Talk:Canadian PM: Liberal leadership hopefuls 'anti-Israeli'

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Existence of Israel.[edit]

As of today, 24 countries do not recognise the existence of Israel. We are still discussing whether or not to represent this fact in our articles, and if not doing so would be a violation of our neutrality policy. For more details, please see Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Israel Recognition POV. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added in "As of today, 24 countries do not recognise the existence of Israel." [1] FellowWikiNews (W) 17:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 03:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to put Israel in quotes. It makes it seem like the person being quoted had said "quote Israel unquote" or otherwise questioned the notion of Israel. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

something doesn't click here[edit]

The article to me seems to imply that because a candidate of the liberal party feels Isreal commited war crimes, that the entire party thinks they commited war crimes and don't exsist (which acording to the facts in the article, no one ever said they don't exisit. (of the liberal party, I know thoose 24 countries disagree with their exsitance)). That just sounds like the article is jumping to conclussions. user:Bawolff 05:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term "Israel" is disputable since 24 nations do not recognise its existence. Hence, since we have used the term "Israel", I have added the map. I do not see any implication that the Canadian Liberal Party does/does not recognise Israel. As for the candidate views reflecting those of his party, perhaps we should mention that he did not claim to be speaking on his party's behalf at the time. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 10:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What other name would you use to refer to "Israel"? -Edbrown05 09:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind Wikinews refering to "Israel" as such, but I insist that we mention the fact that 24 countries do not recognise "Israel". We may also consider calling that state the Zionist regime. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 10:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no, definitevly no. It's not Wikinews role to change official name of a country. you'ld read CIA fact book on the France entry. Jacques Divol 12:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

israel saga[edit]

israel's relations with the 24 countries is absolutely irrelevant here. mentioning only the non-recognising while omitting the recognisers is pov. — Doldrums(talk) 12:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree Jacques Divol 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The map lists the countries that recognise Israel. We can remove the "24 countries" text if you wish. Anyway a discussion (which is probably a continuation of the WC discussion) is ongoing at Category:Israel. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
u've still to explain the relevence, and there's no mention of countries that recognise Israel in the map. — Doldrums(talk) 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. Therefore, we cannot acknowledge the existence of a state called Israel, not even far in the future, as some people have tried to suggest. This is what Hassan Nasrallah (Secretary-General of Hezbollah) has to to say about the existence of Israel. Thus, by implying that Israel's existence is undisputed, Wikinews is at the very leastunfairly supressing the POV of one party, while furthering the POV of entities that do recognise Israel's existence. This is the relevance. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WN:NPOV doesn't require every opinion everyone has of everything mentioned in an article to be included. there's such a thing as relevence. one canadian politician calls some others "anti-Israeli", whats that got to do with what Nasrallah or the famous 24 think of Israel? — Doldrums(talk) 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
give me a reason for including the map at all, and then we'll think about npov-ing its caption. — Doldrums(talk) 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you two choices for a compromise-the map, or a sentence mentioing Israel's disputed existence. Please refer to the Category:Israel page for more details. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS-Can we carry on this discussion on one page instead of across pages?

am not asking for choices. am asking for a reason why every mention of Israel needs all the qualifications u r suggesting. if u want all the disc. to take place in one place, then stop implementing ur suggestions, which everyone who's spoken about it has opposed, all over wikinews. — Doldrums(talk) 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not implementing anything, I am only adding an NPOV tag to Israel-related articles till the issue is resolved. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is this[2] [3] [4] how u usually add npov tags? — Doldrums(talk) 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to certain points raised by you here. Also, you have already broken the 3RR in this article. I ask that you stop now and accept the interim arrangement of having both the map and the NPOV tag in place. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What certain Muslim nations think of that which is referred to by the Canadians as Israel isn't really relevant in an article about the political stance of some Canadians. It's a stretch, at best. -- IlyaHaykinson 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doldrums is already edit-warring his POV all over the article. Get him to stop, and I'll agree to continue this discussion. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 14:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I get him to stop? I agree with his stance, and do not see it as POV-warring: I think it's more of your misinterpretation of what the NPOV policy calls for that causes this conflict. -- IlyaHaykinson 14:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop that PVJ59 : do not try to push Doldrums to do a mistake just because of your personnal war with Israel. What's your are doing here is wrong PVJ59, you hurt me and many contributors .
Why would I be hurting you, or anyone else for the matter? The views I have expressed are not my own, they are the POVs of certain other parties. POVs which must be mentioned to abide by NPOV. Also, I can assure you that I have not declared war against Israel :-). If anything Jaqcues, you are the one who has hurt me with your comments about how "Islam has influenced me". PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Divol 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight Ilya, when I make 4 reverts to that New York plane crash article, you take the trouble to warn me on my talk-page. But when Doldrums makes 5 or 6 reverts to this article within a few hours, you do nothing. Why? Because you "agree with his stance"? You're an arbitrator Ilya. If you're not fair, who will be? PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 14:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, he's been warned; I had not noticed the violations; please consider yourself warned too. -- IlyaHaykinson 15:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now may I ask that the article (which deals with the actions of the allegedly non-existent state of Israel) be tagged {{NPOV}} or {{develop}} till the dispute over whether Israel should be mentioned without disclaimers is resolved, or at the very least, till the discussion on this page is concluded? As far as I know it is not conventional to publish articles which are under dispute, which is why I am asking that this article be tagged accordingly. Also please refer to the style guide which states that {{NPOV}} may be added if You believe the article to contain an explicit or implicit bias, or presenting only one point of view in a contentious issue I have expressed such concerns about this article, and belive it is my right to tag the article as such. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relevence[edit]

this has been discussed before. this image is of no relevence to this article. u've been asked three times to show the relevence, and you have not done so.  — Doldrums(talk) 07:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain to you that using the word "Israel" is POV since "Israel" may be non-existent. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 07:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
who says "Israel is non-existent"?  — Doldrums(talk) 07:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. Therefore, we cannot acknowledge the existence of a state called Israel, not even far in the future, as some people have tried to suggest.[5] PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 07:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
says he doesnt recognise it & that he considers its presence unjust. doesnt say "it doesn't exist".  — Doldrums(talk) 07:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and since when did Nasrallah become an authorised spokesman for 24 countries?  — Doldrums(talk) 08:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He speaks on behalf on Hezbollah, clarifyng that his party does not "acknowledge the existence of a state called Israel". PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 08:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and why shld an article on what one canadian politician calls another include the Hezbollah's view of something that the canadian's label was about? and that, to the exclusion of all other views.
The article involves "Israel", which Hezbollah claims doesn't exist. It would be unfair to suppress Hezbollah's POV on this matter. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 08:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WN:NPOV doesn't require every opinion everyone has of everything mentioned in an article to be included. there's such a thing as relevence. one canadian politician calls some others "anti-Israeli", whats that got to do with what Nasrallah or the famous 24 think of Israel?

– Doldrums(talk) 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

i now ask you, for the fifth time, to explain why Nasrallah view is relevent to this article, to the exclusion of all other views on Israel. i point out that by ur argument, every mention of say, Islam, should be followed by quote from a friendly neighbourhood Islamophobe, to the exclusion of all others. i also remind you that published articles should stay published (or have a correction issued, if factually wrong). i expect you to revert ur unpublishing.  — Doldrums(talk) 08:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nasrallah was explaining the view of his party Hezbollah. Hezbollah's POV is that the "State of Israel" (refered to simply as "Israel") is non-existent. Mentioning "Israel" without appropriate disclaimers explaining the fact that it may be non-existent amounts to endorsing the POV that "Israel" undisputedly exists. This would be pushing the POV of states who do believe in "Israel"'s existence. Thus every article which mentions the supposedly non-existent entity known as Israel must display disclaimers clarifying the disputed nature of Israel's existence. This article does mention Israel and hence it must also bear the necessary disclaimers in order to maintain NPOV.
u're now back to ur first comment in this section. articles are not going to sit around in development while u go around in circles.  — Doldrums(talk) 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Islamophobe's comments on Islam, or an anti-Semite's rants about Judaism are racist in nature. They are in no way comparable to the political position held by Hezbollah on the existence of Israel. If you manage to find somebody (who is in a position of authority) who claims that Saudi Arabia does not exist, I will personally ensure that appropriate disclaimers are added to articles that mention Saudi Arabia.
  • NPOV is one of our most important policies and it is our duty to abide by it. Hence articles must not be allowed to remain published unless they are completely neutral in nature.
and u're the sole arbiter of what is or what is not npov?  — Doldrums(talk) 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My choice of disclamier is not the only one we have. You are welcome to suggest alternatives to adding the map. I would suggest either mentioning the fact that Hezbollah does not recognise Israel's existence or make a [[Category:Possibly non-existent entities]]. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 10:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
my alternative is to not add the map. u tell me why Israel is inseparable from Hezbollah's view of Israel and i'll consider ur second alternative. if u're striving to put Hezbollah's view into this article, why are adding a map about the diplomatic stance of 24 countries in it, instead of adding Nasrallah's words?

 — Doldrums(talk) 11:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you wouldn't react favourably to the words being added, but that seems a reasonable solution as far as this article is concerned. I am still trying to ascertain whether the 24 countries do not recognise Israel's existence or whether they do not give it diplomatic existence. If it is the former, we will have to make the necessary changes. Till then, adding Nasrallah's words will do. I have already explaine to the best of my ability why it is unfair to imply that Israel's existence is undisputed when Hezbollah does not recognise its existence. I suggest you go over my earlier statements and try once again to understand them. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and while u indefinitely look for non-existent statements from the 24, the articles sits in development? Nasrallah's not the only who has a view on Israel. lots of people do. which is why, there's no need to include any of them unless you can show a relevence. u've not shown that Nasrallah believes that Israel does not exist, let alone 24 countries. and if the question is not about existence, then u have no reason to insist on adding any of these views into the article.  — Doldrums(talk) 11:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nasrallah stated that his party does not "acknowledge the existence of Israel". I have already provided you with a link to that quote. I stated that for the time being you could add Hezbollah's position to the article and publish it till I get statements from the 24 countries. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 11:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
u still haven't told me why Nasrallah's statement is needed here. all that crud about Israel not existing doesn't hold up if the only source u have for it is the Nasrallah statement which refutes Israel's presence in one statement and acknowledges it in the next.  — Doldrums(talk) 11:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
further, if u think we are going to add one statement to an article and publish it, till u get some other statements, i suggest u look at Wikinews:What Wikinews is not#What Wikinews articles are not #5.  — Doldrums(talk) 12:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your inference that Hezbollah "acknowledges" Israel's existence may be erroneous. I rely on direct quotes. The quote here is "I do not recognise the existence of the state of Israel". My point has been made. That statement is going into the article. Now, let's talk about how we will add the actual statement. Would you prefer a direct quote or a sentence of our own clarifying Hezbollah's stand on this issue? PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"may be erroneous"? are u saying it's wrong or are u accepting it's right? again, if u think articles will wait around while u make up ur mind...
your point may have been made to ur considerable satisaction, but no one else is buying it. i suggest u publish this and ponder over my inferences and search for other sources on your own time.  — Doldrums(talk) 12:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your inference is wrong. Now let's get this over with. Do you want to quote Nasrallah directly or do we frame our own sentence to clarify his stand on this matter?

PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasrallah's view of Israel is not notable enough to be added to every mention of Israel. if u want to say Israel's existence is disputed, get quotes from a notable minority saying "Israel doesn't exist", Nasrallah's not notable by himself. do u know how many political leaders around the world acknowlede Israel's existence? are u going add their list to every mention of the word Israel too?  — Doldrums(talk) 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah is a political party with seats in the Parliament of Lebanon. Thus, it represents the opinions of the section of Lebanese citizens who voted for Hezbollah. I have no problem with adding the statements of political parties who recognise Israel (provided you can provide links to their quotes) to the article. Now, choose between quoting Hezbollah directly or framing our own sentence. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hezbollah is one of a dozen parties in Lebanon. Lebanon is one of 200-somthing countries. if u want to add what all political parties all over the world think of israel, go ahead and convince people thats a good idea. if u want to pick one view among all of them, then explain why that particular view is notable.  — Doldrums(talk) 13:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add the map, solve the problem. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
map doesnt say 24 countries think Israel doesnt exist. if u cant substantiate ur allegation of bias, publish the article.  — Doldrums(talk) 13:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the map state that the remaining 160 countries "recognise Israel's existence"? No. So let's assume that nobody recognises Israel then?
  • Hezbollah's view must be noted alongside the other nations. Say something like "Hezbollah does not recognise Israel's existence, while 160 nations do". Provided you get me quotes from these nations stating they "recognise Israel's existence". PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ur assumptions get more and more interesting and further and further away from reality. Hezbollah's views of Israel is not notable enough to be tagged to every mention of the word Israel. i've still not seen any effort from u to explain why it is.  — Doldrums(talk) 14:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be NPOV, we must represent all sides of an arguement fairly. Hezbollah claims that Israel is non-existent. We must put that POV alongside the POV of states that (allegedly, you are yet to provide quotes) recognise Israel's existence. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 14:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. in order to be NPOV, we don't have to represent all views of every word used in an article. that's where relevence comes in.
  2. u are misrepresenting Hezbollah's unwillingness to accept Israel as "Hezbollah claims that Israel is non-existent". at the very least, Hezbollah speaks all the time as if Israel exists.
  3. see what WN:NPOV says about minority views.
  4. each of these things have been pointed out to you several times before. u're neither prepared to accept nor able to rebut them. yet, u r persisting in keeping this published article in limbo.  — Doldrums(talk) 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have already explained the relevance to you many times over. Stop trying to stall this discussion.
  2. It is not up to you or me to decide "how Hezbollah speaks". The statement they have made is that they do not recognise Israel's existence, and that's that.
  3. This is not a minority view, it is the view held by a section of the Lebanese government.
  4. I am rebutting your claims and have already offered you two options to end this dispute and publish the article. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i take it u're also coming up with statements from 24 countries that "Israel doesn't exist".  — Doldrums(talk) 08:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PVJ, you didn't explain, you stated your bias which is not really shared by anyone else on this wiki... -- IlyaHaykinson 07:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my bias. It is a POV held by certain countries. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written) 08:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_PM:_Liberal_leadership_hopefuls_%27anti-Israeli%27&oldid=331059"