Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main   Talk Page   Help   Participants   Awards   Article Assessment   Templates   To do   New Articles   Sister Projects  
This Talk page is dedicated to matters related to WikiProject Israel.
WikiProject Israel (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Ludwig Blum[edit]

Hello. Is anyone able to find a photograph of Ludwig Blum in the public domain please? It would be wonderful to add it to his infobox. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletions of ynet poll result from over 150 Israeli articles[edit]

Zero0000 (whom I invite to join in this conversation) has just now deleted text from over 150 articles of Israelis.

The text in each case mentions the individual that is the subject of the article having been voted one of the greatest Israelis in a poll of the Israeli public by Ynet. An example is here.

The reason given by Zero was: "rm non-notable (poll not published in secondary sources), not encyclopaedic and flawed (not randomly sampled). See WP:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis and WP:Articles for deletion/200 greatest Israelis".

I think that, at the very least, each individual entry regarding this poll -- by a high-level RS -- is appropriate to reflect. And that the deletions were therefore not appropriate.

At the (curious) AfD 200 Greatest Israelis, there was confusion (by non-lawyers, I would guess, who were not familiar with Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co.) as to whether reflecting the entire list as a list might raise a copyvio issue. And some !votes were based on that. That's certainly a non-issue here, as in each article there was only one entry reflected, not the entire list.

As to Zero's assertion that the quality of the poll is low in his view, I would point to the comment of DGG in the Afd: "... some of the comments above are saying we shouldn't cover this because the quality of the poll is low. This is a non-reason. We do not decide to write articles on things based on our decision about the intrinsic quality--it would certainly make some interesting but interminable debates on musicians and some similar topics." And in closing the AfD Beeblebrox wrote: "... arguments about the methodology or the quality of the poll are, as was rightly pointed out, not relevant." Yet Zero deleted the text in question using that very assertion as a basis for his deletions.

The further background to this is that not only do other similar polls have mentions -- they (in the case of countries other than Israel) have entire articles devoted to reflecting the results of media polls (either TV or print media).

And all have the same precise focus -- each is a poll of the "best" from country x. Most were apparently spurred by the British poll, in 2002.

See: Argentina: El Gen Argentino • Belgium: Belg der Belgen / De Grootste Belg / Le plus grand Belge • Bulgaria: Velikite Balgari • Canada: The Greatest Canadian • Chile: Greatest Chilean • Croatia: Greatest Croatian • Czech Republic: Největší Čech • Finland: Suuret suomalaiset • France: Le Plus Grand Français • Germany: Unsere Besten • Greece: Great Greeks • Ireland: Ireland's Greatest • Italy: Il più grande italiano di tutti i tempi • Japan: The Top 100 Historical Persons in Japan • Netherlands: De Grootste Nederlander • New Zealand: New Zealand's Top 100 History Makers • Portugal: Os Grandes Portugueses • Romania: Mari Români • Russia: Imya Rossiya • South Africa: Great South Africans • Spain: El Español de la Historia • Ukraine: The Greatest Ukrainians • United Kingdom: 100 Greatest Britons • USA: The Greatest American.

And "otherstuffexists" allows us to look at such similar lists, as long as -- as is the case here -- that is not the only argument for keeping the text.

I would urge restoration of the text.Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The reasons why I started deleting the ranking from the 200 biographies, and why Zero0000 joined me are detailed in Epeefleche's talk page
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis closed without any regard to WP:COPYVIO. This is a non-issue.
The above lists of articles on similar polls appear to be articles about television shows, not about online surveys. The notability of television shows is different from the notability of online surveys.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very weak argument.
Yonideworst (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh -- I now see that Yonideworst tag-teamed the deletions with Zero, of the same text and with the same reasons ... but in different articles. I've asked Yonideworst twice whether he has edited before, either as an IP or with a username, as his style of editing seems familiar -- and his editing is astoundingly impressive (or DUCKish) if he is indeed an editor with fewer than 300 edits. Another seasoned editor has made the same request. Yonideworst has failed to respond.
The above lists of articles re similar polls are all about parallel media surveys. There is no real-world distinction.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS itself states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There are two separate issues being confused here. One is about the article on the Ynet poll, and the other is about the use of the poll results in articles about people. They are quite separate issues. About the article on the poll: I didn't even know about the AfD while it was open but would have voted only with reference to notability and coverage by secondary sources. Issues like scientific validity are irrelevant to articles on popular culture. The TV shows in Epeefleche's list are somewhat analogous to the Ynet poll article, but that article was deleted after the AfD debate and the correct way to continue the debate is Deletion Review.
My only concern here is the use of the poll results in articles about people. In this instance we need to consider if being ranked in the Ynet poll has significance and notability for a person important enough to have a Wikipedia article. My opinion is that it is a matter of profound triviality. Consider "Leah was voted the 152nd-greatest Israeli of all time". All that happened was that the newspaper listed Leah on their web page and some tiny tiny number of visitors to the page chose her as one of the 3 greatest Israelis of all time. A few votes from her family and friends would have been enough to get position 152 out of the 200 that were listed. This is worthy of being in an encyclopaedia article? The deletion of the article on the poll makes it hard to argue that the poll was itself of significance, so one can only argue that it has some scientific validity. But it doesn't; it was just a bit of ephemeral fun organised by the newspaper and didn't even pretend to follow rigorous statistical procedures.
The reliability of Ynet is irrelevant here, since nobody is questioning that they reported their own poll correctly. More important is what secondary sources wrote about it: apparently very little. Zerotalk 13:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Zero that as to the (former) article on the Ynet poll issues like scientific validity are irrelevant. I also agree with Zero that the media polls in the above list are analogous to the Ynet poll.
As to the level of "significance and notability" needed for the one-sentence inclusions of text that have been deleted, that level is of course different than the test as to whether a subject deserves an entire stand-alone article. Obviously, it's not as though every sentence in an article has to rise to the level of significance needed to pass AfD -- if that were the case, we would delete most of the text in the Project.
Zero's personal opinion is that the sentence is trivial. I think (personally) much of wp is trivial; still, we cover it. And the number of editors reading that particular poll article on a daily basis, as referenced in the AfD, indicated interest by our readership far above the trivial level.
Zero's guesses -- and let's be clear, what he states after he writes "Consider" above is pure, made-up guesswork -- are simply non-substantiated musings. And we cover all manner of polls at wp, including those listed above, that ... if Zero's approach were taken ... could result in deletions based on POV guesswork of massive amounts of information resident on the project. Because editor x "assumes" the poll was "just fun," and editor b assumes it was not rigourous enough in its statistics. For an editor to make such a personal series of assumptions and engage in mass deletions on that basis in such a sensitive area is surprising, for a seasoned editor..
Plus, this is a poll of a top-level RS, Ynet. Such a poll of course has a higher level of notability than would be the case with a poll of a non-RS.
Zero's malignment of the poll, again by making up assertions that this was "just a bit of ... fun", and that it "didn't even pretend to follow rigorous statistical procedures", is simply empty POV conjecture meant to support his position. Though he presents it as fact, which I again find surprising for a seasoned editor, deleting text from 150 articles, in a senstive area.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I stand by my claims, which are not guesswork at all (and wouldn't be guesswork even if I didn't have professional expertise in statistics). Online "polls" like this are a dime a dozen and lots and lots of newspapers and online sites run them all the time. Enjoy them by all means, just don't take them seriously. Zerotalk 01:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Ynet is the online portal for Yedioth Ahronoth, consistently one of Israel's most widely read newspapers. The poll is in a reliable and verifiable source and it belongs in these articles, period. End of discussion. Listing such a ranking in an article about a notable individual is pretty much how Wikipedia works. There is no need to show that an article or survey is statistically valid or random, nor is there any obligation to show that an article or survey is covered by other media. These arguments have zero validity as excuses to remove sourced content. Alansohn (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The survey is notable within the article of Ynet, and there is a section devoted to it in that article. Just because the survey is notable within the article of Ynet does not mean that it is notable in the 200 biographical articles that the survey mentions. Yonideworst (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Completely false. What you are insisting is that a published article can only appear in the Wikipedia article for the publisher. So an article published by Ynet / Yedioth Ahronoth could only appear in the Wikiedpia articles for Ynet / Yedioth Ahronoth and an article published by The New York Times could only appear in the Wikipedia article for The Times, which is complete nonsense. Wikipedia works by including coverage from reliable and verifiable sources in our articles and this survey meets that standard. The notability standard has no relevance here. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The Ynet article says that "[d]ue to the nature of the poll used to select and rank the Israelis, the results do not pretend to be an objective assessment". Therefore, there is really no reason to include the results of the survey in the biographical articles. It was published for fun. It has no bearing on the biographies of the listed people. Yonideworst (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
To address the secondary source issue, newspapers are secondary sources for news they report. In the case of this survey, Ynet is not reporting news, but generating news. Hence, that makes Ynet the primary source for this survey. Had other news organizations reported on this survey, it would have given this survey more notability. As it currently stands, this survey has no notability outside of Ynet. Yonideworst (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be objective, nor is there any means of ranking that is not entirely subjective. "Fun" is not an obstacle either. It is an article published in a reliable and verifiable source that is directly relevant to the persons involved. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree. If the survey was scientific, it would have been valid to add a "public perception" section to all those biographies and place the information in that section (in many cases the survey was placed into an honor and/or rewards section, which was not appropriate). However, since the survey was not scientific it is not even worth mentioning in a "public perception" section of the biographies in question. Plain and simple, the survey is irrelevant to the 200 biographies.
Let me add that a WP:UNDUE argument could be made regarding the way this survey is presented in the Ynet article because a single survey is not worth an entire section on a news web site. If there was an Entertainment section to the article, the survey would be worth mentioning in a sentence or two in such a section. But given that the article is so weak, and it does not have an Entertainment section, I suppose that leaving the Ynet article the way it is would be OK. Yonideworst (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a reliable and verifiable source, period. If you want to move it around in the articles in question, that may be appropriate, but removal is unjustified.It's a fairly broad survey and that's all it's presented to be. Given your limited editing experience, gaining greater awareness of fundamental Wikipedia policy will help here in the future. The relevance in the Ynet article itself is a separate issue and it's inclusion should be discussed at that article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
For the last time, Ynet is a reliable and verifiable source for news. The survey is not news, and for the heavily detailed reasons provided above not notable outside of the Ynet article. Please do not re-add to the 200 biographies in question. Yonideworst (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a sample of lists that are notable:

The Ynet survey doesn't even come close to the notability of the above sample of lists. Note that the above lists are not generated by non-scientific surveys. They are done by review boards and have received coverage by sources outside of the news organizations that created those lists. Yonideworst (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn, you seem to have a misconception. The fact that something appears in a reliable source does not imply that it should be in Wikipedia. The reliability of the source is only one of the requirements. There are also requirement like WP:WEIGHT, without which articles would fill up with megabytes of lightweight fluff that just happened to appear in reliable sources. An encyclopaedia article should be a brief and concise summary of the important reliably-published facts about the topic. Perhaps you can explain why it is important that Leah Rabin scored the 152nd fewest votes (meaning a mere handful) from a self-selected group of internet readers. Zerotalk 00:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It is especially true when the survey doesn't even appear in the news section -- it was in the entertainment section. Per WP:RS, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This is why the survey is only notable within the Ynet article. Yonideworst (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that pimple. trespassers william (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Page of Operations involving Israeli special forces is missing the "Operation Opera" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


I have started a short article about SiSense, the company I work for. I am working to stay well inside the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies, and have consulted a number of independent reliable sources, and have worked to keep the article neutral. If anybody has feedback, suggestions, or concerns about the article, please let me know, or improve the article as you see fit. I also expect to add short sections about SiSense's history and technology in the coming week. - (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged?[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict#RfC: Should "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" and "Arab-Israeli conflict" be merged?. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

In the Khan Yunis article, information about atrocities committed against Jews has been censored from the article by anti-Semites.[edit]

The anti-Semites removed all mention about the murder of pregnant Jewish woman Tali Hatuel and her four children.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Presidency of Shimon Peres[edit]

The article Presidency of Shimon Peres needs a lot of work. As this term is now in the past, it's a good time to work on it. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Languages in censuses and Race and ethnicity in censuses[edit]

Pleas add information about this country to this articles.--Kaiyr (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Racist article needs to be fixed immediately[edit]

Illegal immigration from Africa to Israel

This article is racist and evidently biased towards the far-right. For example,

"In recent decades considerable efforts have been made of by many migrant workers from third world countries to immigrate to developed countries in order to improve their wages and quality of life. This is often done in contravention of immigration laws of the destination country, especially when seeking a better life into it, such as infiltration made to the United States from the Mexican border. Developed countries are trying to combat this issue in various ways."

First of all, this ignores the fact that in developed countries, there is a debate on immigration, and that not everyone is necessarily opposed to illegal immigration, such as, for example, many liberals in the United States. Referring to migration as an "issue" to be "combated" is a violation of WP:NPOV.

And I also have an issue with how the word "infiltration" is used? This is the key problem I have with this article. It was evidently written by an Israeli. In civilized non-fascist countries, immigration, particularly when done to seek asylum as the article mentions, is not referred 'infiltration'. What? This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. They even have a section using that word (

Furthermore, the language used is not of encyclopedic tone. "The situation undercuts the tension between two strong feelings in Israel. Israel was founded in the wake of the Holocaust and has provided refuge to Jews fleeing oppression around the world. On one hand, many Israelis feel Israel has a special responsibility to assist refugees in such dire conditions. (The government, however, maintains that most of the Africans are economic migrants and do not fit into this category.) On the other hand, many Israelis fear the influx could threaten the country's Jewish character". Using terms like "influx", for example, is rather biased.

This is written as more of a partisan blog post rather than an encyclopedic entry. It needs to be fixed immediately. JDiala (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with much of your complaint. Whilst you are correct that there is a debate over immigration, it is a fact that the immigration referred to is in contravention of the laws of the destination countries. It's also a fact that the government in every country is trying to combat the issue; no country has a laissez-faire approach to the matter.
As for the use of the term "infiltration", it is used because (a) it almost always happens by people crossing the Egypt-Israel border by stealth (i.e. meeting the definition "The act of entering a physical location and/or organization secretly.") and (b) that is how the Israeli media (across the political spectrum) describe it.
However, I do agree that some if it may not necessarily be in the most encyclopedic of terms, although this may well be because it has been written by someone whose first language is not English. Number 57 08:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
No, this is incorrect. Mexican immigration from the United States is not legal under US law, yet there is nevertheless a debate over it. Asylum seekers are a special case. "Combating the issue" is not an encyclopedic statement. Combating implies _fighting_ the migration. There is a debate within the US as to whether or not the migration itself should be combated or stopped. Liberals and progressives generally believe the immigration in violation of current US law shouldn't necessarily ought to be combated. There is a debate within the country itself. The wording the author uses is implicitly anti immigrant.
I will alter the article myself. At the very least, I will eliminate usage of the word infiltration other than mentioning in the lead that the Israeli media uses the word, and substantially improve the tone of the article to something less partisan. This is racism. It is far from impartial. And dictionary definitions don't suffice; they fail to take into consideration the connotation and negative stigma certain words have attached to them. You cannot refer to intellectually disabled individuals as "idiots", even if they may meet that word's definition. The English language is riddled with terms that have a straightforward dictionary definition but are nevertheless inherently prejudicial, biased and are not encyclopedic. JDiala (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Well thank you for flagging that up so I can watchlist the article. Comments like this are quite illustrative of the point of view you hold. Number 57 09:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)