Talk:Avigdor Lieberman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Picture

A little goofy to have a shot of him with the American flag behind, no? This clown is not a U.S. politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.77.161.22 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Lieberman's call for use of Nuclear Weapons in Gaza

On January 13, 2009, Israeli leader Avigdor Lieberman called for the use of nuclear weapons against Palestinians in Gaza. "We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II" to "break the will" of Hamas in Gaza. This was reported by numerous sources including AFP [1], the Jerusalem Post and others. I tried to add this notable quote to the article, but it was removed. --216.165.4.49 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that he did not call for use of nukes and only made an analogy about breaking the spirits of a controversial organization. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not removed, it was edited by me to reflect the (questionable) source and to comply with wp:npov, wp:or and wp:blp which where violated. Notability is still questionable as is the source.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The only war in history where a nuclear weapon was used was Japan, and that's the occasion Mr. Lieberman refers to here. The meaning is clear. --216.165.4.49 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was the only war in which nukes were used, also, in the same war, there were jet fighters, quasi-ICBM:s, the first war aircraft carriers dominated the sea, the first war where thousands of tonnes of bombs rained down on two continents, first war in which amphibious landings became an art. So, mr Lieberman could have refered to any of the above, is it clear as sky now 216.165.4.49? Gsmgm (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous, please be careful about making baseless accusations against living persons, as certain things violate WP:BLP even on the talk page of an article. Lieberman did not call for the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza, and you should stop claiming that he did. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did he choose to analogize to Japan's surrender in WW2? Are you suggesting it was mere coincidence? Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. --Sevenshown (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I would appreciate no personal attacks. If you persist on personally attacking other editors, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Secondly, the reason Lieberman compared Hamas to WWII-era Japan is, probably, because their motivation is high without regard to death and casualties, to the point of using suicide attacks as a tactic. However, that's my personal observation, which does not belong in the article, and neither does yours. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Please take the time to read the core ideas behind Wikipedia before making controversial edits. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called intellectually dishonest, then don't practice it. Your attempt to deny the obvious threat behind Mr. Lieberman's statement is nothing less than appalling, especially considering the seriousness of the threat. Further, your attempt to control the content of wikipedia harms its value as an objective encyclopedia. Good day. --Sevenshown (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk)

No, it is not clear what he meant! Mr Lieberman made an analogi to HOW IN THE LONG TERM the US defeated Japan, not how the US finished Japan off! The United States did not nuke Japan into submission, the US exhausted Japans capability to wage a war long before the atombombs(eg strategic bombing of cities, factories, sinking oil tankers et cetera) in stark contrast to common belief! Gsmgm (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the quote was added back in edited form. I'm OK with the result. Dispute resolved. --Sevenshown (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.64 (talk)

I'm not. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou deleted the quote again. --216.165.4.49 (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Lieberman makes 2-3 quotes every day, what's special about this one? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please view the talkpage on 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict on Israeli Parliamentarian's call for use of nuclear weapons, I think we've managed to get a peaceful settlement there(before this one gets out of hand too). Gsmgm (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is how the sympathetic, right-wing media outlet Arutz Sheva recounted Liberman's words:

"We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II,” Lieberman said. The U.S. carried out two atomic bomb attacks in Japan in 1945, leading to the country's surrender. America defeated Japan without a ground invasion, making a military occupation unnecessary, Lieberman said.

Here is how the Agence France Press recounted them:

In an apparent allusion to the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the leader of an ultra-nationalist opposition party said Israel should follow the example set by the US when it brought Japan to its knees in World War II.

Here is how Israel's center-right Jerusalem Post recounted them:

We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II," Lieberman added. "Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary."
In 1945, Japan unconditionally surrendered to the US following two atomic bomb attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. A ground invasion of mainland Japan had been prepared at the time, but was avoided due to the Japanese capitulation after the bombings.

Here is how a Palestinian academic think tank funded by the EU recounted them:

The so-called only democracy in the Middle East reveals its intention toward resolving the conflict with the Palestinians by striking Gaza with nuclear bomb.
[...]
Lieberman called in his racist and radical speech upon Israel to 'continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II.'

Here is how the best newspaper in Egypt recounted them:

Meanwhile, Israeli hard-line MP Avigdor Lieberman called for fighting Hamas in the same way the United States fought Japan in World War II, in an indication that Israel should hit Gaza with nuclear bombs.

You guys are really going to play "hear no evil" with this one? I mean ignore the moral wretchedness of it, for a second, and just think of your own self-interest. You really want to be on record as Wikipedia's genocide deniers? And you're Israelis? And you think this is going to help your national cause? It's insane. You are fucking insane. <eleland/talkedits> 19:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Eleland, I concur to 10% but I refuse to accept your statements, firstly, I am a Swede! Although the majority of this thread may be Israelis, that is not going to justify a generalisation. Secondly, you may(I'm not saying you can) put that stuff on the article, but I dislike such move(It is well sourced but not well enough, point out your sources clearly).(it's well sourced! For once! Just compare to the original statement.). Thirdly and finally, I not either condemning nor condoning Israels actions in this extremly inflamed situation, but I am absolutely appalled to how little quality Isreali history lessons have. Gsmgm (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, calling me insane baselessly(I'm not even near to your guess of Israeli), violates WP:NPA. I therefore ask you to rescind your baseless insinuations against my person. DS Gsmgm (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: While the allusion exists, it doesn't change the fact that Lieberman did not say Israel should use atomic weaponry. It most probably referred to the use of what the world condemns - i.e. "disproportionate" attacks to end the situation of hostility towards the US. The situation is also comparable due to the use of suicide attacks in both instances, but other than that, the comparisons seems to end.
Gsmgm, please review WP:SOAP (per: "absolutely appalled").
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I apologise sincerely for going too far, I realised now. Gsmgm (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

After much deliberation, I have come to the following conclusion: As of present, the only "third" party source(thus complying with wikipedia source-policys) is one sentence from AFP/JP: "We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II." Thats it. My conclusion is, if we cannot dig up some important third party sources(CNN, a Australian newspaper, etc), this is then only sourced from a less favorable second party source(possible bias) Gsmgm (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny sentences

We can see the following sentence in lead: "A number of mainstream media sources consider him to be on the far right of the political spectrum.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]". Isn't that just ridiculous? We have a article about a rightwing nut, and cannot simply write that he is rightwing? Mind you, this is a guy who does not let Arab reporters in to campaign meeting, supports ethnic cleansing and is virulently anti-Arab. And on top of that, quite intelligent editors of WP have used numerous man-hours to discuss this otherwise un-notable nut here on talk page. --Magabund (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have only two things to say to you: a) See above discussions, and b) BLP applies to the talk page as well, please strike out or remove your slander. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. Everything he said was sourced and accurate; Liberman is a far-right anti-Arab politician. Do you see Liberman suing Ha'aretz or The Nation? when they say this? No? Then stop trying to use bogus BLP concerns to harass editors. <eleland/talkedits> 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed silly that anyone should consider a simple description of this man as "far right" to be somehow biased. This line "A number of mainstream media sources consider him to be on the far right of the political spectrum" would itself then constitute bias, in addition to being weaselish, as it's tantamount to saying "people to the left of him consider him to be to the right of them."

Fresh from the horse's mouth:

Lieberman said that his party will prefer to join a national right-wing government, hinting that he would prefer joining forces with Netanyahu over Livni. "We always said that this is the government we want, and this is the way our hearts lean," he stressed.

Ha'aretz --Magabund (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"As a teenager, Lieberman worked as a nightclub bouncer in Moldavia". Come on! Nightclub in the Soviet Union? You are kidding. There were four or five restaurants in Kishinev at that time with closing time 11 pm. He worked short time at nightclub in Beer Sheva after coming in Israel. Then as a worker at Lod Airport. By the way in Kishinev, Moldavia Lieberman was a student of Agricultural institute (now Agricultural university). See Russian Wikipedia.

68.255.174.55 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Boris Kolker - Kishinev, Moldavia, USSR; now Cleveland, Ohio, USA

What's with the US flag in the picture?

Why in the world, out of all the pictures that I'm sure are available of this guy, does Wikipedia display a shot of him in front of a US flag? That should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing, we don't have any other pictures of Lieberman. If you were at an event and took a good one, feel free to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 04:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's no excuse. The Stars and Stripes can and should be cropped out, forthwith. Anything less is tantamount to deliberate dishonesty. 130.64.34.199 (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

The statements were controversial, not the "quotes"

I changed a section name to "Controversial statements" from "Controversial quotes", since nothing in the article indicates a controversy over whether he said what he said, but rather over what he said. I hope that edit will not be controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed "who has been alleged to have been assisting the Palestinians in their war against Israel, " from the part about Ahmad Tibi, as its not really relevant to the article. More importantly, "Palestinian's war against Israel" is a rather distorted simplification of the entire conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 11:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is within the context of accusing Arab MKs, Tibi included, of collaborating with the enemy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas' anti-Israel stance

Is there any doubt here? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Descriptives

The introductory decriptives were really over the top. Please discuss the issue before reintroduction of anything in a similar tone. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've narrowed it down to three descriptors that seems to be the most common and well sourced. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit over-crowded with 20 refs for every descriptive. Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If all the links are necessary (which I doubt), they should be grouped into one reference. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with there being fewer sources. I used several so that other editors would stop cherry-picking and attacking strawmen. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with having many references. Extraordinary statements or deeply controversial statements need more references by defintion. Personally, I don't see the best place for the descriptons to be the lead, I would rather put it in the body text of the article alongside the descriptions of his political views-- this makes the most sense logically. The Squicks (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Widely accepted political characterizations of a politician are one of the most important topics and as such should be included in the lead. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, can we at least fixup the refs thing... I'm fairly certain I'd be able to live with the three descriptives I saw earlier if it wouldn't grab so much attention with 8-10 refs each. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues

I've been asked to look at this article for BLP issues, and I've seen a few at a brief glance. For example:

• The category "Kahanist" has been added, based on the allegations in this article. As is quite clear, the article does not claim he is a Kahanist, but rather alleges that he "was involved in Kach for a number of months" two decades ago. Even there, some of the sources say "he was not a Kach man ideologically". This kind of bald characterization based on such equivocal sources is obviously unacceptable.
• The lede states that he is "far-right", and provides an impressive number of sources. However, this characterization is obviously misleading. If you research Lieberman, you quickly find that he is "far-right" in one area only; his populist attitudes towards Arab-Israelis. On religious matters he is left-wing, and on social and economic matters he is center-left. It's nice to be able to label people with "one-size-fits-all" labels, but doing so violates BLP as well.

In addition, much of the material in the lede is unique; the lede should summarize the article, not introduce new material. Please fix these issues as soon as possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First, he is on the far right in the political spectrum which has nothing to do with his religious believes.

Second, if the "Kahanist" category is an BLP violation go ahead and take it out but don't forget a proper edit summary as so many do.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The political spectrum includes positions on economic matters, where AL is not "far right". It includes positions on separation of state an religion, where Al is, again, not on the "right". As noted above, labeling people is not that easy, and thus should be avoided on BLPs. NoCal100 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I get it. He's a leftist, right?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you actually get it. You are attempting to label someone with a very broad label, which does not fit. Please don't do it, especially not on a BLP. NoCal100 (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's apply that logic on Hitler. On cigarette smoking, his policies were left-wing. Same thing for animal rights. Same thing on alternative medicine. He's dead center (prehaps even center-left) on economics. He's dead center on transporation, parks, recreation, and other infastructure spending. Hitler's paganistic religious views were "left-wing" in the sense that he created a stronger seperation of church and state-- with a ruthless supression of Catholicism and traditional Protestantism in the name of 'positive Christianity' during the short term and a long term goal of the creation of an anti-monotheistic paganistic state.

Of course, this is all just silly. Hitler's most famous views were on war and race, and that is why articles on him focus on that.

Calling/comparing Lieberman as a person to Hilter is also completely silly, and I emphatically don't support that. But Lieberman's most famous/notable statements have been on war and race. We cannot get around this fact. The Squicks (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you research Lieberman, you quickly find that he is "far-right" in one area only; his populist attitudes towards Arab-Israelis. On religious matters he is left-wing, and on social and economic matters he is center-left.

I don't care if he spends his free time (when he's not talking about how evil all Arabs are) riding on a unicorn wearing a knights outfit throwing out roses and chocolates to passing children while singing The Beach Boys songs.

The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say. And those sources call him "far right". They label him, as a person, "far right". There's no conceivable way of getting around this. At Wikipedia, we report; we don't engage in issues of moral fairness. We report. He certainly may be a very nice person with very reasonable views which whom I would get along very well with in person. That doesn't matter at all. I don't see what you are getting at. Hitler was a genial, charismatic, children-loving, animal-loving vegetarian new-age pagan who's economic policies were Keynesian and virtually indistinguishable from FDR's. That does not stop the fact that his views on war and race were more covered in the media. The Squicks (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was a centrist on economics. The Squicks (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the term "Kahanist" blatantly misrepresents the source. Personally, I think we should include "He was a member of Kach briefly" in the body text somewhere here, to be accurate. The Squicks (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Commet: The "attitudes" are aimed at anti-Israeli activities, not neccesarily by Arabs, in Israel. Israel Beiteinu advocates Israeli civilians, both Jews and Arabs (and other smaller ethnic minorities), should be loyal to Israel and have worked on several ideas to help this issue. This issue catches a higher percentage of Arabs than it does Jews but this is because a higher number of Arabs in Israel declare opinions supporting attacks on Israeli civilians. There's also Jewish groups who fit the issue the party wants to address to soo charactization as though the perspective is ethnically aimed is a mistake.
p.s. I tend to agree that the labels are very problematic here. Certainly when you consider the liberal (left-wing) perspectives of Israel Beiteinu in regards to state and religion. Would be best to make a section and elaborate things there.
p.p.s. we're not 100% sure he was a memeber for the couple months someone in Kackh says he was. Lieberman's response to that one was that the publication was 'invited' and 'timed' for the elections. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with The squicks. Categorizing him as a Kahanist misrepresents the source, and is problematic. -- Nudve (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, please show reliable sources that dispute that he is far right. Otherwise your comment is just OR. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please show which part of WP:BLP does not allow broadly accepted political labels to be used in BLPs. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that even the hard-line neoconservatives at Commentary Magazine call Liberman "far right". The Squicks (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source - [2] - that clarifies/validates the points raised here that 'far right' is quite innaccurate. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kadima party people claim that Lieberman is not right wing? It's not like they are a neutral, impartial, objective observer here, are they? The Squicks (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article quoting other Israeli politicians calling Lieberman's beliefs "fascism". Is this acceptable to use in this article as a 'reliable source'? The Squicks (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That is The Jerusalem Post reprinting a statement from a Kadima official. It doesn't clarify or validate anything. Find a reliable, independent source that argues that he is not far right. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Perception section

I added the perception section, which incorporated somewhat POV and controversial labels and references from the lede. I also added a number of other references trying to explain the phenomenon and bringing this section in line with the Yisrael Beiteinu article. Please edit and/or expand, but do not remove before discussing it first here. Mhym (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't group references like that. They need to be separated out. The Squicks (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this before, so am not sure you are right, but have no strong feeling either way. I did not want to remove them completely. If you feel like trimming their number to about 2-3 per reference line, feel free to expand them. All I know is that you don't want it the way they before. Mhym (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Listing many different sources as if they are one source can't be done. The Squicks (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've given examples of articles on other parties that are also widely accepted to be far right, ultra nationalist, etc clearly that are labeled as such in their leads (with less documentation than I have provided). If you want to remove these widely accepted labels from the lead, you need to find and share a policy that they violate. If you do so, I will help you bring this article and others in line with that policy. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not about the lede. The issue with YB and Lieberman's labels is that there are too many and they are too confusing and at time contradictory to be included in the lede. Given the controversy, only a self-description by Liberman himself can be included. This is why I added the Perception section, so that the issue can be properly explained. Mhym (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cities/Settlements in occupied/disputed territory

Regarding this edit,

There was a discussion regarding the use of "Occupied territories" vs. "Disputed territories" when referring to the Israeli-occupied territories a mere year ago on Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 11. The "occupied" terminology prevailed and is used throughout the article Israeli–Palestinian conflict, where the dispute started, and throughout most of Wikipedia itself. The discussion -- and conclusions reached there -- are neither

• outdated, nor
• that "occupied" shouldn't be used either.

Let's stick to this consensus, shall we?

Anybody wishing to use a different terminology is free to re-start the discussion, but until a new consensus is reached, please refrain from trying to force it in here or elsewhere.

Oh, and they are not cities, they're settlements, as Wikipedia and the whole world refers to them (Israeli cities in the West Bank gets 7 hits, Israeli settlements in the West Bank gets 29'500). I have made two separate edits out of this correction for those of you willing to edit-war on one issue but not the other.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 20.02.2009 14:01

There is no contradiction between 'City" and 'Settlement', and (Ariel Israeli city gets nearly 2 million hits. NoCal100 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the settlements is a city. Congratulations. Even Ariel's article says it's an Israeli settlement. But don't take it from me, let's see what the sources used in the article say:

• Israeli Official Discusses Iran and His Controversial Agenda New York Times, 7 December 2006: "The major Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank would become part of Israel."
• New Cabinet minister Lieberman calls on government to separate Jews and Arabs Associated Press, 5 November 2006: "He repeated his assertion that Israel should give Israeli Arab villages near the West Bank to the Palestinians — stripping many of the residents of their citizenship in the process — in exchange for Jewish settlements in the West Bank."
• Israel's new politics: Shutting itself in, hoping for the best The Economist, 23 March 2006: Can't read it, not a paying subscriber.

Two out of three say "settlements" and not "cities". Let's stick to the sources, shall we? pedrito - talk - 20.02.2009 15:21

P.S. Why did you nuke both edits if you only wanted to contest one? If it wasn't an accident, I'd love to hear your reasoning. pedrito - talk - 20.02.2009 15:39

Actually four Israeli cities exist in the West Bank, not one, but that's not important. I don't really care about the use of the words 'settlements' vs. 'cities' here. However, using 'occupied territories' is both incorrect, and distorts previous discussions on the issue. Some territories were occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War. What we are talking about now is the West Bank, which is part of what is often called Palestinian territories. This is an important distinction because Lieberman's plan does not call for territory exchanges in the Golan Heights. There also doesn't appear to be a point to using the more controversial term 'occupied' here other than to sensationalize. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "peace-loving Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria"? Just kidding. "Israeli settlements in the West Bank" would seem to be the standard formulation of the overwhelming number of mainstream reliable sources.--G-Dett (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Its quite innacurate as the issue is not about small settlements but about city status localities. Anyways, I liked the 'peace loving' suggestion.

Cheers mate, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about "peace-loving city-status localities bravely located in Judea and Samaria, amid a hostile sea of violent Arabs"?

Meanwhile, per the sources... Ariel is a settlement. Settlements can be small or large. Ariel's a big'un.--G-Dett (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"Peace Loving" isn't particularly true at times.

Regardless, it's clear that we should follow the sources here. And those sources say: "Settlement". The Squicks (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamas related info

While I disagree with violations of WP:POINT, Pedrito, I'm not inclined to argue the lack of value of weasel additions to the article with you. As for the value of Hamas' perspectives and activity towards Israel, a minimal presentation is certainly in order when it is mentioned that contact with them could be described as sanctionable treason. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you just put it clearer than I could have... "sanctionable" is your own personal interpretation and neither WP:NPOV or Wikipedia's neutral voice. You are using the additions to push the notion that what Lieberman said was completely understandable and non-controversial. I'm not saying we say the opposite -- I'm saying we say nothing at all.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 26.02.2009 14:07

Heyo Pedrito,

1. The sanction is coming from Liebermans words, not mine.
2. Hamas' anti-Israeli agenda is not 'pushing of [my] notion' but a basic tenant of Hama' core perspective as a connective to the 'treason' argument made in that same paragraph. Hamas is far more than just anti-Israeli with it's ideas and methods but keeping the language clean and basic is important to keep WP:NPOV rather than expand to heavily or censor their agenda in order to 'push the notion' that they are just an organization like any other. This is basic encyclopedic information that connects with the 'treason' information.
3. If you want to say nothing at all, you should make that argument without violations of WP:POINT. In fact, it would do the discussion well if you were to remove that edit.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

I was going to answer point-by-point, but it's all the same point. Neither the Jerusalem Post article nor Lieberman say anything about Hamas being islamist, terrorist or it advocating Israel's destruction. The article doesn't say that this behaviour is "sanctionable". That is your interpretation.

As for my edits regarding Likud and Israel Beiteinu, I will keep them there as long as the Hamas qualifications are there too. What's good for one side has to be good for the other. The main problem here -- and in many of our disputes -- is perception and perspective. You apply different standards according to your personal world-view. This is not compatible with WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Consider this a practical exercise in writing for the enemy: What you see as completely unjustified and/or misplaced comments on Likud and Israel Beiteinu is what other people see of the comments on Hamas you yourself defend.

Get it? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 26.02.2009 16:42

Oh. I see the discussion is already underway. Jaakobou, what you've included is irrelevant and prejudicial, it's not found in the original source, it's based on your own personal political convictions as you outline above, and finally it's not even true, since modern-day Hamas, as an organizational entity, does not advocate the destruction of Israel. I don't care which individual member you can quote, or the well-worn passages from the original 1988 charter, but right now the organizational position is grudging acceptance of the reality of Israel without accepting its moral legitimacy, not drive-them-into-the-sea. <eleland/talkedits> 06:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating the "weasel word" inclusion, this is really an issue for the article on Hamas, but let me give my own 2 c. I really don't see how Hamas' commitment to the destruction of Israel can be doubted when they in fact continue to openly declare so. See e.g. [3] which is pretty clear, plain and unambiguous (and not 20 y.o.) If this is not a reliable source, what kind of proof are looking for? Mhym (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Pedrito,

Hamas advocating Israel's destruction is a pretty clear addition for why Lieberman would call anyone a collaborator. If you feel that this is too much information for the reader, I'm willing to open this issue for dispute resolution.

Eleland,

I've already explained why it's very much relevant so it might be best for you to make a clear arguement on why you disagree with this point rather than just repeat Pedrito's words and go on to edit war.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

Well, many issues here... First of all, the categorisations of Hamas are just WP:UNDUE. Period. Second, the categorisations are not in the source, which makes them WP:OR. Take this to WP:DR if you think you've got a case. Until then I won't let you remove the symmetric statements on Likud and Israel Beiteinu.

I note that you haven't replied to the perception issue above and instead just removed -- sorry, "toned down" -- the statements. Please explain -- based on Wikipedia's policies -- why the statements on Hamas are ok but those on Likud and Israel Beiteinu are not.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.02.2009 12:03

Jaakobou. The reason I am saying roughly the same thing as Pedrito is because Pedrito is correctly and straightforwardly applying policy, and so am I. Your wikilink to WP:GAME is a borderline personal attack. Your previous explanation makes no sense, as you are claiming that not calling Hamas an awful terrorist organization that wants to get rid of the Jews is "pushing" a notion, and you are openly stating that your rationale is an original synthesis, ie, you personally see Hamas' alleged attitudes as important context to Liberman's remarks, so you're adding it in.

Mhym. I hadn't seen the particular link you gave there before, but all it shows is that Hamas has said different things in different contexts. The official position of the group, as seen in for example this Ha'aretz think piece, is kind of hedged, but in no way is it "destroy Israel." Even the link you cited was a response to criticism of Hamas from its right, for taking this more moderate and hedged position. I'd point out, by contrast, that Bibi's position is not at all hedged - no Palestinian state anywhere ever - but nobody goes around editing articles to mention, "Netanyahu, who is committed to destroying prospects for a Palestinian state..." <eleland/talkedits> 01:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

<eleland/talkedits> 01:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Tibi

How many quotes Lieberman made on Tibi are we going to insert into the article along with Tibi quotes on Lieberman? People, please keep ridiculous fringe opinions out of the page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should have a WikiQuote page about this and just link to that. There are probably hundreds of such quotes. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that Tibi is "fringe", please state so in the article when he is quoted and back it up with reliable sources. I have no problem if you wish to add Lieberman quotes to the Tibi article.

Several reliable Israeli, US, and UK sources state that Avigdor Lieberman and Israel Beitenu are far-right. If you have reliable sources stating that they are aligned differently (e.g center-right, far-left, etc) please feel free to add them to the article.

His quote about how the US treated Japan in World War II should be left in the article. However, if no reliable sources support the current (negative) interpretation of it, feel free to remove that interpretation. Additionally, if reliable sources offer a positive interpretation (e.g. he was talking about the positive aspects of US reconstruction efforts in Japan after WWII) feel free to add that interpretation. JCDenton2052 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue about far-right is whether you believe that 'far-right' contradicts simply 'right-wing'. In this context, I believe that they are not the same thing, and there is a plethora of reliable sources calling Yisrael Beiteinu simply 'right-wing'. I personally advocate removing all controversial info from the lead sentence, including this. The claim that Lieberman is far-right is indeed notable, and should be clarified in the article itself. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence stating that many mainstream media sources in many countries consider him to be far-right. If you have sources claiming that he is something else (e.g. center-right), feel free to add them. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously haaretz which is considered the most far left media organisation in israel would descrive him that way, but most israeli media would describe him as right-wing and some even as central b/c he supports the two state solution including compromises in jerusalem. יחסיות האמת (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the Haaretz article, It is described as liberal or left-wing. If you have reliable sources claiming that Haaretz is the "most far left media organization" in Israel, please update the Haaretz article.

Whether or not Haaretz is "far left" doesn't invalidate the given, reliable, centrist sources outside of Israel that claim that Lieberman is far right. Finally, as I've already written, if you have sources claiming that he is center-right, please add them. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We already have an "Arab MKs as collaborators" section and it makes clear that United Arab List – Ta'al member, Ahmed Tibi is called traitor for meeting with enemy bodies in hostile countries. Considering people like Tibi were compared to WWII traitors, his own opinion on this issue is hardly fitting without a mention of these issues. Please build a consensus on the talk page for a reasonable version and only then add the changes. Thanks! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You removed a lot more than just the Tibi quote. Please consider a less misleading edit summary next time. And what are these sources comparing Tibi to "WWII traitors"? JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few: [4], [5], [6] -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's Lieberman himself making that claim. He's not exactly an impartial observer in this instance. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the point Jaakobou was trying to make—Tibi and Lieberman call each other names all the time, and neither is an impartial observer. We should not follow a double-standard and give a podium to Tibi's remarks about Lieberman while ignoring Lieberman's remarks about Tibi. Since there are so many of both remarks, they should probably not be in the article at all. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "not exactly an impartial observer" says it all about observations (read: allegations/accusations) made by either these two on his Knesset compatriot. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is a feud between two members of the Knesset notable? If so, what about including a short, identical section in each article about their feud? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it's notable, but the feud is between Yisrael Beiteinu and the Arab parties, not just Lieberman and Tibi. Also as Jaakobou and I said, there are dozens if not hundreds of attributed quotes featuring either Lieberman or Tibi blasting eachother. They do not belong in the article unless there is clear proof that a certain quote is of exceptional notability. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Ynhockey has a point. The article should certainly reflect the fact there is a lot of bad blood between Lieberman and Tibi (and the Israeli Arab politicians in general). However, turning it into a blow-by-blow "quote farm" would be an unencyclopedic. -- Nudve (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is a long and consistent exchange between two parties or individuals in which certain claims are consistently made then it is notre worthy and some sample of these claims and counter claims should be quoted here. It does not bias an article to attribute quotes to the people who said them, especially if both sides of the debate are represented equally. Not including any quotes at all is a greater distortion of the facts. I would prefer to read what the parties in question actually said about each other rather than an interpretation of what they said by the author of the Wikipedia article. In my opinion, this article has far too much "interpretation" which is always an opportunity for weasel wording. It's much better that authors be arbiters of the available facts rather than the truth. --Betamod (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardliner Avigdor Lieberman set to become Israel's foreign minister

Lieberman appears to have landed the job of foreign minister. should we have a new section for this? Wodge (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, no, and we should also significantly trim all the recentist info in this article. Lieberman is not the foreign minister yet, and it's impossible to know for sure until the coalition if fully formed. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The appointment was only announced today. I'm not sure when the new government takeover. Wodge (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, there was no appointment, only a coalition agreement between Likud and Israel Our Home, stating that Lieberman would get the Foreign Ministry. The coalition agreement also stated that if Kadima joins the government, the appointment may be changed (and likely will be). In addition, there's still a small chance that Netanyahu won't be able to form a coalition, which would make the agreement void. To answer your question, I think the final deadline for creating the coalition is March 24 or 25, not exactly sure. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

What does the MK stand for in Israeli Arab MK? BCapp 18:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCapp (talk • contribs)

Member of the Knesset. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh that makes sense. Thanks 72.136.15.102 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Note

I'd like to stress that editors review WP:UNDUE as well as WP:BLP.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Working through the differences

I'm planing on removing the controversial recent additions for now, but I'm also interested in re-working the encyclopedic content and adding it to the article in a neutral manner.

I've given a look to sources about my previous statement regarding the Kach story and found these two sources that encapsulate the majority of the story and introspecting the elections and media attention a bit as well - [7], [8], [9].

If you're interested in starting off with another issue, let me know and we'll go over that first - but please don't reinsert controversial content again without ironing out the issues here first.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Do any of those articles have English language translations? The Squicks (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Then they aren't verifiable and can't be used. Factsontheground (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Hebrew is accepted as reliable sources when there are no equivalent English articles (which are preferred). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A source has to be both reliable and verifiable. Factsontheground (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Factsontheground,
We seem to be getting off the wrong foot here and I'm not sure on why that is happening.

1. Verifiability of content: the content of the sources are verifiable by anyone who knows Hebrew. This does indeed fall under the verifiability policy. Is there anything in the article text that seems inaccurate and raises your concerns?
2. Adding 'Arab news source' to describe the Ma'an news agency is not a "blatant well poisoning" as it is the most obvious signifier of who they are and their line of reports. They themselves describe their agency as "professional independent media in Palestine".

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, not the Hebrew wikipedia. Sources must be verifiable and they're not if they can only be read by a small minority of editors.

Describing Ma'an as an "Arab" news source is inappropriate, as I don't see any mention of white, black or Jewish news sources on Wikipedia.

Also, you ignored Andrew Sullivan -- who isn't an Arab or left-wing. Factsontheground (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello gents, I hope you don't mind me jumping in as a third party here. With all due respect to both of you, neither of you are 100% correct here. First, Factsontheground, I note on your talk page that you just came off a block for edit warring, yet have already continued your reversions (twice today, plus some rather derogatory language in the edit summaries); please be aware that edit warring and throwing around terms like "well poisoning" are not helpful. Please also consider this an official warning, edit warring directly after coming off a block for it is not acceptable. Also, it states very clearly in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources that non-English sources are usable in the absence of equal quality English ones; if you cannot provide these, please do not obstruct Jaakobou's attempts to improve the article with these sources. Jaakobou, please note that neutrality is extremely important in this article, so edits such as this, though small, are to be discouraged; "stated" serves the same purpose as "argued" in this context without as much weight. Also, placing "Arab" in front of Ma'an News seems to be an unnecessary qualifier; anyone clicking the article will clearly be able to tell its origins. Further, while drawing a direct comparison to Hiroshima in the article is not really appropriate, using Sullivan's source would be acceptable here for a more neutrally worded sentence; characterizing it as a blog is incorrect. The Hiroshima bit should be removed from the article as soon as possible, a more acceptable version would be "This threat has been interpreted by some commentators as advocacy for a nuclear strike against Gaza" (exactly the same as in the current version of the article, with "an allusion to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and" removed). The discussion here seems to be fairly constructive so far, please continue to utilize the talk page. Thanks guys, GlassCobra 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept your compromise version, so long as the well poisoning is left out.

But since when was "poisoning the well" pejorative? It's just an argument tactic. Anyway I was referring to the edits, not the editor. Cheers, Factsontheground (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The YNET article is an opinion column by Mzal Zvi, a former ambassador and a leader at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. If this is cited, it has to be mentioned that it is the opinion of Mr Zvi and not a news report as such. Personally, I would stick to straight news articles here. The Squicks (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Times Online says that: "A report in the left-of-centre daily Haaretz this week said that Mr Lieberman had briefly been a member of the outlawed racist movement Kach when he emigrated to Israel 30 years ago. His party called the report a deliberate attempt to slur its leader at a time when he was surging ahead in opinion polls." That might be used as a source.

I see nothing wrong with using this. Google translate confirms that it describes how Lieberman was a member briefy, and that he did not believe in the ideology while he was there. This for whatever reason won't load, and I would avoid it. The Squicks (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The inn source is a video interview with Dayan. Gave me a bit of trouble on Firefox but worked well on explorer. Let me know if it works for you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Racist comments regarding Soviet Jewry

The article now "justifies" Liberman's membership in Kach with the "explanation" that all Soviet jews were supporters of the movement (attributed to the Kach person Yossi Dayan - he is noty an expert in social patterns but an inmvolved party). This is ridiculous and condescending and should be removed immediatly!

The whole piece is applogetic. Kach was racist at it heart from the beginning and not just when it was banned from running to the Knnesset in 1988 (that is when the law passed) so Liberman was a member of an explicitly racist party.

The term "alleged" looks very strange given the testimony of his membership and his refusal (as a politician running for office!) to refer to it. There was a good reference to Haaretz [10] which now disappeared and instead there is one to the highly unreliable "Arutz 7". Mashkin (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The source is a video interview with Yossi Dayan so I can't say I'm following your concerns. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That is too bad. I think that you have a serious problem if you do not see what is wrong with that. You cannot start a section describing Liberman's membership in Kach with a comment by the head of the Kach that almost all the olim supported the racist movement kach. This is (i) Not true (ii) Not a proper source or authority "noted". As I said Wikiepdia is being racist and conddescending by using this person as an authority on Soviet Jews behavior. Mashkin (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I completely agree that as a longtime racist, he's a bad source for anything. A head figure in a banned political organization shouldn't be used for anything. The problem, though, is that he is the source the news outlets jumped on for the statement about Lieberman and there's no real verification that his version on history is true (he actually seems confused about the first name and suggests 'Lieberman' was a common Russian name). As such, the phrasing should be very careful and I am certainly open to suggestions that will keep the core of his statements in a manner that doesn't give them excess credibility or takes all the credibility away from them. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's two issues here. First, it is objectively true that many Soviet immigrants to Israel have held very nasty, venomous views. Haaretz has said that "76 percent of immigrants from the former Soviet Union believe the government of Israel should encourage emigration of Israeli Arabs" and that "while the studies from the mid-1980s indicated that most support for Kach came from settlers and residents of development towns, but 15 years later, support by these two sectors has declined in comparison with the support of the ideology among immigrants from the former Soviet Union".

But this is all tangent to the main issue. The claim that Lieberman was a Kach former member came out of his enemies in the extreme right with people like Yossi Dayan being quoted. As Jaakobou says, Yossi's positions have to be mentioned because they are notable (whether or not he is trustworthy is a completely different thing than notability). The Squicks (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, the fact that Lieberman refused to refer to his membership in Kach gives the claim sufficient credibility to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Given that there was no denial, there is no place for the term "alleged". I think that we should simply say that on the eve of the election Dayan claimed that Lieberman was a member and the latter refused to refer to his membership. Explain that Kach was an explicitly racist party (a fact) that was later forbidden from running to Knesset. That's all. No lengthy explanations regarding Soviet Jews etc. Mashkin (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to be put in context, but the wording needs to be more concise. How about "Kach member Yossi Dayan claims that Lieberman was a member of the party in 1979, although he also said that most new immigrants from the Soviet Union at the time identified with the party", or something like that? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not bad but I do have a query here: Were they a "party" in '79 ? He also says they were very small and didn't even have a secretary to staple pictures to membership cards. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they were a party and ran unsuccessfully to the Knesset twice already (73 and 77) (that is one more reason why the claim that virtually all Soviet emigre's supported them is ridiculous. Mashkin (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following the removal of (a) party's Hebrew name, (b) "others such as Kadima member Tzachi Hanegbi", (c) "briefly active", (d) "not consider him to be a Kach man ideologically", and (e) "picked up by the Israeli media". Also, the addition of "explicit racist" seems unnecessarily strong.[11] Apologies for reversion, but these issues may fix your concern about smearing Russian immigrants, but it also makes for a problematic version. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tzachi Hanegbi has nothing to do with this article, why should he be mentioned here? Did he respond? Undue weight.

"Picked up by Israeli media" is judgmental and belittling. Haaretz did some investigative reporting an unearthed this. This did not just happen. The news media was actually doing its job and Lieberman refused to participate in the legitimate questions.

Briefly active - fine.

"not consider him to be a Kach man ideologically" undue wight to the testimony of a Kach activist.

Explicitly racist is the proper description of Kach, and there is backing up for that.Mashkin (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

(a) I'm assuming that adding the Hebrew name is accepted (?)

(b)+(e) Major part of the media picked up only on Lieberman's name but the testimony includes the Kadima member as well. I felt like my phrasing put it with proper weight but I'm willing to consider other suggestions here.

(d) This was noted on multiple sources from the articles I examined and it's certainly valid as he's not a messianic, violence only, greater-Israel type of person.

I haven't taken time to research Kach's platform and history, but it would seem enough that we add they were banned on account of being racist. The added stuff seems to be hammering a point a little bit (no offense).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much information

My apologies to those many of you who worked hard to improve the "Kach section". I think it's a violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. There is clearly too much information. This is a simple case "he said, he said". There is no proof either way, and if anything Lieberman is more credible (as only allegedly being a racist as opposed to his counterpart). I do agree that the allegation is notable, but it is clearly being used to prove a point which it is clearly not suited for, in too much detail. If tomorrow Queen of England runs around London naked, that would be notable but posting her naked pictures on the WP would be gratuitous. Also, there is always a balance one should strike not too give each particular recent scandal too much historical credence (see WP:RECENTISM).

Here is what I propose. We remove the whole section and in the "anti-arab" section include two sentences as follows. "The anti-arab views of Lieberman were further reinforced by Yossi Dayan's claims that Lieberman was a member of the party Kach for a few months in 1979 (the party was later found racist...) Lieberman through the YB party spokesman has denied these allegations." That's it! That's really the whole story as we know and can verify it. Please comment or I will do the changes myself in a day or two. Mhym (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately cannot support this draft, because of the following reasons:

1. Nothing was actually reinforced, because even though Kach is/was a racist party, being a member of it does not make a person more racist, especially 30 years later. In other words, it is OR.
2. The sentence says nothing about who Yossi Dayan is, confusing even knowledgeable readers (Dayan an NN personality)
3. It is not clear from the sentence what exactly Lieberman denied—being a member of Kach, or being anti-Arab.

I support however the general idea that the current section is too long, and in fact proposed a draft sentence in the above talk section. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, I don't mind your version. Comes down if others are willing to accept it as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent issues

Few recent issues came up and I'd like to get at least some of them out of the way (agreed upon). I'll use the following diff as a reference point - [12]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A)

I really couldn't care less if we use "argued" or stated". I made that edit as a gesture to "Facts" so as not to revert everything. Is there any preference here among the people regarding it? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

B)

Lieberman made a mistake, saying that there was no occupation of Japan at the end of WWII. I'd like to have this clarified in the text and I'm open to text suggestions on this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Opened only two sections for now so it won't get crowded. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Was it a mistake? It could easily have been an analogy. After WWII, the allied occupation of Japan was fundamentally different than, say, our occupation of Iraq of our occupation of the Philippines. He could simply be contrasting one method of occupation with another.

In any case, for us to read into his statement different interpretations is OR. The Squicks (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I see eye to eye with the "different types of occupation" note. There's simply no reason to think he meant one occupation is different than another and that he considered the 6 years of occupation in Japan to not be an occupation. It's just an erroneous statement IMHO and it seems to me an exceptional claim to suggest otherwise could have been intended. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Squicks is right, to label his statement as erroneous is WP:OR and a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Factsontheground (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense meant Facts, but I'm not sure you are understanding the policies properly. Which part of NPOV, for example, do you feel would be violated here? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking a side on the issue of whether the occupation of Japan was necessary is not neutral and goes beyond the scope of this article regardless. Factsontheground (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking you've misunderstood the policy as no one here is taking a side on wether the occupation of Japan was neccesary. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" Kach membership

Regarding the Kach membership issue, Lieberman (to my knowledge) has refused to confirm or deny membership. Following WP:NPOV we can only go by what credible sources says. Silence cannot be taken as refutation or acceptance of other sources. 2 activists say he was a member and that is all we can go on.

We must refer to the membership as fact until we have WP:RS that say otherwise.Factsontheground (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we must refer to the membership as "alleged" until wp:rs's confirm it as a fact or he himself makes a clear statement for or against the allegation (and if the latter would occur it would be hard to keep this info because of potential BLP vio issues). Since he doesn't refute (nor confirm) we can keep it as long as we don't state it as a fact.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We _already_ have 2 WP:RSs, 2 activists of the Kach party who claims that Lieberman was a member of the party.

Lieberman is not denying the allegations, which he would do if they were untrue. There are many scandalous facts about politicians that are generally accepted as true despite the fact that the politicians don't confirm them. Wikipedia can't wait until every notable person has confirmed every negative statement about them until it can be published.

If the allegations are false why doesn't Lieberman come out and deny them? Factsontheground (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"We _already_ have 2 WP:RSs, 2 activists of the Kach party who claims that Lieberman was a member of the party. "

...and which one (of the RS's) state his membership as a fact on their own? You would serve your personal point of view better by not edit warring about this and other in the article and instead make some "cool-minded" proposals here on the talk page and you sure shouldn't just add your opinion (like you did in this section) and then go right after the article, avoiding any discussion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And about this "Wikipedia can't wait until every notable person has confirmed every negative statement about them until it can be published.": WP has NO deadline.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What does that even mean? Can you show me the policy page that states that. Factsontheground (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NO DEADLINE.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't even wikipedia policy. And I still have no idea what you meant to say when you wrote WP has "NO deadline", or if in fact you intended to mean anthing at all. Factsontheground (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And as for (falsely) accusing _me_ of edit warring you've ignored this discussion and just gone in and changed to your preferred version! Talk about hyprocrisy. Factsontheground (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a "preferred" version when it comes down to WP policies.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It takes real chutzpah to accuse someone of edit warring in a debate and then sneak off and revert the article before the debate is even over.. Factsontheground (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to fool me. You started this thread and made the change regardless of any respond. So please stay on the subject and don't get personal. Thanks.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well let it go on record you were the one who gave up the debate. My questions about your statement ("WP has no deadline") still stand. Factsontheground (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll ignore the first part of your comment. The 2nd one I did already answer above where you asked about it but I copy and paste it here for you: ":::::WP:NO DEADLINE.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)"

That isn't even wikipedia policy. And I still have no idea what you meant to say when you wrote WP has "NO deadline", or if in fact you intended to mean anthing at all. Factsontheground (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a policy but a guideline to remember editors that WP is not a newspaper but an (online) encyclopedia.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So now you're misrepresenting a WP:ESSAY as a content guideline? Factsontheground (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The most common method of handling this sort of thing is to simply state in the article explicitly "X and Y, former members of Kach, said Z". However, given Lieberman's response it isn't unreasonable to simply report it as a fact. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with suggested approach ("X & Y said Z") if Lieberman or a spokersperson had issued any sort of denial. They have not. Why would they do that if the claims were unfounded?

It seems to me that the media in general has accepted the claim as true and moved on. I appreciate the need for WP:BLP and for careful monitoring of negative claims, but surely this situation must arise often (a politician refusing to confirm or deny damaging claims). I don't see how Wikipedia is being neutral when it advocates a position (denial) that nobody else on Earth, not even the accused individual, does.

And apparently, even the State department is considering the claim. Factsontheground (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that undermines the argument that we should treat it like a fact. If the State Department isn't taking it for granted as true then we probably shouldn't either. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, if nobody else on Earth is arguing that the claims aren't true, not even Lieberman, why should Wikipedia? Factsontheground (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is IMO very likely that Lieberman was indeed a member but opinions don't make it an undisputable fact. For more understanding how WP works regarding such issues take a look at WP:TRUE.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, opinions don't make it a fact. Reliable sources do. And many, many reliable sources (the entire media) are reporting that he is a member of Kach. Factsontheground (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Then please point out the RS('s) that state this as a fact.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The media are reporting it as a fact Factsontheground (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that there are reputable sources that say he was a member (Haaretz), given that nobody ever claimed otherwise and Leiberman refuses to refer to this (this is not a "did you stop beating your wife" type question) I think that it is is safe to drop the alleged. We are reporting exactly what Haaretz said and giving their sources. Mashkin (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Additions

Jaakobou is blanket reverting all of my recent additions to this article. Because my additions touch on a number of different topic it would be best to discuss each separately.

Mentioning Lieberman's anti-Arab views in the lede

As it currently stands, the lede makes no mention of his controversial anti-Arab views unlike almost any profile of him you read in the media. This contradicts WP:NPOV.

Mentioning Kahane Chai membership in the anti-Arab racism section

A membership in an openly racist party is surely relevant to the section on Lieberman's views about Arabs.

Renaming section "Population exchange with the Palestinian Authority" to "Expulsion and loyalty testing of Arab-Israelis"

Here it is a simple matter of accuracy. Jaakobu prefers a title that makes no mention of loyalty testing, a basic part of the Lieberman plan.

As for using "population exchange", from Lieberman Plan: "Lieberman notes that the plan is not similar to a population exchange or population transfer"

The plan does, however, involve the removal of citizenship of people from Arab regions of Israel so it is a de facto expulsion of Arabs from the state of Israel.

Jaakabou's preferred wording "Population exchange with the Palestinian authority" is categorically false. "Exchange" implies that the plan is a voluntary transaction between two parties, which Lieberman's plan is not. It will involved the force removal of citizenship from Arab-Israelis with or without the cooperation of the Palestinian Authority.

WHY HAVE THE EDITORS NOT ADDRESSED THIS PROPOSAL? It definitely is a more accurate description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.44.8 (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Other title issues

My titles are simply more accurate and exact than the existing titles. Lieberman's statements about Arab MKs are _threats_ while his statements against the Palestinians go far beyond Palestinian miiitants (for example he advocated the bombing of Palestinian commercial centers).

Nuclear strike

I have two sources that state that Lieberman's threat to treat Gaza "like the US treated Japan in WW 2" was a threat to use nuclear weapons.

Factsontheground (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou has quite rightly pointed out WP:BLP. At a quick glance, and as has been mentioned before:

1. His membership in Kach is only alleged, and in any event was very brief. Also, "is surely relevant to" = original research.
2. His "loyalty tests" would apply equally to Arabs and Jews, particularly Haredi Jews.
3. As far as I know, his "population exchange" involves re-drawing/creating borders, not expelling anyone.

The changes you inserted made the article considerably less compliant with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

1. So you are arguing that membership of an openly racist organization is not relevant when discussing somebody's racist views?

So if someone was a member of the KKK and then later was found to have racist views about black people, wikipedia couldn't mention that he had once been a member of the KKK? This seems a very strange interpretation of policy. Factsontheground (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "alleged"? I have repeatedly read he was a member of Kach in a number of sources. If this fact is disputed by a WP:RS this should be mentioned in the article. Factsontheground (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Please read the cites in the loyalty oath section of the article: Under Lieberman's proposal, only those who pledge loyalty to the State of Israel as a Jewish state would be allowed to retain their citizenship. The oath plan targets mostly Arab Israelis, but also Haredi Jews, and has been called "insulting" and "unabashedly racist". The cites support this statement.

3. It does, however, involve the removal of citizenship of people from Arab regions of Israel so it is a de facto expulsion of Arabs from the state of Israel.

Jaakabou's preferred wording "Population exchange with the Palestinian authority" is categorically false. "Exchange" implies that the plan is a voluntary transaction between two parties, which Lieberman's plan is not. It will involved the force removal of citizenship from Arab-Israelis with or without the cooperation of the Palestinian Authority.

I would also support "the forced removal of Israeli citizenship from Arab-Israelis" instead of "expulsion of Arab Israelis" but that is a cumbersome phrase. Factsontheground (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Factsontheground,

1. According to an old member of the Kach people, Lieberman had a membership card made and left the group about a month later. According to Liberman, this story was concocted with precision timing to disrupt the recent elections. Encyclopedic value (per "he was a member of a racist party") is not in this story.

2. I'm not following what you're promoting with this point. Anyways, please make note that pro-compromise/left-wing groups applied scare tactis for getting more votes portraying Lieberman into more of a boogie-man than he is. Campaign materials should be used with caution as to not give too many credentials to political opposition commentary.

3. There is no "de-facto" expulsion proposal here. People who refuse allegiancy to the state would, theoretically, be deprived of getting social security benefits but this is not equal to being kicked out. Please review WP:OR and WP:SYN and let me know if this issue is still unclear.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

1. You will have to provide a WP:RS that states this.

2. This part is supported by reliable sources, not campaign materials.

3. If Lieberman redraws the borders to exclude Arab Israelis, surely this amounts to them being expelled? Factsontheground (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Kach material seems well-sourced and relevant. Accusations that Lieberman is racist should be included in the intro but the degree which they were described was not at all NPOV. Most of the title issues (like changing "statements" to "threats" are blatantly not npov). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If the degree of detail is currently to POV, what degree of detail should the racism allegations in the lede go?

Secondly, what do you think about the nuclear strike section being deleted?

How can threatening to execute Arab members of knesset being characterized as anything other than a threat? Factsontheground (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Statements about Egypt

Lieberman once threatened to bomb the Aswan Dam and also told Mubarak he could go to hell. Resulting in frosty relations between the two countries. link. Should this go in the article? Wodge (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The stories belong in the article but not as a simple "link" that does injustice to the perspectives of the issue. Another note is that Israeli-Egyptian relations have been frosty for 30 years and Lieberman's commentary in the Knesset about Mubarak's refusal to visit Israel is not what caused the status of the relations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just asking before I added. I'll look for RSs and the context pf the quotes Wodge (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Threats to bomb Aswan dam

I've been trying to find an RS for Lieberman's threat to bomb the Aswan Dam, some sources say that he advocated doing this in the event of a war with Eygpt whilst others say it was because of Eygpt's support for the PLO. Does anyone know the definitive version? Wodge (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we are talking about two different threats.

• In 1998, Lieberman allegedly called for bombing the Aswan Dam in retaliation for Egyptian support for Yasser Arafat. [13] [14]
• In 2001, Lieberman allegedly told a group of ambassadors from the Former Soviet Union that if Egypt and Israel were ever to face off militarily again that Israel could bomb the Aswan Dam. [15] [16]

I would consider both things to be notable for this article. The Squicks (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I thought he'd only said it the once. Wodge (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that those four articles are enough or should I keep looking? Admittedly, all of them come from news agencies with a pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel slant. The Squicks (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For the second incident, you can also cite this Haertz article [17] : "Barak's successor in the Defense Ministry may turn out to be Avigdor Lieberman, who suggested bombing Tehran during the 2001 election campaign - along with Egypt's Aswan Dam, for good measure." or this 2001 article from the independent [18] :"Mr Lieberman, the head of a marginal Russian immigrants' party (Yisrael Beitenu) is not much different. He announced recently that a Sharon-led government would not hesitate to bomb Egypt's Aswan dam or fire missiles at the Iranian capital, Tehran, if either country played up."--Wedian (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I'm not following why the section removed here is dubbed as biased. Please explain. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that as well, that was a clear explanation of Lieberman's position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a direct quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynahmias (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it is Lieberman's own words being presented as fact. You can insert that passage later if you want, but it should not be the introduction to the lieberman plan which should be a neutral explanation of what it actually is. Factsontheground (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there were presented as fact. It clearly said "According to Lieberman", followed by quotes. That's as not-being-presented-as-fact as it gets. Moreover, the reason it's the first paragraph in the section, is because it serves as the background (Lieberman's reasoning) for the plan; first you give the background, then the actual overview, it's just proper structure. Look at any featured article about a battle, for example, and you will notice the same thing. Also articles about plans, like Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an article should begin with background and context. However, Lieberman's arguments aren't either, they are just his particular point of view and do not represent an NPOV summary of the plan. Factsontheground (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Since he invented the plan, I can't see how his arguments are irrelevant here. In fact, they serve as the background for the conception of the plan, i.e. why the plan was created and what considerations were taken. Moreover, this is the best solution I can see as far as summary style goes. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ynhockey and Ynahmias. Lieberman's explanation on his perspective are germane content even if editors may feel they are incorrect. If you have a reliable, notable source that gives a different perspective, it could be added into criticism sections. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nighclub bouncer

Has anyone been able to check the veracity of the original report that teenage Lieberman worked as a "nightclub bouncer" in the 1970s Soviet Union? The link in the article is broken. Several media sources keep repeating it without any reliable explanation. It sounds like total fabrication to me, because as far as I know there were no nightclubs until the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, which is 14 years after Lieberman's emigration. Eliyyahu (talk)

The link is not broken but a "subscribers only" link. I added a hidden note and hopefully someone will find a "public" one and replace it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm what is written there? I remember that he was a bouncer at a club in Israel. Mashkin (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the link.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That does not resolve the location of the nightclub - I doubt very much that it was in Kishinev. Mashkin (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you...mmh...--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is Amos Noy?

According to Maariv, based on the testimony of Amos Noy, Lieberman participated in chain whipping of Arab students.

Who is Amos Noy? According to the Maariv article, he was a student of math and physics, holding no special posts, so why are his testimonies notable? Seems like definite undue weight to me. Do we include every statement about Lieberman that any college student in the world ever made? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He does not have to be notable in order to be quoted an a witness. I will clarify his position at the time. Btw, The guy writes in HaAyn Hashvieet from time to time.

You're right, he doesn't have to be notable to just quote him, but there are two issues here:

1. Undue weight—how do you determine a notable event? In this case, how do you determine that Lieberman's alleged membership in the organization was notable? Mainly by coverage and the prominence of the people who made the accusation. If Amos Noy is not a notable personality, then there's very little to establish the notability of the event (membership in a certain student group), moreover the student group does not appear to be notable. Surely there are more sources reporting on such a major accusation as whipping Arab students? Maybe the Arab students themselves?
2. The article didn't even say who Amos Noy was. Thank you for clarifying this, but I still think it's not clear enough. Amos Noy was a student at the time? That implies that he became a major figure later, which doesn't appear to be true. This needs to either be completely removed, or reworded to make it clear that Amos Noy is not notable in any way, and is just a witness. The best way to do this might be to avoid mentioning him by name at all, and instead writing "According to Maariv, based on at least one witness account, Lieberman participted ..."

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reminder that this is a biography

Lieberman's statements were clearly directed at militancy. Please note that this is a biography as respect the relevant wiki-policy. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How is calling for the Aswan Dam to be bombed directed at militancy? Factsontheground (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the Aswan Dam is relevant for this section as it's not mentioned there. Let me know if I've missed something. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, ffs, will you quit it? He said what he said. Your synthesis of sources is aimed at legitimizing his crazy outbursts. One could just as easily mobilize other sources to make him look even worse. Cut it out. We've been over this ad nauseum and all you do is slink back and make the same tired discredited claims. <eleland/talkedits> 01:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems here that certain editors are trying to paint Lieberman as a racist, and trying to pursue such a goal is in itself a BLP violation (maybe not per se, but the spirit of the policy), even if all the statements are sourced. Think for a minute what you are doing, while a section where a Palestinian politician advocated the killing of Israeli children is called "controversial statement" and a reason is given for why he said it, which some of you want to deny for Lieberman. Why the double standard?

Also, I ask again of Eleland to please remain civil. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy in the article

After reading the whole article it feels overly redundant. Same/similar charges against Lieberman in different sections. The article is already too long. Editor Facts keep pushing more repetition to the lead, perception section. Yes, Facts, we get it, Arab media hates Lieberman, calls him fascist, racist, etc. So does quite a bit of the world media. How many times should this be repeated? Similarly, yes, we get it, Lieberman does not like Palestinians. And he doesn't like Isaeli Arabs. And he doesn't like Egypt. How many times should that be repeated? All this stuff is in this article which is meant to be biographical. Shouldn't there be a separate WP page for all this stuff (kind of like Political positions of Barack Obama) so we can have on this page a short summary? It's not really a bio article if it has only controversies... Mhym (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he is widely regarded as an anti-Arab racist should be mentioned in the lede and not whitewashed by his apologists. Factsontheground (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As the article clearly explains, there are opposite views on this issue. While Arab (and some of the world) media believes that Lieberman is anti-Arab based on his "pledge" requirement, much of Israel's religious right wing as well as settlers believe he is pro-Palestinian because not only he wants to withdraw from West bank, but also want to give to the future Palestinian state part of the Israel proper (with some Israeli Arab villages). According to WP:LS, the discrepancy must be addressed in the body of the article, not in the lead section, which, and I quote, "should be able to stand alone". With this in mind, it's best to keep the controversies and refs in the main body of the article. Mhym (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. One more thing, about the "whitewashed by his apologists" comment. I get the feeling this is a aimed at me directly and is a vio of WP:NPA. Please everyone comment on this, whether this behavior deserves to be addressed, and what is the proper way to do so. Mhym (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli religious right are a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and do not deserve to be given an equal footing to the world media or Arab viewpoint. And just because an issue is controversial does not make it any less significant or deserving of being in the lede, in fact the opposite is true.

As for WP:NPA, you should probably re read it if you think I have violated it. Factsontheground (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bouncer issue

Since this is a persistent rumor/allegation/fact in the article, I checked all the sources that people used as refs in the article. I found none of them remotely RS for this info. Let's start with this one [19], that Editor Magnificent thinks is a RS. Well, unfortunately, the distinction between news and opinion pieces is often a bit blurred, especially in the English tabloids. This piece is is mostly an opinion piece rather than journalistic investigation. No sources are mentioned, no documents uncovered, no interviews conducted. In summary, it's a secondary piece based on other reporting. Thus it cannot serve as a reliable source. The bouncer reference is in passing and is perhaps based on rumors or WP article or even Lieberman's wife secret confession - the author doesn't say. Conclusion: this is not a RS.

For the second one [20], much less defense is needed. The person is not in Israel and in his fact relies on other sources none of which are mentioned. The fact that the author claims that the nightclub is in Kishinev (which did not have nightclubs at the time) underscores the author's neglect of fact checking. Conclusion: this is not a RS.

Now, I can certainly believe that Lieberman worked as a guard at a nightclub - many young immigrants to Israel do this kind of work. He might have even worked as a bouncer, who knows. However, in the absence of a single RS, I see no reason to believe this rumor and include this into WP. Mhym (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

All the sources give for being a bouncer in the soviet Union were wither misreading of a sentence that mentions being a bouncer and being from Moldova, or, as far as I could figure out, copied or based on Wikipedia. On the other hand there are reliable sources for being a bouncer in Israel. In particular, the Maariv article on his student time mentions the club by name (it was not really a night club). Mashkin (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming it to be quite possible that he was a doorman at a club in Israel after his military service, but it seems that it's only used in opinion pieces by people who try to smear him as a "dictator" or other similar hyperbole and there's no real encyclopedic value to it. This trivia note captured almost no public attention and a few opinion articles giving an off-hand mention of his "odd job" 30 years ago so they can say "he hasn't changed" of something similar seem like something we should avoid using for a biography. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most pieces that mention this and even start the description do so for an ulterior motive, but the role of Wikipedia is to clarify facts, and I think that this is a place where we can help by stating what the "exposes" are based on. In fact I was even thinking of adding a sentence of the type - "this was the basis for, years later, journalists and commentators characterizing him as a bouncer" but it may be considered OR. Mashkin (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My Hebrew is not good enough to understand the subtleties in the meaning ib this Maariv article, but my understanding of the English language tells me that there is no such thing as a "bouncer" in a club that is not a night club. Somebody, please tell me if Maariv really says "bouncer" or just a "guard" at a club. Mhym (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the source looks quite good and I'm thinking it should be used as a "student life" bio. There's a lot of input there though and I would object to a selective picking that abuses it like the opinion articles do. I figure I'll find time to add content sometime in the not too distant future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here is a nice RS from Reuters about Lieberman (in English). I leave it to you guys and girls to use it for his bio. Have fun.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Section repeatedly being edited back in

A number of editors, including Shuki and Jaccoubou keep reinserting the following section: While similar types of population exchange occurred in the past, the legality of such a move is unclear.

This is a violation of WP:OR as it provides no verifiable WP:RS that supports it's contention that similar types of population exchange have occurred in the past.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsontheground (talk • contribs) 10:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bigoraphy's of Living People issues

Certain recent edits have been ignoring the WP:BLP policy and there have been some crude violations of it.

1. Statements made about militant activity is just that and not a generic "kill 'em all" cry. Biographies need to be written in a conservative voice and without headline-hyperbole. This goes also for the picturesque "which carries a death sentence" addition and similar jazzy additions.
2. Statements made about so called "chain whipping" have significantly altered in the transfer from source to Wikipedia process. If an editor is unable to read the Hebrew sources and a fellow editor who is able to fixes an error, then let that fix stay and don't revert it. Misrepresenting the text sources to suggest Lieberman was chain whipping people is a very serious BLP violation.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be bold and make the corrections. If not, at least state clearly what should be changed - I will be happy to make the edits for you. In the past few weeks this article was getting out of control in size and sidetracked by side issues like "chain whipping" which in my view doesn't belong here, but I couldn't bring myself to remove it completely without other editors' agreement. Mhym (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the issues you pointed out, but don't believe it's these specific ones we should be focusing on. The real BLP violation here (not the word of BLP, but its spirit) is the attempt by some editors to brand him as racist/fascist, instead of providing a balanced coverage with maximum context. So, again, for every controversial claim that Lieberman makes there needs to be context, and of course some claims should be removed like the chain whipping (?) one, because apparently it's supposed by one eyewitness who is non-notable. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just noticed that the section was renamed to 'Statements against Palestinians' again, and this is exactly what I meant by the above post. Headings are extremely important and should be as neutral as possible, because you can't provide context in the heading itself. I am trying to come up with a version that is both backed by sources and does not automatically make him sound racist to those readers who only read headings. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally got around to fix these BLP issues and I reworked a couple other issues as well.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Ynhockey's revert...

I must say, it's been a while since I've edited an I-P article, so I'd forgotten how much abject nonsense goes on in this field. Ynhockey pretends that some kind of talk page consensus exists whereby any crazy outburst from Liberman is to be bracketed with a whole bunch of "OMG PALLYS ARE EVIL" material, such that he looks reasonable by comparison. I'd like him to present evidence that such a consensus exists, because I sure as hell don't see it. Again, we discussed this a year ago – it's in the first talk archive – and no substantive reason argument was presented in favor of this approach. It appears that ynhockey and jaakobou simply waited until their opponents went on to other subjects, then returned to push their favored version.

To rehash the basic arguments: Yes, one can cite Palestinian attacks from around the same time that Liberman made his threats. But one can equally cite Israeli attacks from around the same time, which not incidentally were far more lethal. I would reject any approach which highlights one or the other; I see no reason to present Liberman as either an embattled defender calling for desperate measures, or as a bloodthirsty killer calling for even greater atrocities. Just say what he said, and leave it at that. <eleland/talkedits> 01:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The arguments were solid then, and in case you forgot, I will repeat them to you now: Any remark needs to be put in context, so we also need to provide context for Lieberman's remarks. The reasoning behind them was the string of terror attacks at a time. Israeli attacks on Palestinians were not the reasoning, i.e. Lieberman did not suggest bombing Palestinians because Israel already bombed them. There were indeed no reasons not to include mention of these attacks, and there aren't any reasons now.

Secondly, I will ask you to please observe civility and keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages just as it applies to article pages. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And, yet again, as we discussed a year ago, that is a highly selective reading of what constitutes the "context." Try and think of this from an equal and opposite view, ynhockey: when a Palestinian leader makes some kind of bloodcurdling threat, it's true, in the same sense, that the reasoning behind them is the string of Israeli actions against Palestinians. But we don't as far as I know say, "Sheikh So-and-so said in response to a week in which Israeli soldiers shot 14 demonstrators, 9 of them children, that the Jews are sons of apes..." Actually, if you reverse the situation, I think we'd probably highlight Palestinian violence as the "context" of such a statement. <eleland/talkedits> 13:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, because just earlier today I proved your claim completely false. See section "Controversial statement". -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the language in that section is inappropriate, too, but it's far better supported there than here. Four out of the six sources cited there actually tally the fatalities up to that point to place Zahar's remarks in context, and the remarks themselves explicitly reference the Israeli attacks. ([21], [22], [23], [24]) By contrast, in this case the original source just says "Following terrorist acts in recent days," Liberman himself didn't say anything about specific attacks, and no source which I have consulted discusses them to the extent that we do. The Independent, for example, noted that "Mr Lieberman urged that Palestinians be told to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks" (incidentally, we plagiarize that line directly - it's not long enough to be a copyvio, but still) but also noted that Liberman and Peres disagreed "over the continuing fierce bombardment of the Palestinians." It's also worth noting that in the case of Liberman's remarks, most of the injuries and deaths had been Palestinians killed by Israelis, by a margin of maybe 2 or 3 to 1, while in the case of Gaza, the ratio was 100 Palestinians to 1 Israeli, so the situations aren't even analogous to begin with. <eleland/talkedits> 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ynhockey here, in that the comments were clearly and specifically made in a specific context and presenting them as bare clips is manipulative.

As far as fairness goes, I personally believe that the same thing should be true of any nasty-sounding quotes cited of Palestinian public figures. I haven't really looked at those articles, though, so I don't know what they generally look like. The Squicks (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If the sources place the quotes in that context it is one thing, but if they do not neither should the article. Nableezy (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of finding sources, sure. But that's not a problem. For example, this article explicitly links the "at ten in the morning we would bomb" quote with the series of terrorist attacks. The Squicks (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of the sources that we use in the article right now-- YNET and The First Post-- connect the remark to the terrorist attacks. The Squicks (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey, wait a minute. I have to commend Ynhockey for a very well-crafted and sneaky diversion there; in fact, in the section he cited, fatalities on both Israeli and Palestinan sides were noted equally. Which makes the entire comparison irrelevant, because I've been saying all along that we have to either note both Israeli and Palestinian attacks and deaths as the "context" to Liberman's outburst, or just gloss it with "at the height of the Second Intifada" or the like, but not pick out one side or the other. Nicely done, I fell for it. <eleland/talkedits> 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Eleland,

Lieberman's comments come in the direct context to a 'weekend of terror' and it's immediate after-assaults (overall nine attacks during a three day time-span) rather than a generic 7-9 years of militancy and counter-terrorism.

p.s. don't take this the wrong way, but I'm feeling as though these comments have been a distraction to the discussions "ffs, will you quit it?", "OMG PALLYS ARE EVIL", "sneaky diversion [by Ynhockey]", "I see no reason to present Liberman as ... a bloodthirsty killer calling for even greater atrocities." - "his crazy outbursts", "Just say what he said, and leave it at that."[25][26][27]

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Right now in the article, we go into an awful lot of really unneccessary detail about the attacks. Really, now-- does it make a difference whether or not the bomb was on a public bus rather than... say... a taxi or something? All of this violates WP:SYN.

It would be best to use the wording that YNET and The First Post use. Something like "After a series of terrorist attacks in Israel by Palestinian militants in early March 2002" or something like that. The Squicks (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

To Eleland The reason that I think that only the Palestinian-responsible deaths should be mentioned is because that is how the two reliable sources we cite talk about the context.

If I saw another source that talked about the context differently, than it could be hashed out. But we don't have that. The Squicks (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, right now the in article content only says nine attacks within 3 days and nothing more, not even the number of casualties. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to object, I removed the excessive details. The Squicks (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I find the detail on how intense the attacks were very important. I'm reinserting this a second time now so please open a discussion section before future removals. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the discussion section. And the consensus of editors is that that detail should stay out.

Please explain exactly why you think that the consensus of editors is wrong and give reasons instead of just reverting. The Squicks (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research and bad sources

I've removed the following text:

He supports both expanding [[Israeli settlements]] legal under Israeli law and normalizing those illegal under Israeli law.<ref>[http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073771.html Netanyahu, Lieberman 'struck secret deal for West Bank construction']</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/israel-is-about-to-make-a_b_164421.html Israel Is About to Make a Misjudgment as Disastrous as Gaza]. By Johann Hari. ''[[The Huffington Post]]''. Published February 5, 2009.</ref>

1. Johann Hari is not a reliable source on Israeli matters. Regardless of assaults on his credibility for this topic, there does not seem to be backing for the content in Hebrew sources that I've looked at.
2. Haaretz is promoting a rumor by a "witness" on the radio. This story/rumor, which is reasonable enough for Haaretz to post on their website (touche for excellence in journalism), still does not speak of Lieberman's perspective on supposedly legalizing illegal settlements regardless if he did/didn't sign an agreement to expand one disputed village that has a growing population.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because a source is ideologically biased or slanted, as surely Haaretz and Huffington Post are, that does not necessarily mean that it can't be used.

The Jerusalem Post has a pro-Operation Cast Lead editorial system. Does that mean that it cannot be cited? What about the unashamedly pro-Israel Fox News? The Squicks (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Off course I'm not rejecting sources on ideological bias. The issue here is a reputable record for fact checking and credibility and Hari doesn't fit the bill when it comes to Israeli matters. Haaretz, for the most part is credible enough by Wikipedia standards just as The Guardian and Jpost are so the issue is not Huffington, which I don't know much of anything about, but Hari and this issue is bolstered by the fact that the (somewhat exceptional claim type) info is not ratified by Hebrew sources which are far more abundant on Lieberman than English ones.

I hope this clarifies the issue, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 07:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Liberman's office released a clarifying statement (which is presently in the article) this is now a moot point. The Squicks (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Many of the References in this article are not in English. To me that raises questions with regard to their validity considering this is an English Encyclopedia. Most of us don't speak Russian or Hebrew making it hard to verify if the references are accurate.Mbr1983 (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As this fellow lives and operates in Israel, it would be difficult to come up with complete reports in English (more complete versions are published in Hebrew). English sources are preferred, but we're forced to use Hebrew when material is missing from them. This is anchored in Wikipedia policies, btw. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require the use of English sources. If there is an identical source in both Hebrew and English, the English source would be preferred. But there just aren't many English sources for this. If you have English sources to verify the information currently presented, feel free to add them. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a related problem which I think plays on and compounds this; namely, whoever wrote certain parts of this article apparently did not accurately present the information found in his or her cited sources. I just ran across "A number of Israeli media and politicians disagree [with Liberman being called racist, fascist, or anti-Arab]." I'm sorry to be such a pedant, but I'm going to walk you through the three citations given. This is of course a very minor example, but it illustrates the kind of sloppy, casual, biased editing that so infects controversial articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Citation one[28] is close-up media coverage of a Lieberman rally:

• Several Lieberman supporters are quoted enthusiastically supporting a hard line against Arab citizens of Israel, which they believe Lieberman will take. ('There was a time when we would give up every time the Arabs made trouble. That's over now, and we're going to take a tougher line with them.")
• One counter-demonstrator is quoted condemning such policies, which he agrees that Lieberman supports.

  A slogan on a T-shirt worn by a 16-year-old-girl named Veronica says Lieberman isn't racist.

Citation two[29] gives the views of exactly one Israeli politican, Sofa Landver. The interviewer says, "Many [Israelis] believe that Lieberman's positions are racist," and Landver disagrees. Hardly surprising, given that she is 7th on the election list for Lieberman's party.

Citation three[30] is by far the most important. It gives a broad-stroke view of how Lieberman is perceived on the Arab issue by various Israeli commentators.

• One says that he is not racist, but plays demagogically on fears of ethnic strife.
• One says that Lieberman is not exactly racist, but his campaign was clouded by racism from which Lieberman did not distance himself, leading to doubts about where he really stands - "But in the formal sense, no, he is not a racist."
• One says Lieberman's an outright racist bigot.
• One says he doesn't know Lieberman personally to judge him but his politics are racist.
• The last says that racism may be putting it too simply, and that he doesn't know whether racism is the right word for what Lieberman does, but that his policies are aimed against Arabs, rejecting them, and are deeply troublesome.

I mean, the idea that anyone could get from this, "A number of Israeli media and politicians disagree" is outlandish. Frankly, the cited sources show that a number of Israeli media and politicians agree. Whoever falsified the sources in this way (I haven't checked) is guilty at best of sloppiness and at worst serious intellectual dishonesty. So you can see why people get leery of similar issues with sources they cannot check for themselves. <eleland/talkedits> 04:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I wrote the section, but did not add the references. I simply moved them from the lead since they were inappropriate in what is meant to be a summary part. I don't recall ever reading most references in that section, so I admit sloppiness but not "dishonesty" - I am simply way too reluctant to remove refs when someone took pains to collect them. In general, WP structure and inner working simply does not allow careful writing from scratch you seem to favor, since sentences are repeatedly edited and re-edited, so often coherence and the original meanings are lost. Britannica or other print encyclopedias are naturally better on this point...

More to the point of "number of sources", that's probably a weasel word. I think "several" or "some" would work better. Since it's nearly impossible to find a neutral RS on the subject, member of YB in the second reference is just as notable as Arab-Israeli MK's which are quoted saying in the article that Lieberman in a racist, after being accused of treason by him. I see no problem with quoting either. Anyhow, just be bold and correct this sentence as you see fit - we all certainly do this all the time to improve the article (which in my view is slowly getting better, actually). Mhym (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with eleland. The Squicks (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

English?

He speaks the Romanian, Russian (both the official languages of his native Moldova), English, and Hebrew languages.???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.136.166 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama administration position

In the section on Lieberman's brief tenure as a FM, Squicks keeps inserting the Obama administration position on the subject of Annapolis conference. I find both irrelevant, recentism and non-notable. Let me take this one issue at a time. First, the article and the section is on Lieberman. Annapolis is one issue among many on which Lieberman's position disagrees with positions of perhaps most of the 200 or so countries that are members of the UN. Why Obama's position is relevant here is unclear. Squicks asserts that the sources say so. Not true. The sources are not writing a WP article on Lieberman. Not everything that's notable should be put on every WP article. This would be more relevant in the article on Israel-US foreign relations.

Second, the whole assertion of Obama administration position is based on a single political speech. The whole administration has been in office just three months. They don't have a complete and coherent middle east policy. Making suppositions based on a single political speech is recentism. Finally, the Annapolis conference just like the roadmap before it produced a multilateral agreement which is already broken. If Israeli government or at least its FM is rejecting its conclusions, there is nothing anyone including Obama can do about it, nor there is anything to be done since it's already broken.

In summary, I am convinced that one should leave opinions of other leaders on the middle east politics (including that of Obama, Chavez, Ahmadinedjan, Putin, etc.) out of bio articles on particular politicians. There are more specific WP articles where this should be addressed. I will remove this sentence in 2 days unless I hear a good argument why not. Mhym (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's room to mention that some reporters and analysts, mostly on the left, raised concern that Lieberman was, in their opinion, holding a position that is in contrast with the general US hopes for the area. Keep it short and conservatively written (one/one-and-a-half liner) and it's not gonna ruin the article... just my two cents. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Point by point.

The whole administration has been in office just three months. They don't have a complete and coherent middle east policy.

By that logic, every sentence the entire section should be deleted. Yet you only object to this one thing. Why?

Because the article is about Lieberman and it's Lieberman's main job to develop his stand on Annapolis. That's why it's notable. It the article about Obama feel free to write about his Iraq war stand. Let me ask you, should Lieberman's stand on Iraq war be on the Obama page?

Okay, you seem to have completely missed the point. Let me point out again: "By that logic, every sentence the entire section should be deleted." If you make the argument that any information based on recent events should not mentioned since Liberman "has been in office just three months", then simple logic says that your position would mean deleting the entire section, not just parts of it.

You are taking my words out of a context. Let *me* repeat: it's Lieberman's immediate responsibility to develop the policy, so he has, and did it right after taking the office. It's not Obama's immediate responsibility, so he hasn't officially up until now. I have not heard any majob policy pronouncement on the issue, at least not that they can be verified, any rumors about certain meetings notwithstanding.

Annapolis is one issue among many on which Lieberman's position disagrees with positions of perhaps most of the 200 or so countries that are members of the UN.

Is what Chad and Togo say about the middle east situation relevant? No. What the United States says? Yes. The United States favors the two state solution, and the two state solution is presently incarnated via international law in the Annapolis Conference's findings and conclusions. And the United States is the primary donor of aid as well as non-aid diplomatic support to Israel. If Liberman wants to rip the two state solution that is Israels best chance for peace into tatters and sever Israel from the United States, this is certainly notable.

You might want to stay on point and don't involve politics. Annapolis is not a bi/tri-lateral agreement. It's a conference. Lieberman rejects it. Done. The conference is history. Your "best chance" has been used up over the past 30 years, it's certainly not a NPOV. My view: stick to the facts and stay neutral.

It's ironic that you label the United States' position POV (since you see it as an 'opinion') and then label Liberman's personal position NPOV (since you see it as a 'fact'), as if NPOV does not mean- as the policy states- fairly representing both sides of an issue when both sides disagree... Anyways, you have once again refused to respond to the point. Is this notable? The question is not "Do I as an editor happen to like Lieberman's position". The question is: "Does the fact that Liberman's office directly contradict the position of Israel's closest major ally as well as previous Israel governments seem notable?"

Why is it not notable? Give reasons. Just saying that Annapolis "is history" and is therefore pointless is not a real arguement.

Again, the article is NOT about Annapolis, but about Lieberman. Not every potentially important facts are notable everywhere in WP. The fact that the Earth is not flat is pretty important, and is notable in an article on Geography, but not on Chemistry.

A better analogy would be: The fact that the Earth is made primarily of carbon is completely notable in an article about Geology. When it comes to an article on Chemistry, it is arguably less notable but the direct connection is there.

If Israeli government or at least its FM is rejecting its conclusions, there is nothing anyone including Obama can do about it, nor there is anything to be done since it's already broken.

True, there's nothing to stop Liberman and his ilk from running Israel right into a sea of flames and destroying the international hope for peace. But is this not notable?

More politics and POV. I will ignore this outburst.

See above.

Squicks asserts that the sources say so. Not true.

Actually, the source says "In a direct challenge to President Barack Obama's commitment to rejuvenate moribund Mideast peace talks, Israel on Thursday dismissed American-led efforts to establish a Palestinian state and laid out new conditions for renewed negotiations." It reports that Liberman made a direct personal challange to George Mitchell. Liberman went so far as to claim that the entire past peace process-- from Oslo and the matrydom to Yitzhak Rabin at the hands of Israel political right wing to the recent accords-- was a failure.

This is an opinion piece. The work "moribund" should ring the first bell. Claiming Lieberman is "challenging" Obama, Mitchell, is a POV judgment regardless whether you say it or the author of this opinion piece. There are no facts here in this ref that support any points you are making, just POV's. Fact need RS, not opinion pieces.

This is a factual news report. You could have read it in any number of American newspapers if you had looked. It is not an opinion piece. I don't know where you get this idea from, but you are simply wrong.

The burden of proof is on you. You give me a news report saying that Obama administration proclaimed, decided, etc. in short made such and such policy on Annapolis, and I would check it out.

And this is a factual news report saying just that. I don't see what you're getting at here.

The terminology used by Israel National News said that Avigdor's comments lead Mitchell to meet, in which Mitchell "warned" Lieberman about Liberman's views.

"Warning" is not a policy, just like on the road police warning is not a fine. You simply can ignore it.

Really? If you get a police warning that you are speeding, than it is highly unlikely that you will go on speeding all down the rest of the highway speeding at the same rate. You would not simply ignore it.

This is a pretty good analogy. If a cop pulls you over but "warns" you instead of giving you a ticket, that "warning" is a clear as crystal incidication that, in fact, a policy exists that forbids speeding.

If anything, the section is far, far, far too nice to Liberman. The Squicks (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another POV. The artice is not meant to be nice or not nice. It is meant to state notable facts and provide reference. The rest is up to the reader. Until Obama says something directly to/about Lieberman, his opinions are not notable in the bio about Lieberman. I will wait another day before removing to hear your reply. Mhym (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By saying "too nice" I was referring to the fact that the objective news article used much stronger, more negative sounding language about Lieberman-- such as "direct challenge"-- than this Wikipedia page uses. I deliberately softened the tone when citing the news article, in personal deference to Liberman (not because of any Wikipedia guideline, but simply because I thought it felt right). In short, the notable facts themselves are deliberately more anti-Liberman than this page currently says. Liberman said something directly about Obama's physical human surrogate, George Mitchell, which is notable.

I will wait another day before removing to hear your reply. It would be highly inappropriate to change that in the middle of a talk page discussion. What on earth would be wrong with waiting and letting other people besides you and I comment? The Squicks (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to have a civil discussion and am not reverting your edits. I am not sure what are you accusing me of. On the other hand, it looks like the discussion is going nowhere as you seem to have a rather different view on what constitutes "objective" and "neutral". I believe this is a political bias showing, whether yours or mine, or both. Mhym (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what are you accusing me of. I meant that as a general retorical statement. To be clear, I am not accusing you of anything at all and I did not intend for it to sound like that (I can see why since I was not very clear in my words, and that was a mistake).

you seem to have a rather different view on what constitutes "objective" and "neutral". No, I think that we are standing on the same ground, as it were, even though we may be facing in opposite directions. I read two notable reliable sources from both inside and outside of Israel, Israel National News and McClatchy Newspapers, saying that Liberman has a vocal public dispute with the Obama Administration. I then consider it worth mentioning on the page. I share the concerns about infocreep. That's why I oppose putting information in the page about Libermans penchant for wearing black hunting booths and for his balding haircut and so on. But this topic was covered by the news. The Squicks (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reviewing the sources before I make a descision. Please post some of them here.

p.s. please don't forget to sign your comments as it's impossible to run by the discussion.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel National News reported this and McClatchy Newspapers reported this. I could get more sources that but I see absolutely no problem with these two. The Squicks (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the suggested change in the text? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The section currently includes this=>

Lieberman's office stated in early April that peace talks will continue when Palestinian government officials crack down on attacks against Israelis, after which the Israeli administration will reciprocate by freezing settlement construction or expansion in the West Bank.[19] That position directly contracts the Obama administration's new peace efforts.[20] The office also told U.S. special envoy George Mitchell that past negotations did not bring any real results.[20] Lieberman himself said in April, "The situation is deadlocked, and it is not because of us".[19] He argued that a stable, successful peace effort requires Americans to focus on preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.[20]

I support leaving it as is. The Squicks (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I support removing one single sentence: "That position directly contracts the Obama administration's new peace efforts.[20]" My reasonings are manyfold: the reference does not explicitly support this based on explicit quotation from Obama administration sources (thus unreliable), the claim is irrelevant both on appearance (US is just one country out of 200 or so with middle east policy) and on substance (Annapolis is about bilateral relation, if one country disagrees noone can do anything about it), and finally it is a weasel way to use the Obama government mid level officials' criticism of Israeli policies to imply that Obama himself is criticizing Lieberman (when that happens, this would be noteworthy, but as of now this has yet to happen). In short, what's newsworthy doesn't necessarily mean WP-notable. I would wait for more clear statements from Obama administration before thinking of adding a sentence of this type. Mhym (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(addition after Squicks's latest edit). Obviously it is hard to object to a moving target. The above explanation is now outdated as the paragraph doesn't refer to Annapolis anymore. This sort of underscores my point again: given that there are no clear Obama administration policies and given that it is unclear if they would be relevant had they existed, I think it is premature to make a judgment (see WP:FUTURE). But most importantly, it is unclear what does this have to do with Lieberman's bio this article is supposed to be about. Mhym (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have to say that the paragraph in question seems more like a mini link-farm/news-bits than a clear paragraph. No offense intended to the working parties, but any takers on writing a proposed replacement that is more encyclopedic styled? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Militancy or Terrorism

In the current section, "Statements against Palestinian militancy," a few users are preventing the use of the world "terrorism." Such as labeling the section "Statements against Palestinian Acts of Terrorism," or labeling the Palestinians who perpetrated these attacks "terrorists." In response to using this objective term, I am being intimidated by other users and being accused of "vandalizing" the article.

Certain media sources may sparingly use the word terrorism, but it nonetheless is an objective phenomenon. I am being accused of making "unconstructive edits" through the word terrorism, but can't that be said of others that use the term "militancy"? Such a term does not speak to the nature of the attacks perpetrated by these Palestinian operatives. Terrorist/terrorism are accurate terms.ShamWow (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "terrorism" here is problematic since a lot of the people whom Liberman was commenting about were Palestinians fighting Israeli soldiers. Does that really qualify as 'terrorism', or isn't that just plain 'warfare'? The Squicks (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter as well. Careful use of words is a matter of policy. The Squicks (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is the context of his comments, I can see your point. Thank you for a reasonable response rather than simply deleting the comment and screaming vandalism like other users have done.ShamWow (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on "Student Political Activities" - Kach

Reporting that Lieberman participated in Kach as a student does not abide by WP:Reliable sources or WP:BLP. Lieberman's participation has not be verified and is based more on hearsay than anything else. From WP:BLP - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I propose that this material be deleted unless there are compelling arguments against.ShamWow (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is nothing more than hearsay. But it is directly notable hearsay. His alleged involvement has been discussed in numerous reliable sources. The Squicks (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. It still doesn't appear to abide by WP:BLP:"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Including unsubstantiated hearsay in an article does not seem to be "encyclopedic" in nature. If the information were corroborated, it would indeed merit inclusion. And beyond that, was Kach even one of his possible student activities? The source says he possibly joined the group in 1979 after immigrating to Israel?ShamWow (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But it is corroborated. Avigdor_Lieberman#Student_political_activities:_Kach_and_Kastel-> There are five different reliable sources cited here. Just googling "Kach Lieberman" will give you dozens more media sources on it. The Squicks (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That such hearsay exists is corroborated - not that he was actually ever a member or active in the organization. It doesn't seem "conservative" or "encyclopedic" (WP:BLP) to include such information in the article. ShamWow (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)