Talk:Azmi Bishara

Untitled

I'm glad that some efforts have been made to create a page on Azmi Bishara, but the material that is there, while substantative, is poorly written. I tried to fix some of it and may work on more in the future, but reorganization of the article should be a priority. --Jakob Huneycutt 14:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Did some clean-up today. I will probably do more in the future or try to expand the article if possible. --Jakob Huneycutt 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

He was born to a Christian family but is he Christian or Muslim or what?

I found out, he's a Christian.

He is not very religious. gidonb 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Israeli

I have remove the term "Palestinian Israeli" because it is a political term for an Israeli Arab. Jon513 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to put his identity as he refers to himself, and I'm pretty sure it's not as an "Israeli Arab". In this article [1], he uses the term "Arab citizen of Israel" and explains his position for that choice, which might be worth including in the article. Tiamut 17:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced?

I'm not sure that I follow why this has been given an "unsourced" template, given the sources reflected in the links, which support the article. --Epeefleche 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I appologize. I should have added some explanatory notes in this talk-page when i added the unsourced template to the article. Here are some reasons for labeling this article as unsourced:

• He is controversial in Israel because of his support for turning Israel into "a state of all its citizens" - see the comment i posted on Jakob Huneycutt's talk page.
• Bishara, also considered a public intellectual - Considered by whom? According to what source? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
• Azmi Bishara is responsible for many of the major concepts of debate in public and
• The whole Visit to Syria section is not documented in any of the references.

political life of Israel.

Itayb 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points. Tx. --Epeefleche 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wanted: Info of Bishara's tenure at the Van Leer Institute at the Van Leer site

I could not find information about his tenure at the Van Leer Institute in the Van Leer website. This is a shame, and i hope someone else manages to find it and replace the current reference (from the Adalah bio) with it. Itayb 17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a biography of bishara in arabic where it states that he worked in van leer [2] its an extract of the archive.org from balad old official site.. there new site doesn't have this (or at leat i didn't find it). Bishara left van leer in 96 (according to the biography) and their site states only the current sraff. Histolo2 12:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture, sadly, had to go for lack of copyright information

The picture, sadly, had to go, since it did "not have sufficient information on its copyright status.", as stated in its Commons profile (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bishara_azmi.jpg). Copyright issues are very important in Wikipedia. Itayb 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This pic was taken from the kneset site, i think its fair use to put it here. check out the hebrew page about him. Histolo2 12:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reloaded the photograph. This time not to Commons but rather to the Wikipedia database. I stated clearly the copyright license (fair use), so i hope everything's fine now. Itayb 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bishara is responsible for many of the major concepts of debate [...]" - obscure language

"Bishara is responsible for many of the major concepts of debate in public and political life of Israel." (my emphasis) Please replace claim by concrete evidence. I don't see how the words "many" and "major" can be objectively asserted in this context, but i dare anyone to prove me wrong. 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. No doubt Bishara's opinion has been controversial especially for there contradictions for the classical zionist views but i don't see that He is responsible for many of the major etc... Histolo2 21:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

israelinsider - i wonder how adequate it is as a source

In the "Political Career" section the (online?) magazine israelinsider is quoted as a source. I've never heard of this magazine. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is not a popular and reliable magazine, but i'd like to be presented with some circulation statistics, or evidence that this magazine is quoted in better known magazines, in order to accept it as a reliable source. Alternatively, i'd like these links to be replaced by links to articles published by Yediot Aharonot, Ma'ariv, Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post, or by a notable non-Israeli newspaper/magazine. Itayb 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a magazine but a Zionist blog aimed at American Jewry. Despite calling itself "Israel's daily news magazine, it contains no Hebrew. It has no paper edition and its website gives does not have any information about who stands behind it. A search on google.co.il for references to Israelinsider [3] gives a grand total of 4 hits from Israel. Not a particularly reliable source in my opinion. Abu ali 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just have time to spend a moment on this, but a couple of observations. 1. English (along with Hebrew and Arabic) is one of the three official languages of Israel. Abu Ali's suggestion that the fact that it contains no Hebrew is reason for exclusion is therefore not one that I find to be especially compelling. And that is just the easier point -- no doubt there are Russian Israeli papers that could be worthy of inclusion as well. 2. A google search of its name yields over 200,000 hits ... see http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&q=israelinsider+&btnG=Search . 3. It appears to have articles, not just be a blog, as has been suggested. 4. It has information as to who stands behind it ... see its reference to Koret Communications Ltd., and the magazine's history. 5. Am not sure that today the fact that it is an internet publication is reason for it to be ignored -- there is of course no paper version of Wikipedia either, for example. --Epeefleche 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, (1) what proportion of Israelis speak English as their 1st language? (2) Who on earth are Koret communications ltd? Where is israel insider located? And how is it funded? It calls on readers to show their "support of Israel" by giving donations (3) The search I did was using the Israeli version of google requesting references from Israeli sites. I only got 4 references which suggests that it is off the radar as far as most Israelis are concerned. Abu ali 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am Reuven Koret, the publisher of Israel Insider, which has been publishing daily since 2001, more than 10,000 articles and views. We typically get more than 100,000 unique visitors per month. A search of "Israel Insider" on google yields about 480,000 results, last I checked. We are based in Tel Aviv, and our mandate is providing an insider view of Israel to outsiders. Our staff are all Israelis, many new immigrants able to translate the wonders and diversity of Israel to outsiders. 75% of our readers are in North America, 10% in Europe, 10% in Israel and 5% ROW. We aim for objective news reflecting the Israeli consensus. We aim for diversity of views from left to right, encompassing Israelis and foreigners writing about all aspects of Israel.

Israel Insider is self-funded and self-sustaining thanks to ads, sales of our Israel's Story in Maps interactive flash collection, and direct mails. [[User: Reuven Koret [Reuven Koret]] 02:39, 15 February 2007 (IST)

Shalom Reuven Koret of Koret publications. What is the street address of your headquaters in Tel Aviv? How many staff work on your website? And how are your readership numbers audited? Abu ali 09:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Sounds pretty good to me. --Epeefleche 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

some facts about Koret Communications and israelinsider

I don't know whether the user identifying himself as Reuven Koren is genuine. If so, i find it quite exciting that a person of his calibre took the time to comment in this talk page; yesterday morning i couldn't have easily imagine circumstances under which i would be engaged in a professional debate with Mr. Koret. It just goes to show how influencial Wikipedia is conceived to be. In any case it doesn't really matter whether this user is genuine or not, because one doesn't have to put one's trust on a stranger's word when one can easily verify the relevant information by oneself. I've done some research on Koren publishing and israelinsider, and here's what i've come up with:

"Reuven Koret is CEO of Tel Aviv-based Koret Communications Ltd. (koret.com ) and Content Markets in the US. After creating, with Harvard University partners, Africana.com as the premier cultural and educational portal for African-descent populations, and selling it to AOL Time Warner, Koret Communications has focused on creating a network of content and community sites for Jewish and Israeli organizations and publishers, including Israel Insider , Jewsweek, ISRAEL21c, birthright israel, Avi Chai Foundation, Jewish Content, and soon-to-be-launched sites for The Jerusalem Post and The Jerusalem Report." -[4]

This short bio is taken from a page which seems to be describing the members constituting a working group set up by the European non-for-profit organization Minerva. It is consistent with the Koret Communications company's portfolio found on their website http://www.koret.com/.

Koret Communications is behind the French edition of the Jerusalem Post. Take the following steps to verify this matter:

1. Browse to the Jerusalem Post's main page: [5]. Scroll down to the bottom of the page. To the right of the heading "JPost Sites" you'll see a link to "JPost Français". Follow this link.
2. It's fair to say we're now at the official main page of the French edition of the Jerusalem Post. Scroll down to the bottom of that page. Click the link "Crédits". The first paragraph of this passage reads in translation: "The Jerusalem Post French Edition was conceived, developed [sic] by Koret Communications LTD which is also responsible for its maintenance. Every question or comment is to be addressed at producer@koret.com. In any technical problem contact: webmaster@koret.com"

According to Koret Communications' portfolio presented in their site, israelinsider is one of their projects. This is supported by the israelinsider site:

1. Browse to israelinsider's main page: [6] and scroll down to the bottom of the page.
2. The bottom line displays a copyright notice, reserving all rights to Koret Communications.
3. Clicking the "about" link brings you here, where you can read: "About Israel Insider [...] Israel Insider is published by Koret Communications Ltd., an Internet design and development company based in Tel Aviv, Israel."

There are also indications that Koret Communications is closely associated with the Avi Chai Foundation, which is responsible for the current Israeli "Tsav Pius" campaign and is strongly involved in the production of the current prime-time TV series "Merhak Negi'a".

Reviewing the projects in Koret Communications' portfolio, they do seem to be taking Jewish-Religious, a-priori-pro-Israel attitude. To illustrate the second point, the Israel Insider is described in the KC porfolio thus: "israelinsider [...] is committed to communicating balanced and accurate information about Israel, relating to her conflicts, and celebrating the successes, innovations and contributions of her people." Even ignoring the "celebrating the successes" etc. part of the sentence, the fact that Israel is referred to in English as "her" may be indicative of bias. However, even if Israel Insider has biased interpretation of the facts, it doesn't mean that its reporters don't get the facts rights in the first place (those they do choose to report about), and therefore their articles may be considered reliable sources of information.

To sum up. Israel Insider is produced by Koret Communications LTD, which is a notable firm that has managed significant projects, such as the development of the Africana.com site (in the past) and the production of the French edition of the Jerusalem Post (presently). Israel Insider seems to be tending to the Jewish-religious, and to be taking an a-priori sympathetic approach to Israel.

Does the fact that Israel Insider is produced by a big player such as Koret Communications mean that it's a popular and reliable source of information? I suggest to take this matter to some larger forum of Wikipedians in order to establish consensus. I suggest taking this to the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel. In fact, i'd like to request that they compile a (not exhaustive, and not binding) list of newspapers, magazines and organizations, whose publications can be used as reliable sources of information in Israel-related articles. Itayb 12:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good research. If you want to verify that it is indeed Mr. Koret responding, why don't you email him? By emailing the publication's editory ... you can send an email by going to "contact" on the publication's site?

As to Abu Ali's questions, 1) I'm not sure their street address is relevant unless he is going to visit -- if it is to verify who the sender is, he can also email the publication; 2) I don't see the relevance of the number of staff working on the website for inclusion in Wikipedia, and 3) do we require information as to how readership numbers are "audited" of any other source we cite in Wikipedia? I would guess not. I do think that these questions are starting to stray a little. --Epeefleche 13:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Koret here. Anyone who wants to contact me is welcome to do so at publisher@israelinsider. We are very interested in doing a wiki project on Israel and Jewish subject. I acquired Israelipedia.com for this reason, as well as Jewswiki.com, which is intended to be the user-content complement to another wholly owned site: Jewsweek.com.

Itay's research is partial but mostly correct. I should add that in addition to celebrating Israel's success we also vocally criticize her follies. As for calling Israel "her" -- I guess I think of the country more as a lady.... although I suppose that was just a momentary gloss.

We rely on HBX Analytics for our raw numbers. Nice system. Our Alexa rank floats between 60,000 and 90,000. Africana.com by the way is now AOL Black Voices.

We are a small company in the heart of Tel Aviv: a handful of people, privately funded. The opportunity to interact with pursuers of knowledge, whether supporters or critics, critical supporters or supportive critics, is my pleasure and livelihood. [Reuven Koret] Feb. 15, 17:49 Israel Time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.232.5.36 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

The map of a-Ram - admittedly biased, but i couldn't find an alternative

The map of a-Ram, which i gave a reference to, might well be challenged as politically biased. It appears on the site of the Israeli activist organization "B'Tselem", and depicts the Separation Barrier around a-Ram. My only excuse for linking to it is this: i could not find an alternative map of a-Ram anywhere else, neither online nor in the very detailed hard-copy maps of Israel i have at home. If anyone finds a more "neutral" map depicting a-Ram, please feel free to replace this reference. Itayb 22:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Two general comments on style

1. I would suggest that proper usage is for all footnotes to precede commas and periods (though they should follow semicolons).

2. The phrase "According to" is used repeatedly, and no doubt if citations are supplied for the rest of the article would be used even more. Query whether this is necessary or appropriate, where the reference is footnoted -- especially when there is no evidence of a different view as to the fact in question. No doubt, otherwise, we could start every sentence in this article, and others, with that lead-in, which might not add to ease of reading. --Epeefleche 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

1. There may be good reason to use the style you suggest, but i prefer to follow the explicit directive "Footnotes come after punctuation" (original emphasis) of Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes. If you think it goes against proper usage, please make this point in the guideline's talk page.

2. I agree with you. I've changed the style of this section. I hope you approve. Itayb 11:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

some things that got to be said

• In my opinion there is no need to put citation to state where did u get the arabic/hebrew name of mr. bishara nor where did u get the arabic name of A-Ram... The spelling of these names is right, why put a citation? just a thought.
• Why did u write that he lives in Nazareth as of February 2007? in all his biographies that i could find its stated that he lives in Nazareth.. although I know he used to live in Nazareth-Illit in 2000 (and i've passed near his house a couple of times) and i'm pretty much sure that he baught a house in Haifa in Hagefen street in 2002. nevertheless his biography at the knesset site states that he lives in Nazareth so i guess this is the "official address".
• Most sources doesn't mention the communist past of bishara but its a well known fact that he was a member in Maki (israel's communist party) till the late 80s. he could study in Eastern Germany becoz he was sent there by maki (many arabs from israel studies in communist states like that) etc...
• Bishara wasn't the first arab knesset member to go to syria Abd alwahab Darawshi his biograpgy at knesset site went first and the mid 90s and was not persecuted... Bishara went to syria several times since the late 90s to the 2000s and not just in 2006.
• כיסופים בארץ המחסומים:רסיסי סיפור (במקור: : وجد في بلاد الحواجر"

This is not true the original title is الحاجز: شظايا رواية

In overall you did a good job and all the facts in the article has a source

Histolo2 12:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

p.s. many of the facts i wrote here aren't documented in online sources, i think the only source you'll find is old arabic newspaper in israel which u won't find online. Histolo2 13:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Histolo2, i'll reply to the points you've raised in order.

• The spelling of these names is right, why put a citation? How can a reader, who's never read about Bishara before, know that the spelling is correct? And indeed what does it mean for a spelling of a name to be "right" or "correct"? The best we can do is refer the reader to reliable sources that spell out Bishara's name. Also bear in mind, that since this is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit, spelling mistakes may not be uncommon. It is reasonable to assume that the readers of the English Wikipedia can notice non-standard spelling of common English words and personal names, but when it comes to foreign words and personal names this assumption is no longer reasonable.
• Why did u write that he lives in Nazareth as of February 2007? in all his biographies that i could find its stated that he lives in Nazareth.. It is not incorrect to make the qualifaction "as of February 2007". Possibly a stronger claim can be made, such as: "Bishara owns a residence in Nazareth, where he has lived for the past XX years." But this claim should be documented in a reliable source, like all other claims in Wikipedia. I guess one could hint at the stronger claim even without an explicit source, by giving (say in the footnotes) a list of sources dated from significantly different times, all claiming he lives in Nazareth. But, in my opinion, we can't "connect the dots" ourselves and write, say, "he's been living in Nazareth for XX years", because that would be original research, which should be avoided. However, this is a subtle matter, and could be brought to a larger forum (say in Wikipedia talk:No original research) for further discussion.
• Most sources doesn't mention the communist past of bishara but its a well known fact that... Wikipedia has a strict policy of verifiability. If a fact is not documented in a reliable source, it should not be in an article.
• Bishara wasn't the first arab knesset member to go to syria It's not written that he was. However i'm not sure how relevant it is to mention other people's visits to Syria. If many people think that Bishara was persecuted, in your words, this view should probably be mentioned in the article for the sake of a neutral point of view, but note that it is not a point you should try and prove by bringing examples of previous cases that were treated pronouncly differently. All you can do in Wikipedia is quote claims already raised by other, reliable sources. So if you find such a source that says something like "Many people in Israel think that MK Bishara was persecuted in this case, and bring as evidence the case of MK Darawshi, who visited Syria during the '80 and was never prosecuted for it." However, even if you do bring such a source, it could still be challenged as biased due to the use of the very strong word "persecuted", which should be supported by likewise very strong arguments.
• Bishara went to syria several times since the late 90s to the 2000s and not just in 2006. I agree with you, this section is particularly incomplete, and you are welcome to add any missing detail.
• This is not true the original title is الحاجز: شظايا رواية As indicated, this title is taken from the catalog of the Jewish National and University Library (see [7]). If you think this information is false, please support your claim with evidence.
• many of the facts i wrote here aren't documented in online sources They don't have to be documented online, as long as they are documented in some reliable source (although i strongly favor online sources, as i explained in my message to Benwbrum of 08:35, 14 February 2007). Old Israeli newspapers in Arabic would do just fine (although maybe not quite any such newspaper), as long as they are archived by a public institution, like a library. Just give enough details so that they could theoretically be verified. Better yet, also replicate the exact quote. Best, provide a translation to English as well.

BTW, can you verify, or refute, the claim given in the article, that Bishara's bought a house in a-Ram? Itayb 14:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK certain points i wrote here were just to give you points of thinking and i know you need evidence to write things in wikipedia... i didn't write some of the "facts" i mentioned in arabic wikipedia becoz of that. Now:

• House in A-Ram: i remember reading about it in some newspaper will try to look for a reliable source... i think he does own a house there.
• the novel: i didn't check the citation for the original title, however both of us are right. according to this article The title is الحاجز: شظايا رواية الجزء الأول وجد في بلاد الحواجز. I think u can manage arabic... Anyhow the arabic version is salled under the name of الحاجز just check the links in my messege in arabic wikipedia.
• THe residence: when i edited his page in arabic this was a bit frusterated for me. I knew that he lived in Nazareth-Illit coz i remember driving next to his home ~ year 2000 and i remember seeing security guards (it was the same week when his house was attacked) and then i know many peaople saying (and very sure about it) that he lives now in Haifa. However, in the lack of documentauion of this and due to the fact that all the biographies i could find stated he lives in Nazareth i didn't change that fact. the arabs in israel are a small community (thats the feeling at least) and everybody knows everyone so i'm pretty sure of the fact that he lives in haifa but there is no evidence so it doesn't count.
• MK Darawshi: you misinterpretted this, I just wanted to say that this section lacks a lots of facts , especially that it starts in 2006. i mentioned MK Darawshi just by the way. But if u wanna know some other perspective about his visits there where claims raised that he was a messenger between Israel and Syria [8] [9] [10] the first is an interview with khaddam and in the latter article there is a mention of interviews (with dates) in which both bishara and yatom approved these claims, you can try and verify them. BTW i'm not sure if assenara is a very reliable source.
• BTW He had a kidney transplant, this is mentioned in hebrew wikipedia and in some knesset protocols just google for it in hebrew...
• The sources: A biography about Bishara has not yet been written. The only source of information we have is articles/news/interviews about him and some biographies that mainly lacks much information. I think if we had access to archive of local arabic newspaper we will have much more info.

Anyhow you're doing a great job meanwhile, writing a good article takes much time and effort but so far so good.

Histolo2 22:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. :) Now back to business...

• It is my understanding that وجد في بلاد الحواجز is either the first book of a trilogy named الحاجز..... شظايا رواية, or it's the other way around. Yet another possiblity is that one of these fragments is the main title and the other the secondary title. Can you please tell me if any of these possibilities is supported in the link you've supplied? Bishara's apparently already published the second book of the trilogy, Love in the Shadow Zone, in 2005. Can you verify this, please?
• The article mentions a book Bishara has supposedly written: The Palestinian Intifada and Its Reflections in the Israeli Public Opinion. This piece of information was entered by an anonymous user (85.250.10.17) in the revision of 09:20, 18 October 2005. I tried looking up this title in Yahoo, but i only checked the first couple of pages, which turned up nothing useful. Then i tried cross-searching the Muwatin database (in Arabic) for Azmi, Bishara and Intifada. It turned up a single entry: The Intifada and the Israeli Society. I wonder whether this is the title which the anonymous user had in mind. Bishara wrote or contributed to many books, which are not yet mentioned in the article. The only reason i obssess on this particular book is the notion that it might be available in English (or German or Hebrew). Do you know anything about it?
• Why is assenara not a reliable source? (It may be obvious to you, but i know nearly nothing about the Arab media.)
• Regarding Bishara's kidney translplant: it's mentioned in the Miscellaneous section. Perhaps it should be relocated to a more prominent position. Any suggestions? Itayb 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Novel: I didn't buy or read the book but according to the article[11], its a trilogy named الحاجز شظايا رواية and the first book is وجد في بلاد الحواجز. so i think the best thing is to keep the title in arabic just fix the typing error its حواجز and not حواجر. (i know that this mistake is from the library website)
• maybe the book is الإنتفاضة والمجتمع الإسرائيلي: تحليل في خضم الأحداث [12] BTW other than Muwatin publications he has published also a few books BTW you can check them through these 2 arabic online bookshops
• Assennara is a bit yellowish newspaper and the late editor in chief at the time wasn't in good relations with Bishara. Bishara himself had a column there in the 90s (before he went to politics). If you ask me I think that most of the things there are true but maybe a bit exaggerated. |ANyhow most of the stuff there aren't relavent for wikipedia except for the interview with khaddam, if i was in your place i would look for other verifications (of bishara's role in messeges between syria and israel) in hebrew media and would mention the interview with khaddam (some people -especially from balad- said that lotfi mashu'r (assennara editor in chief)isn't reliable but assennara renounced these claims)[13]
• I will leave you to decide whats best for the kidney transplant. BTW bishara and anar maor aer trying to make a law that will make organ donations easier [14] [15]. I once found a protocol of a discussion in the knesset website where someone says that Bishara himself had a transplant etc... didn't find it now but google for it if you are interested.
• A question: Do you know arabic? i assumed you did so i gave you lots of arabic resources but when i took a look at your page here i saw you aer level 0 in arabic... but from the other hand most of the articles you wrote are connected to arabic culture etc... so this makes me wonder.

Histolo2 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. It's all very helpful. :) As for my knowledge of Arabic, i guess 0.5 would be more appropriate than 0... I know enough to be able to understand an article's title (with the help of a dictionary), but not enought to be able to plow though the article itself. I hope by next year to be able to increment this figure by 1... Itayb 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird behavior experienced, trying to edit the "Early life" section

When i try to edit the "Early ife" section, i am presented with text from some previous revision. Does anyone experience the same problem? Do you know how to solve it? Itayb 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone had missed of a ref ending, have fixed it now SGGH 13:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

my reasons for deleting the quotation excerpted from the video interview

I've deleted the quotation excerpted from the video interview for the following reasons:

• It is a primary source, while "'Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." (Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources, original emphasis).
• I fear the quotation violate copyright. It is distributed under the CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 license, which implies the interview may not be altered, transformed, or built upon.

I welcome discussion about this move.

P.S. I've moved the reference to the interview to the "External Links" section. Itayb 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishara's resignation from the Knesset

No doubt the current developments in Bishara's are important and in due time will have to be mentioned in the article. But right now, they are nothing but descriptions of plans, expected future events and speculations regarding the background of these events. This is certainly newsworthy, and would surely be welcome in WikiNews. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not a news agency. An encyclopedia reports about well-established facts, not about speculated future events.

• There is no reason to change "he currently lives" to "lived until April 2007." There is no explicit statement in the cited sources that his leaving Israel is permanent, so this claim constitutes original research, which is deprecated in Wikipedia.

• The statement "a gag order prevents releasing details." This clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia.

• The following sentence is inappropriate: "Bishara planns to announce his resignation in a televised Al Jazeera interview from Jordan." An encyclopedia reports about facts and scientific theories; not about speculated future plans of individuals.

• The following sentence is inappropriate: "He submited his letter of resignation to the Knesset via one of his colleagues." The Ha'arets article states "Bishara will also send his letter of resignation to Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik following the Passover recess, later in the week." It also states: "Senior Balad officials stressed to Haaretz on Sunday that the resignation will be confirmed only if Bishara does in fact make the announcement." (my emphases) So the resignation is a speculated future event. It does not belong in an encyclopedia.

• As for Bishara's supposed escape to Jordan with his family. This formulation is both original research and biased.

The Jerusalem Post reports: "According to sources, Bishara left the country immediately following the allegations. The MK, who is currently staying in a Jordan hotel, has been overseas for nearly a week and a half. His family joined him in Jordan on Sunday." Escaped? To Jordan? Escaped with his family? I don't think so.

The Ha'arets reports: "The Balad chairman left Israel two weeks ago. He initially left for Qatar to serve as commentator for the Aljazeera TV network during the Arab Summit in Riyadh. He then flew to Amman, in order to promote the release of his latest novel. He plans to announce his resignation from Amman, and it is unclear when he intends to return to Israel." No escape. Not to Jordan. No family.

I request all editors to have a bit more patience. A few more days are all that's required before speculation become (or not) facts. Only then will they be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. In the mean time, there is WikiNews. Please also bear in mind: Wikipedia is not about truth; it's about explicit and direct attribution to reliable secondary sources (see the Attribution policy). Thanks. Itayb 10:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Zeq 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen

i've moved down the 3 versions of saying "azmi bishara" into a seperate section here: [16] so that the into would look more legible: [17] compared to [18]

regardless that it looks a tad better on Explorer, i can testify that there's a world of difference on Firefox - i think it's counter productive and clogs up the intro if 3 Listen files are placed like that. Jaakobou 11:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. No need to disrupt the structure of the reference sections, though; neither is there need to compromise direct attribution. I've tried to accommodate your worthy concerns for legibility with my concerns for direct attribution and good structure. Hope i've struck a good compromise. Itayb 12:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

i cleaned it a tad, the ref section is still a gigantic mess. so i must say i was and still am a bit surprised when you say "No need to disrupt the structure of the reference sections" - in my opinion, there's a great need to "disrupt" (i.e. organize) it. Jaakobou 13:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"gigantic mess"? Please explain. Itayb 13:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

compare it with the far cleaner Yasser Arafat article - and there's so much more info about arafat. Jaakobou 14:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Could indicate specific points you find troublesome? Itayb 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on it when i feel the itch to go there. Jaakobou 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Israeli Arab / Arab member of the Knesset

I don't think many people would presume the reasoning for the change by Number 57 from "Arab member of the Knesset" to "Israeli Arab" which was: "original phrasing could suggest some non-MK Arabs could have run." however, i do think that the change results in an ommission of information. Jaakobou 09:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What information does changing "Arab member of the Knesset" to "Israeli Arab" leave out? The article already mentions that he is an MK. It does not look right to say he was the first Arab Member of the Knesset to run for PM, and it does leave it open to suggestions that non MKs could (i.e. previously non-political public figures). Number 57 09:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Number57, you're right, it leaves open this possibility, and that's precisely why this possibility should remain open. By attempting to "close the gap" by drawing from your personal knowledge you are engaging in original research. Original research is deprecated in Wikipedia, because the ideal is that any reader should be able to verify the consistency of all information in Wikipedia without need for specialised knowledge, in this case this means without having to be familiar with the Israeli political system. Itayb 10:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research, it is obvious fact! Anyway, your edit summary is wrong; the text in question is not a quote (which should remain left untouched) but just a reference - there are no quotation marks. Also, be careful with your reverting - you put back the unnecessary text in the info box. Number 57 10:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I can't work out how the referencing system in the article works, so could you please replace the original reference for that with this BBC article that says Bishara was the first Israeli Arab to run for PM [19]. Thanks, Number 57 10:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not an obvious fact. Say A is the group of Arab MKs excluding Bishara, counting all Knessets; and say B is the total group of Arab/Palestinian Israelis, excluding Bishara. Then A is only a small part of B.

1. The reference states: No member of A ever ran for prime-minister

2. Your formulation states: No member of B ever ran for prime-minister.

These are very different statements. A does not imply B, (while B implies A). If you are trying to deduce B from A, you are synthesizing B from A and some (currently unidentified) external information. That's original research. Seriously. Itayb 10:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll replace the reference. I'll explain the referencing system in a moment. Itayb 10:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is another reference here saying he withdrew to help Barak win: [20]. Although the eventual margin of victory was quite large, it was a bit of a surprise at the time, and the three that withdrew would have probably got enough votes to force a second round. Number 57 15:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you're talking business. Now you can write about Bishara's reasons for withdrawing from the race, citing the reliable source. But please be sure not to present this as a fact: we don't know if this was in fact the reason Bishara withdrew from the race. All we know is that this what he said. Itayb 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image text

I don't see any point in the ommission of information (date, basic backgroud) from the image. Jaakobou 09:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Captions inside infoboxes just look bad. You definitely don't need the words "Image of", and the fact that he ran previously ran for PM is totally irrelevant to the picture (and slightly misleading as he withdrew his candidacy before the election). Number 57 09:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Number57. It also makes it appear as though that's the most important fact about Bishara, which is disputable. Itayb 10:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't quite get the "rv until dispute resolved" style of "resolving" conflicts. i do believe i placed the image and caption first, so it's basically enforcing an extra revert and a personal opinion. anyways, i don't have the time right now so i'm making a slight change to the image and later i'll discuss the Israeli MK thing from the intro - feel free to mess with the changes i'm making, although, it would be good if you give reasoning for the change here. Jaakobou 11:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the referencing system explained/defended

I agree the referencing system is untidy and inconsistent currently, but it is a far cry from a "gigantic mess", as Jaacobou's put it ([21]). It is i who created this referencing system. Bishara was the first article i edited seriously, and i was groping my way to find the best referencing system. The article reflects my experiments. I now have a much more solid idea of how a referencing system should look like. You can see a representative example at Pearse Jordan (look at the underlying code too, for both the references and the citations, and see how the footnotes look like). That's how i'd like the Bishara article to be, too.

(More in an hour or so)...

Itayb 11:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not having a go, but I really don't understand why there is a need to separate the notes and references - it just seems like two steps for doing one thing. If you look at a featured article such as Ipswich Town F.C., notes sections are just used for making quick points in the text, whilst all the references are in the references section. Number 57 11:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(continuing...) Basically the referencing system i prefer is the one described here. It consists of 1. a References section, listing all the works in alphabetical order, and 2. inline citations in the form of footnotes, gathered in a Notes section. (Footnoting is the least obtrusive method available in Wikipedia to do direct inline citation, and i espouse the widely supported Attribution policy proposal, in that i believe that "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." (original emphasis))

Additionally, every item in the References section is enclosed in a "wikicite" template, and all footnote citations are enclosed in a "wikiref" template. This way, when a reader clicks the citation, the page automatically jumps to the corresponding reference.

Number57 asked: "why there is a need to separate the notes and references". There are (at least) three good reasons for this separation:

1. The same online source may be cited from on different dates. Each time it is cited, the date of access corresponding to that citation should be noted. To see why this is important, please consider the Gullible.info example i've added to the Factoid page. Readers accessing the Guardian article on April 27 2006 would have been seen a slightly, but significantly, different article than readers accessing the same article via the same link today. (Yet another, more recent, example of this phenomenon, known as "scrubbing", is described in this Regret the Error posting.)
2. Sometimes you want to cite the same reference, but with different supplementary remarks, such as the page number from which you quote something. If you put the full reference in the footnotes, you need to repeat it everytime you cite it with a different supplementary text.
3. Separating the full reference from the citation makes for shorter citations, and this is more convenient for editors. When a sentences you're editing gets interrupted in the middle by a long citation, it's difficult to keep track of the main sentence.

As for how to format the references: i tend to follow the MLA style.

As i wrote before, the article Pearse Jordan is currently a good example for the way this system is supposed to work. Itayb 13:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to your arguments for using your system:

1. Normal referencing can also cite the same online source from different dates (see the Ipswich Town F.C. article mentioned above), and would use the same amount of space in the notes/references sections.
2. I don't think it's a big deal to write out a reference twice - copy and pasting takes 10 seconds!
3. It is only convenient for the very small number of editors who understand the system (which I still don't). Whilst it can be annoying to see a sentance split up by a long reference citation, what is more important (and I will bold this because it so very important) is that using this methodology on this article has meant that it is virtually impossible for an average wikipedia editor to add references to the article (as Jaakobou and myself have commented today). Even after the explanation and going through the edit history, I still can't really fathom it. It also has the problem of when you click on a reference, for some of them you then have to scroll down some more (remembering the code letters) to the actual reference to see what it is as it is not linked to the references section (e.g. for FRE). The normal referencing system is so much easier to use; we are not all so advanced!

As for the Pearce Jordan article, I don't think using § is a good idea - how many people without knowledge of the legal system will understand what it means (I just had to look it up!) Number 57 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

1.

(a) The current referencing system is normal. There are many kinds of normal. For instance, there are at least five normal approaches to academic referencing: AMA, APA, MLA, Chigago, Turabian. The referencing system i've described is used in the "real world" (with a slight variation: the citations are inline rather than in the footnotes as here), for instance in Steven Muchnick's "Advanced compiler design and implementation" and Dorit Hochbaum's (editor) "Approximation algorithms for NP-Hard problems".

(b) I've looked at the Ipswich Town F.C. article. There are many references there. Could you please be more specific and point out specific numbers of references exemplifying your claim?

2. So we agree that the scheme i described is more efficient.

3.

(a)You say you don't understand the scheme used in the Bishara article, but you find the scheme used in the Ipswich article easy? I find it hard to believe. It seems to me you haven't really looked at the underlying code that goes on there. Please do, and then report back to me. When you do so, i'm sure you will also fully appreciate what i was referring to in point 3.

(b)It is not enough to apply bold font and use vague statistical terms to make a claim stick. In any case, creating a coherent and professional referencing scheme is not a trivial matter. Are you aware that the whole Ipswitch references scheme was created by only two editors, as you can easily verify by browsing the history page?

As for the funny letter you've seen in the Pearse Jordan article, the whole point is, it was used with respect to a source, which is a legal document. Anyhow, it has nothing to do with the referencing scheme.Itayb 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, i'd like to stress, that i don't think the current Bishara references section is good. The reason i mentioned the Pearse Jordan article is to show how the scheme works when it is applied consistently, but in the Bishara case, it is applied only semi-consistently. Practically speaking, you can add references any way you like; i'll make sure to format them properly. You can even simply insert a link inline and leave it at that. I'll do the rest. Itayb 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving Wikipedia for a while, maybe forever. Goodbye!

I'm leaving Wikipedia for a while, maybe forever. Goodbye!

Balad leader

The phrasing in the first paragraph suggests that when he resigned from the Knesset, he also resigned as head of Balad. To my knowledge, he is still party leader. Does anyone else have any info? Number 57 08:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting external link

I strongly object to Jauerbach's deleting my external link to a blog post I wrote about Azmi Bishara during the recent spy scandal [22]. My blog is an authoritative, well-source publication about the Israeli-Arab conflict. The link I provided benefits me in no way commercially or otherwise. My blog was the sole source for information about the spy scandal anywhere at a time when Israeli publications could not publish in any detail about the matter due to censorship rules. The blog post contains information I received fr. Israeli journalists in confidence. The purpose of adding this link was to provide a source for Wikipedians who wish to read more in depth background on this incident. I hope that anyone who has a problem with this link will communicate further with me about this before reverting it.Richard (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Richard and Roland, but you're both wrong. This link is interesting and may be valuable, but it still comes with zero fact checking since it's not from 'professionals' in the field. I cannot parse out what the Italian source is saying and whether it's the same thing you want to add, it may be possible to add the information, but not the way you're doing it. PR^talk 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Citizen

I changed the opening sentence to something that makes more sense. I feel it's unneccesary to state that he's both an MK and a Citizen. To the best of my knowladge, MKs must be Israeli citizens, and this is something normal in most countries. Can we remove the sentence "Bishara holds an Israeli citizenship"? Cumulus (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Writings section

if at all this is needed it should be an encyclopedic mention of the themes he touches on, perhaps name a few major books and the controversy/theme of those. Right now it reads like an attempt to merge external links (which they are) into the article to get by w/o violation WP:EL. As for the book list, it reads like an advert to make a sale for these books, as well as [possibly] blending in Further readings into the article. Could use a cleanup for sure. Lihaas (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The claim that Azmi Bishara was stripped of his citizenship on November 21, 2008 is an OUTRIGHT LIE

This is an utter falsehood. It is claimed that this came from the Hebrew version of Maariv, but obviously someone either does not know how to read Hebrew or misinterpreted the text out of malicious intent.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Azmi Bishara admitted there is "no Palestinian nation" in a 1996 video

From article linked below:

Bishara, who resigned from the Knesset and fled the country in 2007 just when Israeli Security Services were ready to arrest him on charges of treason and espionage, is shown in the video reiterating his Arab nationalist position that there is no such thing as a “Palestinian” people. Yehuda Katz, who leads ZFA in the largely anti-Israel Bay Area of northern California, told Israel National News that people should really investigate the basic claims of the Middle East conflict before expressing strong opinions.“History did not start in 1967. We, the modern day Hebrews, have almost a 4,000 year old history and an uninterrupted presence in our homeland for over 3,300 years. The Palestinian nation was invented in the 1960s by Yassir Arafat and Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu in an attempt to erase our history and steal our land. These facts cannot be ignored any longer. ‘Palestine’ was initially a foreign colonialist concept invented by the Romans who massacred, exiled and enslaved the Jewish people. It is not an authentic Arab identity.” and steal our land. These facts cannot be ignored any longer. ‘Palestine’ was and steal our land. These facts cannot be ignored any longer. ‘Palestine’ was initially a foreign colonialist concept invented by the Romans who massacred, exiled and enslaved the Jewish people. It is not an authentic Arab identity.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/134659 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.125.129.43 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

He was indicted for treason, and fled the country as a wanted fugitive.

Why is the beginning of the article worded in a way that ignores his INDICTMENT for treason & that he fled his native country to avoid criminal prosecution for said crimes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.125.129.43 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

#

How come no picture?

See French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.102.232.132 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azmi Bishara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120085000/http://info.jpost.com/1999/Supplements/Elections99/candidates/bishara2.shtml to http://info.jpost.com/1999/Supplements/Elections99/candidates/bishara2.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/837/op2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New Modifications

Hi all, I have made a major modification to the article depending on different sources (some of them are close to Bishara and other are not), knowing that using some close sources to trust some basic information (i.e. his life and career) is not forbidden! Also, I have removed the info boxes at the upper due to the modifications i have done. If there is any comments please write it here before undoing my modifications.--Zeidan87 (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not an improvement - it currently reads like an advert. Treating "head of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies" as a political office is likewise stretching it.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:, I think the right way to deal with my modifications is to discuss before undoing my edits! If you have any comments, or if you see some information/paragraphs are written as an advert, so, specify please, and I can modify it to meet the polices. If you have comments regarding the info box (political office), it can be changed. but it is not fair to undo ALL MY EDITS!--Zeidan87 (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zeidan87: - it is questionable whether you can edit this article at all per ARBPIA's 500/30 restriction (which definitely applies to large parts of the article). Quite a bit of the content you added was highly promotional.Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Some of the edits also use Wikipedia's voice in a way that violates NPOV - it is possible to state these attributed to Bishara (or someone else), but not as fact. There were also outright factual errors (e.g. PM/president mixups). Looking at the individual edits you entered - each and everyone of them had issues.Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thank you.. But again, I can modify the texts that you or anybody else feels it is a promotion! but I can't do that while you are undoing my edits and without telling me the texts that are like "promotion"! plz, don't just say that it is a "Promotional" whitout telling me "in specific" where is the problem. Any other "Clear" comments is welcomed for sure, and can handle it to be agreed with the polices. I prefer to retrieve my version, and to modfiy it upon the comments that you will mention in details.--Zeidan87 (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zeidan87: You're not actually allowed to edit this article as per the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 rule. However, I agree that your changes were quite problematic. I happened across the Bishara article yesterday and was planning to come back to start cleaning it up as there were numerous issues, including using copyrighted images and making claims like "He was the most prominent Arab member to represent the Arab citizens of Israel in the Israeli parliament". Number 57 12:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thank you for your comment. So, How I can fix the content as per the mentioned comments if it is not allowed for me to edit this article??! I can do all the needed modifications to mach the polices. But what is the "Allowed" way? how can I use this Talk page and make edit requests to edit the content (as mentioned in the exceptions for the 500/30 rule)?--Zeidan87 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zeidan87: You can list the changes that you want to make here on the talk page, or write a suggested version in your sandbox (I can copy your previous version there if you want) and link to it from here for comment and possibly let others edit it there. Although it's a good length biography, there are numerous issues that need to be addressed – copyright violations, peacock language, factual errors and NPOV violations – which will take some time to sort out. Potentially once a version that everyone is happy with has been created, it can be transferred to the article itself by someone who can edit it. Number 57 15:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I noticed your version seems to be a translation from the ar.wiki Bishara article. These problems also need addressing there (most pressingly the copyright violation of using the Balad logo). Number 57 15:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank u @Number 57:, I'll do that and post the link here, I'll try my best to handle the mentioned problems.--Zeidan87 (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, as per @Number 57:, I have copied the modified article to my sandbox page, I have splitted the article into 3 parts (to make it easy for reveiwing), I have modified Part 1 and Part 2 as per the above mentioned comments. Please take a look and advice if there are any new comments. I'll continue in Part 3 accordingly.--Zeidan87 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57:, I did what you have suggested, but nobody give any review for the modifications. Can u have a look at Part 1 & Part 2 and transfer them to the article of it is OK?--Zeidan87 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zeidan87: I'll try and have a look on Sunday. Number 57 17:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: thank you for your help, I have also modified Parts 3, 4, and 5. Please have a look.

@Number 57: Did u have a look? thanks.--Zeidan87 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Israeli allegations against Azmi

@Icewhiz: your reverts undid a change to the Israeli allegations against him, and Azmi's response to them. Don't see any mention of that in your edits, so I will restore it. Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - you've removed quite a bit of what he was charged with (note that stripping of immunity is a semi-judicial process). I suggest you return the text you reverted (including stripping of immunity and fleeing from IsraeL), and add Bishara has long denied the allegations and says he will not return to Israel as he believes he will not receive a fair trial..Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

These are allegations/suspicions, he was not actually convicted. The whole paragraph is not fit to be there but I kept parts of it only to give an explanation to the abrupt ending of his career as an MK. Al-Andalusi (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is beyond that. He was stripped of immunity - and has become an international fugitive - we typically do mention charges against fugitives (particularly in jurisdictions where a trial can not be performed in absentia - as is the case here). Furthermore he is (or was at the time) a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. The charges are clearly relevant, well sourced, an meet relevant policy.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you've restored troubling content despite not reaching agreement. You say "international fugitive", yet we have no record of an international arrest warrant for Azmi. He roams the world freely as we speak. The language of the content you added violates NPOV. First, you mention Israeli "investigation for" this and that. The word alleged is not there. The word "enemy" is used liberally here, as if Israel's enemies are also Wikipedia's enemies. Define enemy here. And then you used "he fled Israel", suggesting that he was in fact guilty, and even aware about it. I suggest you change the wording. I will ask the BLP board on this paragraph because it is fishy. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't "delivery of information to the enemy" actually the name of the crime supposedly committed? "enemy" here is not subjective, it's simply the name of an offence. For instance, in the UK we have a law called "Trading with the Enemy Act". Number 57 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That is the title of the actual offense - clause 111 of the Israeli penal code (which I believe is to a large part patterned on the pre-1948 UK law). He was also charged with clause 99 which is more serious ("assitance to the enemy" - literal title) - which is one of 6 offenses listed under treason (clauses 97-103). It is fairly NPOV to state that Israel and Hezbollah are enemies - but in any event this is what he was charged with.Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Then put that in quotes. Here how his visits are covered by one news organization: "Bishara has previously made solidarity visits to countries such as Syria and Lebanon, which Israel designates as its enemies". The text you added does not have this kind of neutrality. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A source known for impartial reporting, no doubt. Reuters says he is accused of treason by Israel [23].Icewhiz (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Per your source:

1. "Israeli police said they suspected Bishara of committing acts of treason and espionage
2. Under Israeli law...
3. Hezbollah, which Israel considers an enemy'...

These are all attributions back to Israeli sources. They are not stated as facts, something that your content is doing. Don't act like you are clueless. You know very well what I mean. Address the issues raised earlier, or risk the paragraph getting removed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This was already qualified in the article, and was NPOV. However, since many readers are not familiar with the Israeli penal code I condenses this to "for acts of alleged treason and espionage", and expanded a bit in the next sentence on the money transfers (which is what the money laundering charge was about - it has become a charge that is thrown at any criminal case where money allegedly changes hands).20:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The Israeli allegations constitute a BLP violation given that Azmi was not convicted in a court. So having that material in the lede is questionable to begin with. Not to mention, there is an undue amount of weight given to the Israeli allegations mentioning each and every detail from the Israeli side. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Edits by Zeidan87

I was contacted by Zeidan87 to help incorporate some of the changes he's made to this article in his sandbox after reviewing them. I started with a non-controversial change: changing the infobox, but was reverted minutes later by Number_57. While I do appreciate the reasoning made, that his MK status is the most significant one, I do not agree with replacing a much better formatted infobox that provides much more information about a person by one that may be well suited for one-off MKs. --Fjmustak (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that you disagree, but these infoboxes are used for pretty much every MK except those that later became Prime Minister; I have just checked Category:Arab politicians in Israel, and every single Arab MK, past and present, uses this infobox. And just to clarify, the MK one was not replacing the other one, it was the other way round. Number 57 18:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The Knesset infobox doesn't have much info, and I don't see what's so special about it. It is currently missing these fields which are provided by Fjmustak's alternate infobox: Citizenship, Nationality, Education, Awards, Children, Relatives, and Website. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

He's primarily notable for being an MK, so it's the appropriate infobox. Removing it would leave it inconsistent with other articles on similar subjects. Number 57 17:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the MK box should be improved in general - but this is what he is known for (subequent position in a smallish thinktank is not significant) and contains important information regarding when he served as a MK.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

He was an MK 11 years ago, and since then he has grown into a different person. As I told Icewhiz elsewhere, he is now known for a lot more things than what happens in that Knesset shithole. I think it's time that Israelis accept that and move on. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, well I think we can all see your agenda now. You may also want to check the nationality of other editors before saying silly things like this. Number 57 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about what you see quite frankly. You are trying way too hard, to the extent of willing to violate 1RR, just so you impose this MK infobox, when Bishara left that position more than a decade ago (plus, he gives no shit about that job anyway). Too bad Azmi is of no use to your "But it's not an apartheid...because we have Arab MKs" argument. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't violated 1RR. And if you continue with this type of soapboxing then it's likely that you'll end up being topic banned, so I'd suggest reigning it in. Number 57 20:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Admin on a power trip? Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ("we can all see your agenda now"). Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Number 57, Al-Andalusi, and Fjmustak: Who can improve the MK box here and solve this time consuming issue!? I have the modified article at my sandbox since about one week and still I'm waiting somebody to reveiw it and move it to the article if it has no more comments. --Zeidan87 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Zeidan87, I didn't get round to it last week. I will try and do it this Sunday. Number 57 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Zeidan87, I'll continue to incorporate your improvements to the article whenever I have some time. It won't be all at once. As for the infobox, it would be nice to expand it (MK or not), but I doubt I'll be able to do that myself. --Fjmustak (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank u Fjmustak and Number 57 for your help, I'll be waiting your comments.--Zeidan87 (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear All, it's now more than 3 weeks and still I'm waiting my edits to be reviewed and moved to the article!! Is that what the 500/30 rule states?? After how many weeks I must wait?--Zeidan87 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You can't edit this article until you have made 500 edits, so if you want to be able to edit this article, start working on other articles that aren't related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, multiple edits in a short space of time will be deemed to be gaming the system. Number 57 22:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Because of that I hope that one of u help me in that.-Zeidan87 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably the best way to deal with the infobox issue to everybody's satisfaction is using a {{{module}}} parameter, which allows combining infoboxes. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Something like this, but polished: Template:Infobox member of the Knesset

@Bellezzasolo: This is a great option, thank u. If u don't mind to check the DRAFT edits I suggest to the article at my sandbox and move that edits if u have time too. Thanks in advance.--Zeidan87 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Are you happy with the infobox looking like this? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Request to EDIT the article

I'm adding here a request to edit the page according to the DRAFT edits I have done at my sandbox page. -Zeidan87 (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You're not allowed to edit this article either directly or by proxy. Number 57 15:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The proposed lede in the sandbox contains a factual error - he was not stripped of his immunity prior to leaving Israel in 2007. He was stripped of immunity in the past (in 2001 due to travelling to an enemy state, Syria, and the contents of his speech there), however this was on a separate case and the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the stripping of his immunity (case 11225/03) as it deemed his actions as material to carrying out his role as an MK. His immunity possibly facilitated leaving Israel in 2007 while under investigation (though possibly authorities were content in him leaving) - regardless he had immunity when he left.Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: I wasn't trying to edit the article using that proxy!!! I was using it for another reason!! I don't know why u have removed the request template?? If u don't have enough time to review it, plz let another editors to do that.. @Icewhiz: I have fixed that in the introduction, plz let me know any further comments.-Zeidan87 (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To be clear. You cannot edit the article, and you cannot ask someone else to edit the article on your behalf. This is why I removed the edit template. Your draft will be reviewed when editors with an interest in this article have time. Number 57 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"and you cannot ask someone else to edit the article on your behalf" reference to which policy!? I'm following the 500/30 rule that stats clearly "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area".. PLEASE don't remove the template again!--Zeidan87 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realise that; I'm quite surprised it's allowed, as it's basically gaming the restriction. Anyway, for anyone responding to the request, I'd strongly suggest that the requested edit is not made. The draft version still needs a lot of work before being copied over. Currently only the introduction and first section of the "Early life and education" part have been properly reviewed. Prior to being reviewed, these two relatively small sections contained numerous factual errors and in many cases the references did not support the claims being sourced and had to be removed or replaced. Every section needs a proper review before being put into mainspace. Number 57 23:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank u, Actually, I need that review to be done to be able to modify it and clear any existing errors.-Zeidan87 (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: After reviewing the draft in Zeidan87's sandbox, I would not be inclined to accept the proposed text at this time. While there are many improvements in the sandbox version, there are also potential WP:BLP deficiencies that need to be addressed. Further specifics will be detailed at User talk:Zeidan87/sandbox. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

This is a re-post of the earlier edit request (see above) made over six months ago by Zeidan87. The proposed edits were posted a while back at User:Zeidan87/sandbox and have been little reviewed by the community. Apart from comments by Eggishorn, the proposed draft has been dismissed upon few, unspecific remarks and is yet to be properly resolved. I am re-opening this discussion at the request of user Zeidan87 --Abbad (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

I just came to the second sentence in the "Introduction" part: "As per the Guardian, for many years, Bishara was one of the most figures representing the Arab citizens of Israel."

My 2 cents: This simply doesn't make much sense to me; the English needs some serious improvement before we can even think of introducing it (not to mention that I could not find the reference), Huldra (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The draft isn't acceptable and the claim above that it was "dismissed upon few, unspecific remarks" is simply untrue if you read the section above. When I last reviewed the draft in Zeidan's sandbox on 22 February, I noted (see above) that it contained numerous factual errors (for instance, he didn't run for Prime Minister in 1999 – he considered it, but was not on the ballot) and in many cases the cited sources did not support the claims being made. Since then Zeidan has done nothing to the draft except change the wording of the introduction (removing most of the relevant content about his political career and adding the gobbledegook sentence Huldra mentions) and add some stuff to the infobox.[24] Given the poor state of the draft and the amount of time it would need for someone to go through it and check every source, this is not going to be resolved quickly. However, I'll try and have a look at it again in the next few days and feel free to ping me if I haven't edited the sandbox version. Number 57 22:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Another problematic claim...

In the article there's a citation from D.Friedmanns book regarding Bishara. "he called for promoting the armed struggle ("The resistance") against Israel". Now, prof' Friedmann as far as I know, isn't fluent in Arabic, and has no intelligence background; yet, someone chose Friedmann's interpretation instead of Bishara's own words. What I find quite ironic is that the quote itself unravels the manipulation Friedmann allows himself to do to Bishara's words ("resistance" turns to "armed struggle"). The fact is that the Israeli supreme court has examined (2 years after the mentioned unlawful declaration) allegations against Bishara regarding support of armed struggle against the state, and Bishara been cleared of all allegations. I suggest deleting the citation.Dovole (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This is sourced to an Oxford University Press book - that addresses the rulings by the Israeli supreme court - by one of leading academics in the field. The supreme court did not rule that Bishara did not say this - the supreme court ruled that this was protected speech by a MK (who receive very wide immunity, in Israeli law, for their speech). As noted in the book, the ruling in the supreme court (the majority opinion - by Barak) said It should be said immediately, that we accept that the actions attributed to MK Bishara in the matter of rejecting the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state and in the matter of supporting the armed struggle against it stand at the center of his goals and actions, and they constitute for him a dominant objective. Furthermore, these actions are not a theoretical idea, but rather a political potential that MK Bishara as taken from theory into practice in ongoing activity, and with great force". Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Have to admit I feel we're getting lost in translation (mind the double meaning).Icewhiz, Friedmann is a an authority when it comes to Civil law, not in translating arabic, most certainly not in translating intentions. Friedmann also is a political figure from the 70's and 2000's. There are mistakes even in Oxford Uni' Press books, especially when a researcher considered authority not in his field of research. Israelis cannot run for Parliament seat after calling to an "armed struggle" against Israel. Bishara's remarks are from 2001. They had been widely known at that time, yet Bishara was elected member of Knesset in later elections of 2003 and 2006, and that's only after a supream court ruling.

Please remove the misleading, bias and manipulated quote.Dovole (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Friedman (who is one of the leading academics in the field) is quoting the Supreme court's verdict. I suggest that instead of WP:OR you present [[WP:RS]}es. Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not original research that's simply making sense chronologically (the quote is from 2001. Bishara been elected in 2003 and 2006 elected, cleared of allegation by the supreme court) , you're misleading, in his quote Friedmann has no supreme court to rely on, hence there's no citation of a verdict case!Dovole (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably I shouldn't comment without spending more time in research, but if this is reference to HCJ 11225/03 some of the claims above do not match the actual judgment very well. An official English translation is here. According to the majority judgment, Bishara expressed support for Hezbollah but did not express support for an armed struggle by Hezbollah against Israel. The entire judgement is based on this distinction. Friedmann might have a different opinion on what Bishara called for, but if he claims support from the Supreme Court for "called for promoting the armed struggle" he is claiming the opposite of what the court ruled. Zero^talk 22:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: - wrong court decision. It is 11280/02 (the 11 judge panel one). Full ruling in Hebrew - here. Untranslated quote (which I quoted above in English from Friedman) - clause 45 in Barak's majority opinion - ייאמר מיד: מקובל עלינו כי המעשים המיוחסים לח"כ בשארה לעניין שלילת קיומה של מדינת ישראל כמדינה יהודית ולעניין תמיכה במאבק מזויין נגדה מונחים במרכז מטרותיו ופעולותיו של ח"כ בשארה, והם מהווים יעד שליט של ח"כ בשארה. זאת ועוד: מעשים אלה אינם רעיון תאורטי, אלא פוטנציאל פוליטי שח"כ בשארה הוציא אותו מהכוח אל הפועל, בפעילות חוזרת ונשנית, ומתוך עוצמה רבה.. Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No, right court decision. In case 11280/02 the words you quote are present in Para. 45, but Baraq is making a statement for which in the very next sentence he asks if the evidence is "compelling, clear and unequivocal". In the following paragraph, Baraq judges that "we have not been presented with evidence which, in its weight and strength, fulfils the required test. ... We have not been persuaded that we have convincing and unequivocal evidence that MK Bishara supports an armed struggle against the State of Israel, but we can not ignore the considerable material that has been submitted to us. But we must not deny that there is doubt in our hearts, and this doubt must act - in a democratic country that seeks freedom and liberty - in favor of freedom to vote and be elected." Any quotation of the charges must be accompanied by mention that the High Court found the evidence sufficiently unconvincing that they overturned the Elections Committee's disqualification of him. If Friedmann doesn't mention it, that's proof Friedmann is not a reliable source. You don't have to rely me for a correct summary of 11280/02 either, because in case 11225/03 Baraq summarises 11280/02 himself: "As the court held in Central Elections Committee for the Sixteenth Knesset v. Tibi, [i.e. 11280/02] the petitioner’s [i.e. Bishra's] speeches did not contain clear support for an armed struggle of a terrorist organization against the State of Israel, although they did contain support for a terrorist organization." Zero^talk 09:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the distinction made by Barak in 11280/02 was that while there was support for armed struggle and for a terrorist organization, there wasn't sufficient evidence for support for a specific armed struggle by a specific terror organization. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no support at all in the judgements for that interpretation. Looking at the sentences quoted in isolation it sounds like Baraq is agreeing with the charges against Bishara. But when the following sentences are added, it becomes clear that Baraq is stating that "the actions attributed to MK Bishara" (i.e. the charges against Bishara put before the court) would indeed be a serious breach but that the court must decide if those charges have been proved. Then he goes on to write that the majority of the court is not convinced that the charges have been proved. Zero^talk 23:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz has no "תום לב" (decency in our case). He clearly understand the supreme court isn't positively rule Bishara's called for an armed struggle (in 2001), as Bishara candidacy been allowed in 2003 and 2006... If Icewhiz claim the court couldn't positively determine Bishara's call isn't inciting armed struggle, then we cannot judge ourselves and rely on a misleading quote from a non expert in the field (and bias) like Friedmann, we can only cite Bisharas own words which even Friedmann admits in the same quote aren't "armed struggle" but "resistance".Dovole (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

We may even quote Bishara from case 11280/02, but certeinly not the Friedmann quote.Dovole (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Friedman is a WP:RS even if it conflict with your version of WP:TRUTH --Shrike (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

For Israeli civil law, not for his Arabic translations! The quote itself reveals Friedmann had to jam the message...Dovole (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

He didn't translate anything he quoted Levin--Shrike (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

And we cannot quote Levin so Friedmann is a mere tool laundering a bias claim.Dovole (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I will also note that understanding مقاومة in the context of Hezbollah's مقاومة is not so much a matter of translation but rather of context - which is rather obviously clear - just as the meaning French Resistance would be clear to any student of history. Regardless - we have a source placing this in context. Icewhiz (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Tell that to Barak and the מותב השופטים that jointly ruled Bishara hasn't violated section א7...Dovole (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact is that the High Court ruled twice that there was insufficient evidence that Bishara called for an armed struggle of a terrorist organization against Israel. There is no doubt about this whatever, and the two court judgements are the best possible sources. Icewhiz's original interpretations and misleading quotations count for nothing, and Shrike's argument that we should insert something we know to be false because we can find a source that asserts it is an attack on the integrity of the encyclopedia as well as a severe BLP violation. Incidentally it is very easy to find secondary sources regarding the court cases. Here, for example, we read "Justice Aharon Barak ruled that the state failed to prove that Bishara's statements constituted support in the armed struggle of a terror organization, as required by law, unlike supporting a terror organization by praising it or expressing sympathy.". Zero^talk 23:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Zero, I suggest you'll remove the Friedmann quote (I can not edit due to my beginner status (in military Hebrew it'd be called PAZAM issue)), and we'll agree on a clear(er) version of the court rule regarding Bishara Knesset candidacy , as current version emphasis the central election committee decision and the minority rule.23:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)