Talk:Avigdor Lieberman/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

"Undue weight" accusation

Ynhockey is removing the following passage due to WP:UNDUE:

Many commentators, including Arab Israeli groups, have accused Lieberman of anti-Arab racism. Christoph Schult in Der Spiegel has accused Lieberman of having a reputation as a "virulent racist" [1] M.J. Rosenberg in the LA Times characterized Lieberman's election campaign as "frankly anti-Arab". [2] Daphna Baram in The Guardian called him an "arch racist". [3].
Party officials are denying the charges, saying that they have been falsely stigmatized.[4]

How is a view that is agreed upon by multiple commentators from the Guardian, Der Speigel, LA Times a "minority" view?

And even if it is a minority view it deserves 1 paragraph and a section under the controversy heading.

Both "anti-arab" and "stigmatized" references are represented in the last paragraph of the Perception Section. Facts, you really need to find something new on this. Mhym (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Not all the references are represented there.
You can't just remove referenced material because you don't like it. 1 paragraph is hardly be "undue weight".
This material belongs in the controversy section because it is controversial and people have been arguing about it. Factsontheground (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Factsontheground, please stop misrepresenting my edits. I actually removed four three paragraphs, including a section, which was entirely too large and constituted undue weight (the comparisons to Haider). The other edit was just moving content from one part of the article to another. I don't really care about it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass Media Perception

This section should be moved to "Political positions." It's simply a factual description of how Liberman's political views are described by the relevant sources. Placing it under "Mass Media Perception" is clear editorializing, trying to downplay the perception of Liberman as a far-rightist and imply it's the product of an ignorant or biased "mass media." (Jaakobou basically admits as much in his edit summary here.)<eleland/talkedits> 02:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you exactly why. This used to be a part of the lead pushed there by a number of POV editors. I simply moved it down at some point and other editors expanded it. I have no problem in moving this section to make it a subsection of "Political positions" which was created much later. Mhym (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Arguably at least a few words of it do belong in the lede; right now there's one sentence that calls him "A polarizing figure within Israeli politics," and then quotes him talking about himself being controversial because he's so great. Nothing about his standing outside Israel, and "polarizing" is pretty diffident. <eleland/talkedits> 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
All I remember is that the way it was before with long paragraphs and dozens of references violated WP:LEAD. There was even a big fight with opposed sides adding more and more info and refs, thus the explosion. Personally, I think when there are too many controversies mentioning some in the lead but not other creates a bias. But if you think you can do a good job in a sentence or two, go ahead. Mhym (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
And why has any mention of his views being called racist or anti-Arab been deleted? It's obvious that this is the subject of active controversy. For instance see this excellent JPost piece which consults numerous sources and authorities to answer the question it's headlined under, "Is Avigdor Lieberman a racist?" I mean really, I get that some editors here like Liberman, but you can't seriously pretend that the question of whether his views are racist or anti-Arab is some miscellaneous fringe concern. That's tendentious in the extreme. <eleland/talkedits> 02:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I can tell you exactly why as well. User:Factsontheground moved tis paragraph into his newly formed "anti-Arabism" section on the bottom. I am not tenacious enough to lead fights in WP. Mhym (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. It's not gone, just moved around. <eleland/talkedits> 03:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
A month ago I had created a subsection under the "Controversies" heading that specifically dealt with the many allegations that Lieberman was racist against Arabs. I recently came back after a wiki-break and found that this large, well-sourced section had been erased and replaced with 1 sentence in the "Mass media perception" section that blamed "Arab, world media and politicians" alone for the allegations. There are a number of tendentious pro-Lieberman editors that are trying to minimize any mention of Lieberman's blatantly racist behaviour.
This article is still very biased towards Lieberman and whitewashes many of his statements. How is a threat to bomb Ramallah a "statement against Palestinian militancy"? How is a threat to bomb the Aswan dam a "statement about Egypt"? These are threats against nearby Arab populations from the current Israeli foriegn minister and should be clearly described as such by Wikipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There are sources in the article as well as op-eds in notable newspapers describing how the mass-media is anti-Lieberman. Therefore, it's clearly not a 'factual description' of anything. There is no attempt to "downplay the perception of Liberman as a far-rightist", in fact I can detect an attempt to do the opposite, which is a WP:BLP violation. When you're trying to say something negative or controversial about a living person, the sources should be impeccable, not an article in a daily newspaper that mentions in passing that "the far-right Israeli politicial Avigdor Lieberman ...". This is why there is a media perception section, and it has been described as media perception as well. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, WP:V#Reliable sources states:
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.
I have used mainstream, high circulation newspapers that fact-check to demonstrate and support the fact that there are mainstream criticisms of Lieberman as an anti-Arab bigot. Editorials are perfectly adequate for this purpose as long as they are clearly stated as the opinion of the author (which I have done) rather than as an objective fact.
Also, WP:BLP applies to both positive and negative statements about living people. They both must be supported by verifiable sources. Factsontheground (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That isn't really relevant to the argument, which is whether to put this criticism as media perception or not. Even if true, this is clearly how Lieberman is perceived by the media, and again, there are sources which make the argument that the media is biased against Lieberman. I don't care if you include a plethora of accusations, but they should be correctly placed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
As eleland has pointed out, placing accusations of anti-Arab racism against Lieberman in the "media perception" section is inherently biased because you are implying that there is no real controversy and that the accusation are an invention of the media rather than a direct consequence Lieberman's statements and behaviour.
This section should be moved to "Political positions." It's simply a factual description of how Liberman's political views are described by the relevant sources. Placing it under "Mass Media Perception" is clear editorializing, trying to downplay the perception of Liberman as a far-rightist and imply it's the product of an ignorant or biased "mass media."

Factsontheground (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That is your own interpretation. The section is fully compliant with WP:NPOV—it reports the allegations and who made them, without taking sides or implying anything. I can't see how the title "mass media perception" implies that there is no controversy. Obviously if the mass media labels a politician in some way, it's a fairly important controversy. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
But that's just the point. It's not that "the mass media labels" Lieberman as a far-right and ultranationalist. It's that there's an actual real-world perception that Lieberman is far-right and ultranationalist, caused by Lieberman's long litany of far-rightist and nationalistic statements and political position, and the media ("mass" or otherwise) have reported on it. If you think that the media have miscalled it, fine, but don't impose your perspective on Wikipedia readers. The vast majority of the sources in this article are "mass media" reports, but we only place the material dealing with these particular issues under "mass media perception." Even though one of the sources cited is not, in fact, a media source.
Have you any admissible evidence that the description of Lieberman as far-right, highly nationalist, populist etc is proportionally greater in mass media than in other sources? A quick trawl of Google Scholar, for example, shows many academic articles describing him in such terms. Same with Google Books. Let's hear the sources, if any, which describe Lieberman as merely "labeled" by the "mass media." (Preferably sources other than Lieberman or other Yisrael Beitnu members.) <eleland/talkedits> 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I will defend the "Mass media" label in the title for the following reason. Calling Liberman "right-wing", "anti-Arab", etc. is a serious oversimplification of the truth. As Gershom Gorenberg wrote (see the article) it's all more complicated (note settlers' attitude to him - are they not right wing you think?). The reason the section is called "mass media" is because mass media tends to simplify everything and present the complexities in the white vs black, good vs. evil, etc. sort of way The "world opinion" you mentioned cannot be really asked - unless you know of some large world polls on Liberman. So I think it is really important to emphasize that most of this is a mass media label, just like "nazi" accusation of him is in the domain of a less mainstream media and politicians (at least in the US and Europe).
As for the academia, I am fine if a section or a subsection is added on this. By the nature of the academia, this would be a complicated and very balanced profile of Liberman, and probably not up to date (academic journals and research monographs tend to have a couple of years delay). Go for it if you feel this would add to article something it lacks. Mhym (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Look, I personally agree that calling him "far-right" without qualification is dubious, and I broadly agree with your characterization of media sensationalism, but our personal opinions are not relevant here. Editing in Israel/Palestine area I commonly come across material I disagree with, cited to scholars of institutions I think are systemically biased, but I don't segregate such information to sections called "Perception by American foreign policy analysts" or "Views of Likud-affiliated think tanks." That would be slanting the information with my own personal views. Do you see how this "Mass media perception" label is analogous?
And I think it's clear that I'm not asking to have a section on "Academic perception" or some such, so please pay attention to what I am actually talking about. <eleland/talkedits> 22:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside the "pay attention" comment, here is what I believe to be the truth. Things are complicated in this case. When mass media labels are being used as a substitute for the RS the articles get out of hand. If you search Google News for "Obama + socialist" you get so much mass media garbage you realize how much this approach is unreliable (cf. [1] and [2] which seem like RS). However, the BO page has no "socialist" label in it, and for a good reason - just because some mass media sources use this label it does not make it true, and there are sufficiently many RS to carefully explain that. Similarly, here in order to satisfy RS requirement you need to find more reliable sources. That could be say a Britannica article, political quotes from some say European leaders, academic writings, etc. However, in the absence of such we in WP should use what we have, just simply label it accordingly, in this case as "mass media" sources. Again, I have no problem having all these links and mass media references (including some that contradict each other). This is all good, people need to know. All I want is for these sources to be labeled as "mass media". Whether the section is a stand alone section or a subsection of "Political views" or "controversies" is irrelevant, I think. Mhym (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that is a completely preposterous analogy. Mainstream news sources routinely introduce Liberman as "far-right politician Avigdor Liberman" (der Spiegel, Reuters, BBC, Haaretz, AP. I am not talking about editorials but straight news pieces. Find me a single mainstream news piece that introduces Obama as "socialist President Barack Obama" or any words to that effect. I mean, if you search for "socialist-*-Barack" on Google News, you get 27 hits, mostly reader comments and letters to the editor, a smattering of opeds, and some false positives, as when "socialist" and "President Barack" are actually in successive paragraphs. "Obama is a socialist" is a meme that was pushed by the flailing McCain campaign, but which has absolutely no traction in the media, to the point where searching Google News for the phrase "Obama is a socialist" gets you dozens of op-eds condeming it as a preposterous smear and mentioning it alongside FEMA camp conspiracy theories (remind me to write that article, for now see [3] and [4].) Geez, there was just a great feature analysis piece about how "real socialists would vigorously disagree" with "socialism chatter" from "some conservative commentators" about Obama - in Business Week!
Maybe I should stop arguing with you since we don't seem to disagree greatly on what the section should actually say (I agree it should say something like "various Israeli and international media sources have described Liberman as 'far-right'," and then go on in detail, also explaining aspects of Liberman's program which disagree from the traditional Israeli right perspective, like secularism) and you don't object to placing the section as the first paragraph of the "political positions" section. But please argue seriously and avoid spurious analogies. <eleland/talkedits> 03:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No need to be argumentative and disingenuous. The point is not this particular comparison, but the fact that media labels are simplistic, unfair and often biased, regardless who is the politician, as long as he/she is controversial, like e.g. RS's "former clown-in-chief George Bush", "Sex addict Bill Clinton", or "ultra-conservative Ron Paul". The sheer number of media sources which use one such label or another is irrelevant. What's important is to place in big bold letters the "Mass media" to warn the reader, and that's what the section title is for. Mhym (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
But it's more than mass media. Scholarly and academic article also label Lieberman in such a way. For example, The Geographical Journal has called him 'ultra-nationalist'. Journal of Palestine Studies called him 'far right'. I could find many such things. The Squicks (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, having serious academic articles on the subject would be terrific. Hopefully, Lieberman there is mentioned not in passing, but there is a full profile on him. So yes, go ahead, find such quotes and and them to the article if you can. Mhym (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Mhym your examples are total nonsense. The first one is a op-ed in a blog. The second is a report about the contents of a book in which Gerald Ford, who is not a media commentator, called Clinton a "sex addict." The report itself obviously does not call Clinton that. The third example is accurate - Ron Paul is a conservative extremist. I don't know why you insist on using these irrelevant and misleading comparisons like a flak-barrage. You make a certain comparison and then when I point out why it's wrong you just move to a new example. Don't talk to me about "disingenuous" when you use such tactics.
Hmm, the first ref is a Newsite HuffPo whose owner testified in the Senate on the future of the media.[5] Since when is it NOT a media or a RS? Since when is a popular nonfiction book publication is NOT a media? And since when is the congressman who allied himself with Kucinich and 18 other Democrats to end the war is an "ultra-conservative"?[6] Reading up on the media definition would be my basic suggestion. Mhym (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Except for YnHockey, the people arguing for the "Mass Media" label admit that they want it there as an editorial comment pushing their personal view that Liberman has gotten a bum rap. Mhym just said "What's important is to place in big bold letters the 'Mass media' to warn the reader," Jaakobou says below that he favors "avoiding the media errors being presented as factual." When editors openly acknowledge that they want their own personal political views to take precedence over reliable sources, it seems difficult to proceed in any kind of rational and collegial manner. <eleland/talkedits> 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Your idea that "it's them, who have bias, not me" is silly. A bit of self-awareness is a virtue. I personally couldn't care less how AL is presented in the media; not only he deserves it, he probably worked very hard to be treated that way. My only point is that the reality is often much more complicated than any one-word label suggests. I am against this perceived simplicity exhibited by the media. So to avoid any bias in the reporting of a controversial and multi-faceted politician who falls under WP:BLP one needs to be restrained in the use of the labels. Since many editors seem to eager to use these labels, positive or negative - whatever they are, I say fine, just make sure to place in the "Mass media" section. So, come again, where is the bias? Mhym (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

We can all debate whether or not Leiberman is a nice guy or whether or not the media is out to get him as much as we want, but this is not relevant to the main thing. The main question here is: Shouldn't the information about what the media thinks of his political views be in the 'Political Views' section?

This seems perfectly logical to me. The Squicks (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we have a number of reliable sourcess that state that the media perception of Lieberman is biased or somehow different to the actual reality of his poltical views the entire section should be merged with the political views section. Factsontheground (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As it has been noted by reliable sources, certain media's presentations on his platform are wholly inaccurate. This leads to a requirement of separating a Media perception section from the Political positions section. I can't see any simpler, basic common sense, way of avoiding the media errors being presented as factual. Surely, notable print cannot be represented as fact when it is clearly not regardless of who printed it. Everyone makes errors, so the only logical solution is that this type of content should be delegated to a media perceptions section.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The section 'Political views' already says= While his party is sometimes described as doctrinally secular and aiming to reduce the role of the rabbinical system in government by the news media,[13] it actually supports the continuation of the role of Orthodox rabbinical courts, but wants more nationally minded religious people, rather than the ultra-orthodox, in charge.[34] It does not advocate introducing civil marriage within Israeli law, but rather to find a solution to some of those who cannot marry under such laws.[13] It does not advocate a separation of church and state in Israeli society.[34].

It addresses issues with the media representation of already. All I am asking is that you be consistent. The Squicks (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section headings

Currently the headings in the controversies section are inaccurate and vague. They should directly summarize what Lieberman has said. Factsontheground (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. This is a biography and some of the text is already a borderline soapbox rather than a balanced and/or notable review on historical events. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
So you are saying that the headings should not accurately summarize the controversies that they are about? How is that "balanced" or encyclopedic? Factsontheground (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you removed my last message on this talk page, so I ask again: what changes are you suggesting to the article? —Ynhockey (Talk) 02:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lieberman's response to claims he was in Kach

In the section about the Haaretz claims he was in Kach, the article ambiguously says he "rejects the story" and cites this page in Hebrew [7].

I can't Hebrew and I just want to know whether he explicitly denies membership in Kach or not. "Reject the story" is very unclear.

Factsontheground (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant text is: "ליברמן הכחיש את הדברים במהלך מערכת הבחירות האחרונה. " - Translation: "Lieberman denied these [Kach membership story] during the last elections". JaakobouChalk Talk 09:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
so he didn't categorically deny that he was a member of Kach?Factsontheground (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The article (both NRG and the Wikipedia article) says that Lieberman denied the allegations. What changes to the article are you suggesting? —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Politicians often avoid making direct staements so as not to be caught out as lying when the truth eventually emerges. Lieberman may be denying the "story" but that does not mean he is categorically denying that he was ever a member of Kach. Factsontheground (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Heyo Factsontheground,
I'm not seeing the semantics debate as germane to the article's subject so it's difficult to follow the changes you're interested in making in the article. Could you please clarify this issue?
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 21:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, and would like to hear specific suggestions for changes. The comment above does not appear to be relevant to specific changes because it is original research, but I'd like to know what you believe should be changed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 02:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers to Lieberman/Netaniahy/Obama

Do not know what to do with the info, but Lieberman is right and apparently Netaniahy managed to convince Obama. He (Obama) called on both sides to live up to obligations under the stalled "road map" for Middle East peace. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in 'Cheers', I recommend heading to a local bar rather than going here.
Regardless, this info does not really belong on this page. The Squicks (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Length

The "term as a FM" section is growing too long. You might want to move it to a separate page keeping only the essentials on the main bio page. Mhym (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) -This comment by Mhym is a perfectly reasonable point that I'd like other editors to consider. Thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has balance problems. At this point I wouldn't promote moving material so much to new article as I would argue that content should be given its proper weight for a biographical article. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should explain. As it stands, the article is over 50K and considered too long by WP standards (see WP:SIZE). Relative to other articles, it also stands out. See e.g. Tzipi Livni, an article on arguably a more important figure in Israeli politics, which is about half the size and much better balanced. Let me now explain why I am insisting on this and what do I propose.

As it stands, the article is split into sections whose relative size is disproportional to their importance (see WP:UNDUE). The "Controversies" section is especially long and contentious. Due to the nature of this section I do not envision shortening of it without moving the material to a separate page. The 4-month long "Term as Minister of Foreign Affairs" sub-section is about half of the "Biography" section. As I see it, it is full of recentizms. E.g. it is hard for me to envision 10 years from now people caring about a recent joint press conference of AL with Hillary Clinton in the context of AL's biography, but it might be useful to know in the context of "AL's term as a FM" article. This sub-section needs to be made into a separate WP page. In both cases, someone would need to cut-and-paste these two sections and replace them with a careful and NPOV summary. The last part is tricky and delicate. I am not sure I can do that.

P.S. An important bonus: most of the 88 refs which occupy over a quarter of the article would also move into two new WP articles. Mhym (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a separate article. With all due respect to reliable sources, not every sourced statement needs to go in any Wikipedia article. We are not a dumping ground for any information found in any source. About half the article needs to go, but I'm afraid this won't happen unless all sides agree on which content is absolutely necessary. Personally I'd remove the part about the Clinton meeting entirely. —Ynhockey (Talk) 06:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-adding of fact tag

A certain new editor keeps adding a fact tag to a sourced statement in the article. To be fair, the source is an interview with Lieberman, but it is used for a lot of the statements in the article and is published by an independent body. Are there specific concerns about the source? I don't mind adding to the article that he said this in an interview. —Ynhockey (Talk) 06:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The allegation that the University of Kiev refuses to admit students that are Jewish is extremely serious and, if untrue, defamatory.

To publish such a claim on Wikipedia on the basis of a single source of dubious reliability is an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE. Halfacanyon (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The allegation is Lieberman's. Don't attribute it to the source.PluniAlmoni (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: antisemitism at Kiev University, "extremely serious" allegation, "defamatory", etc. No need to be shocked or even surprised - this only shows your ignorance. Please read History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Effects_of_the_Cold_War, which is about the right time frame. Mhym (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Generalizations about anti-Semitism in Russia in no way support specific claims about the University of Kiev's treatment of Avigdor Lieberman and policies toward Jewish students. Halfacanyon (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you removing the fact tag?

As I said, the the claim is very serious. To mention it in Wikipedia requires more than one source of doubtful reliability and expertise (WP:UNDUE). And at the very least both sides must be represented (WP:NPOV). Halfacanyon (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

WP:SOAPy descriptions in the article

Following User:Jaakobou's re-insertion of a rather WP:POVis description of Hamas (here) I followed his lead regarding Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu (here).

Please discuss this here before reverting.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 23.02.2009 17:02 (UTC)

POV and offtopic

Just two quick objections: a. The section "Year of aliyah" is clearly POV, the concept itself is of inherently "Israeli" perspective and not neutral. b. The picture of Berlin Holocaust Museum is totally offtopic. This Soviet emigre has nothing to do with Second World War being born after that.

Maybe some nice pictures of Kishinau and Leonid Brezhnev, who was also of Moldavian origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magabund (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Treason in context of Hamas

Me (Jaakobou-Israeli) and Nableezy (an Egyptian) know who or what Hamas is and what they stand for.

  • I believe outside readers do not always know that Hamas main point is replacing Israel with an Islamist "Palestine". This, IMHO, needs basic clarification on the article in the given context (per "Lieberman called for those Arab members of the Knesset which met with Hamas, which advocates the destruction of Israel, to be tried for treason." - emphasis not in original).
  • From the edit summary I understand that Nableezy feels "the wikilink provides all the context needed"[8] but I disagree. A reader needs to review the entire history of Hamas in order to understand the context for that one liner about treason. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC) rework 10:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC) focus 10:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC) better 10:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • For the sake of working quickly through this, I've opened a 3O request. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not particularly appreciate being labeled up there. nableezy - 18:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need to paste the entire charter of Hamas to provide context for Lieberman's call, but a wikilink and a few simple words like "which calls for the destruction of Israel" (or something) should be enough. Not including these would not only be a POV problem, but would also violate the spirit of BLP, because it goes further to paint Lieberman as an extremist (adding these simple few words balances it). —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no consensus on whether or not Hamas "advocates the destruction of Israel". While their early charter did seem to support such an end, their more recent statements indicate a willingness to recognize and negotiate with Israel. It is highly POV and inaccurate to try to summarize their complex goals in those few words. I think Nableey is right to suggest that it is best to let readers click on Hamas and see what it is about to determine for themselves why Liberman views meeting with them as treason. Tiamuttalk 11:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Tiamut,
With respect to the one year PR march, you're way off about Hamas. They've been advocating muqawama quite publicly as recently as December 15, 2009.[9]
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 12:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, muqawama (i.e. "resistance") does not equal destruction of Israel. I'd also appreciate it if you could stop using that word, as you tend to bring it up in every comment you make, whether its related to the subject under discussion or not and I find that a little provocative, to be honest.
My point remains unchallenged and the ambiguity is discussed in the section of the Hamas article on the charter that you linked to above: there is no consensus on whether or not Hamas actually does advocate the destruction of Israel. That's just one POV which should be balanced by including others if it is to included here. I don't think it should be, because that will lead to a lengthy tangent that is best covered in the article on Hamas itself. Given that both Nableezy and I believe its inclusion is POV and inappropriate, I'd appreciate you removing it until we can agree on how to include a note, if at all. Tiamuttalk 13:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Heyo T,
I gave an official Hamas source (no less) showing that you are wrong about Hamas. No? We can't remove something based on a baseless claim made against it.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the rhetoric used in a speech where a Hamas leader discusses liberting all of "Palestine" without defining what that is, is not proof of the veracity of your argument. Furthermore, even if Meshaal did say explicitly that Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel (which he did not), there are other Hamas members and scholars on Hamas who dispute the notion that their objective is as such. I'd appreciate you rethinking NPOV, which states that all significant viewpoints on an issue are to be represented. Including only one as though it is the gospel truth in an article where space cannot be given to others is very POV. I retierate my request that you delete the piece of text being challenged by two editors. Per WP:CONSENSUS, when there is no consensus for its inclusion, it should be removed so as to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tiamut,
  1. But Hamas (and their head leader) does say it is their goal. Can you review relevant sources?
  2. I'm sure WP:consensus doesn't say you and your partner can impose something baseless and the given source shows it exactly as that.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 16:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, characterizing the objections of your fellow editors as "baseless" isn't helping here. Care to stop doing that please?
Also, I've already reviewed the relevant sources cited in he Hamas article where the differences in opinion as to the applicability of the charter and their long-term goals is covered in depth. Again, highlighting only one POV is not NPOV. So please remove it, or I will. Tiamuttalk 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, Jaak and Yn agree that "advocates the destruction of Israel" is a neutral description of Hamas? Forgetting that for a second, why not instead include why Arab MoK would meet with them in a similar "NPOV" way, such as "the government of the Gaza Strip, which has been under Israeli siege"? For some odd reason I dont see this being accepted. nableezy - 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that you are correct and there should be a footnote about the context in which Israeli-Arab MKs wanted to meet Hamas officials. I don't think it should be written instead though. That doesn't really make sense in explaining why an Israeli MK (Lieberman) would call their actions 'treason'.
Regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 16:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I am going to delete the fragment to which Nableey and I object. We can discuss here how to include the different POVs if at all and once we agree, we can add what we agree on to the article. Tiamuttalk 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Your Third Opinion request has been declined and removed from the list of active disputes:
Reason: WP:3O says: "This page is for resolving conflicting viewpoints involving only two editors. ... For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process." More than two editors are involved in this dispute. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hamas still calls for the destruction replacement of Israel (what is the difference?) talking nice in English and frank in Arabic [10]. Tiamut, this is not a vote or a popularity contest ('2 against 1'). Nableezy's current suggestion is too long. --Shuki (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference, Shuki, is neutrality. nableezy - 18:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort Nableezy, but I don't think such a description is needed, and I'm still not sure its accurate, given that Hamas has made public statements that indicate their willingness to accept state in the territories occupied in 1967 for a long-term truce. I think its unnecessary detail and unlike Jaakobou, I think most people know who Hamas is and why Lieberman might not like it if Palestinian citizens of Israel met with them. If they don't, well, the wikilink to Hamas lets them know. Anyway, so as to avoid further edit-warring, I'm not going to touch you last edit which I appreciate was an effort to put forward a compromise to stop the back and forth reverting that was going on. But I do think it should eventually be removed and we should avoid giving any sentence fragment descriptions of Hamas. People are not that stupid and if they are, there are wikilinks to enlighten them. Tiamuttalk 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality is not the issue here, but rather proper context for Lieberman applying the label of treason. A short description is necessary besides the wikilink in this sentence. Tiamut, it's an encyclopedia, and we do not assume anything or any previous knowledge of the reader, unless context already above that section in the article which it is not at this time. That paragraph with his controversial statement is simply incomplete right now and Nableezy's addition is a bit long and awkward. If a short description is not included in that sentence, then a subsequent follow up additional sentence is necessary. --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality is the issue, it is non-neutral to say that Hamas advocates for the "destruction" of Israel. Why is it non-neutral? Because that is a statement that is disputed by both Hamas and by reliable sources. nableezy - 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Heyo Nableezy,
Above was noted a speech made by the main Hamas leader just a couple weeks ago in which he talks about driving the [zionists] out of Gaza, the West Bank and all of Palestine. There's no double meaning here and you and Tiamut are making baseless assersions that Hamas is somehow not about taking over Israel. This edit-warring and the use of meatpuppets to try and impose this baseless assertion is innapropriate, more-so when you're writing that Hamas is somehow promoting the one-state solution which is quite an extraordinary claim. If you're dissatisfied with the text, you should start by building a case for your perspective on more than just the word of yourself and Tiamut.
Tiamut,
Please do not edit war to impose a change in the article. There's clearly no consensus for your preferred version of hiding why collaboration with Hamas could be viewed as treason.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
p.s. nableezy, are you still interested in adding a footnote to why Arab MKs wanted to meet with Hamas officials? I've no objections to adding it per your suggestion above.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Jaakobou, you are the one edit-warring to impose your POV on what Hamas stands for while ignoring what other sources and other editors have to say about it. Please gain consensus for a formulation acceptable to everyone here before re-inserting the text that was there, which is both POV and inaccurate. Please also avoid using primary sources to support this editorializing. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 20:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I've made an edit here that people can revert if they feel it is inappropriate. What I've done is added comments in response to Lieberman's, one of which includes the idea that Hamas is an enemy of the state. My objection to Jaakobou's edits is that it presents the view that Hamas seeks to destroy Israel in Wikipedia's neutral voice, when this is in fact a disputed claim, and therefore it violates NPOV. Including that same idea, but attributing it to a speaker defending Lieberman's comments, is in my opinion, a potential solution. As I said, people may revert and discuss the merits or demerits and other options here should they find the edit to be inadequate. Tiamuttalk 20:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed much of the edit, because it is not clear why the Mossawa center's opinion is notable here (takes up a huge amount of space), and also removed Tartman's defense for the exact same reason. Let's keep this short but to the point. I remind everyone that the article is about Lieberman, not about the relations between Jewish and Arab MKs, or a "List of reactions to quotes by Avigdor Lieberman". I believe reactions to Lieberman's quotes (both in support and in opposition) shouldn't have much place in the article, if at all. Verbal assaults by Arab MKs on Lieberman should be added though, if notable. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well how do you propose we deal with the requests of Shuki and Jaakobou for more context to Lieberman's statements, while satisying the concerns raised by Nableezy and I about the need to be NPOV about it? I suggest we consider reinstating part of the statement of Estherina Tartman. Perhaps simply noting after his comment that: Estherina Tartman, fellow Beitinu MK, explained that, "There is nothing strange about this statement. When you have enemies who seek to destroy the state, you have to deal with them, whatever their ethnicity or religion."
I do, by the way, think the comments of a major organization representing the Arab population in Israel (Mossawa) are relevant. But I won't press that issue since the main one to be resolved, which is causing people to edit war, is how to provide context for the reader on how Hamas is viewed by Lieberman without presenting his viewpoint in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Tiamuttalk 22:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, there are people in this world who do not feel that a one-state solution is equivalent to the "destruction of the state of Israel". You are using overly emotive language when a neutrally worded description will suffice. A neutrally worded sentence is what is used in the Hamas article: Hamas's 1988 charter calls for the replacement of Israel and the Palestinian Territories with an Islamic Palestinian state. And if you want to say "OR", I say the entire inclusion of the description is OR by SYNTH. The sources you cited about Hamas advocating the "destruction" of Israel does not make any remark about the comments by Lieberman. And I refuse to take any accusation of edit-warring from you seriously, I know this game and I will not play it. I have made exactly 1 revert to the material in question. You have made at least 3. nableezy - 02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • My two cents Hamas is currently a large organization with a number of different arms (pun unintended). Its best that the reader unfamiliar with the situation be given the quick concise inforamtion that gave rise to Leiberman's position. The "destruction of Israel" is just that, and there's no good reason for it to be excluded form the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, considering that not only do we have examples of recent support for the complete destruction of Israel by the Hamas leader, Mashaal, but we also see to have a consensus that this is their stance. I'm reintroducing this long standing phrasing that helps the reader understand why Lieberman would suggest treason for contact with this anti-semitic[11] muqawama group. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I dont see any such consensus and I do not see a single source that connects the two topics. It is SYNTH for you to cite unrelated sources to support the phrasing in this context in that you seek to give the leader of this racist and fascist party (to soapbox in your manner) an excuse for such language. nableezy - 14:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You are in misunderstanding of the concept of SYNTH. No one is connecting one issue with another to make a unique interpretation. Lieberman attacked the Arab MKs for (in his own view) being a representatives of enemies of Israel and for their meeting with heads of those enemies, who advocate the destruction of Israel, against Israeli law. He said that at the Neurenberg Trials they put to court not only criminals but collaborators as well. The reader needs to have context here because just saying "meeting with Hamas" is not enough context. We do have a soft consensus for this here if you see who commented and the arguments that were broght forth. Anyways, I'm still open for reasonable rewrite (read: non-whitewash) suggestions for a proper context for our readers. You gave me the idea of adding more sources to this paragraph and I might do that to give this issue a braoder context.. but I can also bring it back to the version that lasted for a long time. Still, just writing 'Hamas' is not enough context. Thoughts/suggestions? JaakobouChalk Talk 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No, you are misunderstanding synth. You are connecting unrelated sources to topics that the sources do not discuss in any way. And just repeating that there is a "soft consensus" does not make it true. nableezy - 15:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I deleted your NPOV modification to PlotSpoiler's reintroduction of Jaakobou's edit here. Though its not SYNTH (as there is no source), its an editorial description that the source used did not see fit to mention. If this context is so essential, one would think that an English-language newspaper from Israel (which knows that many of its reader are not Israelis) would provide that context.
You will also notice that I have changed the text that was there. Upon reviewing the article linked as the source, I found there was no word "treason" in it, but there was the word "execution". So thatthe critical comments that follow make mor sense, I ncluded the full quote that garnered them. I also added Lieberman's additional statements that Arab MKs were "terror collaborators" so as to provide some insight to the reader as to his perspective. (i.e. he views them as collaborating with terror groups, which is why he made his comments. "The destruction of Israel" or its replacement by a single Palestinian state is not what's at issue here). Tiamuttalk 15:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Degree

This article says that Lieberman earned a BA in International Relations and Political Science from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The source is the article Avigdor Lieberman: a man to watch in a Turkish newspaper. (Despite the tense relations between Israel and Turkey, the tone of that article seems to be reasonable.)

The Knesset website says that he received a "B.A. in Social Sciences".

It's not necessarily a contradiction - International Relations and Political Science are under the Social Sciences faculty in HUJI, but it would great if someone would bring up a definitive source about that. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK social sciences is a faculty, where you can study one of several subjects, including political science. This article (Hebrew) says that he got a degree in political science (and has a bunch of other interesting factoids). —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what i wrote - it's not necessarily a contradiction. It would just be nice to know exactly in general, and particularly so, because it may be related to his current portfolio.
Since i wrote that question, i found an even stranger statement on his own site - it says that he has a degree in International relations and Slavic studies. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight template

About the recently added undue weight template... nearly half the article is a section on "controversies". That may be what the media reports on mostly, but it is nonetheless disproportionate. Lieberman is notable for things other than being controversial.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We could shrink that down to his major controversies and integrate the whole of it into other parts. The poor guy is so sorely misunderstood and is actually considered to the left of Likud (namely because he DOES support a two-state solution, just with borders based on demographics). I think he is so strongly vilified by many, that it leads to pollution of the article when he is basically what I described: a centrist that supports a new type of 2SS. The fact that he supports that makes the mentioning of Kach somewhat over-exaggerating. A Kahanist would NOT support a 2SS unless the 2nd state was Jordan. Hes also a strong secularist, which people dont always realize. etc etc--Metallurgist (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The main controversies of him are:

  • statements against MKs (maybe)
  • racism
  • hawkish views

The rest:

  • Statements about Egypt --> fold into political positions
  • Student political activities: Kach and Kastel --> a brief mention somewhere in early life b/c of the haaretz article. Its not relevant otherwise due to his 2SS support
  • Corruption investigations, Indictment, Conviction for assault --> merge this together into "Biography > Criminal investigations"

I can do this if no one else wants to or isnt sure how to. I have studied him to some extent since the last election. Metallurgist (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Shrinking the section a bit is a good idea but what about merging sub-sections (perhaps condense the three statement sections into one, keeping the most important quotes) and cutting fat per WP:SS? The Kach section should stay; he's politics might not be the same but that doesn't change history and it gets mentioned not infrequently in critical news stories. The crimes/accusations could be condensed into "Criminal Investigations and Actions" or something but it's worth keeping in the same section. Sol (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Im not against the Kach stuff being here, even if I think its irrelevant smear. But I think its more appropriately mentioned in his early life. It just surfaced for a news cycle or two and hasnt been heard from since. Most people are concerned about the loyalty oath and alleged racism, as well as his interesting views on war conduct. :P --Metallurgist (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My edit's justification

"Continuing fierce bombardment of the Palestinians" is a quote from the source http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/we-risk-charges--of-war-crimes-peres-tells-cabinet-653179.html The phrase was pulled from the source and placed in this article with a coat-hanger of a sentence. Besides the link being empty of referencable material, the deleted sentence was redundant to the one that preceded it, and its link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.171.19 (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits being attacked by Israelis

Ok so I tried to make an edit to make the title of the section randomly titled "Statements about Palestinian Militancy" to something which actually describes the contents, "Advocating attacks on Palestinians", but some self-labelled Israeli editors are undoing my edit and are threatening to report me?, to whom I do not know... Alas, I asked on my home page "aren't there rules on wikipedia to stop people from making edits based on their opinions?" but no one answered, so are people with bias allowed to edit on wikipedia? wouldn't that make a poor encyclopedia? What was wrong with my more descriptive title of a section which is about Avi suggesting the "bomb all Palestinian places of business", "drown these (Arab) prisoners in the Dead Sea" and "advocacy for a nuclear strike on Gaza"? Cellarfloor (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Does no one use this page for discussions? If so is there somewhere I can go to get people from stop adding opinions into the page? I removed the word terrorist as that is an opinion as some people call them freedom fighters and so forth, so I added the neutral term militant. I ask those who are adding the word terrorist how they would like it if I called Avi's suggestion of bombing Palestinian stores to be that Avi advocates state terrorism against Palestinians? Of course you would not like an opiniated label, so don't do it. Cellarfloor (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there have been previous discussions on this topic, the debate was between what you said, and "Statements against Palestinian terrorism". We settled on a compromise, which I believe is fair. It is clearly demonstratable that Lieberman was making the statements in response to a series of terrorist attacks and not out of the blue, therefore the title should try to reflect that.
Second of all, be advised that implying that certain editors have certain opinions based on nationality, race, religion or sex is prohibited on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ynhockey. Welcome to Wikipedia Cellarfloor. The discussion Ynhockey references can be found here. I don't see how it addresses the point you are raising in any way. I agree with you that his comments amount to advocacy of violence against Palestinians and don't share Ynhockey's view that they are about "Palestinian terrorists" or militants. However, instead of characterizing or contextualizing his statements one way or the other, might I propose an alternate neutral title in line with others used in this section? How about simply "Statements about Palestinians"? Tiamuttalk 18:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would be fine with "Statements about/on Palestinians". Ynhockey says that the current title came as a comprise, but I don't understand why a half-biased title is an acceptable compromise on a neutral encyclopedia, or why Ynhockey can agree that we should not be labelling people terrorists, but is making a compromise in that he will delete half of his opinion from the article, while his bias must still remain. Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter This says that we are not suppose to label people terrorists so please stop undoing my changes to try and cut out the opinions from the page. Cellarfloor (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tiamut, thank you for finding the discussion (even though this is also not the first one—there was a larger one before, my apologies for not taking the time to find it). In any case, Statement about Palestinians seems fine to me. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the Fairness, O Opponents of Lieberman??

In the opening paragraphs, I read this: "Lieberman is a polarizing figure within Israeli politics; some of his critics have described him as a "virulent racist," an "anti-Arab demagogue," and a "neo-fascist … a certified gangster … the Israeli equivalent of Jörg Haider." A leader of Reform Judaism described Lieberman's run for the Knesset as "an outrageous, abominable, hate-filled campaign, brimming with incitement that, if left unchecked, could lead Israel to the gates of hell."

How wonderfully balanced! Multiple (unsourced) comments that attack Lieberman, and then just to be fair...still more comments that attack Lieberman! As for any quotes from people who actually support the politician? None at all. Maybe I should look up the word "polarizing" again, because I thought it meant that there were strong views to be found on BOTH sides of any argument, yet all the views we get to hear about here is a paragraph chock full of character assassination and hyperbole from obviously virulently anti-Lieberman sources.

Would it be asking too much to balance some of the Lieberman hatred in this terribly-unbalanced opening paragraph with maybe a positive reference from a pro- or at least neutral-Lieberman source? Or should this supposedly-NPOV website continue to be dedicated to convincing everyone that the individual being described here is in fact little more than a monstrous abomination of a human being?!

In short: Got Fairness?? (Not yet!) Thanks114.146.131.107 (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Your points are valid. Please feel free to edit the article in a way you feel is more balanced, or present a draft on this talk page. —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Concern was raised by Israeli officials

Wrong. Lieberman was the only senior Israeli official calling for an end of the operations against the terrorists and his wish was granted. Hcobb (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, he never called for an end, and saying so is a serious BLP violation. Please see the reliable refs in the article for what he actually said.
Secondly, please see the reliable refs in the article that concern was raised by other Israeli officials. For example, the ref in the article states "Israeli state officials expressed concerns over the fact that Egypt failed to notify Israel about the deployment of tanks in Sinai - a move that clearly violates the peace treaty."
Hope that helps. --Activism1234 23:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=280364 Egypt has enough forces to deal with terrorism in Sinai, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said in a Tuesday interview with Israel Radio. ... “Perhaps this will be a necessary wake-up call for the Egyptians to take matters in their hands in a more serious way,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/egyptian-official-recent-sinai-operation-was-fully-coordinated-with-israel.premium-1.459946

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/east-side-story/when-netanyahu-and-barak-keep-silent-lieberman-starts-to-talk.premium-1.460047

Note how the "mainstream" members of the government either kept silent or urged Egypt to intervene, but Liberman was the one calling for a restriction in the use of force against the terrorists. Hcobb (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

1) After high school, Lieberman applied to study international law at Kiev University, but was, according to an interview, rejected for being Jewish (Wikipedia, Avigdor Lieberman) 2) Imperial Russia: Numerus Clausus was enacted in 1887, stating that the share of Jewish students should be no more than 10% in cities where Jews were allowed to live, 5% in other cities, and only 3% in Moscow and St. Petersburg. These limitations were removed after the revolution of 1917. (Wikipedia, Jewish quota) Are not these two statements controversial? Panos193 (User talk:Panos193) 9:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Πάνος193 (talk • contribs)

Page Move

The correct spelling of the subject's surname is "Liberman", not "Lieberman". There seems to be a discrepancy between the Yisrael Beytenu profile on him, and the Israel MFA profile but the Knesset's profile backs up the latter case. I think this is grounds for an immediate page move and will boldly take it upon myself to do so shortly. ephix (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Knesset site is well-known for amateurish transliterations. In any case, the direct transliteration is Liberman, but every English publication I know of uses Lieberman, so the move should be reverted. I apologize for not commenting earlier but just noticed this today. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"Liberman" is the Yiddish (Liberman's native language) romanization. He does not use the German spelling, "Lieberman," as evidenced not only by the Knesset but also by his own ministry's web site. The Library of Congress and French national library also use "Liberman." His party web site now also uses "Liberman." Jdm1991 (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of Anti-Arabism section

I moved the above section here pending a discussion on whether any part of it complies with our BLP policy.

Many international commentators have accused Lieberman of Anti-Arabism. German journalist, Christoph Schult, in Der Spiegel said that Lieberman is reputed to be a "virulent racist".[1] American journalist, M.J. Rosenberg in the LA Times characterized Lieberman's election campaign as "frankly anti-Arab".[2] Daphna Baram in The Guardian called him an "arch racist".[3] American columnist Richard Cohen in the Washington Post said that while Lieberman a "nationalist" he was also an "anti-Arab demagogue".[5] American Jewish rabbi, Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism called Lieberman's campaign "an outrageous, abominable, hate-filled campaign, brimming with incitement that, if left unchecked, could lead Israel to the gates of hell." [6] American publisher, Martin Peretz editor-in-chief of The New Republic, called Lieberman "neo-fascist ... a certified gangster ... the Israeli equivalent of Jörg Haider" [7] During the 2009 campaign, Meretz released an internal memo comparing Lieberman to "Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, Haider in Austria, and Zhirinovsky in Russia".[8]

Party officials denied the charges, saying that they were falsely stigmatized.[9]

References

  1. ^ a b Schult, Christoph (2009-03-25). "Israel's Pragmatic Thug". Der Speigel. Cite error: The named reference "derspiegel" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Rosenberg, M.J. (2009-02-11). "The rise of Avigdor Lieberman". Los Angeles Times. Cite error: The named reference "latimes" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Baram, Daphna (2009-03-26). "The Knesset: many parties, one mind". The Guardian. Cite error: The named reference "guardian_racist" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ Gideon Alon, Not racist, stigmatized, Haaretz, April 25, 2009.
  5. ^ Cohen, Richard (24 February 2009). "Whose Israel Shall It Be?". The Washington Post.
  6. ^ Guttman, Nathan (27 February 2009). "Jewish Leaders Largely Silent on Lieberman's Role In Government But One Prominent U.S. Rabbi Criticizes 'Hate-Filled Campaign'". The Forward.
  7. ^ Zakaria, Fareed (14 February 2009). "Israel's Biggest Danger". Newsweek.
  8. ^ Senyor, Eli (26 January 2009). "Meretz memo: Compare Lieberman to Jorg Haider". YNet news.
  9. ^ Gideon Alon, Not racist, stigmatized, Haaretz, 25 April 2009.

Our WP:BLP policy requires us to use a high degree of sensitivity and use high quality sources. Frankly some of the op-eds or op-edish like articles used in the above section do not satisfy that criteria. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the quality of the sourcing. Using opinion pieces to source opinion is unproblematic, provided the sources are reputable enough, as they appear to be in this case. Wikipedia should document criticism of politicians where criticism exists in the mainstream. We should write conservatively, but not with "a high degree of sensitivity". I am not able to say that WEIGHT is not an issue here, but you would need to provide sourcing casting doubt on the general characterisation given above. Formerip (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Except that would break Wikipedia's Neutral and Zionist guideline. Really, this place is a joke.109.150.31.40 (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be best to discuss any opinion pieces used as sources that are in question here on the Talk Page. There may be stronger sources out there that could be used in its place or in addition to.Tigereconomy (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Avigdor Lieberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Avigdor Lieberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Israel Beitenu" affair

from Haaretz, considered a reliable source: 

"Israel Police to Charge Dozens of Yisrael Beiteinu Officials for Fraud ... Suspects include former Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov, former Deputy Interior Minister Faina Kirshenbaum and several present and former public officials."

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.681600

Liebeerman is not oficially a suspect, however it is well known that he controls his party in a centralistic manner, therefor this is definitel also anoth "Lieberman affair". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.76.134 (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

To try to be neutral, please

I want that you read the article about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margot_Honecker

and then count how much blood she/he has had on her/his hands - and how much "evil dons".

I want to see an article about Lieberman in the same manner like this one about Honecker - and i rather prefer: A much more conscious one about both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.12.1 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Avigdor Lieberman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

1997 Attorney General Scandal

Article should include that Israeli police recommended indicting him in 1997 scandal. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/20/israel.no.indict/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.243.167 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Correction to his wife biography

Since I personally new his wife Ella (we studied together in the same university, same year, same group in Tashkent, Uzbekistan,math science) she wasn't from Moldova for sure. She left for Israel around 1980, from Tashkent, Uzbekistan. As I remember her she was very easygoing, good nature person. I haven't seen/talked to her since she left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IgorStl (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Lieberman served, not serves, as Defense Minister

Avigdor Lieberman (Hebrew: אביגדור ליברמן, IPA: [aviɡˈdor ˈliberman], (audio)ⓘ; born Evet Lvovich Liberman, Russian: Эве́т Льво́вич Ли́берман, 5 July 1958)[1] is a Soviet-born Israeli politician who previously served as the Defense Minister of Israel; on 14 of November 2018 Lieberman announced he was handing in his resignation due to a ceasefire versus Gaza which Lieberman said was "surrendering to terror".[2] He served as Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2009 to 2012, and again from 2013 to 2015. He has also served as member of the Knesset and as Deputy Prime Minister of Israel. 2601:447:4101:41F9:3893:CF7D:77BA:17B4 (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Note - until approx. 48 hours from now or so - there is a technical issue in that resignation letters do not have immediate effect.Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Factbox – Israel's Avigdor Lieberman". Reuters. 9 February 2009. Archived from the original on 12 February 2009. Retrieved 9 February 2009. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman announced his resignation from his position at a meeting of the Yisrael Beytenu faction meeting at Knesset Wednesday". 2018-11-14. Retrieved 2018-11-14.

If that is the case, please cite a source acknowledging that there is still a 48 hour timeline.2601:447:4101:41F9:3893:CF7D:77BA:17B4 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It really goes most of the time without saying - it is implicit in Israeli politics due to the way the legislation on the cabinet is framed (I'll also note, that when this was edited into the article, Lieberman hadn't even tendered the formal letter - at a pre-arranged press conference he said he was going to resign - but not that he did resign by letter - however I believe that technicality is behind us). However, here is a source that spells it out for this legislation - [12] - "התפטרותו של ליברמן מהתפקיד תיכנס לתוקף בתוך 48 שעות מרגע הגשת מכתב ההתפטרות.". In terms of phrasing - this is still an issue until the 16th or so. Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It is confirmed that he will remain for a 48 hour period

See here.[13] This 48 hour deadline should be included in the article as well.2601:447:4101:41F9:3893:CF7D:77BA:17B4 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It really is a trivial pro-forma detail. You could add it of you really want to - but assuming it does go through (99% chance) - it will be out of the article in 2 days or so.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Netanyahu is naming himself the new Defense Minister

This was confirmed by a Likud Party spokesman.[14] Despite his ambitions, Naftali Bennett was denied the position.68.47.64.121 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2018

"Avigdor Lieberman (Hebrew: אביגדור ליברמן‎, IPA: [aviɡˈdor ˈliberman], About this sound(audio) (help·info); born Evet Lvovich Liberman, Russian: Эве́т Льво́вич Ли́берман, 5 July 1958)[1] is a Soviet-born Israeli politician who serves as the Defense Minister of Israel; on 14 of November 2018 Lieberman announced he was handing in his resignation due to a ceasefire versus Gaza which Lieberman said was "surrendering to terror".[2] He served as Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2009 to 2012, and again from 2013 to 2015. He has also served as member of the Knesset and as Deputy Prime Minister of Israel."

Netanyahu has even confirmed that he is now the Israeli Defense Minister.[15] I propose removing serves and replacing it with served:

"Avigdor Lieberman (Hebrew: אביגדור ליברמן‎, IPA: [aviɡˈdor ˈliberman], About this sound(audio) (help·info); born Evet Lvovich Liberman, Russian: Эве́т Льво́вич Ли́берман, 5 July 1958)[1] is a Soviet-born Israeli politician who served as the Defense Minister of Israel; on 14 of November 2018 Lieberman announced he was handing in his resignation due to a ceasefire versus Gaza which Lieberman said was "surrendering to terror".[2] He served as Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2009 to 2012, and again from 2013 to 2015. He has also served as member of the Knesset and as Deputy Prime Minister of Israel." 68.47.64.121 (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2018

"Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)." 68.47.64.121 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Typo has been fixed. I had earlier sent a message to David O. Johnson, but made this request out of paranoia. Apparently the ref tag doesn't pop up when you include it in the opening and don't properly include it in the ending as well.68.47.64.121 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remove category

Please remove Category:Likud politicians from this article. Lieberman never was part of the Likud; although in 2013 his party ran on a single list with Likud, they remained distinct parties. 89.138.131.240 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

additionally, with the exception of Uzi Landau, who had previously been a member of the Likud, none of Yisrael Beiteinu's MKs from that Knesset are in the Likud category. 89.138.131.240 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 Not done - According to this, Lieberman was the director-general of Likud from 1992 until his resignation in 1997. Nanophosis (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Russian name?

This article claims his Russian name was Evet, however the equivalent on ru.wiki claims it to be Evik, also citing a discussion he had with someone called Michail Edelstein, where Edelstein asks him "Is Evik your real name?" and Lieberman answers in the affirmative. he.wiki also claims it to be Evet. Heepman1997 (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. Should be pointed out that Edelstein is a journalist for Lekhaim, a Russian-language Israeli news and current affairs site.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

There is a mistaken reference: Re. the paragraph which begins, "During his studies he was active in the student group "Kastel," associated with the Likud. Relations between Kastel and Arab student groups were tense and often deteriorated into violence. According to Maariv, based on": change Maariv to Maariv_(newspaper) as it is referring to a newspaper, not the prayer service. 141.226.15.110 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done BS"D. תנא קמא (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox member of the Knesset

Template:Infobox member of the Knesset has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox officeholder. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Opening

I think his opening paragraph sentences should have that he runs Yisrael Beiteinu, a secular political party. He's served multiple offices (clearly), and that is what matters to most Israeli's today. The Gaza stuff is not his most important peace (especially as his continuous with Netanyahu is changing his politics), and should be in the second part of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:B43D:B8D1:E924:7BB3 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avigdor_Lieberman/Archive_3&oldid=1149732852"