Talk:October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll

title

The title of this article is ridiculous. Since when are encyclopedia article titles framed as questions? I'm not even talking about the obvious POV push, full of errors of omission and commission, just the title (for now). I'm going to move it to a more neutral title right now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many ways to frame the title. Your way is to elide 'Apartheid' from the title, presumably because that way it will not show up on searchs. Haaretz does polling very regularly. The title used reflects what that poll was about. It was certainly notable for the controversy over apartheid and whatever way the title is reformulated, it should contain that word.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

the poll/survey did not have a title. the haaretz article did and then it was retracted. maybe best to describe the survey for title of article: October 2012 Israeli Views about Prejudice Poll or October 2012 Israeli Views about Arabs Poll (or some such wording). the poll certainly was not an "apartheid poll". Soosim (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This Haaretz poll was on 'Poll:Where do Israeli Jews stand on Palestinian Rights?,'(At Globe and Mail,24 October, 2012), which presents from Haaretz (used also at HonestReporting, the findings in colour grids with that title), explicitly mentioned 'apartheid' and the way both Haaretz and the worldwide press controversy reacted was to highlight precisely this element of the polling data. Since this is referred to as the Haaretz poll here, and Haaretz spun it in terms of apartheid and the global press responded to this issue, there is no other reason I can see other than dislike, for omitting 'apartheid'. I.e. the Haaretz poll on Israeli discrimination and 'apartheid' (2012) covers all bases. Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

nice try nishidani, but the name of the poll, according to the original article in haaretz - http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/education/1.1848141, is "עמדות הציבור ביחס לזכויות ערבים" - which translates as (and maybe someone else can improve on this translation): Public opinion relating to the rights of Arabs. it says nothing about apartheid, discrimination, palestinians, etc. - so, please be accurate. Soosim (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't you start up as well with this insinuating language that I 'try' to fudge things. This is an English encyclopedia. The phrasing 'Poll:Where do Israeli Jews stand on Palestinian Rights?' is given in English sources, and is a fair representation of the Hebrew, since, sonnyboy, 'Public opinion' in Israel doesn't translate as 'public opinion' for foreigners (which country, where, who?) but as 'Israeli public opinion on Arab rights'. (2) The poll title doesn't mention apartheid. The poll questionnaire did, explicitly. To deny this is 'prevarication'. Look it up.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"sonnyboy" - wow. you remind me of my mother (do you also smoke, play poker and have dark hair?). and i don't need to look it up. and i honestly didn't know that this was an english encyclopedia. i got fooled. darn. what i do know is WP:NONENG. (look it up) - oh, and i will accept your offer of a compromise with Israeli Public Opinion on Arab Rights. (though i prefer 'rights of arabs'). maybe we should say: Israeli Public Opinion Poll on Arab Rights Soosim (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an English encyclopedia when convenient. Sometimes we use words as we think they're used in other languages, but only when it gives the desired effect (cf "lynch"). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Noneng is prevarication again. The article deals with with Haaretz's presentation of a poll, not with the Poll's presentation of its poll. The article deals with responses to that presentation of the poll in Haaretz and 90% of the global response was to that section of the poll dealing with Israeli responses to apartheid. The usual systematic anti-Arab discrimination in Israel and the occupied teritories is not something that makes news, since it's like saying the sun rises in the East, or people sleep mostly at night, just as anti-Afro-American discrimination was rarely reported in the US. Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Again with the blogging? Well done though, one could almost believe that what you actually care about is discrimination. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

While this title is an improvement over the last one (Apartheid in Israel?, the Dialog poll), it's still pretty awful. Can somebody think of a title that describes the subject of the poll in a neutral fashion, so readers outside our little circle aren't left scratching their heads, wondering what the article is about? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

thank you malik for for your astute understanding of what is needed. i really wish i had been the one to think of this, but, here goes: Israeli Public Opinion Poll on Arab Rights - gosh, and by sheer coincidence, that is the name of the poll itself. wow. of course, we can create a different name - i mean, why use the actual name of the poll itself? Soosim (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

But then you don't get to use the term "apartheid" and it won't show up on searches (see first comment by Nishidani above) so what's the point? That reminds me, someone should delete the redirect. Nishidani practically admitted he used that for SEO. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're becoming congenitally incapable of WP:AGF in my regard. That's fine, but it's a problem when you consistently mirror as a visceral negative abreaction precisely what you claim is reprehensible in the editing of someone like myself. This regards, in part, data on apartheid, that is what sources and the poll have, and it can't be swept under the carpet by windowdressing or making that word disappear.

To get back to Soosim. We have the poll title, and as NMMGG allows, this was commissioned by Haaretz. The content of the article is based on (a) Levy's presentation of that data (b) criticism of Levy's use of that data, which focused on apartheid and racism (b) modifications by Haaretz of its original position. Haaretz's use of the poll had a global impact, reflected in several dozen sources, and this regarded attitudes regarding pro or contra attitudes to discriminatory practices. 'Israeli Public Opinion Poll on Arab Rights' is fine as an indication of the poll: it is too generic and evasive with regard to the specific issues raised by the October 2012 Haaretz poll. So, if we are reasonable, we find a balanced formulation between the 'poll' title, and Haaretz's use of it. Something like 'Haaretz and the 2012 Dialog poll on Israeli attitudes Arabs' covers all angles. Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What's there to AGF about? I know that when moving an article the old title remains as a redirect and is searchable. The only reason you could think of for me changing the title was that it "will not show up on searchs[sic]". I'm supposed to assume this is indicative of good faith? Are you kidding me? You chose a title with searches on your mind, not wikipedia policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are a psychoanalyst you may just have a talking point re my unconscious motives. But you aren't, and motives, you forget everytime you blog about me, are irrelevant to wikipedia. 'Apartheid' as anyone following the literature will know, was a part of the questionnaire, central to Levy's presentation, and challenged in the responding sources for some weeks. That is part of the story: it was blocked for months from being mentioned on the relevant Israel and the Apartheid Analogy page, and, while my title was, as I said, 'provisory', it certainly is closer to what the media fuss was about than the dead-in-the-water absolutely vague title you came up with. Be productive rather than hammer at your 'Nishidani-machiavelllian' meme, and respond creatively to the request that we get a suitable article title that answers to the Dialog poll, Haaretz's use, and the controversy that ensued. I'm indifferent to your bickering about my malafides, and I suspect its entertainment value has long died out for most independent editors. Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Challenged in the responding sources for some weeks"? Haaretz published on Oct 23rd. Most of the sources are from the 23rd-24th, then when they published their correction a week later, there were a few references to that. And that's it. So "some weeks" = "two one day spurts a week apart". Also, how could it have been "blocked for months from being mentioned on the relevant Israel and the Apartheid Analogy page" when it was published only a month and a half ago? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your negative vote for lack of persistance in sources at the AfD on Shaul Hamelech Street bus bombing, esp. since, as opposed to what you perceive as incoherence in my editing over many articles, you assume you are policy-consistent.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You know what I like about that comment? I can easily show that you have argued in the past that an article should be deleted for lack of persistence (I believe you called it "policy" at the time). Can you show me arguing persistence is not important? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I know what I like about your comment: you avoided answering my point about your behaviour, passionate about mentioning how Nishidani over thousands of articles is not quite coherent, and silent about your consistent failure to apply policies across the board. There is nothing inconsistent in the diff you mention, which relates to a one-off event poorly reported abroad, as not notable, and this article, which created a media ruckus that reverberated around the world. Policy is like an asshole. It can be used and abused. I am always amused by voyeurs who sight crap everywhere and yet fail to observe themselves at stool.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

i thought nmmng was a psychohanalyst.....and nishidani - since you think the actual name of the poll is too "generic and evasive" (Israeli Public Opinion Poll on Arab Rights), what if we go with "Israeli Public Opinion Poll on Arab Rights Controversy" - ok? because the poll itself, by name only, according to you, is too pareve (you can look it up), and hence, it wouldn't even be wiki worthy, but, if we add the word 'controversy', then alas, it fits. ok? Soosim (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your point about my behavior is that I made no argument about an article (which I never heard of before you mentioned it). My point about your behavior is that you actually make inconsistent arguments (and seriously, you mention WP:EVENT and say you want to delete per someone who's argument is lack of persistence, now it's all about notability)? Your actions are inconsistent. The best you can do is demand I take action to prove something to you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if he were, I'd pass him on an extensive reading list to frogmarch his professional mind into the late 20th and 21st century on that, starting with T. R. Miles, Eliminating the Unconscious Pergamon Press, (1966) via Adolf Grünbaum's The Foundations of Psychoanalysis, University of California Press (1984) and ending with Iain McGilchrist,The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, Yale (2012). The 2012 Haaretz poll on Israeli attitudes to Arab rights is a fair compromise. It's not quite kosher, but then neither is it quite halal, and therefore a decent secular compromise mediating between both constituencies.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Levy presentation section

Two problems:

• I strongly suspect this is a copyright violation. I can't imagine that reconstructing a non-public poll by taking bits and pieces from a copyrighted article is considered fair use.
• That section being in the middle of the article doesn't make sense. We should present the POVs and then the poll, like is usually done with other texts.

I'm going to assume my moving the text without modifying it is not considered a revert, and make more edits. If anyone has a problem with that please let me know soonish. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

are there other examples of poll data in wiki? (other than general summaries?) and as for moving it, maybe just leave it, have a short POV summary above, and a detailed one below? Soosim (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen an article with 20 poll answers in it before. I was referring to something like UN resolutions where if the text is included, it's usually in the bottom. I can always just beef up the previous section and push this one down that way, but it just made more sense to me to move it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the article will eventually cover responses to Levy's presentation of the data, ipso facto it must go to the top. Otherwise the critical response, if it anticipates the data, is meaningless. As to copyright violations, in anticipation of such an objection I notified Mr Levy on November 12, and if you don't trust me on this, I will provide Malik as the admin who has this page bookmarked, with a copy of his reply.Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course I don't trust you on this or anything else. It's not like I met you for the first time today. That said, I'm not sure that Levy is the copyright holder in this case, but if it goes through the wiki procedure for releasing copyright then there's no problem.

I don't see why ipso facto this must go to the top. Your assertion notwithstanding of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave a good reason, and you ignored it. Do you really think anything's gained, other than readerly boredom, by your consistent refrain that I am a danger, in my 'dishonesty', to this project?Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability?

Is this poll notable enough to have an article about it? It seems to me there very few articles about public opinion polls in Wikipedia, even polls on opinions of Israel's public. I would say that results of public opinion polls are not encyclopaedic, and propose this article for deletion Crock8 (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. I tend to agree it's not notable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. Please re-read WP:N and then read the discussion (and the long list of articles about the poll) at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Did they recently change N or did I imagine it used to say something about ongoing coverage? So anything that's discussed in the papers for a couple of days is worthy of an article. Duly noted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, found it. WP:PERSISTENCE No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note the title of the page to which WP:PERSISTENCE links, WP:Notability (events). A public opinion poll is not an event. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A poll is not an event. The publishing of a poll, which is what this article is about and what most sources reference, is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping you from nominating it for deletion. If you feel it fails WP:N then go right ahead. nableezy - 20:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some opinions before doing that. What do you think? Fails EVENT or not? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think its an event, but I dont think it should be an article either. It should be covered in Israel and the apartheid analogy and probably Israeli views on the peace process. But then again, you're past votes at any number of "terrorist attack" articles' AfDs havent exactly lined up with mine, now have they? nableezy - 21:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's easily established that the poll's findings have been very widely reported, including in Australia. Only time will tell how persistent the coverage will be and what the impact of the poll will be. I don't think it's possible at this point to predict one way or another. --Dailycare (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My mind is that it is not notorious enough to deserve an encyclopaedia but there are numerous other articles of the same (low) level... If this comes to suppression debate, I will argue for the 'deletion' but I think it is a minority point of view. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no Yisraela Goldblum Fund and there is no Yisraela Goldblum Fund Poll

Request to senior editors to check if this page is not another instance of attempts to smear the name of Amiram Goldblum by right wing vandalists who were already blocked on the Amiram Goldblum page. The title of this page and a few instances of using that term are wrong here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. There is only a "Yisraela Goldblum Prize" which was not the source of funding of that poll. The poll was indeed commissioned by the "Yisraela Fund" (which also offers the prize) and the reason for whoever editors to add "goldblum" is clearly in order to form a new basis for smearing the name of Amiram Goldblum after they failed in doing so in the original page of Goldblum and were blocked. Vandalism always finds alternatives, it so appears. There are a few other attempts to smear which have to be taken care of and currently collide with the neutral information on the relevant page of Goldblum . Rastiniak (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak

[Note: I edited the preceding comment to remove a personal attack. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)]

Dear User:Malik Shabazz Would you also be so kind and replace the title by "Yisraela Fund" on that article's page as that is the correct terminology, validated by the reference to an official page of the Fund. Thank you. Rastiniak (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak

Hi Rastiniak. Please think of a better name than the current one and make a formal move proposal. Follow the instructions at WP:Requested moves, particularly the section titled "Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn per discussion on the user's talk page. Alternative proposal is below. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll → September 2012 Poll of Racism and Apartheid among Israeli Jews – Yisraela Fund (not "Yisraela Goldblum Fund" which does not exist...) had nothing to do with the poll except for paying the prominent Dialog polling company, that is fully responsible for reviewing the questions, conducting the poll and analyzing the results. A group of prominent Peace activists commissioned the poll. Rastiniak (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

we've been through some of this before. there is no basis for calling it something it is not. it can either be named what the RS calls or what the official name is, but not made up. Soosim (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

WP editors discussed that issue on the talk page of Amiram Goldblum and concluded that there is indeed no basis for the use of "Yisraela Goldblum Fund" as there is not any citation of that name. Rastiniak (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak

• Oppose See the discussion at the top of the page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can not find anything in that discussion that prevents the change to "The September 2012 poll on racism and apartheid among Israeli Jews" which is an exact description of that poll . Otherwise, an alternative is "The Dialog Poll on racism and apartheid among Israeli Jews" after the polling company. In any case, "Yisraela Goldblum Fund" is non-existent and I can not see why so much importance is attached to keeping a false name and incorrect attribution of a poll to a wrong name. The same issue has already been discussed and it was decided to delete it on the Amiram Goldblum page by WP editors who apparently understand Hebrew well enough to validate and to explain the non-valid use of "Yisraela Goldblum Fund" on the talk page of that article. Please explain why not move as requested. Rastiniak (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak

• Oppose The current title is sufficiently descriptive; the proposed title is strongly WP:POV. --BDD (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst the current title may not be the best, the proposed one seems to me to be more WP:POINTy and deliberately partisan. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

---

October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll → September 2012 Dialog Poll published by Haaretz – Ok I understand the opposition to the previously proposed change. I am now proposing a neutral change, but in any case the "Yisraela Goldblum Fund Poll" as a title is wrong twice: There is no such entity as "Yisraela Goldblum Fund" because her brother's name is not "Goldblum" and he and his children are major contributors to that fund, as well as many of her friends, and even the correct "Yisraela Fund" had nothing to do with that poll, unless you have any evidence for that. Only payment, no other involvement, The current term purports to connect closely with the name of Amiram Goldblum who was one out of 8 activists who planned the questions for the Dialog company. It is officially presented on the New Israel Fund website not as a Fund but as a "Yisraela Goldblum prize" or "Yisraela Goldblum award" which was given by the "Yisraela Fund" (translated from Hebrew)and given only twice, the first time in 2007 by Shimon Peres president of Israel in the presence of the President of the supreme court Dorit Beinisch, the president of the Israel Academy of Sciences Prof. Menahem Yaari. Dialog is the company that put the questions together, performed the survey in September and sent the results for subsequent publication, which was done by Haaretz in October. Can anyone suggest a more neutral title ? Does anyone have proof for "Yisraela Goldblum Fund" except for misnomers in the press ? Or is it only used in order to create a connection to Amiram Goldblum  ? Until now, no one addressed this issue. Seems like facts do not make any impression. Rastiniak (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This official documentation that was filed with the Israeli Non Profits Register refers to a Yisraela Goldblum project (Signing Anew financial document). So does this page from Signing Anew (Signing Anew website). There are also over 30,000 Google search results for "Yisraela Goldblum Fund". Scarletfire2112 (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Scarletfire2112. Marokwitz (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose again. (and rastiniak, could please let us know the truth about who you are? that is, you have claimed in the past to be prof goldblum, and have more recently claimed not to be him. i think it would be very helpful for editing this page, your personal page, etc. if we knew. if you are not prof goldblum, then indeed we do not need to know anything further. thanks) Soosim (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To Soosim, I suggest that you listen to a song by James Taylor: B.S.U.R.S.U.C.S.I.M.I.M Rastiniak (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak

"Then it's I who have been deceiving, purposely misleading, and all along you believed in me." so you admit to lying? nice. hard to trust any of your statements, then, right? Soosim (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Soosim, only reliable sources, non-reliable sources are for Hamorim. Soosim were presented as intelligent animals in Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's tales, only there ? Rastiniak (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability

There is a notability tag on the article at present. The article cites 27 sources, however, wherefore I'm not sure if the tag is necessary. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

If every opinion poll with 27 media mentions (including opeds) were notable...... We would be a polling repository. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the poll.Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)