Talk:Israel (old page)

From dKosopedia

Ohwilleke 09:35, 12 Oct 2004 (PDT) I think that there is reasonable ground to say that a one sided view of Israel is not progressive. I don't think that a wholesale replacement of the prior material is wiki appropriate and would urge an approach that allows for preservation of what came before the most recent contributions. Wholesale revision is certainly appropriate where there is a single author, but when there are multiple authors with views that are at odds, a more incremental approach is called for.

User:one of the peopleWhen all-concerned are working together towards a common purpose, I would agree that wholesale changes generally would be inappropriate and would best be preceded by discussion. In this case, however, the deleted material was was directed at making the dKospedia-inappropriate case stated in the deleted introduction; it also suffered from rampant factual innacuracy.

Ohwilleke 13:08, 12 Oct 2004 (PDT) I think you have it backwards. When everyone is working towards a common purpose, wholesale changes aren't a big deal. When they aren't, then it is important to tread carefully. I don't think that the predecessor was inappropriate. Certainly, the views stated were not universally held in the progressive community, but also, certainly, they would not be outside the realm what many mainline progressives believe. Furthermore, as the prior preface stated clearly, there is a great deal of dispute regarding what the facts are, and the prior writing openly acknowledged that he was taking a coherent approach to resolving disputed facts. Offering another viewpoint on what those facts are would be appropriate. Simply superceding them, is not. This particularly applies to generalizations, as opposed to specific facts. Obviously, if someone clear meant to mention Ariel Sharon, and accidentally wrote Ariel Shara, or said that a particular event happened at Rosh Hasshana when it really happened at Yom Kippur, no one is going to be concerned about that. But, when it gets to issues of who started it, how many people were killed, and so on, the water gets far more muddy, and I would prefer to have both viewpoints, rather than one "correct" viewpoint.

--Bink 20:56, 24 Jul 2005 (PDT) I have a big problem with what is going on here. DavidByron has once again reverted the text to a one-sided, Pro-Palestinian argument while erasing previous versions that contained a more balanced perspective.

DavidByron July 24th 2005 I'll add the "comment" that the was written to the actual page by user GoVOTE on 14th April 2005. Idiot obviously didn't know what a talk page is or what the link "discuss this page" was/is for....:

"NOTE: the writer below (DavidByron) has deleted the previous article on Israel, which was more in line with the Democratic Party's stance on Israel. As the previous author wrote, "The State of Israel has enjoyed the strong and consistent support of the Democratic Party since Israel's creation in 1948." Instead, the writer below has deleted the text and inserted an unabashedly pro-Palestinian POV which he says is biased but accurate. What the writer should have done was leave the original text but added his own article labeled "Pro-Palestinean." So that we do not get into a tit-for-tat, I will not erase his text, but I encourage people to check the page history to see the One of the people's article. Hopefully someone will have the time to reinstate his article. It's too bad that DavidByron merely deleted One of the people's hard work simply because he disagreed with him. He even deleted the "quick facts" statistics that show that Judaism is the most prominent religion in the country and deleted links to media sites that are to the right of haaretz."

Idiot user "GoVOTE" apparently missed the caption of my change, "reinstating version prior to deletion of large amount of text". I agree 100% with his comment that content shouldn't be removed which is why I reinstated the version prior to the mass deletion. I agree 100% with his comment that the person who deleted the massive amount of text (user 'One of the people') was at fault and that he/she ought to have merged or added content - and maybe they will actually do that now. User RGB then compounded the error - presumably because they just read the idiot's comments and didn't glance at the history of the page.

DavidByron July 24th 2005 Apparently Blink, you are happy to see mass deletion of content as long as it's more to your liking politically. Mass deletion of content on a topic like this is abuse. PERIOD. The appropriate solution to abuse / vandallism is reinstating the version prior to the abuse. Anyone (including you) who wants to merge or add the offending material without mass deletion of content is welcome to do so.

--Bink 21:05, 24 Jul 2005 (PDT) I'm not sure that information that falls under the following statement belongs in a general article about Israel:

"The following is therefore written from a pro-Palestinian point of view, with the belief that a rational reading of the evidence leads to a pro-Palestinian conclusion."

heT Israel topic looks like the place for a neutral, factual discussion of geography, demographics, culture, etc. for the country. A separate topic detailing a "pro-Palestinian" argument is the place for the redacted comment.

I'm also not sure that "idiot user" is the right term for the contributor in question.

DavidByron July 24th 2005 If you have a problem with this or any other page then fix it. Go ahead. Just don't mass delete content. However you should realise this is not the wikipedia and there is NO NPOV HERE. I think there's a page to that effect somewhere.... This is not a NPOV wiki - it's a dKos wiki and is decidedly NOY NPOV. I guess you're right about labelling GoVOTE an idiot. Probably just doesn't know how a wiki works.

--Bink 21:12, 24 Jul 2005 (PDT) Hey, don't try to attribute the personal insults you made against other users to me. I don't operate that way.

DavidByron July 24th 2005 Dude! I just agreed with you. relax a little will ya? I agreed I shouldn't have called the guy an idiot. There's a brief discussion of the fact that this isn't a NPOV wiki on the main meta page. LOL - written by me initially but added to by wegerje.

DavidByron July 24th 2005 I guess what you did is ok but remember - this is not an attempt to reproduce the wikipedeia. that's the vibe I'm getting from you. There are 100 places on the web with stuff about Israel's geography and whatnot. Use an external link and get on with the stuff that's more specifically rlevent to the dKosopedia. Don't bother with what you described as, "a neutral, factual discussion of geography, demographics, culture, etc". Just link to a site that already does all that 10,000 times better. For that reason I rather think it was a mistake to hive off the section you did - because it's a pretty damn short article to have to start splitting it now isn't it? Anyway let's hope your edit satisfies the Likudniks.

--Bink 21:35, 24 Jul 2005 (PDT) What Likudniks? I'm afraid that there is some part of this that I am just not understanding.

--Brady01 This article needs a few serious changes. First of all, the section titles need to be changed. For example, it appears that someone has crudely labeled the section on the (elected) Israeli cabinet "Israeli political elites." Why not change this to something neutral sounding like "Israel's leaders." (I personally would pick "Israel's elected leaders" to demonstrate the fact that they are the only democracy in the region, but that probably won't happen.) Also, even if a museum (probably a very small one) is to be built for George Bush in Israel, does that really deserve mention? I'd imagine there are many museums in Israel, why make a big deal about this one?

My larger problem with the article is that this wiki is supposed to be written from a "left/progressive/liberal/Democratic" perspective, according to the main page, and this article does not represent the views of all, or probably even most, liberals and Democrats. A real progressive article on Israel would commend Israel for the citizenship rights it gives to all its citizens (Jewish or Arab) its free press and free election, the aid it has given to Africa, etc. It would also chide Israel for various human rights faliures, and an inablitiy to better get out of Palestinian territories and work towards a two-state solution. But the article would generally be much more positive.

As Harry Truman once said "I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have in it now. I believe it has a glorious future before it - not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization."

Sounds reasonable. Go for it. Chadlupkes 12:03, 7 June 2007 (PDT)

-- BarryList 12:15 EST, 27 December 2007. I am one of a lonely group of Orthodox Jews who still support the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Reading partisan entries like this one reminds me why so many Orthodox Jews and other American Jews who were once solidly in the liberal/progressive wing have left. There are 22 Arab countries and many more Moslem countries, so Palestinian Arabs live in a Middle East that is rich in their culture. The Jewish people predate Islam and the Arab denizens who have migrated to Israel in the 19th and 20th Century. Their refusal to accept Jews and other minorities in the Middle East show that they lack the gemutlichkeit and kindness towards others with which the Arab world praises itself. But I do not ask that this page reflect what to me is the correct interpretation of the Middle East Conflict. I ask only that if progressives disagree, that this page present both the Israeli and the Palestinian argument.

-- Zemblan 5/08 I can see there is considerable dissatisfaction with the one-sidedness of this page, especially considering how out of line it is with the long history of Democratic support for Israel and the electorate. Will this page be unlocked at some point, or is it permanently hijacked as some activist's personal fiefdom?