Trichome

Content deleted Content added
Ynhockey (talk | contribs)
Line 123: Line 123:


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

:I disagree. There is no consensus on whether or not Hamas "advocates the destruction of Israel". While their early charter did seem to support an end, their more recent statements indicate a willingness to negotiate with Israel. It is highly POV and inaccurate to try to summarize their complex goals in those few words. I think Nableey is right to suggest that it is best to let readers click on Hamas and see what it is about to determine for themselves why Liberman views meeting with them as treason. [[User:Tiamut|<b><font color="#B93B8F">T</font><font color="#800000">i</font><font color="#B93B8F">a</font><font color="#800000">m</font><font color="#B93B8F">u</font><font color="#800000">t</font></b>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]</sup> 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:32, 30 December 2009

WP:SOAPy descriptions in the article

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

Please discuss this here before reverting.

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

Lieberman's response to claims he was in Kach

In the section about the Haaretz claims he was in Kach, the article ambiguously says he "rejects the story" and cites this page in Hebrew [1].

I can't Hebrew and I just want to know whether he explicitly denies membership in Kach or not. "Reject the story" is very unclear.

Factsontheground (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant text is: "ליברמן הכחיש את הדברים במהלך מערכת הבחירות האחרונה. " - Translation: "Lieberman denied these [Kach membership story] during the last elections". JaakobouChalk Talk 09:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so he didn't categorically deny that he was a member of Kach?Factsontheground (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article (both NRG and the Wikipedia article) says that Lieberman denied the allegations. What changes to the article are you suggesting? —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians often avoid making direct staements so as not to be caught out as lying when the truth eventually emerges. Lieberman may be denying the "story" but that does not mean he is categorically denying that he was ever a member of Kach. Factsontheground (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo Factsontheground,
I'm not seeing the semantics debate as germane to the article's subject so it's difficult to follow the changes you're interested in making in the article. Could you please clarify this issue?
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 21:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, and would like to hear specific suggestions for changes. The comment above does not appear to be relevant to specific changes because it is original research, but I'd like to know what you believe should be changed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 02:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to Lieberman/Netaniahy/Obama

Do not know what to do with the info, but Lieberman is right and apparently Netaniahy managed to convince Obama. He (Obama) called on both sides to live up to obligations under the stalled "road map" for Middle East peace. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in 'Cheers', I recommend heading to a local bar rather than going here.
Regardless, this info does not really belong on this page. The Squicks (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-adding of fact tag

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

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

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

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

Why are you removing the fact tag?

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

POV and offtopic

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

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

Treason in context of Hamas

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

  • I believe outside readers do not always know that Hamas main point is replacing Israel with an Islamist "Palestine". This, IMHO, needs basic clarification on the article in the given context (per "Lieberman called for those Arab members of the Knesset which met with Hamas, which advocates the destruction of Israel, to be tried for treason." - emphasis not in original).
  • From the edit summary I understand that Nableezy feels "the wikilink provides all the context needed"[2] but I disagree. A reader needs to review the entire history of Hamas in order to understand the context for that one liner about treason. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC) rework 10:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC) focus 10:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC) better 10:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the sake of working quickly through this, I've opened a 3O request. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I disagree. There is no consensus on whether or not Hamas "advocates the destruction of Israel". While their early charter did seem to support an end, their more recent statements indicate a willingness to negotiate with Israel. It is highly POV and inaccurate to try to summarize their complex goals in those few words. I think Nableey is right to suggest that it is best to let readers click on Hamas and see what it is about to determine for themselves why Liberman views meeting with them as treason. Tiamuttalk 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply