) and are trying to batter your own heavily POV version in, while claiming utterly spuriously that you are making everything NPOV. --Nickhh (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

see #Discussion on March 4 and 5 suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou's compromise suggestion

Cab be seen on the following diff: [55].

On March 4 and 5 2002, following 9 terror attacks at the height of the Second Intifada, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting as suggesting that "if it were up to me I would, for example, notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at ten in the morning we will bomb all their places of business in Ramallah".

Discussion on March 4 and 5 suggestion

I've decided to leave out all mentions of casualties and Palestinian leadership statements; only leaving in the direct context for right-wing politicians suggesting Israel 'go to war'. The source for this is the original source, i.e. Yediot Ahronoth, "Following terrorist acts in recent days right wing politicians suggest to open war". Translation and original text is written in the reference. Nickhh, if you can find a reliable source that directly connects his statement with the death of Palestinians, it can be considered, otherwise, your suggestion is WP:SYN. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay, I like it. However, I'd merge those 5 first refs into one. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over that kind of brief reference, even though a) I still don't think it's necessary, b) I'd rather avoid the word "terror", c) I still think it's a little one-sided in terms of describing what was going on at the time and d) I'm always wary of using media reports as definitive RS for interpretation or analysis, as opposed to relying on them simply for more basic accounts of events or quotes. What the page certainly didn't need was a detailed account of every attack in Israel and every media report covering them, as if that was the only thing happening (nor did it need multiple separate footnote citations, which just clog up the text). --Nickhh (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is why I suggested merging the 5 refs into one. I think it's okay to provide even 10 news articles related to terror attacks of the time (considering there were 9 of them), the wider the political spectrum of the media outlets the better, but this should not clutter the page. One footnote can include multiple {{Cite news}} tags. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to acknowledge your suggestion on that point as being a good thing in terms of improving readability, even if I didn't say so explicitly. --Nickhh (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou you did NOT have "consensus" to remove the Peres response, which your edit did. That's pretty much the point of this section - whatever any of us think about Lieberman's comments and the "context" in which they are made, they arouse controversy and he is criticised for them by leading Israeli politicians. It's now been reinserted, and it should not be removed again. It's even arguable as to whether you had consensus for the other parts of the change, given that other involved editors had not commented on your proposal to add the the phrase "after terror attacks". --Nickhh (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman#Controversy

I've got to say, this section is a BLP nightmare. From an outsider looking in on it, it looks like an attempt to show how he is a bad guy. Just about every statement should be removed from it per WP:UNDUE. I'd say this is POV pushing - I don't see what benefit this has to the overall article. I honestly think the whole section needs to go - some parts could possibly be mentioned in other sections, but this one section is getting a little political. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, if I'm not too tired after work tomorrow, I'll take a stab at improving it myself. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, while I understand your broad concerns I think you need to realise that Lieberman genuinely is a pretty controversial figure, both in Israel and abroad (apologies but when you say you're an "outsider" I'm assuming you don't know much about the guy). Have a look at this profile, or this one or this. They all refer to controversy in the very first paragraph, or even the headline. A lot of Wikipedia pages have fairly pointless "controversy" sections which editors use to highlight obscure issues and dump trivial criticisms that never found much purchase in mainstream discourse, in a bid to smear people they don't like. See Saeb Erekat for example. However this isn't one of those cases. Yes all the quotes should be properly sourced (all of them are, at a quick glance) and maybe the section could do with a bit of tidying up, but it's not a "nightmare" which needs removing altogether. And it's not about showing he's a bad guy, it's about showing that he's controversial. Which, by an definition of that word, he is. --Nickhh (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was drive-by adminship at it's finest. The man is extremely contoversial; his party's entry into government led to the resignation of the Israeli Interior Minister, who called it "infected with racist and anti-democratic statements." Every relevant profile one can find mentions his controversial nature, and most reference at least one of the incidents mentioned in the "controversy" section. This is not a random accumulation of smears (or, if it is, it's a random accumulation of smears which multiple reliable sources accumulate in their biographies of the man.) <eleland/talkedits> 12:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I said up above that some of the content can could be used in other parts of the article, I just don't like the idea of a specific controversy section. I'll try and do some work on it myself at some point in the near future - the main problem is that the controversy section seems to be a very much POV editing, with some more neutral wording and sourced information that try and explain his actions or comments (maybe from the israeli press) I suspect it would be vastly improved. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you've ignored most of the points myself and Eleland have made. I generally don't like "controversy" sections either, but as documented in a broad range of media sources, including Israeli ones, Lieberman is outspoken and controversial. The fact that some of his more out-there comments may have been made alongside, or in the context of, less controversial comments, doesn't mean he didn't make them. And of course, the controversy comes as much from others' reaction to the things he's said, which is also all documented in the sources. And those reactions are coming from fellow MKs, Shimon Peres etc, not from obscure left-wing bloggers, or even from Alexander Cockburn or Robert Fisk. --Nickhh (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it is highly inappropriate to bracket Lieberman's outbursts with "context" selected from unrelated news reports about Palestinian attacks. This is what I mean by "apologetics;" it's WP:OR#SYN because it links unrelated sources to advance a position (Lieberman's remarks were desperate reactions to the evil terrorists) that none of the sources make individually. It's also highly POV. We might as well give a summary of the Israeli operations which were ongoing at the time - "On 4 March 2002, at the height of the Second Intifada, during a wave of Israeli incursions which used ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among civilians,[56] Lieberman called for the bombing of Palestinian population centers...." <eleland/talkedits> 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Eleland, but I have reverted your last couple of edits as your first one was clearly a blind revert, and removed several of the corrections and links I had made/added to the article. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But you also reverted a huge amount of extra material into the article which almost certainly wasn't needed, and which Eleland had removed. I've tried to cut back the section from as it was post your revert. --Nickhh (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you have reinserted references sourced to gamla.org, CAMERA and something called the nyjtimes.com, which you have credited to the New York Times. This is absolutely nuts. And you have used these references to flag up admittedly horrific attacks on Israelis - but as if this was the only relevant "context" to what was going on when Lieberman was making his comments. Please don't simply mass revert my attempts to rectify this and also to improve the English phrasing and style. --Nickhh (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Population exchange and loyalty test

Text was mentioning that Lieberman suggested giving loyalty tests. Unless a reliable source is used to explain why this is a big deal, the text is just a random something he said.. and since he says something new about once a week, I find random quotes without any reference to the source of conflict, a bad way to go and a sure way to breach WP:BLP.

Removed until issue is resolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Demanding loyalty tests to the state you live in is quite a big deal, at least imho. Are you really sure as well that it's a breach of WP:BLP to simply quote Lieberman, as reported in several different reliable sources? And even insraelinsider thinks it's notable, although I admit that doesn't clinch it. --Nickhh (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou,

As a friendly reminder of how WP:BRD works,

1. Bold: You, as per your diff above, removed the subsection,
2. Revert: I reverted your deletion of well-sourced, relevant material
3. Discuss: no more reverting/removing of this section until this discussion reaches some sort of conclusion.

So to kick off the discussion: it's not "just a random thing he said". The International Herald Tribune deemed it controverisal enough to make news out of it. Avigdor Lieberman is best known not for his work as a minister, but for his blatanly racist outbursts, of which this is a prime example.

If you want to make a point, try finding a source for him denying or relativating this statement. Or a source of anybody denying or relativating his statement... That may be a bit difficult, since as the New York Times quotes him himself: "I’ve always been controversial because I offer new ideas [...] For me to be controversial, I think this is positive."

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 09.04.2008 21:18

This invocation of blp is getting to be a bit much. I'm weary of blp being used as a deus ex machina for the pov ends of both sides in various biography articles. This is, clearly, a content dispute. He said it, it was printed in RSs. Whether there needs to be "a reliable source used to explain why this is a big deal" [which, arguably, the IHT may be seen to respond to in its title alone] is, in itself, a content question; the blp considerations effectively vanished once he, as a govt. minister uttered it, and once reliable sources felt it was significant enough to print. Now, it may or may not warrant mention per whatever is decided to be the neutral point of view for that specific portion, but that's it. El_C 21:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

El_C, thank you for joining. I believe the problem here is, in my mind, an inconsistency in "NPOV" by several participants - and also who keeps mentioning the WP:BRD policy while he doesn't even make an attempt to follow it.

Speaking of content, in this conflict, many qutoes have been taken out of their proper context by reporting bodies - we've just noticed that Lieberman's cabinet retort regarding giving terrorist amnesty "we might as well drown them in the dea sea, that's the lowest point in the earth", to reflect on how low he feels the government has gone - have been misreported by Haaretz for "a report (who) said he proposed to drown thousands of palestinian prisoners".

For this reason, a proposal to give loyalty tests must be explained - who found it controversial - just arabs or also israelis, when was it suggested - what was the background. this article is full of BLP violations and your approach regarding this issue is making me contemplate how seriously you take the BLP policy. certainly, we have some staggering quotes from each and every politician in this confclit and to include them all would make for a "fine" example. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I'm planning on focusing on the "dead sea" text before I go in to deal with this issue. I feel that recent tag-teaming between Pedro, Eleland and Nickhh have crossed GAME a long time ago, so I'd expect a tag team making 3 reverts mentality to recieve the same treatment as a single person making 3 reverts. Thought I should clarify this before we vernture onwards.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding BRD, I don't know which version came first, and although I'm sure if User:Michael Safyan was here, he'd insist that it's entirely up to me to find out, I'm not really interested in comparing revisions I'm unfamiliar with (I have other things to expend my volunteer efforts on). I, however, am concerned with all these erroneous blp claims (the sheer volume). Please start arguing your position without constantly invoking blp. Instead of saying "per blp," say "per npov." Because it's getting too much. This isn't a semi-notable person who made one unfortunate heated remark, it is a public figure, a minister of a government, with a lengthy record of uttering highly-charged, controversial statements. Above, I argued that it's a matter of editorial choice, not blp whether to contextualize the "bomb all their businesses" with "at the height of the 2nd Intifada" or the more specific "Weekend of Terror" — now, possibly, blp could be invoked if that sort of statement was a unique to Liberman, a first timer for him. But it isn't (far from it). So aim at reaching compromise through editorial consensus, rather than hoping for an admin to blp-dictate the content dispute, because from all I've seen, it's inapplicable (also remember The BLP Who Cried Wolf). Thanks. El_C 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop continuously accusing me and others of tag team editing, or gaming. When you find large numbers of people - totally independently - disagreeing with you, it's usually time to take a step back and wonder why. --Nickhh (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, your "it's all in your head" theory has a big problem considering the disagreement repeatedly comes from the same 3 man clique who join each other on articles when one is in conflict and needs an extra revert to impose his version into the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making these stupid and rather paranoid accusations about other editors and the supposed "clique" who gang up on you to disrupt Wikipedia and force out all your scrupulously neutral and beautifully written contributions here. It's getting very dull. Now, back to topic? --Nickhh (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Context of Lieberman's quotes

I have been following the recent edit war (example diff) between Jaakobou and Pedro, as well as this talk page recently. I have to say that Jaakobou's editorial procedures are flawed IMO and agree with some of the accusations leveled against him (although I find it ironic that the accusations are made by someone who is just as guilty of harming the proper editorial process).

In any case, my real issue isn't the misbehavior of a couple editors, but the content of the edits. I think more context should be provided regarding some of Lieberman's quotes - in many cases, his quotes came along with a series of similar quotes by other notable right-wing politicians. I don't think it's fair that they are not mentioned at all, which makes it seem from the article like Lieberman is the only right-wing/extreme right politician in Israel. For example, Jaakobou's link has a quote from Yuval Steinitz, a well-known Likud politician, about re-conquering all areas the West Bank. I'm sure there are many more similar quotes, and it it only fair to provide greater context here.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading parts of the article, I also have an issue with undue weight. For example, the population exchange (which really isn't a population exchange at all) and loyalty tests section, which is part of Lieberman's official platform, only covers 1.5 lines of text, while a number of minor scattered quotes with no context make up a 2-paragraph section. The ratio should be the opposite, according to the spirit of WP:UNDUE. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with you there. It is quite odd; probably it stems from the edit-warring over those quotes, where various parties have decided to expand with more sources, "context," etc. Objectively the stuff in his official platform is more controversial than the quotes. On the other hand, the official platform belongs mainly in Yisrael Beiteinu more than here. <eleland/talkedits> 16:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

More detail on it is up in the "Lieberman Plan" section - arguably the article might be better structured if these points were merged. Then the "Controversy" section would be left solely to deal with the political flare-ups caused by his more off-hand comments, as opposed to his party's policy platforms. --Nickhh (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead Sea - Continued

Removed text

Removed text diff [57]

and reportedly offered to provide the buses to take them there.

• ref: As quoted in Haaretz

Discussion on Dead Sea - Continued

This "offered to provide the buses" text is sourced to "According to another report" and is a WP:REDFLAG that requires high-quality reliable sources, not an "someone somewhere said that..." type of citation; as noted in the policy: if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If the leading Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz considered it worthy of mention, it's safe to say that it's not some random "somebody somewhere" source. We should write, "according to one report, he offered the buses...." <eleland/talkedits> 21:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

All this after removing the source which linked the statement to an interview on Israel Radio on July 7, 2003? How disingenuous... You know where the statement came from and were quick to remove it. pedro gonnet - talk - 16.04.2008 06:50

Jaakobou's edit there seems to indicate he doubts the reliability of the Arabic Media Internet Network. AMIN was founded by the well-regarded NGO Internews and is quoted frequently in reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the Jerusalem Post. No reason to remove them as a source. <eleland/talkedits> 12:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian news site as reliable source to cite Israeli politician quotes? I don't think so. Have you any samples where reliable sources used them to cite quotes on Israeli politicians? if the quote is accurate, there should be no problem to follow WP:REDFLAG and find high-quality reliable sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what we call "shifting the goalposts," Jaakobou. Not to mention "latent racism." <eleland/talkedits> 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-Consensus and Buses

User:Ynhockey, as per this diff,

1. There is no consensus. Where do you see a consensus other than User:Jaakobou and yourself agreeing?
2. The "buses" statement is quoted in Haaretz and Arabic Media Internet Network (see User:Eleland's comments above regarding WP:RS) and is sourced to Israel Radio in the later.

I would like to suggest we tackle these issues separately and without revert-warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Gonnet (talk • contribs)

Funny you should say that (regarding point 1), because actually Jaakobou did not agree to this on the talk page, but instead Eleland and Nickhh did. This is why I was further stumped at Eleland removing the data, which he himself agreed to adding. I am prepared to discuss this issue again, but I don't find it easy to work in an environment of undiscussed reverts. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Er no, neither myself nor Eleland (as far as I am aware) agreed to the changes in that revert regarding Lieberman's comments on bombing Palestinian targets. The discussion you have pointed to just now was about something else entirely, namely population/territorial exchanges and loyalty tests. --Nickhh (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstood your comments in the previous discussion. However, if your respective replies did pertain only to my 2nd point, and the 1st point was left unaddressed for 6 days, then I am left to assume that there are no objections to my proposals/comments. If this isn't so, please address my earliest points. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Eleland also, so far as I can tell, was only responding to your observations about the party platform being more contentious that Liberman's one-off comments when he said "I actually agree with you ..". My comments after that were very clearly only about that point. Anyway, that aside, the issues around adding "context" in respect of the "bomb" comments were confusingly discussed in several places on the talk page, where other editors - Eleland included - rejected Jaakobou's arguments in favour of including more pretty forcefully (sorry I can't provide diffs or links because the page structure is so messed up, but it's all there if you read around it). There was clearly not even a vague consensus there, and I certainly don't hold with the argument that runs - "well I posted something on a talk page, no-one contested my specific point/suggestion, therefore I have consensus to edit on that basis". --Nickhh (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good etiquette requires that every point on a talk page as contentious as this be addressed. If it is not, I'm not sure how you can come with any other conclusion that there is no objection. There are several processes on Wikipedia which work on this bases, including WP:PROD (proposed deletion). If you have objections but don't want to repeat them, and as you claim, already raised them previously, you should at least point the one who brings up the issues (in this case, me) to the previous discussion. Again though, I am prepared to discuss the issue with you and Eleland again. I will not make any edits to the actual page until you and Eleland reply to my points above, although if there's no reply for 6 days again, I will be left to assume that you consider this 'not worth fighting over', or basically that there's no objection to my proposals. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no, people make their general positions clear - they don't have to keep coming in to repeat themselves every single time another nuance is added to the counter-arguments. Otherwise editors with a strong POV and more time on their hands will just wear everyone else down and claim consensus for everything they do. As to this specific edit issue - elsewhere I reluctantly accepted the addition of some "context" to the "bombing" quote, but your revert also removed the "buses" quote further down, which I never agreed to. Eleland agreed to neither, and has stated his objections on the talk page and in edit summaries. I'll leave it up to him to clarify or repeat them if he wishes to. They are there if you look for them, although as I say the format and structure of the page has been mucked around with in a confusing fashion. Note of course that the current article text is based on Jaakobou's preferred version in any event. --Nickhh (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still looking for the discussion you are referring to, and there does not appear to be one. The only discussion specifically addressing the issue is located here (and in the subsequent paragraph) and does not appear to be a discussion at all, as it seems that no one really replied to Jaakobou. Will you be so kind as to point me to some specific objections so I can provide my input on these points? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in the sections before that, at great length. As usual Jaakobou has started multiple threads about more or less the same content issues, which are incredibly difficult to follow. --Nickhh (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Context of bombing and drowning statements

The article currently states "at the height of the Second Intifada". How does adding specifics of each attack make the article better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Gonnet (talk • contribs)

With reference to the same edit mentioned below - Jaakobou do not claim in your edit summary that you are editing according to consensus when including your so-called "context", when no such consensus was established. I conceded the point reluctantly, as it didn't seem worth fighting over - however other involved editors had not expressed their agreement to your "compromise" version. I know you think several of us have some kind of hive mind, but we don't of course. --Nickhh (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to my comments above, I'll explain why I think the details need to be added:

1) They provide sufficient context, which 'at the height of the Second Intifada' does not. The phrase 'at the height of the Second Intifada' is very vague and could imply that Lieberman's comments were made following an Israeli attack on Palestinian terrorists or something like that. This is not the case, and there need to be more specifics.

2) There's no harm in adding the context. It doesn't even clutter up the page, because the bulk of the explanation, including sources, is actually in a single footnote (Nickhh seems to agree that adding just one footnote to combine all sources for the 9 attacks is fine).

3) I have not yet seen a good reason not to provide context, except making Lieberman look bad, which is of course, anti-Lieberman propaganda.

Finally, I don't understand what the problem really is. Three editors representing both sides (Eleland, Nickhh and myself) agreed on a compromise proposed by Jaakobou (wasn't it?) and that discussion was left for a few days, with no other editors commenting. Suddenly Eleland, who himself agreed to the compromise, went and reverted. Before he did so, there was no problem and no one was complaining. So, what changed now?

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you really need to re-read the talk page discussion before repeating (again) your claim that Eleland accepted Jaakobou's compromise. I accepted it, with strong reservations; other editors who had commented, including Eleland and Pedro, did not. And then you and Jaakobou started reverting way more material than even I had accepted, claiming "consensus". Beyond that, and as mentioned above, having the last word on a talk page does not mean you have consensus in your favour. --Nickhh (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, was there any point you favoured which was not addressed?

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

YNH, you write, "The phrase 'at the height of the Second Intifada' is very vague and could imply that Lieberman's comments were made following an Israeli attack on Palestinian terrorists or something like that. This is not the case, and there need to be more specifics."

This is a remarkably foolish statement. As I have pointed out above, Lieberman's comments were made during a major "Israeli attack on Palestinian terrorists or something," which involved the use of ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugeecamps, causing significant loss of life among civilians. (Source: UN Jenin Report, para 19.)

This is not an argument over whether to include or exclude context in general, but over whether to include only Palestinian killings, while excluding the major, ongoing Israeli attack at the time. You may well be able to find a report or two which "contextualize" Lieberman's comments with Palestinian violence. I can find many reports which don't, and I can find some other reports which "contextualize" Lieberman's comments with his alleged "ethnic cleansing" or "Nazi-like" agenda. I'm saying we should play it straight down the middle. "At the height of the second Intifada" is enough, IMO. If you want to include some information like, "during a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings and a series of Israeli military incursions, both of which caused significant loss of life," fine, that's not my preference, but it's acceptable. But I certainly haven't "agreed on a compromise proposed by Jaakobou" in this matter, in fact, since you're the one who undid my changes I'm pretty sure you already knew that. <eleland/talkedits> 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Lieberman made the comments in response to the Palestinian killings of Israelis, not in response to Israeli attacks on Palestinians as you seem to claim. This simply needs to be reflected in the article. It is not relevant in this case how many Palestinians were killed at that time, because Lieberman's comments are not related to these attacks. In addition, please refrain from making personal attacks. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can you give us an 'English-language source stating that the comments were made in response to the attacks? The way it stands now, it's just WP:SYNTH. I would agree to something along the lines of

On March 4 and 5 2002, at the height of the Second Intifada, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting as suggesting, in response to recent attacks^{your ref here}, that "if it were up to me I would, for example, notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at ten in the morning we will bomb all their places of business in Ramallah". Lieberman's proposal for an ultimatum to the Palestinians to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks on commercial centers, gas stations, and banks led Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to respond that excessive military measures could lead to accusations of war crimes.

Note that with "your ref" I mean the ref that says his comments were in response to attacks, not the current dissection of atrocities from inflammatory and non-English sources. Note also that whatever we decide here will be applied probably not to User:Jaakobou's and your liking, on all quotes of all actors in the conflict...

That would be my suggestion for a compromise. Comments? Suggestions? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.04.2008 07:14

Pedro, can you please cite the policy which rejects non-English sources? Last I checked, it did not exist. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here. Notice the phrases "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages" and "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." pedrito - talk - 18.04.2008 08:04

The page you linked to does not mandate English-language sources, but only states that they are preferrable over non-English ones. I will try to find an English-language source, but if I find a reliable Hebrew-language one and you think that it is somehow less worthy, I will consider it a breach of policy on your part. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving to left
Funny, I got so involved in the discussion that I forgot to look at the actual article. There needs to be no further investigation, because the article itself already provides a source which makes this point clear. This page says that:

Following the terrorist attacks in the last few days, right-wing politicians propose to open war, bomb civilian targets in the [Palestinian] Authority and conquer the [West] Bank.
...
Minister of Infrastructure Avigdor Lieberman said: If it was up to me, I would inform the [Palestinian] Authority that tomorrow at 10 in the morning we would bomb all their businesses in Ramallah, for example.

I will try to find a similar English-language source, but don't see why you'd need anything more than the above.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, so we have a source. So what about the formulation I proposed?

As for non-English language sources being less worthy, if English language sources are, as per the policy cited, preferred then, yes, non-English language sources are less worthy.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.04.2008 10:28

Your interpretation is incorrect. The policy talks about cases where there is both an English-language and foreign-language source. In such a case, preference will be given to the English-language source.

Anyway, back to the topic - I am okay with the general idea of your version. However, I think it's too elaborate. Namely, I don't think that it's important to note that it was quoted by Yediot Aharonot (we don't even have the original Yediot article to prove this - Ynet does not take text from Yediot directly). I suggest this wording:

On March 4 and 5 2002, at the height of the Second Intifada, following recent terrorist attacks¹, that [the rest of the paragraph].

¹ - alternatively: recent attacks on Israeli civilians, or, recent Palestinian attacks on Israelis

In addition, I would add Jaakobou's ref which includes sources for the individual attacks.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just use the phrase "recent attacks". The word "terrorist" is editorializing and does not add anything to the article. As for User:Jaakobou's slew of references, what do they add? Are you worried somebody will chalenge the claim of "recent attacks" unless you specifically source nine distinct events? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.04.2008 12:37

It's in the spirit of providing more context. Also as I said before, it does not harm the page in any way. Do you have a specific reason not to include these references? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's clutter. It does not provide more context but attempts to add drama to somehow exculpate Lieberman's words. We also don't know if he was referring to those attacks specifically, or maybe only a subset thereof, or whatever. It's not encyclopedic, so it does not belong there. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.04.2008 15:04

I will address your concerns point by point:

1) It is not clutter, because several references for the attacks are all placed in one footnote. Footnotes exist to avoid clutter on the main page, and there is no size limitation for footnotes.

2) It does provide more context - the prose is decidedly non-descriptive - according to the above version, it will say 'following recent attacks'. What attacks? Either there should be a wikilink on 'recent attacks' (impractical in this case, because there were 9 of them), or there should be a footnote. It is not even important to actually have external references for this - the attacks simply need to be explained.

3) It does not 'add drama', as it is not even part of the prose. It is an explanatory note, which are inherently not meant for creating drama, but for providing context. As I said in point #2, I don't even care if each attack is explained with an external link, as long as there is at least a short explanation of what attacks the article talks about.

4) No, we don't know what specific attacks Lieberman was replying to, but this does not prevent us from giving the reader the facts in an NPOV manner - that there were attacks - 9 of them - and what attacks. Remember that the essence of NPOV is giving the facts as raw as possible - without added 'drama', as you yourself say.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I assume you have a source stating that he meant those nine attacks specifically and no other? If you do, then add that source and not the refs to reports of the specific attacks. Anything else is WP:SYNTH. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 20.04.2008 13:04

Moving to left I don't think there is a source stating that it's these specific 9 attacks. However, the article absolutely must answer the question of 'what attacks did Lieberman refer to?'. In order to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it is possible to state in the footnote that Lieberman was referring to one or more of the following attacks (it is apparent from the above Ynet article that he was indeed referring to at least one of them). If you have any other suggestions for answering the 'what attacks?' question, I will be glad to hear them. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk)

No, you see, this is where we disagree: if you don't have a reliable source to answer 'what attacks did Lieberman refer to?', then you can't answer it and any attempt to do so is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia does not allow for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, so we can't add that here. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 20.04.2008 14:22

The source clearly states that following the terrorist attacks in recent days. I think that means... following terrorist attacks in recent days. That's recent from March 4, 2002. Don't you agree? You can read about the attacks here for example. This is not WP:SYNTH, and it is clear from the single Ynet source alone that Lieberman said this in a response to at least one of the terrorist attacks in the days leading up to the article (therefore, not WP:SYNTH). Other sources can be added simply to elaborate on what attacks happenned in those days, which advances the reader's understanding of the background for Lieberman's comments. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is going in circles. The source says "following the terrorist attacks in recent days", so we can also say exactly that. Yet how many days exactly? Two? Three? A Week? Does this include March 4th or not? Maybe they left out a few? Trying to assign specific attacks to this statement is not only WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it is utterly useless and adds no value to the article.

Seriously, if you want to hang on to those references, you'll have to drag this through a WP:RFC or more. If you want one, I'll start it now, because this discussion is going absolutely nowhere.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 20.04.2008 15:02

It is unfortunate that you are quick to jump to RfC and claim that 'this is going in circles' when the problem is not really that major. If you claim that we cannot assume anything from the Ynet article, then there can be a footnote says this instead: While it is not clear what specific attacks Lieberman was referring to, the following attacks took place between March 1 and March 4, for example. I'll explain for the 10th time that this does add value do the article, because it provides some context to Lieberman's controversial statements. I'm also fine with RfC, really, if you have the time and energy to waste on it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, let's leave the issue of whether the context contributes to the article or not to the frequent editors of this article - Jaakobou, El_C and Eleland, for example. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, User:Ynhockey, it is unfortunate that you continue to block the article and the discussion with your rather unique interpretation of policy. I have started the RfC below. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 21.04.2008 12:23

Buses

If Haaretz states it, it is newsworthy and very probably correct, since it was neither contested nor retracted. The second source sources it to Israel Radio on July 7, 2003. How is this not WP:RS?

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 17.04.2008 08:24

Regarding this little gem, I would like to point out that the amin.org source should stay, otherwise the statement will continue to be excised as unsouced... As User:Jaakobou has already done more than once, feigning ignorance that it is from Israel Radio.

In the interest of avoiding edit wars, User:Jaakobou, please put it back.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 17.04.2008 15:23

Pedro Gonnet,

1. Both points raised by you and Nickhh, i.e. Peres quote and the word 'terror' to describe the attacks were addressed. Maybe if you were to participate more on the discussions rather than a BRD BRD BRD!!! (... BRD, BRD) disruption campaign, you would have noticed.
2. I've decided to stop fighting this ridiculous "buses" misquote but there's no way amin.org passes high quality reliable source for quoting Lieberman. Feel free to open this on WP:RSN though.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedro Gonnet, was there any special reason you violated WP:BRD and reinserted amin.org? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack, take a long, hard look at your own contributions... Who first removed the bus statement? Does this edit ring a bell? Anyway, thank you for finding the direct quote. Good of you to finally admit it existed. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.04.2008 09:03

RfC: Context of controversial quotes

The text in question in the article currently reads:

On March 4 and 5 2002, following 9 Palestinian attacks on Israelis at the height of the Second Intifada, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting as suggesting that "if it were up to me I would, for example, notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at ten in the morning we will bomb all their places of business in Ramallah".

Specifically, the question is whether the specific attacks should be listed, i.e. "following 9 Palestinian attacks on Israelis" as opposed to stating "in response to recent attacks".

The discussion which led to this RfC is here, including different proposals for the text in question.

• Oppose: The phrasing "in response to recent attacks" is sufficient for two reasons. First of all, it is what the source says: there is no mention of which specific attacks were implied or how many were considered and therefore, trying to infer which specific attacks were meant by Lieberman or by the source is WP:SYNTH at best, WP:OR at worst. Secondly, the specifics of the attacks themselves do not add any value to the article. They at best try to exculpate Lieberman's controversial statements by one-sidedly juxtaposing them against Palestinian violence. If full context is the intent, then Israeli attacks would also need to be mentioned to avoid violating WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. pedrito - talk - 21.04.2008 12:21
• Comment/Support: The RfC statement is misleading. In the discussion, I proposed several versions of the text, none of which said "following 9 Palestinian attacks" as Pedrito claims. Other than that, I support providing context. As I said in the discussion several times (and I ask that mediators read the discussion as much as possible), this does not have to constitute WP:SYNTH, because it can be stated in the note that "The following attacks were carried out by Palestinians against Israelis in the days leading up to Lieberman's statements" - this does not even assume that Lieberman specifically meant those attacks, but does provide context, which is very important for Lieberman's controversial quotes. Unfortunately, Pedrito not only did not reply to this proposal, but also did not offer any counter-proposal. While I have tried several approaches, it seems that Pedrito is not ready to compromise at all, and wishes to outright delete any mention of the attacks, whether in the article text or in a footnote. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Tell me, would you support also mentioning the ongoing wave of Israeli incursions, using ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among Palestinian civilians? Because if not, your fulminations about "outright deleting any mentions of the attacks" look pretty shallow. <eleland/talkedits> 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You are welcome to mention these attacks in controversial statements made by Bishara, Tibi, Arafat, Abbas, Haniyyeh, and any other famous Arab leader, and I will not oppose. However, to this article it is hardly relevant. There's a guideline called WP:CONTEXT, which says that internal links should be provided for context when necessary. Therefore, an internal link should be provided for the attacks - however, there doesn't seem to be an article on them. So, a footnote is in order. It seems from your agitated reply that you wish to also include Israeli attacks (please enlighten me on how that provides context to this article). For that purpose, you can link to Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2002#March_.28death_toll:_134.29, but the problem is that the list seems to be incomplete in light of the sources that Jaakobou presented on the 9 attacks (even though I haven't reviewed it in-depth, so it's hard to say for certain). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support due context. "following attacks" says nothing to the reader about how heated the situation was; Lieberman was not the only one making war noises. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Defeating the whole point of an RfC?

The whole point of an RfC is to ask for outside comment, not to use it as a chance to repeat your arguments from above. By starting it and then immediately adding your own opinions you've pretty much ruined the process

Anyway, I have a few problems with the sentence suggested above. Firstly, it's unreadable. The way it is structured at present suggests that Lieberman was being quoted as saying the stuff on 4 and 5 March (which obviously isn't the case as he can only have said it on one day). Secondly, there's no need to mention the 2nd intifada - the multiple terror attacks are enough context setting. I am fine with specifying nine terror attacks per WP:CONTEXT, but if people aren't too happy, "multiple" is a good enough replacement. I would envisage the sentence reading:

Following nine Palestinian attacks on Israel during a two day period in March 2002, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman...

пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - attacking civilians eating at a restaurant, or sitting on a bus is an "attack on Israelis", not "on Israel". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I meant - just didn't copy it across well enough when I was trying to rewrite it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion: perhaps a restart?

One format for RFCs that often gets good results is to set forth the issue in a request/rebuttal/comments format where the participants to a dispute set forth the matter under discussion and the arguments for and against it, and then a separate section takes outside input. A couple of examples of that presentation method are here and here. It works best when editors who participated in the dispute (or who have well known views from related articles) focus on providing the reasoning rather than the comments, and when the presentations are fairly brief. Also, straw poll-style RFCs tend not to be very successful. So since there appears to be no firm consensus here and the RFC is a couple of weeks old, would people be all right with a restart in a new format? Durova^Charge! 06:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedrito,

I'm not sure I'm following the reasoning for this edit. I believe Number 57 suggested:

Following nine Palestinian attacks on Israel during a two day period in March 2002

Which has more context than "Following multiple attacks on Israelis", the issue both I and Ynhockey presented support for. I'm thinking I can live with both the compromise suggestions of Number 57 (removing second intifada) and Ynhockey (footnote mention of events), unless you have another suggestion which includes the proper context to Lieberman's outburst.

(offtopic) Eleland's userboxes don't list Hebrew as one of the languages he speaks. In the future I suggest that there are several editors who are fluent in both English and Hebrew, myself included.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote by Ahmed Tibi

I'm wondering as to why this part was removed:

Galei Tzahal noted Israeli-Arab Knesset Member Ahmed Tibi (Hadash-Ta'al) responded by suggesting that if Lieberman were to be drowned in the Dead Sea, "it would cause environmental pollution"

It seems well-sourced and quite relevant to the paragraph. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I just noticed the edit summary - WP:UNDUE. I disagree with this completely, as removing Tibi's quote shifts the POV/balance of the section to make Lieberman look worse and Tibi look better. Notable reactions to Lieberman's statements (especially Tibi, who always fights with Lieberman) should definitely be included. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you admit that you have an agenda to make Liberman look better.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you reached that conclusion, and I'll be happy to explain my position if you have any suggestions for adding content to the article, rather than spouting ad hominem attacks. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ynhockey,

If Liberman's statements had been in reaction to Tibi's statements, then I agree 100% percent that they should be included. However, the opposite is true. Tibi's reply adds no context to the Liberman quote and looks like a cheap shot at smearing Tibi to balance things out. If Tibi's remarks belong anywhere, then in the article on Ahmed Tibi himself. The avid/interested reader can still read his reaction, along with everybody else's, in the quoted source.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07.05.2008 12:11

I partially agree with you, although it's hard to find a place for these comments in the Tibi article because they don't really have to do with anything that Tibi has done. It would indeed be undue weight to include these comments in the Tibi article under a general 'criticism' section or whatever. However, in the context of the Lieberman statements, it completely makes sense, therefore it has a place here. If I had time, I'd find more quotes by Tibi and make a sort of Lieberman vs. Tibi section (more encyclopedic than that, of course, but I'm out of good ideas at the moment). This is generally fairly notable because Lieberman-Tibi verbal fights often make headlines. For now, as a compromise, I suggest at least noting that Tibi was especially vocal, or something to that effect, because it's pretty misleading bundling Lieberman's confrontation with Peres with the much more verbal and intense one with Tibi. Perhaps separating them somehow would help. Things which are mentioned only in the sources are a problem - not many people read the sources, and they are not substitutes for information within an article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is about Avigdor Liberman and not Ahmed Tibi, and therefore comments relevant to Tibi do not belong here. I don't care if Tibi's a nice guy or not or if he deserves the bum rap or not -- this article is just not about him.

There is a Sentence referring to Tibi's and others' comments, with a link to the source, and that is enough without getting into WP:UNDUE or even WP:COATRACK.

If you want to add specifics on Lieberman-Tibi confrontations, I would suggest you start a separate article on the subject. Note, however, that it has to pass WP:NOTABILITY...

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07.05.2008 13:33

Actually, quotes from notable persons about an article's subject can go into the article of the subject. This both applies to persons and inanimate subjects, and is common practice in books and encyclopedias. I'll try to find examples from Wikipedia later (don't have time now), although you can look for yourself and not take my word for it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then start a section or sub-section called "Nasty things people have said to or regarding Avigdor Liberman" and put it there. Seriously though, it does not belong in-line with Lieberman's quote. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07.05.2008 14:31

It appears that we are at an impasse. I disagree with your version, and you disagree with mine. I have proposed a compromise, which you have also disagreed to. Do you have any more compromise suggestions? In any case, going along with your version for now, I'm removing another Tibi quote about Lieberman, where he says that Lieberman won support through race hatred. I guess that also belongs to the Nasty things about Lieberman section ;) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you see, there's a difference there. In the quote you removed, Ahmed Tibi is openly accusing Liberman of race-baiting, which is a rather serious accusation. In the other, he's being snippy. There's a big difference there, which is why I reverted your edit. And where is this compromise you are alluding to? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07.05.2008 14:59

Moving to left
It seems that you are following some double-standards here. You are saying that quotes about Lieberman and not by him do not belong in this article, unless they suit your POV. There's no difference of notability here - both are just rants by Tibi against Lieberman. The quote you want to remove is actually more notable, because lots of notable people (including Jewish and unrelated, but especially Arab MKs, like Barakeh, Bishara and Zahalka) have accused Lieberman of racism, while only Tibi and a few select others (but mostly Tibi) actually make direct personal attacks like 'Lieberman would be water pollution if drowned'. I am also offended at the WP:POINT accusation - I simply did not notice the quote before (re-reading this article in its entirety isn't a hobby of mine), and now that I have, believe it's an integral part of this dispute.

About the compromise: I'm talking about my earlier suggestion to go by a similar version to yours actually, except avoiding bundling Tibi's anti-Lieberman rants with the confrontations with Peres and others. However, I still stand by my opinion that there is absolutely no difference between the two Tibi quotes included in the article, and believe that the same fate (whether included or deleted) should await both of them. Do you have any other compromises?

By the way, I hope you realize that by keeping your preferred version before attaining clear consensus, and reverting anyone who makes changes, you are clearly violating WP:DR#Discuss. I don't really mind if you even make POV edits per WP:BOLD and then discuss, but reverting other editors makes it clear that for you it's either your way or your way. I hope you will be more open to discussion/negotiation in the future, as I don't plan to go in circles with this.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Corruption category

Shouldn't we save this category for when/if he's convicted? Practically every major Israeli politician was under an investigation or a corruption scandal at some point, but only a few were indicted and convicted. I think it's a violation of WP:BLP to put anyone who hasn't been convicted into this category. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To put anyone into this category without court conviction is an obvious WP:BLP violation, these actions should be reverted on sight. M0RD00R (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Math Problems

How could Liberman, born in 1958, have immigrated to Israel in 1978 "at age 21"? Page was obviously written by a Gentile. 166.216.128.75 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Avigdor Lieberman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I strongly feel that the first paragraph of this article is a dry as dirt technical description of what many Israelis feel is a racist plan to forcibly remove the majority of Israel's Arab population fr. Israeli sovereignty. This paragraph explains none of the thinking behind Lieberman's plan--its goals, etc. It provides no background on what other Israelis think of the plan nor what Israeli Arabs think of it. This article is a POV dispute waiting to happen. I have added a 2nd paragraph that attempts to provide some elementary balance to the first. While the article later does provide some element of the controversy generated by Lieberman, the first paragraph far too blithely describes what many believe is an underhanded way of ridding Israeli Arabs from Israel. Also, the article makes it appear that Lieberman has already joined the governing coalition (by saying he's signed a coalition agreement with Olmert) when he has not (at least not as of this date). The author is jumping the gun imo because he strongly favors Lieberman. There is a consistent usage of the term "coalitionary" which I've never heard used in English. The person writing this article may not be a native speaker & I believe that this usage should be converted to "coalition."

Last edited at 21:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)