Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Palstinian Archaeology

An RfC has been opened regarding a proposed merge of a newly created article - Palestinian archaeology - into the existing articles of Biblical archaeology or Archaeology of Israel. Your input is welcome. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Biblical archaeology is a decent article. It also exists in other languages, and is an FA in Spanish and Portuguese. Archaeology of Israel is rather weak, and could benefit from a merge. Maybe Biblical archaeology should stay, while the other two could be merged into "Archaeology of Palestine and Israel" or something like that, to give a historical and political context of archaeology in the region. -- Nudve (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Note that the article's title has since been changed to Syro-Palestinian archaeology, often used in its stead. Tiamuttalk 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Two problems that I see. The first is contradiction and potential for same between overlapping articles - In Syrio-Palestinian article it says that Albright is the father of Palestinian archeology etc. In Biblical archeology it mentions Flinders Petrie and Robinson who came before and were fathers of Biblical archeology. Does that imply that Syro-Palestinian arch. came after and is a separate discipline? Second is that the word Palestinian is always going to bring up political problems and it is inaccurate. If this discipline is not really recognized, then maybe it is better to call it "Levant" - Ugarith is part of the subject matter (Albright had a lot to say about the Ugarith MS) and that is not really "Palestine" which certainly didn't exist then and was to the south, and it is in a specific part of Syria. It is Phoenician (later) and Levantine.
For unfortunate political reasons Archeology of Palestine should not be merged with Archeology of Israel. The intention will be misunderstood. If the Arch. of Israel article is poor it should be fixed and material that specifically belongs to archeology (and Paleantology?) of Israel put there. Syro-Palestinian archeology states for some reason that Israeli archeology ignores non-biblical and non-Jewish finds. In view of the large amounts of Calcolithic period materials in Israel Museum as well as Byzantine etc. sites and other IAA activities this is fairly questionable. Mewnews (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kiryat Yam and Nakba

I was going to upload info on the Kiryat Yam debacle into a section on disinformation re: the "Nakba" (wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus). Someone has locked it and the talk page indicates that a few administrators are deliberately blocking people who try to fix the article, which has a heavy anti-Israel slant to it.

I also found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani#Racism_on_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fw.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3D1948_Palestinian_exodus.26action.3Dhistory, as well as the admins Riana and Krimpet who appear to be blocking anyone who speaks up opposing their behavior.

Krimpet additionally seems to like placing indefinite or super-long blocks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Krimpet

I'm afraid to edit based on what I am seeing. Is there any way to deal with these people to fix these articles at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Oven For Me (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut has now threatened me based on my bringing forth concerns. This is precisely what I was worried about. Checking her contributions I also see her trying to attack me and cause the same things to happen. She appears involved with Riana and Krimpet on the nakba page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Oven For Me (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is in no way a threat. It was friendly advice designed to expose you to Wikipedia policies. Obviously, you did not read the link I provided you to WP:AGF, or else you would not be making these comments. As to this, I can understand how you might interpret that as an attack. But the similarity between your edits and those of that now banned member and your shared obsession with Krimpet and Riana made me feel that alerting others to you possibly being the same person was only prudent. If you are indeed a new and unrelated editor, I apologize for making you feel unwelcome. However, your continued edits pointing to the nefarious intentions of other editors bode badly for your future here. That is not a threat. Simply some sage advice to stop focusing on editors and instead get to writing article content using reliable sources. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to concerns about not assuming good faith, I've informed No Oven For Me about the arbcom sanctions. Addhoc (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the user User:No Oven For Me, despite having no article space edits and having been asking for advice on how to begin editing here, has been blocked by User:MastCell as a supposed sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.146.249 (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I have placed a complaint in the aforementioned situation's WP:ANI area. The block of a user who came to this group seeking assistance to be a good editor, and was then blocked on Tiamut's insinuation, clearly fails WP:AGF and WP:BITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.146.249 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame Tiamut, and don't bother complaining. It was becoming clear that User:No Oven For Me was a troll. If she hadn't posted to WP:AN/I, I would have. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding a slideshow presentation link about the Incense Route in Israel

I would like to add a link on a slide show presentation about the Incense Route in Israel to several articles relevant to it(e.g. "The Incense Route in Israel", Avdat, Shivta, Petra, Nabatean etc.). After posting I got an automatic (?) rejection of the link and a note that I should ask permission to add it from this forum. Is this the right procedure? Can anybody suggest how I can add the link to those articles while not breaking any rules?

The presentation is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIFcmWymFH4

Thanks Ron RoneBennett (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV section

I fail to see the purpose of its existence except to attack those users who have different opinions than the one who wrote it. Let me just say that personal attacks and the calling for personal attacks will not be tolerated anywhere, anyplace in Wikipedia. I do not care if it belongs to part of a project page and what its members believe. NPA and NPOV is a fundamental Wikipedia policy, and if you fail to understand or to comply with it, then you should go to Conservapedia. Thank you. Herunar (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think removing it was probably for the best. Statements such as "Please be vigilant to keep Israel fairly represented" are just an embarrasment to the project as they clearly show a pro-Israel bias. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair representation of a subject is not equal to being in favor of a subject. One can fairly represent the pro-choice stance on the abortion debate without being in favor of it. Number 57's argument is a fallacy of equivocation. --GHcool (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Afraid not. The meaning of the phrase I quoted is quite clear to all but the most blinkered: make sure Israel doesn't look bad. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how representing a complex issue fairly is the same as representing a complex issue positively. The unstated major premise in Number 57's argument is that Israel cannot be represented fairly and neutrally without being represented positively. This is clearly a false premise as anybody who has read the work of the New Historians will tell you. The piece Number 57 is removing even says explicitly, "Do not be biased towards Israel, simply state facts," and, "Lastly, remember that not all criticisms of Israeli policy are anti-Semitic or necessarily wrong. Have enough courage to treat a true claim with respect, even if you do not agree with the claimer's conclusion.." --GHcool (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Putting the bias aside, there is no need for the section anyway as WP:NPOV is a general policy, not one specific to WP:Israel. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Besides, any contributor could simply go to the NPOV page. NPOV is universal. There is no need for a special kind of NPOV for Israel. Herunar (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you do not understand Wikipedia policies well, but a generally accepted rule is that you don't revert an edit when there's a discussion about it going on. This only creates an edit war, a simply phenomenon that you will surely understand. If you wish to proceed with your arguments about logic, I could join you. I could probably point out the significant difference between neutrality and the following sentence: "Remember that most of these people are just ignorant beyond reason and that you must not stoop to their level." Or perhaps I could argue the difference between NPOV and and the need to represent something "positively". I could point out that, as Hitler taught us, the truth is often a bias. I could argue that the New Historians has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies. But these arguments will ultimately become a giant war over words, and frankly I do not see a point. Herunar (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already accepted Number 57's argument that NPOV is a universal policy and reprinting it here is redundant. It was a good argument. Herunar's argument is not as good and the fact that Hitler taught him that truth is biased frightens me and makes me suspicious of the philosophy with which Herunar understands the world around him/her. --GHcool (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
When I meant "taught", I meant what we learnt from history about the difference between the truth and Hitler's truth. Instead of being suspicious of my personal world, my advice is that you take an English course. Herunar (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hitler told lies, not a "different version of the truth." Instead of making ambiguous statements that make yourself look bad, I suggest that you take a philosophy course. --GHcool (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What philosophy course? What makes me look bad, picking on etymologies, quoting words that aren't spoken, or insult the personal lives of other users in a discussion, sir? Herunar (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


WikiProject Israel: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 11 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability question

I'd like to have some thoughts on the notability of a certain subject. I wish to create an article on Shaul Reznik, a Russian Israeli poet and translator, who is notable for translating and performing many Russian folk songs into Hebrew. A quick Google search turns up over 5,000 hits in English alone. However, this is unfortunately misleading, as most of those links are to places where you can download his songs, etc. Also he seems to be a frequent internet user and has accounts on sites like livejournal and youtube (maybe Wikipedia?). I have also not seen a single major 3rd party source say anything about him. All of this puts his notability into question. What are your thoughts? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

new list. I don't see the point of it, but it seems that these bibiliography lists are actually legit pages. Well, this one's loaded on one side, I suppose that if anyone has read anything, it should be added as well. --Shuki (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv FAC

Hi there. I am currently on the third nomination for Tel Aviv as an FAC. The biggest issue which people continue to bring up is the referencing especially of global scale claims. Whilst I can appreciate that these are controversial, I feel that referencing them as I have done - to international media sources as well as books, is enough. When I look at other FA city articles, this article is at the same level, if not above, many. Whilst some, such as NYC are far beyond this, this article surely does beat many in that category. I cant help but feel that there, perhaps from some users, is some hesitancy to support this article because it is Israel. Whenever I fix an issue, either people continue to find it an issue, or new ones are found. I was told at one point that New York being known as city which never sleeps versus Tel Aviv having this same title is a non-starter. I dont know if its me being pedantic, or if there is some real inconsistency here. I quote from one of my replies to an opposition: "The NYC article has references from a consulate, this wasnt ok for the TA one, when you look at other FA cities articles, going through the category from A - the first one, Ahmedabad, has 40 citations, the second city, Alanya, has refs which arent acceptable here, the third, Ann Arbor, Michigan has a very short lead, and refs from travel and other sources which arent acceptable here". Id really appreciate it if someone could check this out. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe what they're looking for is some textbooks. Virtually all the refs on this article are websites. An FA usually contains a bit of comparative research. Do you (or anyone else here) have any books on Tel Aviv? -- Nudve (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have the 30-page entry from the Ariel Encyclopedia, if that helps. It was published years ago though, there's no modern info of any kind. However, it wouldn't be too difficult to procure more books at the library, but I wouldn't want to go there for nothing and will need specifics. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy replies. I think there are 3/4 claims which people dont like the referencing on - its the global claims:
  • The city having the largest collection/concentration of Bauhaus buildings in the world.
  • Jaffa being thought to be the oldest/one of the oldest ports in the world (maybe in Ariel encyclopedia?)
  • Less of an issue is "Israel is claimed to have the highest number of museums per capita of any country, three of the largest of which are in Tel Aviv."
  • I also removed a claim about teh Batsheva being Israel's best known dance troupe but this could come back in if there is a ref.
I'm not sure if putting 'is claimed' before the statements will suffice at least until we find something. I think these are just too crucial to 'let go' as they are key in the article. Thanks for this. 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have Ariel's entry on Jaffa (which should be longer than the one on Tel Aviv). When I have time, I will go to the library and acquire said pages. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick search on Google books found a Bauhaus reference: Mann, Barbara E. (2006). A Place in History: Modernism, Tel Aviv, and the Creation of Jewish Urban Space. Stanford UniversityPress, 336. ISBN 080475019X.  On page 162. Here's the link -- Nudve (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you think this one will be ok? Ive referenced it to books before and people are sayign that it must go to a Bauhaus publication which mentions it sort of thing (as I understand it). Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Gee, that's strict. Well, this book is a research published by Stanford University Press, hardly a shabby publishing house. Could you ask at the review page if it's ok? -- Nudve (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will do. I find the standards being applied here to be unlike any other article I've seen anywhere. I just saw an opposition which said that Tel Aviv cant be known as the City That Never Sleeps. When I asked him before about this, he said that NYC is a different ball game. To me it feels like double standards - I will ask and see what happens. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid I'm with the naysayers on the "City That Never Sleeps" issue. Placed in the intro, it's rather off-putting. I'd move it to the culture section and phrase it as something like "A memorable PR slogan has dubbed Tel Aviv "City That Never Sleeps". Sounds more professional. -- Nudve (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
OK - Ive done that - if you could take a look at some of the comments on the review page, Id really appreciate it because if you compare this to other FA city articles, it seems much better. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Global City issue, I think the "despite" is problematic. Is Tel Aviv's age relevant? Is it exceptional for such a young city to be recognized? Plus, a link to the GaWC would be welcome, and a specification as to when it was nominated. I'll review the entire article when I have more time. -- Nudve (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Hebrew) - for the upteenth time

Yes, we're back on that subject again - after nearly 3 years of trying fruitlessly to create this important guideline for Wikipedia, and in fact operating by an unwritten draft thereof for a couple years now, I've finally formulated a final draft which seems to encompass the general consensus. Just notifying everyone about it (link: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) (WP:HE)). If there are no major objections, we can finally turn this into an actual guideline, wow! -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Overlap of WikiProject Palestine and WikiProject Israel

Please discuss here WT:WikiProject Palestine#Overlap of WikiProject Palestine and Wikiproject Israel. -- Avi (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Waiting period (Six-Day War)

I've posted it at Talk:Six-Day War but got no reply. The article itself has not been edited for two years, so I doubt if anyone watches it, so I thought I'd post it here. Anyway, the article has a lot of problems, and is not referred to in Six-Day War. It has some overlap with the war article, but also some additional info. Any thoughts on what's to be done with it? -- Nudve (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worth having as an article - the Hebrew wiki has one: he:תקופת ההמתנה. However, I would severely cut down the military moves bit (which is covered in the main article) and concentrate on the political stuff. A brief description could be inserted into the "Background" section of the Six-Day War article, possibly between the "Israel and Syria" and "Withdrawal of UN Forces" sections пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Do you have any good sources for it? -- Nudve (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No - I'd never heard of it until you brought it up. However, the Hebrew article does have two external links to Yediot articles on the topic. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation of Hebrew source titles

User:Ynhockey recently edited an article I created and translated titles from Hebrew newspapers I cited into English. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I wouldn't mind doing that myself. My question is: Is that our policy? -- Nudve (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if there is a relevant policy, but I tend to do it both for the benefit of readers (so they can see the title of the referenced article/book) and because sometimes the reflist system messes up right-to-left text so that Hebrew/Arabic references don't appear correctly - looking at the original version of the article, the Hebrew text is unreadable in places because the external link overlaps the source name (at least on my non-Hebrew enabled computer). пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. My concern was for the "purity of sources" and of mistranslating them. But if they're unclear, I guess I'll translate them. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Like Number 57, I don't think there's a policy or guideline specifically about source titles, but I believe it's in the general spirit of WP:UE (Use English) - except in rare places where the source title's translation can be highly disputed and loaded (esp. in I-P conflict articles), I don't think there's any reason not to translate the titles. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dolphinarium massacre

It appears that a user named Imad marie is unilaterally trying to move Dolphinarium massacre to Dolphinarium bombing. He claims that 'massacre' is a loaded term and it should be changed to something more neutral, similar to the Gaza beach blast (2006). He has not commented on my question of whether he'd also have Deir Yassin massacre renamed to Battle of Deir Yassin for the sake of NPOV. My personal position is of course that we should leave all of these articles as is, and that the Gaza bleach blast was not a massacre (according to the question simple to understand definition of massacre, in my opinion). There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Dolphinarium massacre. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we wouldn't want a "loaded term" that suggests that anyone might have died, or anything -- much less a bunch of teenagers out for a night of dancing, who paid with their lives for their crime of being Israelis. Welcome to Wikipedia, where there are no terrorists and no massacres -- at least not where one certain favored group is concerned. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia the favored group is the group with the best reliable sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to rewrite history, but to document it.
I personally agree that the word "massacre" is very appropriate here, but for a stronger "case" for this name an external source calling it a massacre would be helpful. Currently all sources that are cited in the article and available online are Israeli, which makes them biased. Searching google for "Dolphinarium massacre" -site:wikipedia.org also finds mostly Israeli sources.
So, again - i agree that it was a massacre, but i am Israeli myself, so i can hardly have a NPOV. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist Zionism

There appears to be a (very badly structured) argument about renaming this article on its talk page. Interested editors might want to join in at the bottom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus moved it once (to Revisionism (Zionism)), and I moved it back. Now he's trying to argue his case on the Talk page. As you can tell, he's very confused. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I share both your minds on this issue.
When there are hundreds of references to Revisionist Zionism in google books, that is not 'enough' for him but it seems there is only 1 web reference to On The Jewish Question (with a T and not t) and that is enough to keep the article that way... I may lack information but that sounds a little bit confused. Ceedjee (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on article

I've been working on an article about a ship, USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290), a World War I-era U.S. Navy transport ship that was later purchased by the American Palestine Line. They briefly ran service from New York–Haifa on this ship—under the name of SS President Arthur—in the mid 1920s. The company officials were all reported as supporters of Zionism, and the ship itself flew the Zionist Flag (which, as far as I can determine, is essentially the Flag of Israel) while at sea. Not being Jewish, I'd like to make sure the article is WP:NPOV in regards to present-day names and/or terminology, since most of my sources were contemporary news accounts of the send-off for its maiden voyage and its other two voyages. The specific section of the article is entitled American Palestine Line. I posted this same message at WikiProject Jewish History and it was recommended that I post this here as well. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bellhalla,
Thanks for consulting us! Here are a few small notes:
  • "reportedly the first ever Jewish steamship company" — "steamship company owned and operated by Jews" might be better. This remove any ambiguity (the steamship company does not practice the Judaism).
  • The title of "rabbi" ought to be capitalized in proper names (such as "Rabbi Stephen S. Wise" and "Rabbi David de Sola Pool").
  • "American Palestine Line president Jacob S. Strahl in his remarks made the dubious claim that the sailing of President Arthur marked the first appearance 'in more than 2,000 years of the flag of Judea on the high seas'." — I'm not sure if this claim is dubious. Is this original research? Ask the Wikiproject Jewish History people about this, but it seems like a credible claim to me.
  • "comprised of delegations from many of the Jewish colonies in Palestine" — There were no Jewish colonies in Palestine. There were some areas/cities/villages with larger Jewish populations than others. Referring to the Jewish halutzim as "colonists" and speaking about Israel/Palestine as though it were a "colony" in the Western European mold is highly controversial.
Excellent work. I look forward to when this becomes a featured article! --GHcool (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The original source, The New York Times, uses the term Jewish colonies. ("Welcome committees from Jerusalem, Jaffa, Tel Aviv and from every Jewish colony in Palestine.") They may have been referring to kibbutzim and moshavim, agricultural settlements, but reading something into an 80-year-old newspaper article might be WP:OR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Jewish towns and villages in Palestine were often referred to as colonies before the 1940s, so I can see why such an old article uses the term. I agree with GHcool that today, this term is highly loaded (especially in the Israeli context), and should be avoided at all costs. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the suggestion above, I've made these changes:
  • I capitalized rabbi used as a title.
  • I changed "reportedly the first ever Jewish steamship company" to "reportedly the first ever steamship company owned and operated by Jews" per recommendation
  • I changed the phrase from "comprised of delegations from many of the Jewish colonies in Palestine" to "comprised of delegations from Jerusalem, Jaffa, Tel Aviv"
  • I had a source for the "dubious" characterization of the claim, but can't lay my hands on it right this minute, so I've removed "dubious" from the sentence.
Thanks for the comments. One reason I brought it to attention here was to not have any controversy (as potentially with the "colony" thing). Any other suggestions are quite welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to mention the large number of delegations, "Jewish communities" may be a good synonym. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Great job, Bellhalla, and thanks again for contacting us! --GHcool (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Yerida

User:PalestineRemembered is asking for an request for comments on whether it the yerida article ought to include Jewish history denial. I welcome anybody here to comment, and perhaps add the mainstream account of Jewish history into the article. --GHcool (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on Israel Defense Forces article

A user named PalestineRemembered is trying to insert a broad elaboration of Breaking The Silence's (a semi-notable Israeli NGO which consists of some anti-war former soldiers) criticism of the IDF into Israel Defense Forces. I am arguing that the elaboration does not satisfy WP:UNDUE (although I don't mind if the NGO is mentioned briefly, like the other organizations in that article that criticize the IDF). I think, just like in the main Israel article, this article is also not about criticism, and criticism should make up a small part of it, except possibly some extremely notable events (although those should have main articles). Information about Breaking The Silence's criticism can be put into Breaking The Silence, which is 100% appropriate because the organization deals only with criticism against the IDF. I made a few more arguments on the talk page, and would appreciate your comments: Talk:Israel Defense Forces#Undue weight in 'controversies'. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)