Talk:Avigdor Lieberman

POV discussion

This section (Best known in Israel for ...) is clearly POV - comments, anybody? The preceding unsigned comment was originally added by Danielcohn.

Please be more specific. Quote the POV part exactly, if you will. --Chodorkovskiy 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article that quoted someone saying that Lieberman is a racist should not be there since this position is same as Hamas and many other Arabs vis a vis the Jews. No one says that they are racists so samthing should be done with Lieberman.

He has recently generated harsh reactions also by demanding the execution of Arab MKs [1] who meet with Hamas officials.

He demanded Arab MKs to be tried, not executed as stated in the article.

I strongly object to the first paragraph as written (the one which describes Lieberman's "transfer" plan for Israeli Arabs) as it contains no balancing statement from the many Israeli political leaders who object to Lieberman's plan. I have written a 2nd paragraph which provides some of that balance. If anyone tinkers with my 2nd paragraph I will want to know why. If it is changed or removed I will register a POV dispute about this article.

I removed the passage "and transfer their sovereignty to a future Palestinian state" because there is no concrete indication that this will ever happen beyond rhetoric. Furthermore, Liberman has no desire to help create a Palestinian state, from here http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2811 There is also little mention of his constituency, and no mention of his critics often calling him a "fascist". Kareem

Karim, you are mistaken - Lieberman accepts the inevitability of some sort of Palestinian state (as opposed to Likud party, which for some reason is considered more to the left then Yisrael Beitenu), and his plan - call it rhetoric if you will - advocates exactly what you have removed. As for people calling him names, there is not a single polician on left or right that has been spared such slurs as "Nazi" or "fascist", and it should never be a part of a neutral article. Eliyyahu 23:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Eliyyahu, you bring up two points. With the issue of the Palestinian state, I refer you to his recent statement of which I posted the link above. Surely one who describes destroying the infrastructure of a territory in such detail has no interest in building a state, beyond lip service. And this is not the first time he makes sucj statements. Secondly, there is a difference between calling someone a Fascist and a Nazi. Calling an Israeli politician a Nazi would be a slur, yes, although fascism is a political ideology that befits Liberman's thinking. And while you may be right that no politician has been spared "slurs", fascism is quite a different thing. In fact, it is a very real concern that some Western democracies are creeping into that ideology. I refer you to Wikipedia's definition of Fascism. --Kareem najjar 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kareem, the Yisrael Beitenu website clearly states their program (http://www.beytenu.org.il/content.asp?NID=2&CID=9) - unfortunately available only in Hebrew and Russian, but if I can translate it if you like. It states that there will be a permanent border with the Palestinians based on whether the majority of population is Arab or Jewish in a given area. According to the programme, Arab towns transfered to Israel by Jordan in 1949 will be given up by Israel and become part of a future Palestinian state in exchange for retaining Jewish settlement blocs. Lieberman is the author of this plan, and whether he changed his views or not, this is still his party's platform and therefore should be properly reflected in our website description.

The wikipedia definition of "fascism" is not academically reliable. These words have lost their meaning, with everyone left and right calling each other names (cf. Islamofascism). The Oxford English Dictionary defines "fascism" as "the totalitarian principles and organisation of the extreme right-wing in Italy". It also notes that the loose use in the sense of "any system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views" is considered unacceptable by some people. Therefore, even if Lieberman was either authoritarian or extreme right-wing, it would have been questionable to call him a fascist, but since his position on a Palestinian state is to the left of the Likud or the National Union (Yihud Le'umi), he is best identified as a right-wing secular Zionist.Eliyyahu 05:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points, however: whether or not the party platform states that there should be a future Palestinian state, the article is about Avigdor Liberman, not the Yisrael Beitenu party platform. Given your point, it seems imperative that a distinction should be made between what he states and what his party's platform is. Again, I refer you to the links I had mentioned earlier. In addition, as I mentioned before, it is highly unlikely that a Palestinian state will be formed anytime in the future. If the sentence should come back, it should perhaps come back as "future theoretical Palestinian state". but since the facts on the ground are what they are, it does not make sense to have it in there. Perhaps the term "fascism" has lost its meaning in a general sense, yet it still is a political ideology that is associated with certain parties or movements. your example of Islamofascism is not a good one in my opinion, because as the link you provided states, it is a neologism and not necessarily a political ideology per se. It is more of a bigoted, almost nonsensical statement in line with calling someone a Nazi. --Kareem najjar 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Kareem, I'm sorry, but the article link you provided is rather biased and provides only fragmentary, and, more importantly, outdated quotes from Lieberman, whose position before 2004 was more hard-line than it is now. The sentence in question is about his population exchange proposal, not other statements, and his plan is spelt out in detail on the Yisra'el Beitenu website. I don't know if in his heart he believes that an independent Palestinian state will be formed, but the idea of ceding Arab towns to some sort of entity that is not part of the State of Israel implies just that, and is closer to the Olmert "convergence" plan than positions of Effi Eitam, Benny Elon or Baruch Marzel who believe in one, Jewish state west of Jordan.

I agree that Islamo-fascism is a bigoted term, although no more nonsensical than calling Lieberman one. He is a nationalist and a Zionist, but not a xenophobe; otherwise, how would you explain his friendly relationship with the Druze, and his party goal to create more housing for them?

To round up the discussion, I suggest we say something like "transfer their sovereignty to the Palestinian Authority", which may become an independent state. Eliyyahu 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds like a fair compromise, thank you. However, I do feel that something has to be said about 'fascist-ic' tendencies, of which there is ample evidence. But I will leave it alone for now, and hope that someone else could contribute. Thanks for your time.--Kareem najjar 02:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascistic tendencies are complete OR. Find a source and you can cram the article full of such claims. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC) --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's one from a few days ago: "Israeli Arab leader calls Yisrael Beiteinu 'fascist party'". El_C 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman vs. Liberman

In view of the fact that Lieberman has become the standart spelling of his name in the anglo press, I suggest that the article be renamed "Avigdor Lieberman" and Liberman would be redirected to it. Any objections? Eliyyahu 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can anyone explain the thinking behind spelling his name "Liberman" rather than the way I've seen it in the Israeli & world media, "Lieberman?" I don't believe I've seen it spelled "Liberman" anywhere other than here. Richard 22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. I think official translators opted for the spelling to avoid confusion with someone whose name, phonetically, sounds like Lie-berman. El_C 10:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer going with the Knesset's spelling. El_C 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason for the phonetic spelling "Liberman" is that neither Hebrew or Russian use the Latin alphabet, and therefore the long vower "ee" is not reflected in their respective spelling. Of course, Lieberman is a German/Yiddish Ashkenazic surname and etymologically Lieberman or even Liebermann is the correct spelling. In my view, the article heading should reflect the prevalent spelling, while within it we can add variant spellings for clarification purposes. Eliyyahu 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Авигдор Либерман (Abīgdoŭr Līberman, Avigdor Liběrman). See Ynet Encyclopedia Why not seek clarification from aliberman@knesset.gov.il? El_C 20:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Che Guevara, a simple Google search yields 321,000 hits for "Avigdor Lieberman", but only 27,500 for "Avigdor Liberman". That's more than 10:1. Still not convinced? Eliyyahu 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to designated usernames. In answer to your question, I don't care if it's 100:1, I care about official usage and accuracy, and phonetic comprehensibility. El_C 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The AE pronunciation of Lieberman has the first syllable like Robert E. Lee, I'mnot sure that phonetic comprehensibility is an issue here; and most of the links use Lieberman. So does the BBC. Septentrionalis 23:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is so special about the BBC? (who uses both); their translations are of an unofficial nature. El_C 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

An eminent news source that speaks BE, so it's not just AE. Septentrionalis 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Lie is phoentically clear to native speakers. But that is besides the point. What is written on his passport, however, is an important indicator. That Knesset page / email address is as verifiable we get to what the correct English spelling for his name is (Li). As well, while the Party's website English page is down (not sure if it was ever up), as for pictures of him in the Hebrew and Russian pages, I've only seen the Li in the file name. Which is why I suggested asking aliberman@knesset.gov.il. El_C 04:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, both spellings will be included in the article, but the Wikipedia policy is to use the most widespread spelling for article headings (e.g. Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Che Guevara etc) - it really doesn't matter what's written in his passport: Yasser Arafat's real name was Yasser al-Qudwa, but I don't see any entries under that name. Eliyyahu 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

YB website lists him as Avigdor Lieberman. Since it is "his" party, I would assume that is the spelling he prefers. With all due respect to the Knesset, translit. on their website could be a whim of some translator, subcontractor or webmaster. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Link? El_C 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not policy but guideline, in this case involving a subtle difference (1 letter). El_C 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's WP:NAME, which is policy. Septentrionalis 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yisrael Beytenu website [1] lists him as Lieberman. The site is currently down, but you can read the cached version on Google. Eliyyahu 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, on all fronts. El_C 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I propperly moved the page; someone WP:CPMV'd it. El_C 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and allegations of anti-Arabism

I've previously added {{fact}} beside the unsourced statement that Lieberman's population exchange proposal was a reason for the requested invistigation by Tibi. Both the Ynet and Guardian articles used as references have no mention of this at all. The only reason mentioned in both articles is Lieberman's remarks of the Arab MKs. Actually, the Ynet news article [2] says "Lieberman said that the fate of the collaborators in the Knesset should be same as the fate of the Nazi collaborators. Immediately after these words, Tibi approached Attorney General Mazuz and demanded that a criminal investigation be initiated". Ynet and the Guardian are reliable sources. On the contrary is the israelinsider which is an online news magazine! Besides, the article cited by israelinsider [3] talks about the separation suggested by Lieberman but does not mention at all that this was a reason for the investtigation. I've also added {{fact}} besides " who comes from the town of Tayibe, which Lieberman wants transferred to the Palestinian Authority " which is unverifiable, unsourced and its addition in such a way to imply that it was the reason behind Tibi's demand of investigation constitutes Original rearch. The template {{fact}} was removed with no explanation. I'm removing both now.--Wedian 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are correct that Ahmed Tibi went to State Prosecutor's office in connection with Lieberman's statements against Arab MKs that met with with the Hamas (Tibi being one of them) and not in connection with his Population Exchange Plan, but it is definitely relevant information for any reader that Tibi lives in Tayibe [4], because under Lieberman's proposal he would become Palestinian and lose his job in the Knesset. Eliyyahu 05:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this kind of information belongs to Ahmed Tibi article not to Liebermann's article unless reputable sources -and not wikipedians- have directly linked or attributed Tibi's accusations to him being from the Tayibe town which would be transfered in the population exchange plan. If you take a look at WP:OR you 'll find that an edit counts as origoinal research if It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Ahmed Tibi is from Tayibe is a fact. He accused Lieberman of being a racist and anti-arabist is another fact. If you put up these two facts in such a way to suggest that the first is the reason behind the second just as you've said above "Ahmed Tibi accused Lieberman of anti-arabism but he is from Tayibe, & according to Lieberman's proposal he would become palestininan and lose his job at the knesset" then, this is purely an Original Research and doesn't belong to wikipedia.--Wedian 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, Wedian, I see your point. Although this is not original research, I cannot currently find a source explaining that Tibi's remarks are motivated by the fact that Lieberman's proposal would affect him directly. Shokran. Eliyyahu 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Triangle?

This would be easier for non-Israelis to follow if it said where the "Triangle" is; the Wadi 'Ara link is red. Septentrionalis 03:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Triangle and other Arab regions

In a 2004 speech Lieberman suggested that 90% of Israel's Arabs would have their citizenships annulled. At most 40% of Israel's Arabs live in the Triangle however. Search for "90%" and "Avigdor Lieberman" on Google and there are plenty of references to that speech. Handing over the Triangle is nothing controversial and has been suggested by Shimon Peres and others.

This means Lieberman wants to exclude the Arabs of the Negev and Galilee from Israel as well. Borders as mentioned above by someone else should according to the party be drawn according to whether the majority in a given area is Jewish or Muslim. This includes present-day Israel.

The English-language website of Yisrael Beytenu mentions Wadi Ara as an EXAMPLE of Arab areas that should be turned over to the Palestinian Authority.

The Wadi Area is only a small part of the Triangle. The Triangle is a term which was originally used under the British mandate. It included the West Bank north of Ramallah. The term Triangle now refers to a number of Arab Israeli towns that border the West Bank. Actually it looks much more like a line than anything else, certainly not a triangle. The term "Triangle" is a misnomer that should be avoided.

Again, Wadi Ara is only a small part of the "Triangle".

There is no evidence from any reliable sources that Lieberman suggests turning areas other than the Triangle to the PA in exchange for annexation of settlement blocs. There is absolutely no evidence that he support giving up parts of Galilee or Negev. In fact, many Galilee Druze support him and he has pledged to create more housing for them. The actual plan can be read on Hebrew, Russian or English version of the party website. For the time being, you are extrapolating information, and it is pure OR. Eliyyahu 01:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

90% is 90%. Haaretz is a pretty reliable source. The party platform says borders should be drawn according to whether Jews or Arabs constitute the majority in any given region. There are many reliable references to the 90% speech (see above). The Yisrael Beiteinu web site is not very specific, it only states the general principle. By the way, the main Druze region is close to the Lebanon border (not in southern or central Galilee) and as Israeli patriots Lieberman obviously want the Druze to be part of Israel. This has been stated by him many times. This applies also to some other "patriotic" minority villages. Note also that he wants to keep half of the West Bank not only settlement blocs. This is the "population exchange". Palestine incorporates Israeli Arabs, Israel incorporates Jewish settlers. Perhaps it is time that we ask the party itself so as to find out. Again the speech is widely quoted. Nowhere does the party claim that the handover should be LIMITED to the so called Triangle. The term "Triangle" is a misnomer that was relevant in the mandatory period when the Triangle extended all the way to Ramallah.

The web site EXEMPLIFIES when mentioning the Triangle and Um El Fahem: "Trading Spaces Moving the Border Between Us, Not Among Us. The responsibility for primarily Arab areas such as Umm Al-Fahm and the “triangle” will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority. In parallel, Israel will officially annex Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria. Israel is our home; Palestine is theirs."

None of the other mentioned political parties favor forced population transfer.

I suggest you read the Hebrew version of the party website (if you read Hebrew)[5]. It explicitly states that (1) the area of Wadi 'Ara and the Triangle should come under Palestinian sovereignty. (2) Jewish settlements blocs close to the former Israel-Jordan ceasefire line will be annexed (Maale Adummim, Ariel, Gush Etzion) (3) 170,000 Arabs in the Metropolitan area of Jerusalem will be included in the Palestinian Authority (3) All Israeli citizens will be required to pledge allegiance to the country, its anthem and its flag, or have their citizenship revoked. In that case, they still may be able to qualify for permanent residency without citizenship. (This can also affect Arab Israelis in other areas). To my own surprise, the website also states that all the territorial exchanges will be part of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and will require approval of the UN and the international community.

Make of it what you will, but there is not a word about Negev or the Galilee in the program. Eliyyahu 06:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The mention of the Triangle is for legal reasons, because Israel originally acquired the area through territorial exchange. (They traded a Jewish area north of the Dead Sea.) The reference is to "Jewish areas" not settlement blocs. (BTW there are more Jewish settlement blocs than the 3 biggest.) There are only 3 Arab regions in Israel, the Triangle, southern and central Galilee and northern Negev. The 90% includes all the 3 regions. (10% of Israel's ethnic Arabs live outside the 3 regions, mainly in Jewish cities. I checked successive censa.) The Triangle is only one region and the program refers to regions in plural. Whatever one thinks of Lieberman's policies, he is terribly misunderstood. My only concern is to set the record straight as I deplore the way he is misunderstood by the Israeli left and the media, something which I personally think is a shame. If you live in Israel, please do take the opportunity to call up the party and verify. All the best.

WikiProject Palestine

How is this article in the scope of WikiProject Palestine? Granted, I don't know of any restrictions about what WikiProjects can include in their scope, but this is nowhere near the project's scope, which says: The project covers all articles about Palestine geography, culture, history, politics, sports, and modern events.

Lieberman has about as much to do with Palestine as someone like Ibrahim al-Makadmeh has to do with Israel. Not he, and not even Palestinian leaders directly related to Israel like Ismail Haniya, Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, are included in the scope of WikiProject Israel.

What is the reason for this inclusion? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up to the above, I just noticed that List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was ranked as 'high' on the WikiProject Palestine importance scale, while Turmus Ayya, a fairly well-known Palestinian town, was ranked 'low'. Does anyone else get a feeling that the project is mostly political in nature? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this with AWB but having looked at it again it does fall within the scope of WikiProject Palestine. I'm surprised that articles on the people you mention have not been incorporated into WikiProject Israel. Could you make sense of modern Israeli history without discussing them? --Ian Pitchford 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Arafat, Abbas and Haniya should be included in WP:Israel, simply because you can't include everyone who seriously influences the country into the WikiProject. I mean, imagine including George W. Bush or Condoleezza Rice into about 50 individual country WikiProjects. Or Kissinger, or any other such person. Yes, Lieberman is indirectly (at least for now) related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is related to Palestine; but mostly he is related to Israel, its politics, etc. Putting him in WikiProject Palestine is undue weight - even if you consider the Lieberman plan to be within the scope of this project, it shouldn't cover even a quarter of the article on Lieberman, who has many other political plans, which will probably not be implemented. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; these inclusions seem political in nature. Should people be included in the Wikiprojects of every single country they might have influenced in some way? Is Wikiproject Palestine simply a duplicate of Wikiproject Israel? If so, it shouldn't exist. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

racism section

I just noticed the "racism" section and it looks like an assortment of random quotes and misquotes referenced also to The Independent?! and a Gideon Levy remark about an article he'd seen?!. Sure, there's room for "criticism of anti-arab behavior/commentary", but currently the section reeks of ridiculous POV pushing in what looks like a sad attempt to replace Ariel Sharon with a new subject for hate iconography. I'm not a huge fan of Liberman, but this should be fixed. p.s. Ynhockey, I hope I answered your question about the reason for this inclusion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, the reason for changes is due to misuse of sources and POV. If you have reason to believe the sources are worthy of inclusion, please state proper reasoning, and proper text. Wiki-articles are not meant to nitpick at unimportant quotes and you need to establish relevence and notability - with reliable sourcing. Thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, Lieberman is a genuinely and extremely controversial figure both in Israel and abroad. He was also a government Minister when he was making a lot of these comments. The Independent and Haaretz (different Gideon btw) pieces document this and they are both utterly reliable mainstream sources, referring to quotes from other MKs and arguments with Shimon Peres. Oh and finally, you of all people have absolutely no right to complain about "unimportant quotes" etc supposedly being pulled together to create a controversy or criticism sub section. You created massive ones on Gideon Levy, Saeb Erekat etc - who are far less controversial figures (to mainstream thinking, even if not to you personally). --Nickhh (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh,

I disagree with your recent revert [6]. The text was mucked up with misuse of sources and needed an NPOV rephrase.

Source 1: independent.co.uk

• (a) Source is misrepresented within the article - per "Mr Lieberman urged that Palestinians be told to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks." being POV presented as "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers..."
• (b) Source does not establish notability and relevance of racism allegations or "controversy".

Source 2: haaretz.com

• Source uses a vague 3rd source for the inflammatory "prisoners should be drowned in the Dead Sea" claim registered within the wiki article - find that original source or at least a few other reliable sources that support this, otherwise this is WP:BLP.

Source 3: Reuters

• Source is misrepresented within the article - per "[Avigdor Lieberman], said he was ready to evacuate his West Bank settlement home to achieve his [population transfer] proposal." being POV presented as 90 percent of Israel's one million Arabs would "have to find a new Arab entity"

I'd appreciate an explanation on why you believe that despite your revert reinserting these misrepresentation of sources, that it was the correct move. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

They are all undoubtedly controversial quotes, attributed to Lieberman in reliable mainstream media sources. Some of them prompted on-the-record complaints, including about "racism" or "fascism" from other MKs (both Jewish and Arab), in one case through formal channels. You may well be able to pick out other, seemingly less controversial, quotes via these articles. So what? He still made the other comments. --Nickhh (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a world of difference between partial citation of article content and selective POV representation of that material. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. And don't write shouty edit summaries ordering other people "not to revert without gaining consensus", when you are doing precisely that yourself, as you so frequently do. You've got some cheek. Anyway I'll just add this article to list of ones you own, and won't continue to engage in yet another of your childish edit wars. --Nickhh (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I heartily suggest you go over the WP:BLP page. To repeatedly insert BLP violating material -- esp. after the problem is clearly explained -- is poor form, to say the least. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't explain anything clearly if you tried. And you certainly haven't explained why directly quoting some of Lieberman's own words, and documenting the reaction of fellow MKs to some of those comments - all of which is sourced from mainstream media reports - is in breach of WP:BLP. --Nickhh (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles are misrepresented by taking quotes out of their article's context, this is explained above.

p.s. I repeat my request that you desist of making snide personal remarks. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC) clarify 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the same claim you make every time an unflattering quote comes up from an Israeli leader. Jaakobou, quoting "out of context" means quoting selectively in a way which distorts meaning, not quoting the most significant portion of somebody's remarks. You're not making sense here. <eleland/talkedits> 23:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And Jaakobou I also explained why the "context" argument you are trying to push is irrelevant in this case - he has clearly, as documented in the sources cited, made some highly controversial statements which have provoked significant political reaction in Israel and abroad. It makes no difference if those remarks were made in the context of other, less immediately offensive remarks. A lot of them seem to have been standalone outbursts anyway. And it's desist from btw. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want strong criticism included, you must have very good sources - not misrepresentation of random (or vaguely sourced) quotes taken out of their article context. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Breathtaking inanity. The sources are the Independent, Ha'aretz, and Reuters, they're reliable, and they're not remotely vague. Taken seriously, your claim would disallow all quotations from Wikipedia, since we'd have to paste in the entire "article context" every time we wanted to say something. Your argument is intellectually dishonest, of course, and not meant to be taken seriously. <eleland/talkedits> 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Article protection

I've protected the article, because of the edit war. The version I protected had a missing citation, and I've removed the citation, and the unsourced sentence. I'll post on WP:AN to get comments, but if another admin wants to revert or take other action, that would be perfectly ok. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The "bundles" quote is used in a Jerusalem Post op-ed by the president of American Friends for Peace Now[7], and by former Israeli MK Azmi Bishara in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.[8] It was also in The Nation's online edition.[9] It may have been broken to the English-speaking world by freelance journalist Jonathan Cook. At least two other freelance journalist, writing in the Guardian's Comment is Free, uses the quote,[10] as does the Institute for Middle East Understanding.[11] (In fariness, another freelancer in the Guardian's blog used the quote citing a Wikipedia mirror! [ [12])

I didn't find any "straight" news articles mentioning it in mainstream English-language press. There may have been a scholarly article in Journal of Palestine Studies [13] but I don't have access to that right now. There are a lot of mentions by NGOs, tabloids, blogs, etc, but that doesn't add anything.

In all it's decently sourced, but this is a BLP, and with what I've found thus far I can't justify stating it as fact. I'm not sure if it's solid enough to include as attributed to somebody else (and who would we pick?) <eleland/talkedits> 02:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem of course with the removal of any individual quotes that aren't accurately sourced (and thanks for making the effort to deal with this one, and look into it in some detail). But equally anything that is reliably sourced and relevant - as most of the rest of it is - should stay in, not be edit-warred out a whole paragraph at a time with vague assertions of BLP violations, which is what was happening here over the last couple of days. --Nickhh (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations

{{editprotected}}

Related diff is here: [14] under anti-Arab racism Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There are currently several out of context quotes and synthesized criticism in the article. As a result, the Avigdor_Lieberman#Controversy_and_allegations_of_anti-Arab_racism section has multiple WP:BLP violations which must be removed and discussed/fixed to encyclopedic standards rather than locked into the article.

Sample 1: Signs of deep rifts within the Israeli Cabinet (March 7, 2002) are not allegation of anti-Arab criticism or much notable "controversy". The article has no secondary source that criticizes Liberman apart from a one time response by Shimon Peres -- even that, response that the suggestion is dangerous -- who replied to Liberman's emotional suggestion on how to respond to a war campaign, a wave of the 9 separate terror attacks in a span of , killing 28 Israelis (March 2,3 and 5). March 2-3 were even dubbed "weekend of terror" by the NYT [15]. Meantime, Marwan Barghouti, at the time the secretary general of the Palestinian Fatah, was busy on Al-Jazeera congratulating these attacks.

Sample 2: According to another report, Lieberman said the prisoners should be drowned in the Dead Sea, an unknown report by whoever (possibly the same people that reported the Ouze Merham quote) was used for Arab MKs to blast Liberman. Arab MKs from Arab political parties in Israel blast practically everyone at the Knesset (and get blasted themselves also)- the quote however, sounds bogus and should be removed until there's a less vague reference to it.

While there is no serious attempt to pursue a normative way to present quotes and allegations within proper criticism, I request this section reverted to this version [16] which removed the BLP violations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC) mild edit. 12:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sample 1: All our article says on this topic is,

In 2002, at the height of the Palestinian al-Aqsa Intifada, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting saying that the Palestinians should be given an ultimatum that "At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centers...at noon we'll bomb their gas stations... at two we'll bomb their banks....”

And what does our source say?

A newspaper report of Mr Peres' bitter exchange with the infrastructure minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was confirmed yesterday by Mr Lieberman's spokesman.
According to the report in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper, Mr Lieberman urged that Palestinians be told to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks.
"At 8am we'll bomb all the commercial centres... at noon we'll bomb their gas stations... at two we'll bomb their banks," Mr Lieberman reportedly told the meeting before Peres interrupted

So what exactly is "synthetic" or "out of context" about this quote? And what on earth do your opinions about Arab terror have to do with it?

Sample 2: Our article says, fully,

In 2003, Ha'aretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.[12]

And what does Ha'aretz (the most respected Israeli newspaper) say?

A storm erupted in the Knesset plenum yesterday, following Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman's reported proposal to provide buses to take the Palestinian prisoners that Israel releases to a place "whence they will not return."
According to another report, Lieberman said the prisoners should be drowned in the Dead Sea and he would provide the buses to take them there.

Claiming that the quote "sounds bogus" is a total misunderstanding of WP:V in favour of a personal campaign for WP:TRUTH. Jaakobou, you're a veteran editor, you can cite policy, you know that it's not about what "sounds bogus" but what's verifiable. Please cease and desist from this. Technically, the line should say, "In 2003, according to Ha'aretz, it was reported that..." rather than "In 2003 Ha'aretz reported that..." but you've been mass blanking, not making minor semantic corrections. Once the protection which you've forced to be implemented is lifted, I'll gladly make that change. And again, irrelevant accusations about Arabs (Ouze Merham, wtf??) will not distract from what is a paper-thin rationalization for tendentious behavior. <eleland/talkedits> 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The drowning quote was widely reported as fact by reliable sources. The Guardian, [17], The Jerusalem Post, [18] the Wall Street Journal [19], the Telegraph, [20] and even Jaakobou's favourite non-RS Israel Insider [21] all report it. It should be included as fact. <eleland/talkedits> 16:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Eleland, I agree there appear to enough reliable sources for the drowning quote, however I'll wait for another admin to handle the protected edit request. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple when you look up proper sources and rephrase to an encyclopedic version. However, While there is no serious attempt to pursue a normative way to present quotes and allegations within proper criticism, I request this section reverted to this version [22] which removed the BLP violations.

Sample 1 - A Cabinet meeting - a single Yediot Aharonot quote from a cabinet meeting. Are there any sources in which he is criticised for anti-Arab racism for this cabinet quote? who criticizes him? - what makes it valid to use this quote as a ramming tool to claim anti-Arab racism? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. it would make just as much sense to take cabinet quotes by Mahmoud Abbas and place them under Anti-Jewish racism. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jaakobou, I've trimmed the section heading, because of concerns you've raised. PhilKnight (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The "At 8 am.." quote was widely reported, too. Most major news sources picked up the YA story and AL's spokesman's confirmation, including the Associated Press and Fox News, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and others. ("... before Peres interrupted to say: "And at 6 p.m., you'll receive an invitation to the international tribunal in The Hague." Snappy! Where has that Shimon gone?) - (unsigned by Relata)

That's a nice start but it really doesn't cover the problem.

There's currently [23] no establishment of controversy and/or notability on non of the sources in this article.

• not the "we'll bomb all the commercial centers" single cabinet argument source - where Liberman's heated suggestion on a response to the Palestinian war efforts was shot down by Shimon Peres.
• not the "[prisoners] drowned in the Dead Sea" vague reference in a single source, attacked by Arab MKs - nothing notably unique there as the two camps exchange "affectionate responses" on a daily basis.
• no context (regarding territory swap and his willingness to leave his own home) on the "have to find a new Arab entity".

This material should be removed until it's re-written with proper context and sourcing - currently, it's an array of misused and un-notable quotes registered as a BLP violation where no controversy has been established. The current options I see are either to re-establish the previous non-inflammatory version [[24] or remove the entire material until it is properly cited and established within the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

N Request declined as overly broad. Also, the section at issue, currently Avigdor Lieberman#Controversy, has been edited since the request and it is not clear to what extent the request still applies. Prima facie, the section appears to have several reliable sources. Please make more specific requests for changing individual assertions, if you think it is still necessary. Sandstein (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The "at 8 a.m." quote should have AL's whole statement including the preceding sentence "According to the report in the Yediot Ahronot newspaper, Mr Lieberman urged that Palestinians be told to halt all terror activity or face wide-ranging attacks". And Ha'aretz doesn't report "that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there" . Ha'aretz says "according to another report, Lieberman said etc. There's a big difference in Ha'aretz saying Lieberman called for something and it reporting that someone else claimed. As they stand, the quotes in the article are "conjectural interpretations of a source" and therefore not suitable.Momento (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Momento, Ha'aretz said "according to another report," as I already pointed out above. I also pointed out a slew of reliable sources which reported the "Dead Sea" quote as fact, making it suitable for inclusion as factual, rather than "according to..." any particular source.

Personally I don't think the "all terror activity" part of the quote needs to be included, but I'm fine with it. It doesn't however turn the entirely accurate remainder of the quote into a "conjectural interpretation," since Lieberman clearly did propose an "ultimatum." That language is only as "conjectural" as the Washington Post's language: "hard-line minister, Avigdor Lieberman, urged Sharon to issue the following ultimatum to the Palestinians: 'If you don't stop the terrorist activity within 24 hours, we will do the following things: At 8 o'clock in the morning we will bomb the commercial centers...'"[25] ::::::::::::As I already said above, the sources which are currently in the article may not be adequate to support some of the claims made, but except for the one already removed, all of the claims we've examined are entirely supported in reliable sources. It's just a matter of including those additional sources.

All of this would have been accomplished already, had there not been massive blanking without coherent explanation. <eleland/talkedits> 10:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What matters is that the current version of the article is using material inappropriately and out of it's original context. There's nothing incoherent about this statement and the previous explanations and clearly more than one person agrees that there's a seeming problem. Current BLP violating version must be removed until a normative encyclopedic version is presented on the talk page; At which time, it can be inserted. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I read in the article I agree with Jaakobou. The responsibility for getting sources right in a BLP article lies with the person who adds them. As Jimmy Wales says in WP:VER "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons". The appropriate action is to remove the material until it is correctly sourced. And care must be taken when resinserting it that important context is not lost. Saying "I'm going to kill you" is not the same as saying "If you harm my child, I'm going to kill you". Momento (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Loyalty tests

No explanation on why this material is controversial; notability of issue not established. See WP:BLP.

• Lieberman advocates giving the Palestinian Authority Arab-Israeli towns near the West Bank and having Arabs who remain Israeli citizens take loyalty tests..

Removed] until the material is properly established; per WP:BLP. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting about the notability of this item, however the sources that have been added to the article now indicate the comments were criticized as ethnic cleansing and racist, so I'm not convinced that you can exceed the 3RR on this. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you mentioning 3RR and exceeding it? I'll go over the new material when I have time. Anyways, while I'm not sure that current phrasing is still acceptable per WP:BLP but I have no intention on edit warring. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Drowning prisoners

Source material for this is extremely vague. Material is beyond controversial and needs far better sourcing and phrasing. See WP:BLP.

• In 2003, Ha'aretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.

Removed until the material is properly established; per WP:BLP. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Jaakobou, it isn't vauge, as has already been shown above. I'm going to restore it shortly with a great many reliable sources; if you remove it again, you'll simply be vandalising the article in accordance with your own extremist POV. <eleland/talkedits> 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently added sources have not changed the phrasing at all. Current phrasing is misleading, being innaccurate to the sources and also by not mentioning the reasoning (who and why) for the "dead sea suggestion" and also the reasoning that it is indeed controversial. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Still WP:BLP - Dead Sea

Article text has no context from the sources and is also incorrectly reporting the statement and whoever saw it as problematic/controversial. Just tagging sources doesn't mean that the text doesn't need to be fixed up per WP:BLP.

• In 2003, Ha'aretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.

Removed until the article material is properly established within it's original context; per WP:BLP. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) fix diff 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're getting at... You're removing a well-sourced statement since you can't find a context that makes it ok? He made those statements during an interview on "Israel Radio" on July 7th, 2003. There is no transcript of this interview (in English at least) but the statements were independently reported worldwide in different sources and neither Lieberman nor anybody else has made any effort to deny them. Can you give us a source of any such denial or contextualization?

Btw, as per WP:BRD, you boldly removed the statements and I reverted, so now no more removal until this discussion concludes. That's the way it works.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 04.04.2008 07:11

Pedro, can you show me where exactly do the sources say "drown thousands of Palestinians" and also where the context of the statement is registered within the article?

p.s. WP:BLPSTYLE is the section you should pay attention to. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Should this citation be included also?

• Harry de Quetteville. "Jews and Arabs can never live together, says Israel's vice PM". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2008-04-04.

PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC and CNN had once reported of a "massacre in the Jenin refugee camp" and "The Guardian" had once reported that 60+ people were killed in Qana during the second Lebanon war incident; both reports were false as is this Telegraph source.

The quote is given with some proper level of context (cabinet discussions over amnesty for 350 non successful terrorists and possibly a few people who killed) in this source. This amnesty does not include "thousands of Palestinians" but rather "350 terrorists about to receive amnesty". Current representation of events is false, without context, and clearly overstated. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Any living person concerns would, however, become the responsibility of CNN/BBC/Telegraph/etc. in that instance, no? El_C 22:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave policy based queries to admins though I can't see this as justification to promote material we know -- based on reliable sources -- to be improperly mis-attributed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Intentional mis-attribution re: a living person isn't exempt from wp:blp. I'm referring, rather, to when it's disputed. El_C 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:El_C, I'm unable to follow your argument, please clarify.

Regardless, This edit by Eleland certainly does not comply with the Purpose of Wikipedia. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman#Controversy

I've got to say, this section is a BLP nightmare. From an outsider looking in on it, it looks like an attempt to show how he is a bad guy. Just about every statement should be removed from it per WP:UNDUE. I'd say this is POV pushing - I don't see what benefit this has to the overall article. I honestly think the whole section needs to go - some parts could possibly be mentioned in other sections, but this one section is getting a little political. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, if I'm not too tired after work tomorrow, I'll take a stab at improving it myself. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, while I understand your broad concerns I think you need to realise that Lieberman genuinely is a pretty controversial figure, both in Israel and abroad (apologies but when you say you're an "outsider" I'm assuming you don't know much about the guy). Have a look at this profile, or this one or this. They all refer to controversy in the very first paragraph, or even the headline. A lot of Wikipedia pages have fairly pointless "controversy" sections which editors use to highlight obscure issues and dump trivial criticisms that never found much purchase in mainstream discourse, in a bid to smear people they don't like. See Saeb Erekat for example. However this isn't one of those cases. Yes all the quotes should be properly sourced (all of them are, at a quick glance) and maybe the section could do with a bit of tidying up, but it's not a "nightmare" which needs removing altogether. And it's not about showing he's a bad guy, it's about showing that he's controversial. Which, by an definition of that word, he is. --Nickhh (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was drive-by adminship at it's finest. The man is extremely contoversial; his party's entry into government led to the resignation of the Israeli Interior Minister, who called it "infected with racist and anti-democratic statements." Every relevant profile one can find mentions his controversial nature, and most reference at least one of the incidents mentioned in the "controversy" section. This is not a random accumulation of smears (or, if it is, it's a random accumulation of smears which multiple reliable sources accumulate in their biographies of the man.) <eleland/talkedits> 12:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I said up above that some of the content can could be used in other parts of the article, I just don't like the idea of a specific controversy section. I'll try and do some work on it myself at some point in the near future - the main problem is that the controversy section seems to be a very much POV editing, with some more neutral wording and sourced information that try and explain his actions or comments (maybe from the israeli press) I suspect it would be vastly improved. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you've ignored most of the points myself and Eleland have made. I generally don't like "controversy" sections either, but as documented in a broad range of media sources, including Israeli ones, Lieberman is outspoken and controversial. The fact that some of his more out-there comments may have been made alongside, or in the context of, less controversial comments, doesn't mean he didn't make them. And of course, the controversy comes as much from others' reaction to the things he's said, which is also all documented in the sources. And those reactions are coming from fellow MKs, Shimon Peres etc, not from obscure left-wing bloggers, or even from Alexander Cockburn or Robert Fisk. --Nickhh (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it is highly inappropriate to bracket Lieberman's outbursts with "context" selected from unrelated news reports about Palestinian attacks. This is what I mean by "apologetics;" it's WP:OR#SYN because it links unrelated sources to advance a position (Lieberman's remarks were desperate reactions to the evil terrorists) that none of the sources make individually. It's also highly POV. We might as well give a summary of the Israeli operations which were ongoing at the time - "On 4 March 2002, at the height of the Second Intifada, during a wave of Israeli incursions which used ground troops, attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets in civilian areas, including refugee camps, causing significant loss of life among civilians,[26] Lieberman called for the bombing of Palestinian population centers...." <eleland/talkedits> 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Eleland, but I have reverted your last couple of edits as your first one was clearly a blind revert, and removed several of the corrections and links I had made/added to the article. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But you also reverted a huge amount of extra material into the article which almost certainly wasn't needed, and which Eleland had removed. I've tried to cut back the section from as it was post your revert. --Nickhh (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you have reinserted references sourced to gamla.org, CAMERA and something called the nyjtimes.com, which you have credited to the New York Times. This is absolutely nuts. And you have used these references to flag up admittedly horrific attacks on Israelis - but as if this was the only relevant "context" to what was going on when Lieberman was making his comments. Please don't simply mass revert my attempts to rectify this and also to improve the English phrasing and style. --Nickhh (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Population exchange and loyalty test

Text was mentioning that Lieberman suggested giving loyalty tests. Unless a reliable source is used to explain why this is a big deal, the text is just a random something he said.. and since he says something new about once a week, I find random quotes without any reference to the source of conflict, a bad way to go and a sure way to breach WP:BLP.

Removed until issue is resolved. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)