Jump to content

Talk:Military Intelligence Directorate (Israel)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article Title

I think this article ought to be renamed. Firstly, Why the single quote? Where did it come from? Secondly, "aman" is an abbreviation, I think the full name is more appropriate for an article title. In Israeli press in English, "Millitary Intelligence" is usually used. The correct name, as far as I know, is "Directorate of Military Intelligence". How about "Israeli Military Intelligence"?--Doron 09:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I will rename this article to "Israeli Directorate of Military Intelligence".--Doron 08:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Based on what? I need to see a source — those agencies are known for their abbrevations. My question is, then, where did Israeli Directorate of Military Intelligence come from? Intelligence Branch is just a direct translation. Two sources consulted are: [1] and [2] El_C 06:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, a brief search shows that it is used rather than a straight translation (i.e. single quotes), but A'man appears to be more well known through the abbrevation in English than the formal English name [3] (150,000) versus [4] (500). I think this name needs to be tackled first as this is what the agency is most notable for in English. I deleted the Directorate of Military Intelligence redirect and created instead a Directorate of Military Intelligence (Israel), since a brief search DMI is used by other countries (South Africa, Sri Lanka, etc.), so it should be left open to all of them via country in parentheses. Let's forgo any further renamings pending further discussion. El_C 07:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Oh, I seem to have deleted your Israeli Directorate of Military Intelligence redirect, misreading it for 'Directorate of Military Intelligence,' I only realized this now after having already created an the IDMI redirect. Heh. :) El_C 07:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Finally, Doron, if, for consistency, you wish to go against the current naming convention by opting in favour of the formal English terms for YAMAM, Magav, Ma'shaz, etc., note that the formal English name for the Mossad, for example, is the Institute, or in full, the Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks, but, like A'man, most English-speaking people know it as the Hebrew word: the Mossad. I did not simply pick A'man as a title of this article on a whim, many examples, but see in particular: www1.idf.il/Aman El_C 07:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention, I used A'man because it makes sense phonetically. For example, see this correct use in: jewishvirtuallibrary.org. El_C 07:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, Wikipedia naming policy is (generally) to use the most common english name. →Raul654 07:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks, Raul. Also, note, Doron, that using A'man viz. Aman also has the additional advantage of sparing the name from an attached parnethesis, as the latter is the (rather notable in English as such) land of the Valar and Maiar in Tolkien's legendarium. El_C 07:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish this discussion had taken place before I made all the changes (I raised this issue almost a week ago).

  • As for the single quote, why does it make sense phonetically? Single quote in Hebrew transliteration is usually used before a vowel for the letter 'ayin, which is clearly not the case.
  • As for Aman (with or without the quote), I'm not sure the popularity contest is the right way to choose article titles - suppose "the Zionist Entity" had got more google hits than "Israel", would you change the article title? (or for more concrete example, compare [5] and [6] for Apple Macintosh, [7] and [8] for Weblog, [9] and [10] for National Socialist German Workers Party). There should be more concrete reasons to choose a title than just hit counts.
  • I find "Aman" to be somewhat informal and thus less appropriate for an encyclopedia entry title (even if it is widely used in mass media and on the web). In Israel it is formally referred to as Agaf Modi'in, it's official name (in contrast to the Mossad, whose original name is seldom used in Hebrew). I thought since it has an official name, it ought to be used.
  • As for my suggestion - [11] has Director of Military Intelligence, which inspired me to google "Directorate of ..." and to find that it is more common than, say, "Branch of...".
  • I'm not sure how your link to the Hebrew website of IDF's Intelligence Corps is relevant.--Doron 08:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could have given me a personal pointer as I am the sole author of this article, and my atchlist is very lengthy, but you're not expected to:

I just thought it was the right thing to do, I raised the issue and waited for a week. I saw you edited the article during this time, so I assumed you also had a look at the talk page. Sorry if this was offensive in any way.--Doron 09:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing it. Dosen't matter. El_C 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As I explained, the single quote denoted the direct translation, you are confusing two different issues.
Sorry, I still don't understand this point, could you explain? And this also goes for the other single quotes in this article.--Doron 09:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Other single quotes denote direct translation of certain terms from the first source cited above. El_C 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I still don't understand why the single quote, you are being very mysterious about this. I haven't seen it used anywhere else.--Doron 12:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Aman is used as per notability, like Mossad is used versus the Institute as I already mentioned per formal English terms. You seem to be saying yes populairy contest fo Mossad (in English and Hebrew) but not for Aman; I mentioned other agnecies as well. The other examples are not pertinent to this topic. I mean, it's good to see that my efforts on this article are so appreciated by you, but I would hope for some consistency nonetheless (ala YAMAM, Magav, Ma'shaz, etc.).
My objection was to using a popularity contest (and google in particular) as the main criterion, I didn't say it didn't count at all. In the Mossad case, the direct translation is never used. And I didn't just arbitrarily choose the direct translation, I used what I thought was the official translation, though I couldn't be sure of it. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website uses just "Military Intelligence", (and not "Aman"). I've already made similar changes in Israel Border Police and met no opposition, I suppose the final conclusion of this discussion would apply to it as well.--Doron 09:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, this is a double standard. You want to use the formal name of A'man in English, but not that of the Mossad. Yes, notability of the name is key in this case, as per naming conevntions. El_C 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps using the formal name for the Mossad is also in order. I wouldn't care too much about it.--Doron 12:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The Hebrew link uses Aman, that is how it is relavent — Aman obviously has no site of its own, and as the ICorps falls under its jurisdiction, this is no coincedence
But the site is in Hebrew (unless I'm missing something), and "Aman" only appears in the URL.--Doron 09:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Only? Just by coincedence? El_C 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strings used in URLs are not always words, and not always English words. Hebrew websites often use Hebrew words in URLs, this example doesn't demonstrate anything.--Doron 12:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

El_C 09:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I note that these circular arguments do diminish from my motivation to add content to this article (100% of it by myself), so I am hopeful you will add content to it in my absence, rather than arguing over well-known policies regarding naming conventions, whereby this article is somehow an exception and is singled-out over the rest I mentioned. Is there a reason for this? El_C 09:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What circular arguments? Why is your motivation diminished? Have I been offensive in any way? I do apologize if I have.--Doron 09:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I welcome your discovery of the formal name in English, aside from that, your comments are devoting too much of my time, circularly neglecting to address my point about the other abbervations and acronyms. That is what's demotivating me, and I hope you will pick up the slack. I'll limit myself to naming conventions instead of conent, I suppose. El_C 10:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I disagreed with your changes to IZAK's version for Mgav. I intended to correct it, but it slipped my mind. I will do so now. El_C 10:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, I'll wait for a moment, but I'm still displeased with that naming convention change which is uncommon in both English and Hebrew ("Border Guard"), and I intend to change it. Sigh. I'm just not used to devoting so much energy on these issues. I have familiarity with the notability of the terms in Eng/He, but I'm mainly interested in adding conent — I hope, at the very least, that you share that interest. El_C 10:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IBP get 300 google hits, Magav gets 7000. Please bear in mind that this is an English language encyclopedia. Notability is not a populairity contest. El_C 10:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to enforce the google vote on Weblog and National Socialist German Workers Party, or do you think there ought to be a double standard? The web includes content in all sorts of styles of English, from inner-city slang to meticulous legal language, wikipedia pretends to be an encyclopedia, so I don't think it ought to pick up anything that get's a high web count. And I don't mind Aman in the body of the article (after the abbreviation has been introduced), I think the title ought to be more formal. Notability is not google count, and this indeed is an English language encyclopedia.--Doron 12:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doron, I apologize I am being abrasive, though I stand behind all of my points, and I do commend you for your discovery of the DoMI name. I am being strained by other articles at the moment, and this is the last thing I wanted to deal with; I just don't have the energy. Please note what Raul said: for the record, Wikipedia naming policy is (generally) to use the most common english name. El_C 11:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are being abrasive. It's fine if you're not interested in naming discussions, but that doesn't mean you may force your opinion without discussion. My contributions to wikipedia are humble (to say the least) compared to yours, but that doesn't mean you can ignore my arguments as if they were vandalism or argumentative and just revert everything just because you have more important things to do. (I accept your apology and I appreciate it, I just need to let out some steam myself :)).
Now you may ignore all my arguments above and just answer me this: do you think, following the same logic, that we should rename Israel Defense Force to IDF, Communist Party of Israel to Maki, Nahmanides to Ramban, etc.?
I would also appreciate it if you could spare me the time and explain to me the single quote, which is the thing that bothers me the most.--Doron 12:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's unfair. I said I was being abrasive, so there is no need to emphasize the are (?!). And I argue that it is you who are ignoring my arguments. And it is you who are changing lons-standing conventions, for these articles (A'man, Magav), and as per the principle (most common name in English). I made the changes to correspond with the re-re-name, you can change any back that make less that way considering that the name of the article is A'man. The Israeli Defence Forces are more well known in English than T'zahal and IDF needed to serve as disambaguation page, Communist Party of Israel advertises itself as the CPI in English (about 1000 hits for each, so it's clear which to choose), and yes, if Ramban is more well-known in Egnlish (significantly as A'man versus IDMI, Mossad versus the Institute. Now, I have made my case rationally and with some rpetition about the naming convention, and I stand by my point. And it appears that Raul agrees with me. I take excpetion to your accusation that I forced anything. I'll make changes as I see fit, based on rational considerations, and I expect you to do the same. And, again, I stand by all my points. If you want to have a discussion: fine, but I just hope I won't need to repeat myself because I used some examples here over three times now. Finally, I explained the single quote, I provided a link for it, I explained the discrapency with the existing Aman did you read it closey? Or do you mean, single quotes for Intelligence Branch which denoted it being a translation. I hope this dosen't go on for much longer like this. It really took a lot of my time, needlessly, I think. El_C 12:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I thought the comment ending with the ":)" mark made it clear that I was trying to cool the discussion down, not stir it. My poor sense of humor needs some refinement, perhaps.
  • I think it is better to have a discussion before a disputable modification rather than the usual revert war, which is why I proposed this change and waited for some time without objections before applying it (I admit I didn't do so in the magav case, though no-one has complained). I think it is unfair to revert everything while the discussion is still on-going (and I wouldn't retaliate by re-reverting everything back as is often done in Wikipedia). I would have been happy to revert it all myself and save you the trouble of scanning for my changes, if we'd have concluded that I was wrong in renaming the article - I don't enjoy vandalizing Wikipedia in my spare time.
  • In the Israel Police website, the word "magav" doesn't even appear in the text (it appears once as part of a URL and twice as part of an email address) and "Border Police" appears 12 times ([12], [13]); In the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website "magav" appears 4 time and "Border Police" appears 293 times ([14], [15]). This leads me to believe the official English name is Israel Border Police, and "Magav" is just a nickname based on the pronounciation of the Hebrew abbreviation MGv. I wish Aman had a website that would tell us once and for all what their English name is.
  • You could save yourself a lot of time if you would simply exmplain why the single quote. You do not explain anywhere why A'man (rather than Aman), None of the links you have provided explains why it is so, and only one of them even has this form.--Doron 13:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Try placing it at the end of decisive sentences, not within brakcets at the end of a paragraph, I didn't even notice it was there as such.
  • As I explained I needed to make it consistent again throughout, this is unfair of you.
  • Searching it in the official Israeli website is not a sound approach, I used goodle. I'd like to see your belief substantiated with something definitive as to what the border guard is called. Magav is not a nickname, it is the abbervaiation which is most common in English. Smae with A'man, this is the bottom line for English naming conventions.
  • I already explained it was phonetic. And I'm getting tired of this conversation and these cricularities. I regret having authored this article now. El_C 17:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ridden with guilt for demoralzing you, I'll drop my "directorate of..." suggestion for now; I've written an email to IDF and police spokesperson offices as to what's the official English names, I hope this should satisfy you. In the meantime, I insist on the quote mark. The Academy of Hebrew Language have never heard of your transliteration rules, apparently, as they make no mention of using the single quote and I have no idea what you mean by "it's phonetic" which you keep repeating without explaining. The closest thing to your suggested transliteration is the use of the double quote mark where it is used in Hebrew. If this is what you meant by "it's phonetic", then it should be Ama"n, not A'man. Neither of them is particularly esthetic, but Ama"n is at least correct. This rule goes for all the other abbreviations you introduced - hama"n, moda"sh, etc.. If you do not provide a more rigorous justification to your spelling, I will rename it to Ama"n (if the reply from the spokesperson's offices confirms Aman, that is). If you become discouraged to write articles for one reason or another, it would be a pity, I don't see any reason why you should share this with me unless you think it is my fault.--Doron 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since this involves all kinds of transliteration mintuea, I've asked Danny (a professional Hebrew<->English translator) to put in a word here. →Raul654 17:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Raul, let me be clear: 1. If Doron, in his very selective hearing here, implements his Directorate of suggestion, then the Mossad needs to be renamed as The Institute. I already explained very clearly why, and he has ignored that; I am trying very hard to assume goodfaith, but it seems increasingly to be spite (and yes, I share it with him for a reason). 2. As for the dreaded apostrophe (and perhaps Doron has heard of Ha'aretz Daily Newspaper), the use of the apostrophe in transliterating Hebrew is well-known, and I do not feel obliged to explain to him its rules at length. He can review this article, though, aptly named "Apostrophe Now", Philologos, 2002. El_C 22:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Finally, Doron's source (based on 1957 rules), which does state: ראשי תיבות. ראשי תיבות הגויים כמילים נכתבים כמילים רגילות עם מירכאות. למשל: מנכ"ל manka"l, בע"מ be`a"m [i.e. be-->`<--a"m], שו"ת shu"t. ראשי תיבות שאינם הגויים רצוי לכתבם מלא, also mentions that: "אחידות. השימוש בתעתיק מוסכם מבטיח לכותב שהקורא יצליח לפענח את הטקסט שכתב. ככל שתהיה אחידות בשימוש הסימנים, יוכלו המשתמשים להתרגל לכתב הן ככותבים הן כקוראים. עם זאת, בכללים המפורטים להלן הוצע במקרים יחידים סימן חלופי לצד הסימן המומלץ. נראה שבמקום שיש חלופות יכריעו בסופו של דבר המשתמשים מה יהיה הסימן המוסכם. מכל מקום את החלופות המוצעות אי אפשר להבין בשום דרך אחרת," which is certainly something to keep in mind, as I have scarcely seen the usage as seen in the former passage employed recently, and the article already explains that it is an abbrevation. There is no need to confuse the reader needlessly, just as there is no need to call the Mossad The Institute or A'man as The Directorate. Lastly, note how Amazon.com, which I'm sure can afford compotent translators, uses A'man in its editorial reviews of Samuel M. Katz Soldier Spies: Israeli Military Intelligence, etc. Not original research on my part. El_C 22:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lastly, as for Doron changing the name of Magav (border guard) into Border Police, I was wandering whether he happned, upon changing Magav's official site's name from "Magav official site" into "Border Police official website" [16], to actually visit that website. Had he done this, he would have seen that Magav titles itself as Border Guard. Don't take my word for it, Raul, click on the site yourself (and of course, note the infamously irrelavent words used in the url): http://www.police.gov.il/english/BorderGuard/Mission/00_about.asp Sorry that I don't have the time to go through these basics and doing the preliminary resarch that he should have done upon changing the name. El_C 23:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

El_C:

  • I am not being spiteful and you haven't given me a clue as to why you would think I was (and don't bother, I'm no longer interested).
  • The rule I am suggesting is not direct translation, which is quite obvious. Had it been so, I would have suggested "Intelligence Department" (rather than "directorate" = hanhala), and "Border Guard" (rather than "police" = mishtara). The rule I am suggesting is to use the official English name, you know, letting these bodies decide for themselves what they are called in English. I don't know what's the Mossad's official English name, if it has one, I'm pretty sure it's not "the Institute", so you can stop bringing up this argument. Once again, to be absolutely clear - I am not suggesting direct translation.
  • It is ironic that the article you have provided ("Apostrophe Now") starts with a misusage of the apostrophe, which is exactly what "A'man" is. Have you bothered reading the article? (or the Hebrew Academy rules, which are by the way up-to-date, being aimed at electronic communication such as email and internet)? Both the article "Apostrphe Now" you have provided and the Hebrew Academy rules imply that the apostrophe in "A'man" is misplaced. Your article clearly states three cases in which apostrophe is used, none of which apply to "A'man" - there is no glottal stop between "A" and "man", there's no schwa under the alef, and the alef is not a proclictic. The Academy's rules are similar. Therefore using the apostrophe is wrong in "A'man", "Matk'al", "A'gam", "Ha'man", "Moda'sh" (though it's perfectly correct in "Be'eri", for example). Furthermore, it is much less in use, to say the least.
  • I am not suggesting to use the double quote (Ama"n), this was my desperate guess as to why you used the single quote, since you as of yet haven't provided the rule by which you derived "A'man"!.
  • Surely you noticed Magav's website uses both "Border Police" and "Border Guard", obviously at least one of them is not the official name. The MFA website is more consistent. Discussing this any further is pointless until I receive a reply from the spokesperson's office and I have already stated that I'm dropping this for now until I receive a reply from the spokesperson's office.--Doron 06:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Responded at length at Doron talk page here. To summarize, I have not conducted myself according to standards of conduct that I expected of myself. With regards to the content, I won't try to summarize because it's fairly complex and comprehensively covered in my note. But I'll end by saying that I leave all these issues at the compotent hands of Danny and yourself (apperently you knew of the apostrophe; I got the imperssion you did not know it even existed, much confusion ensued), and will accept any solution you two will arrive at for all the outstanding issues, which are all minor anyway and should'nt have been a big deal (wouldn't have if it were not for several disputes of far greater intensity coming to bear on my state of mind), without reservation. Thanks and sorry. El_C 14:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apostrophe

I would like to restart the discussion about apostrophes in the article (and in the title in particular). I strongly believe the apostrophes are misplaced in all the transliterations of Hebrew abbreviations that appear in this article, specifically: A'man, A'gam, Ha'man, Moda'sh and Matk'al (in cotranst to Be'eri and Ya'alon, which are correct). I am aware that such spelling may appear elsewhere occasionally, but I claim it is incorrect nevertheless.

The article Apostrophe Now, provided by El C, states three cases in which the apostrophe is used in Hebrew-to-English transliteration:

  1. To indicate a glottal stop (such as Yisra'el or Gil'ad). By definition, it must come before a vowel; this only occurs in "Matk'al", though still not applicable, as there is no glottal stop here, the word is composed of two syllables, "mat" and "kal".
  2. Following a schwa. This is not applicable to any of the five.
  3. To separate proclitic prepositions and articles from the main word. This is not applicable to any of the five.

A Hebrew article on transliteration by the Academy of the Hebrew Language gives similar rules. In addition, it states that an apostrophe should be added where a pair of letters may be mistaken for a digraph (such as mats'hiv or mat'sis), also not applicable to any of the five. Also, apostrophe may be used to distinguish between alef and `ayin (though the grave accent (`) is preferred), which is also not applicable here as there is no `ayin in any of the five abbreviations.

Therefore I propose to remove the apostrophes from all of the abovementioned abbreviations, including renaming the article, because:

  • They constitute incorrect spelling, and even if such spelling is sometimes used elsewhere, Wikipedia shouldn't propagate it.
  • They are less esthetic spellings.
  • The spelling without the apostrophe is arguably more common.

Another issue is the very use of some of these abbreviations. I think "Haman" and "Matkal" are better substituted with "Intelligence Corps" and "General Staff", respectively.

Finally, if my suggestion is accepted and "A'man" is transformed into "Aman", then a new name for the article is needed, since Aman is already in use. I suggest "Aman (military intelligence)" or "Aman (IDF)". Any other suggestions? --Doron 08:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, since there are no objections, I will proceed by removing all incorrect apostrophes except for the ones in A'man (because those would require renaming the article). I urge editors to propose an alternative name for "Aman" (without the apostrophe) or otherwise point out why there should be an apostrophe).--Doron 11:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Hold on, let's wait for Danny first. Sorry I forgot about this. El_C 12:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_Intelligence_Directorate_(Israel)/Archive_1&oldid=918369390"