I have noticed that Wikinews seems to be relentlessly backing the POV of the countries that recognise the existence of the Jewish state of Israel, whilst completely ignoring the fact that a significant number of Muslim nations do not recognise the existence of such a Zionist state. Unless Wikinews has chosen to officially push the "existence of Israel" POV, I ask that it be clarified in articles that 1) The existence of "Israel" is not officially recognised by most (if not all) of the Arab world. 2) The land on which this Zionist regime exists is considered by many to be Muslim soil. I am sure you will understand that to be be neutral we must 1) Not mention any POV at all OR 2) Mention all POVs so that their sum total becomes NPOV. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious ?
What are you looking for ?
Recognise or not Israël is a state.
It's is even the 59th member of the UN.
Please, we do our best to be neutral, but if we took into account extremists POV the unique subject available for Wikinews is Weather news, don't launch war on wikinews, please.
i add, we know all that some countries do not recognise Israel as state. see here : Foreign_relations_of_Israel.
1) As I have already explained, recognising Israel as a state is in itself a POV. 3) Considering the POV of the entire Arab (maybe even Muslim) world as extremist is extreme in itself. 4) If you know that many nations do not recognise the existence of a Zionist regime on Arab land, why do you ignore that POV while pushing the POV of those who do recognise the existence of such a Jewish state 3) You seemed very concerned as to how Islam has influenced me. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)13:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Franckly? i do not mind. in french : je m'en fiche complétement.
Everything is POV. Is USA a state? or is it just a relbelious regime on British north America land? Honestly Isreal's been there for a while. Its not going away anytime soon (well its possible as its not in the most stablest of regions, but I think its here to stay). Therefor its a state (In my uninformed opinion). Bawolff ☺☻22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) According to some people (mainly Jews) it is a state, according to others (the Muslim world) it is a an oppressive Zionist regime whose existence does not deserve to be recognised. 2) All coubtires, as far as I know, including Cuba and Iran, accept the existance of America, so your arguement does not hold water. 3) The scourge of the Zionist regime will one day, in my humble opinion, be wiped off the earth and after its annhilation, Muslims will once again be free to live without fear of Jewish oppression. 11:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
On the other side of the argument over whether Israel is a state there are plenty of people who say that the occupied territories don't exist, they are part of an indivisable Israel, and not 'occupied' at all. In my opinion the most we can hope to do is be clear to the reader. When you use Israel or Occupied Territories everyone knows what you mean, whether they think one way or the other or they don't care. Using the mostly widely accepted names is as NPOV as we're going to get. TRWBW13:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomatic recognition or not, both Israel and Iran are both 'states' or 'nations'. A bias is not shown in describing either of these as political areas that are goverened - while the U.S. may not recognize Iran's government as the government of the people of Iran, it still distinguishes Iran as a separate entity.
PVJ59, please be nice. Israel has been around and the people there for thousands of years and before most humans in some areas of the planet. Israel is a member of the UN, has democratric government and is by all means considered a country regardless of what they do bad or good. It is not a POV it is a fact. From what I can tell, this is a bold attempt to make a lot of people mad and to start a war. Jason Safoutin00:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which people exactly? The Israelis?? As any educated person knows, the "Israeli people" only came into existence with the creation of the State of Israel. Prior the mass exodus of Jews from Europe due to Palestine (the official name of the region prior to the creation of the State of Israel) attempted extermination of them at the hands of Europeans (which was not the first time Europeans had attempted to exterminate Jews), the vast majority of the inhabitants of Palestine were not Jews, but Arabs, and many of them, if not most of them, were Christian. And prior to them, the issue becomes so obscure and contentious that academics and politicians have given up attempting to reach a consensus regarding the accurate history of Israel/Palestine. So, which people are we talking about, that you say have been for thousands of years?? I would really like to know, because if you have the answer, then we can all pack our bags and go to the UN and announce to the world the truth about who really belongs to the land of Israel/Palestine. Regards, Thisisthehour00:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is a member of the UN, has democratric government and is by all means considered a country regardless of what they do bad or good.. In case you were not aware of this, Jason, the land the Zionist regime refers to as "Israel" belongs to Muslims, and (to an infinitely small extent) Christians . It definitely does not belong to the Jews, and thus the Jewsaders have no right to oust innocent Muslims out of "Israel". The fact is that the Muslim world does not honour this Zionist regime by believing its "Israel" propaganda. Hence, in order to be neutral, we will not push pro-Israeli recognition POV. 11:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I consider myself fairly well informed on the basis of the foundation of the State of Israel. Had the United States not recognised it, then the surrounding Arab states would have destroyed it. However, the state was recognised by the U.S., and subsequently by a significant number of nations. Why don't we just refer to the region as Canaan, and then you can argue about who belongs there?
I am also aware of "positive discrimination" by the Israelis, and many people do not realise that this is religious discriminaton aimed at changing the demographics of the region.
'On the other hand... I live in Europe. More specifically in Belgium. The country is nominally Catholic, but the only people around here likely to claim there is religious discrimination are the Scientologists. People in this country are pretty much disgusted at what Israel gets up to but they have a mostly functional government that can be dealt with.
I am being civil. It is just that I prefer to refer to the "Israeli" government as a Zionist regime. The "significant number of nations" mentioned by you does not include the Muslim world, which makes it highly POV to ignore their opinion on the right of such a "state" to impose itself on Arab soil. As for the US preventing "Israel" from being annhilated in its infancy, that is another American blunder. Had the Zionist regime been crushed soon after the Jews invaded Muslim land, the present day genocide of Arabs would have been avoided. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)16:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
please, we are not blind kids. You hurt my intelligence and sensibility with you're irrational hate of Israel. You need to learn about true international politic not just quoting mad people nightmare. it's just troll. stop it Jacques Divol18:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My (personal, private) hatred of Israel is not irrational, it is based on the fact that the Zionist regime has invaded Arab land and is currently committing acts of genocide against innocent Muslims. I also do not see how you can accuse me of being a "troll" when I have written more articles that you. In any case referring to Muslim leaders as "mad people" is trollish, not to mention racist, in itself. Internationally, the Muslim world does not recognise the right of "Israel" to exist, and to suppress that POV, while pushing the POV of states that do believe that "Israel" is a legitimate country, is POV-pushing. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)07:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PJV59, I don't know what you're thinking, but what you're writing does not come across as civil. You appear to be asserting that the correct position for people to hold is that Israel should not exist, and that people who hold a contrary position are not to be respected, nor their opinions on any matter that may be obliquely related. That's not constructive, that's contempt. --Brian McNeil / talk19:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being civil? And Jacques is when he makes unnecessary comments about how influenced I am by the "muslim way of life"? I am asserting that 1) My personal, private opinion, which should not appear on Wikinews, is that Israel should be wiped off the map. 2) The Muslim and Arab worlds (i.e a significant number of people) do not recognise the existence of "Israel" and thus for Wikinews to only push the opinion of those who do recognise the existence of "Israel" would be POV. 3) In order to remain neutral, Wikinews must represent all (signifiacnt) sides to an arguement, i.e in this case mention that the existence of "Israel" is disputed, accepted by some and rejected by others. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)07:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the comments, by various contributors, are bordering on incivility. It was my intention to get people to focus more on the point than on slinging mud at each other. The point is, in my opinion, misplaced. Israel exists, even Iran acknowledges that. Now, if you have an article that covers both Israel and Iran there may be a place for a mention of Iran's position on the right of Israel to exist. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a blanket decision to describe Israel as a state engaged in ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity. You have to (a) source those allegations, and (b) justify their inclusion in any particular article. That puts you right back to arguing the case on the article talk page which I believe is what you were trying to avoid. --Brian McNeil / talk08:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) I don't see what Iran (by itself) has to do with this discussion. The countries shaded in red (in the adjoining diagram) do not recognise the existence of Israel. The point I wish to make is that we cannot suppress the POV of these nations whilst pushing the POV of countries which do recognise Israel. I hope that this map will show you the significant number of nations which do not recognise the state of Israel, and thus contradict arguements that the POV of these states is a fringe opinion. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)10:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]Nations marked in red do not recognise the existence of Israel
The diplomatic position of the bulk of the "Muslim world" (which, incidentally, is not as clear-cut as PVJ appears to think it is) is relevant and should be mentioned in articles which touch upon, say, Israel's relationship with such countries or, Israel's "legitimacy". i don't accept the idea that every time Wikinews mentions the word "Israel", it is "relentlessly backing" and "pushing" the "POV that Israel exists". For instance, Wikinews will talk of "Taiwanese electronics companies", "towns in Somaliland" and "Chechen rebels" without writing copious footnotes about the definition of Taiwan, Somaliland and Chechnya. Things like states, governments and constitutions often exist de jure rather than de jure. As far as i can see, Israel has managed to wrangle enough evidence to "demonstrate" its existance (If u don't think Israel is a "sovereign state", try entering it without a visa). It's listed as a country without any qualifiers in 'pedia, and it shld be dealt with in the same way here. Doldrums10:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a major communication gap between Doldrums and myself. Certain countries believe that Israel exists, that is their POV (let us call it POV "x"). A significant number of other countries (sometimes referred to as the "Muslim world) have an opposing POV ("y"), that an entity called "Israel" does not exist. By mentioning Israel/referring to that geopgraphical area as Israel, we are pushing POV "x", whilst ignoring POV "y". In order to be nueutral, we must 1) Not mention either POV, OR 2) Mention both POVs so that they "cancel" each other out. Other than that, I would like to remind Doldrums that 1) We are not Wikipedia. 2) Whether or not he thinks Israel has asserted its legitmacy is irrelevant to Wikinews. 3) De facto and de jure do not mean the same thing. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)10:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
countries don't "believe" other countries "exist" or not. they grant diplomatic recognition or not. if a wikinews article mentions that 161 (is it?) countries recognise Israel, then it should mention that so-many other countries don't. Articles don't mention the recognition thing everytime the word "Israel" occurs in the text, they only do it if the subject of the article actually touches upon Israel's diplomatic status. that's the way it should be. it follows that the non-recognisers get a say in precisely the same set of articles that the recognisers do.
i am not particularly moved by gratuitous "WN is not "WP" arguments - WN does many things in the same way as WP 'coz many of their basic features and aims are identical. A WP constructed NPOV wording is, in my book, an excellent candidate to be considered for use on WN, and am not inclined to discard it just coz someone says "WP not WN" (whatever).
if you've read my above comment to mean, i think "Israel has asserted its legitmacy" and "De facto and de jure are the same", then u've misread it. i can restate or explain, if need be.
A certain number of countries (you claim it is 161) believe that a certain area should be refered to as Israel. The others do not. Thus, using the word "Israel" to refer to that geographical area is POV-pushing. In your book, BBC's editorial guidlines or WP:NPOV, may be the answer to everything, but that is your exlcusive POV. There is no need to for Wikinews to abide by sources you claim are NPOV. Also, could you explain what you mean by this- Things like states, governments and constitutions often exist [[w:de facto|de jure]] rather than [[w:de jure|de jure]].PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)11:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, by saying that "161 countries" recognise Israel, then it implies that others may not. I don't think it's particularly POV to not point out that a dozen or so do not. Lankiveil03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Diplomatic recognition is not the way of determining the "existence" of a state, i.e. its sovereignty" (see Declarative theory of statehood and Constitutive theory of statehood). in particular, universal recognition is not the standard adopted. so the fact that some countries do not recognise Israel does not take away its "existence", any more than the fact that Israel not recognising these countries turn their existence into an opinion, as opposed to a fact.
as for the de-this and de-that thing, i mean that there is no recognised authority which confers statehood, legitimacy and legality to countries, governments and constitutions. for many, if not most countries, their existence is de facto rather than de jure.
i don't know about "Everything", but WN:NPOV is supposed to answer questions about what and how Wikinews articles are, and i do think that the Beeb offers a reasonably good "ready-made" source of guidelines for us to consider. if u believe that "there is no need to abide by either", u can probably bring it up in an other discussion, and not forget to tell us why you think so. Doldrums12:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not essential to NPOV that we weaselly word every articles that mentions Israel to suit one contributor. Doldrums has laid out cases where he thinks it is appropriate to mention the refusal to recognise Israel, I agree with him, and I think you'll find that his opinion represents a significant number of the contributors. If you approach the project with the objective of imposing your point of view at every possible opportunity then you will have conflicts. Please settle for the compromise of looking to bring out this under-represented POV when it is appropriate. Doldrums has suggested some points at which it would be relevant and appropriate, don't push the envelope on that and conflict should be kept to a minimum. That leaves the difficult bit up to you, how to tidily bring the issue into an article, i.e. please choose your words wisely. For an example, say country Foo has a dispute with Israel, and it is one of the countries marked in red on your map, the article should concentrate on the dispute, but it can introduce the recognition issue, perhaps saying, Foo is one of x states/countries that refuse to recognise the existence of Israel. Mainly concentrated in the Middle East and predominantly Muslim countries of Africa, this group asserts that the region is illegally occupied by Zionists. Now, you can't have that on every article, because it would be wholly inappropriate on one about The Pope visiting Israel, but if you had an Israel infobox I suspect you could ensure that at least one article in the DPL reminded people of this POV. --Brian McNeil / talk14:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, it's not to suit one contributor, but neutrality in itself. Anyways, PVJ and I were working out on a resolution on IRC. Unfortunately, we couldn't decide on a consensus, and now Doldrums and I are discussing. What I'd like to see are articles known to have (had) problems with Israeli Recognition POV, and what was wrong with them. —this is messedrocker(talk)15:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly concentrated in the Middle East and predominantly Muslim countries of Africa, this group asserts that the region is illegally occupied by Zionists. Brian, as you might be aware, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia are not from Africa/the Middle East. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)16:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mis-reading my comment. Look at the map you provided. Mainly in mid-east, mainly in Muslim Africa. There are exceptions, but they are a minority in their region, my comment was "broad strokes", the lack of precision you seem to be criticising me for is what differentiates readable news and dry encyclopedia. The point was to give an example of what you could say when you can justify bringing the issue up. I'm sure you'll put it in your own words, but if you want to say "Zionist" please try to make sure it is a quote, preferably from a substantial bloc of the countries who you assert have an under-represented POV, someone like the Arab League would be reasonable. --Brian McNeil / talk16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PVJ, do not assert what I think or do not think. IMO, every person on this planet is a human being and whether you like it or not, has the right to exist on this planet. You say that your personal opinion should not exist on Wikinews, yet you keep aserting it and attempting to PUSH your beliefs on other users. That is uncalled for and wrong and is POV-pushing. I do NOT care whether or not you want "israel to be wiped off the map" or whether or not you hate America. My point is, you DID make your POV on here and continue to do so. This is detrimental to the project. As far as I am concerned, every country, territory state, whatever is a nation. The rest is what their governments do. Jason Safoutin22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jason, please try to understand what I am saying. The land on which modern-day Israel exists belongs to Arabs, and hence the Jews had no right to take that land. 24 (Muslim) nations agree with that POV and hence do not recognise "Israel". Thus, in order to be neutral, we cannot push the POV of countries who DO recognise Israel whilst ignoring the POV of other nations. The Jews do have a right to their own nation, but logically, that state should exist in/around Germany since it was (after all) the Nazis who oppressed the, not the Palestinians. As for your definition of what qualifies as a state, do also you recognise the sovereignity of the Montana Freemen? Do you reckon we should mention them as a seperate country on Wikinews? Please try to understand the point I am making, instead of making strawman arguments about my pushing anti-Semitics/anti-American POV. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)03:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is a nation, a democracy. And your POV on whether or not they should exist is not welcome here. They DO exist and will continue to do so. They have their land and they have their country and government. Since they do exist and do have a country, you are expressing a POV. Period. I do not care what you think about "Jews" as you put them as it is a POV. The FACTis: They are a country. If you do not like it, then move to another planet. We are humans. Deal with it. Please do not continue to POV push your opinion on Israel. I am getting greatly offended and I am not even a "Jew". Jason Safoutin22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some call it a democracy, that's their POV. Some refer to it as a Zionist regime, a tumour on the Middle East, a disgraceful blot etc. etc. That is their POV. We need to balance both in order to be neutral. I am sorry if I have offended you, but I will not allow you to push the POV of countries that recognise "Israel" whilst ignoring nations that do not recognise it. For further information, please look at the map. Nations that do not recognise IsraelPVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)02:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What if I called India and you and all the people there Arab terrorists? And that all Indians are terrorists? What if I said I did not recognize your country as a nation. We are all humans...and as far as I am concerned this Wiki is full of humans from every end of the world. If you don't like them then leave. But I will not allow you to discrace a culture because of your personal opinions and beliefs. If I can edit Wikinews and write Wikinews without caring who is good or bad then I don't see why you can't. The arguement is that Israel IS a nation/democracy and IS a member of the United Nations. You may not recognize Israel as a nation, but that is initself a POV. Jason Safoutin21:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why a point is raised is nothing compared to the content of the point itself. The point here seems to be that it is not neutral to imply that the status of Israel as a nation is decided absolutely either way. Shouldn't the effort here be to find how best to indicate this character instead of repeating comments sidetracking into mistaken terms of personal preferences when the point concerns global regions?
There is one image here with indicators on the status of diplomatic relations with Israel. That would seem to have the necessary data provided it is supplemented with knowledge of geography. The work to process that information into more readily useful forms is one task. Your mention of al-Qaeda is interesting as well; that is a second task to collect and process data for. Precise presentation of disagreements between nations on what disputed matters and parties are is absolutely neutral whereas preference of the dominant perception on either the point on Israel or of your mentioned al-Qaeda and every similar item is questionable at best and otherwise simply the easy rather than neutral option. After data is processed for these items the way to indicate the data and to use it in articles needs to be discussed.
Jason, please stop making baseless arguements about "disgracing cultures", or ranting about "us all being humans". This is about mentioning that the existance of Israel is not universally accepted. You are oppossed to that idea, and that is that. Please do not waste time and effort trying to divert this into some sort of "human brotherhood" issue. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)16:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS-Do not be offended, your point has been made and taken note of, but persistently going off topic will only be seen as a sign of weakness on your part.
This is not what this is about — this is about how Wikinews has a tendency to recognize Israel even though a minority of countries do not. Wikinews's stance is not "Israel exists", or "Israel does not exist", but "Israel is considered a country by some and not a country by some". —this is messedrocker(talk)21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And an approach/policy has been suggested for that. Many contributors have acknowledged that the Muslim perspective that Israel is a rogue/illegal state is under represented. They have said that whenever it can justifiably be done Western readers should be reminded that certain countries don't recognise Israel. That is, it has been said that this should be judged case by case, not a blanket decision. --Brian McNeil / talk21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo... only 18/19 nations don't recgonise Israel, big friggin deal. Only 20 nations in the world recongise Taiwan, do they get a disclaimer just becasue China says Taiwan doesn't exsist. Listen Israel exsists. They don't think it exists, and yet at the same time claim it exists by promising to "purge the land of Zionist scum."
The USA is simply a wayward colony of mother Britain, and I feel that it's POV-pushing to acknowledge the existance of this rogue state as being independent! Lankiveil03:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I've read this whole discussion, and it's absolutely ridiculous. Are we also to write every time the Vatican City is mentioned that it's not recognised by some nations? Are we to write on every article about George W. Bush that some people think that he didn't win the 2000 election? There are some fringe groups that will not recognise any particular thing, and certain Islamic countries (and not even all of them), definitely count as a "fringe" in this case. Lankiveil03:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me bring this in; suppose suddenly 30 countries declare that the United States is not a country but rather a large Monkey with a population of killer-ants on it's back. Do we have to mention that whenever we talk about the US? Of course not. Those Muslim countries could also deny the existence of the moon, gravity, Elvis, and anything else that they want, but that doesn't change the fact that any of them exist, and you can't honestly say that your pushing one point of view by talking about the moon without mentioning that several groups/nations beleive that it doesn't exist. That fact is that Israel is a member of the United Nations, has an independent goverment, an army that has single-handedly beaten four arab armies that had Soviet backing, posses it's own economy and posses every single feature we apply to a country. There is no point of view, Israel exists. --Shaoken01:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The common meaning for recognition is not the political meaning. There are nations that do not recognize the Israeli state government as a legitimate government over the territory it claims. That is the sole point, nothing else is relevant and any refocusing and misinterpretation is only that no matter how often it is repeated.
11:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
13:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
