Talk:Balad (political party)

Racism in editing this page
There is clear racism in editing this page by people who can neither read Arabic or Hebrew. There is racism in the description of the idology of Balad.

Balad's idiology is clear. They see themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel. This must be mentioned and deleting it is racist, it denys their adgenda based on racist views.

It is anti Palestinian racism to try and restate their idiology. This type of racism is precisely what balad sees itself as fighting against.

I suggest that people who cannot read Arabic or Hebrew should not edit this page. Their literature is in Arabic and Hebrew. That is the primary source concerning this political party. We don't want is to have a racist page that is not accurate.

This is an Israeli political party and if you can't read both Arabic and Hebrew, then I can't see how you can positively contribute to this page. {unsigned|71.98.67.115}}

Please do not accuse others of rascism, as it doesn't show good faith. The comment about them being Arab nationalist has adequate and reputable sourcing so that should stay. I am keeping your passage about how they define themselves but I am removing the comment that they "are one of the most popular arab political parties" since its meaning is kinda ambiguous. In the future please sign your comments by typing this at the end of your addition to the talk page- ~ ~ ~ ~ (except no spaces).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is racist to delete the fact that they see themselves as palestinian citizens of Israel. Stop that racist behaviour. If you can't read their Arabic literature then don't contribute...Fadi

Once again do not accuse other users of rascism. I was not saying they were not palestinian citizens of Israel, I was removing the comment that they are one of the most popular for these citizens, since its meaning is ambiguous. Also it doesn't really make sense to suggest that I am not allowed to contribute if I cannot read arabic- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged by many" - Weasel Words
"viewed by many", "alleged by some" &mdash; we could definitely use some references here. &mdash;Ashley Y 10:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Viewed by many" is using weasel words and violates Wikipedia policy. I'm going to continue reverting it, especially given the fact that (a) no sources are cited to support the contention and (b) it is unclear what the target group is where "many" members of the group allege this. While I'm not perfectly happy with even the statement "alleged by some" in the article, I think we can pretty much take it for granted that there are *some* elements that do allege this, but this article should not be allowed to be turned into a propaganda piece and throwing in the word "many" with a vague, unclear meaning and with a completely unknown rational or purpose behind it would only seem further that agenda. --Jakob Huneycutt 14:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, since even the original claim is a bit weasely to begin with, I went ahead and re-added a statement saying that the claims had not been substantiated. Unless someone would like to cite some sources to substantiate the claims, I think that's how it probably should stay.  However, I would have no problem if we just deleted this section entirely since it doesn't seem to be sourced.  --Jakob Huneycutt 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

lets just it is alleged without using any other words. you can;t say that "some" is less weasly than "many", in fact since the def. of a weasel words is lessening the impact of what is said, then some is actually worse.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They are called "weasel words" because they are used in order to "weasel out" of providing a reference to support a statement. By using vague or unclear words or statements, the impact of the statement is softened, but the point is clearly to allow something to present itself as factual without taking a "hard stance" on it.  The new version is even worse than the version with "some" because it states that there are 'allegations' but never cites who the allegations come from.  The way it is presented, it might lead one to believe that there is a credible widespread belief that this is the case, when that is not, in fact, necessarily the case.  I'm deleting the paragraph entirely.  I'm not going to play games with it.  If it can't be sourced and people are unwilling to try to craft a reasonable statement, then it should just be left out of the article entirely.  Better that than to allow this to become a propaganda piece.  --Jakob Huneycutt 12:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not the one who originally added the paragraph, I wished only to removed the surrounding words that added unneeded ambiguity. I have now re-added the paragraph except I removed the allegations of support of Syria and Saddam Hussein, since I couldn't find any legitamate sources for those claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't we already go over the weasel words thing? You seem awfully determined to use words like "most" and "often" in vague, ambiguous contexts.  Hopefully, this revision works.  The one unsubstantiated statement was removed.  We now have that the 'election committee' is the entity making the allegation, and Bishara's statement on the allegations is now given.  --Jakob Huneycutt 14:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I used often because I thought it sounded better, I really don't think either of our ways changed the meaning much. Also I added non-partisan before Israeli election commitee so that readers won't think it represents the Israeli right wing or anything, and I re-added the phrase mentioning Bishara's past expressions of support but I added who said it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Misleading?
There is nothing misleading about quoting Chesin, in fact it makes it more relavent that he votoed for him since it shows he was less likely to be bias.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't really matter since I basically re-inserted the statement when I merged the material with the party ban stuff, so I'm not sure why you're making a big deal about it. If anything, I was trying to keep it, while putting it in context.  But the original comment is a misstatement because he was not explaining anything about 'the committee', he merely expressed his personal views. However, you have not explained at all why you completely deleted several sourced statements.  Moreover, I'm not the one who wrote the "nationalist dominated" comment, so I'm not sure why you refered to me.  I was merely trying to merge the old material with new material with new sources.  I don't really have any problem with removing the  "nationalist dominated" comment if it is that controversial. --Jakob Huneycutt 14:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But why do you so forcefully object to the merged material, in any case, beyond the "nationalist dominated" comment? This is the only version where pretty much everything is sourced and everything is put into context.  With the 'nationalist dominated' comment removed, I can't see anything that is unsourced or that would be controversial in the merged section.  --Jakob Huneycutt 14:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about the only thing I removed was the nationalist dominated thing and I re-inserted the reference to the Chesin. Oh yea, I also removed the comment by the far right guy. I know it was sourced but I generally don't like to quote anybody that is basically on the fringe of the political spectrum. Maybe I would understand it if that was the only criticism but its not, so I don't see why we have quote him.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not really relevant whether you 'like to' quote people on the fringe of the political spectrum; Ha'aretz reported that he was the one who led the move to ban Balad. If he had just been randomly quoted, that would be one thing - but since Ha'aretz specifically mentioned him as leading the charge, his comments seem quite relevant.  Moreover, the "Arab intellectuals" thing has been sourced.  The source was Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper.  We already went over that.  And everything in the current 'party ban' version is sourced, as well.  Finally, "tried to ban" in the first sentence is more accurate, because the ban was overturned.  Hence, the ban was struck down and hence, failed.  That is explained in the article. --Jakob Huneycutt 13:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When did we go over the intellectual thing? we didn't, also the commitee used their authority to ban the party so their wasn't really ambiguity in it, just because the supreme court later overturned it doesn't mean they weren't actually banned for a time.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I question whether you have any desire to even try to make the article NPOV and based on sourced material. From the get-go, you have gone out of your way to throw in weasely terms (like switching "some" to "most" which was pretty obvious); you have tried your best to get rid of any remotely positive-sounding characterization of Arabs (such as "intellectuals" - which is a sourced statement); and you have fought tooth-and-nail against statements that might suggest anything less than 100% support among the Israeli populace for the bans.  EVERYTHING in my last version is sourced.  EVERYTHING in my last version is a summary of statements in the SOURCED MATERIAL.  ALL the sources are reputable, unless you are somehow arguing that Ha'aretz and the BBC are not reputable sources.  So long as you keep reverting my material without giving any good reasons for doing so, I will continue to put it back.  The fact of the matter is, everything I have put in the party ban section is SOURCED, while you seem to simply be changing it in order to accomodate your own POV.  If there is a problem with a particular section,please discuss it here instead of trying to start an edit war.


 * However, in response to your reversion statements, you say "this is misleading, since each of the parties in the knesset send representatives to the election commitee" - it is not misleading since the Knesset was led by a right-winged Likud-led coalition and BBC, the source in this case, uses the term "right-wing" to describe the committee. I don't think your own personal dislike for the term is enough to override the media's reporting on the matter.  You say "saying extreme-right poisons the well", but Ha'aretz, Israel's most reputable newspaper describes Herut as "extreme right".  If you have something reputable that goes against that - I'd be willing to discuss it, but you haven't provided any source that counters it.  Finally, you delete a statement about Chesin saying there was not enough evidence to support the ban.  Why would you delete that statement?  To be totally honest, it seems to me that you have an ideological objective here.  Maybe I'm wrong, but you've shown a rather clear and consistent pattern. --Jakob Huneycutt 01:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care what you think of me, I personally think you have an ideologial objective but I am not going to rant on and on about why I think so. I changed the quote to that he voted against it his reason why which was an actual quote instead of the summing up that he thought it was insufficient. And the knesset was not led by Likud the government was, which is quite different. The knesset wasn't right wing dominated they merely arguably had a plurality. I don't know where you get this nonsense about me deleting any reference to people that don't support that ban. And I am not saying that Herut wasn't extreme right- wing becasue I think they are extreme and crazy, but that doesn't change the fact your poisoning the well. Although I think the BBC and Haaretz are bias I still think they are reputable, and you have also deleted passages that I have sourced with the same material so don't give me this crap about how bad it is. Something can still not belong in an article even if it is well sourced and reputable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like for you to rant on and off about why you think I have an ideological objective considering that fact that I have absolutely no personal connection to the Israel or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It might be interesting.  In regards to your arguments here (1) If the Knesset wasn't right-wing dominated and the CEC wasn't right-wing dominated, surely you can find sources that support your view.  So far, it's you versus the BBC and I tend to take the BBC's word over yours.  (2) You deleted the statement that said Cheshin believed there was insufficient evidence for the allegations.  This is my major problem with you.  I try to put things in there that show both sides; for whatever reason, you try to make the thing more one-sided.  (3) the only statement I deleted was the original Cheshin statement which was inaccurate and misleading since you used a quote about his personal views and decided that he had used it to describe the feelings of the entire committee.  Moreover, you neglected to mention that he voted against the ban and thought there was insufficient evidence for it.  That's the only sourced statement I have removed and then I added it back later with the added context that made it accurate.  If I deleted any other statements, it was probably because you began reverting my material with a bunch of hositle edit summaries and rather than go through all of it, chose to simply revert and go to the talk page.  And you are right - something can still not belong in an article if it is well sourced and reputable, but thus far, instead of making a cohesive case against something here, you've resorted to these ridiculous edit summaries with no discussion.  --Jakob Huneycutt 11:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding that there is insiffcient evidence to the ban since you have such a problem with that not being there, although I thought that the actual quote from him conveyed the same point. But I am writing that they were banned, that the knesset commitee is right wing dominated (the committee is composed of reps from all parties regardless of actual seats), and that Herut is "extreme right" instead of right wing, since you chose not to give coherant arguments for these points other than how horrible I am for removing them.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Either you're willing to discuss the changes or you're not. So far, it seems you are not. So long as you are unwilling to do more than make hostile edit summaries reverting my material, then altering it to suit your needs, I'm going to revert your changes.  You do not get unilaterial say on whether my sourced material is 'good enough'.  If you have a problem with particular points, raise a discussion about it.  Thus far, your comments have been a bit ridiculous to me considering the sources should be considered more "reliable" than your own POV.


 * As to your points here, (1) the parties were not prevented from running in the elections and I'm not sure why you have become so obsessed over such a minor wording issue - the committee tried to ban them, but was unsuccessful since the Court said the ban was invalid - hence legally there was never a ban because the Court said the ban was illegal - do you get that? (2) Why is the BBC wrong about the 'right-wing' composition of the committee? What sources do you have to back that up?  One thing that makes me question your motives here is that you described the committee as "non-partisan" - which is next to ridiculous - under your definition of non-partisan, nearly every single legislative body in the world is "non-partisan" - the CEC was composed mostly of the same groups in the Knesset and the Knesset was led by a right-wing coalition government so it's hardly a stretch; moreover, since only parties with 4 or more members were allowed seats on the CEC, the left-wing Arab parties were not represented at all (3) Herut is described as "far right" by Ha'aretz.  I already went over that.  Which part of it could you not read?  Do you have any other sources that characterize it differently?  --Jakob Huneycutt 11:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"right wing dominate" and "extreme-right" - POV
Stating that the Central Elections Committee is "right-wing dominated" or that Herut is "extreme-right" is almost irredeemable POV. You'd have to have a mighty-strong consensus from unimpeachable reliable sources before Wikipedia policy would allow these kinds of descriptions. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The BBC characterized the Election Committee as 'right-wing dominated' (or the precise wording was "[the committee's] right-wing majority"). The BBC is normally considered one of the most reputable and reliable sources in the world. I'm definitely willing to discuss other characterizations, but fact of the matter is, a reputable source describes it as such.  Moreover, Ha'aretz characterized Herut as "extreme right".  Those are not my words.  If someone has other sources that counter that, I'd be happy to entertain them.  However, merely using left and right-wing labels on parties is not 'irredeemably POV' in my view, especially when you have highly reputable sources that say that.  --Jakob Huneycutt 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Other sources that characterize Herut as far right or extreme right: (1) San Francisco Gate/Chronicle - "At the same time, the CEC permitted Baruch Marzel ... to run on the far-right Herut party ticket." (2) Jewish News Weekly of No. California - "far right joins to form bloc", (3) United Jewish Communities website - . (4) CNN describes them as "rigid right" -   BBC merely describes them as "right-wing", but thus far, I've seen no sources not characterize them as right-winged and most seem to have them on the far-right.  And that's just a very quick websearch.  Moreover, Wikipedia's own article on Herut characterizes them as 'right-winged'--Jakob Huneycutt 12:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Where's that BBC quote? BTW, "right-wing majority" has a very different connotation than "right-wing dominated".  For that matter, "right-wing" has a very different connotation than "far-right", which in turn is different than "extreme right".  WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. Jayjg (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The BBC quote is sourced in the article (it's the first source following the statement), but here it is again: (scroll down to the second heading).  I wouldn't have a problem with altering the wording of it.  The current wording is actually merely a combination of old wording mixed with the new source (or that is to say, the article originally said "nationalist dominated" without a source - I altered it to say "right-winged" based on BBC since Moshe objected to the original wording based on the lack of source).  You've got a point about there being a difference, however, so I'm willing to try to come up with something that reflects that better.


 * I went out of my way to try to create an NPOV and highly sourced section on the ban, so I just wanted to say I very much appreciate you bringing the issue to the talk page rather than simply making a hostile edit summary with no discussion. I know there are probably some minor issues with it still, however. --Jakob Huneycutt 16:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure why "right-wing" won't do for Herut. Regarding the BBC, they have a definite bias, particularly regarding Israeli issues; why must the Committee be characterized at all? Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheshin comments
Here's my beef with Moshe's particular wording of the Cheshin comments. Cheshin is only relevant in that he chaired the committee, first off. Cheshin seems to believe that Bishara had made pro-Hezbollah statements in the past (this is his own personal view - not the Court's view), but that those moving for the ban had given insufficient evidence establishing that Bishara and Balad actually supported Hezbollah. Hence, while Bishara (Cheshin believes) has made pro-Hizbollah statements before, Cheshin also believes that there is no evidence that Bishara does in fact support Hizbollah. Given this, Cheshin votes against the bans. This is a subtle distinction but it's important. For instance, I can state that I support the ACLU's efforts to fight against censorship (that statement could be characterized as a pro-ACLU statement), but this does not necessarily mean that I support the ACLU in general. In fact, I could detest them for other reasons. To simply use the 'pro-Hezbollah' quote out of context is misleading because it does not allow the reader to know the totality of Cheshin's view on the subject. So that's my major qualm. Cheshin speaks only for himself and his views are not established facts; though the presentation of them does not support this.

Moshe's insertations seem to always imply that Bishara and Balad are pro-Hizbollah and that this is fact rather than a personal opinion of one person (Cheshin). Bishara himself does not claim to be pro-Hizbollah. While it is acceptable to mention that Cheshin believes Bishara has made pro-Hezbollah statements in the past, it should be done in such a way that is not misleading. Moshe's version does not do this. Instead, it sounds as if this is an official view of some body or that it is accepted fact (and it's not).

Additionally, Moshe's last version is a direct quote that can not possibly be a direct quote as according to Moshe, Cheshin says "Bishara's past expressions of support of the militant pro-Iranian Hezbollah in Lebanon had angered him." Why would Cheshin directly say that? Does he talk about himself in the third person normally? It's not a direct quote at all. It's a paraphrase by Ha'aretz.

Personally, I don't think Cheshin's comments were even that relevant. But I've kept the comments around because Moshe inserted them. --Jakob Huneycutt 14:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? When somone says something it obviously is their personal opinion plus when you say it personally anger you it is obvious your talking about yourself, also look at the first paragraph of the haaraetz article I used as the source, I took it directly from there. And just because you don't believe Bishara made statements of support for Hezbollah doesn't mean other people cna't base their beliefs off of facts. Your mistaken when you say that when cheskin voted against the ban it shows he didn't think Bishara supported Hezbollah, that on its own wasn't what the ban was over. He was saying there wasn't enough evidence that Bishara supported terrorism, it is possible to generally support Hezbollah but not specifically support their violence, although Cheskin believed it was debatable whether Bishara supported that as well- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep moving Chesin's comments around? your trying to show it has nothing to do with the supreme court decision I guess, which is ridiculous becasue he was explaing his reasoning for voting the way he did.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nationalistic aims"
I have deleted this:


 * These aims are described as nationalistic.

Who describes their aims as nationalistic? The BBC? &mdash;Ashley Y 05:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about? it is properly sourced from a reputable website, I didn't change anything the BBC specifically says Balad is an arab nationalist party and the BBC does not have a reputation for being bias against palestinians.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But who describes their aims as nationalistic? If there's no answer to that, surely the statement should be deleted? &mdash;Ashley Y 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but that doens't make one bit of sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. The statement is "these aims are described as nationalistic". That implies that someone is doing the describing. Can you tell me who that is? &mdash;Ashley Y 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you something? where does the article come from? thats obviously who is doing the describing- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed it so it doesn't say it is described although I must admit I think your argument was nonsensical.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Who was the article quoting as describing this party as having nationalistic aims? =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian nationalism?
The article is categorized as Palestinian nationalist party, however there is nothing in Balad's description to make it neither Palestinian or Palestinian nationalist - it looks like a simple case of over-categorization, without checking the deeper ideology. First of all, the party denies Palestinian nationalism in favor of pan-Arabism, and it was constantly stated by former chairman Dr. Azmi Bishara and also stated by current leader Dr. Zehalkeh. Secondly, this is a party, operating in Israel (not in Palestine), thus its location can't be used for Palestinian categorization as well. Should be changed to Arab (or pan-Arab) nationalist party category.GreyShark (dibra) 21:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Balad (political party)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Balad (political party)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TOI1": From United Arab List:  From Israeli legislative election, 2015: As Arab MKs unite, a new political landscape emerges Times of Israel, 28 January 2015 From October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll: Elhanan Miller, 'Haaretz changes tack on major story that alleged widespread ‘apartheid’ attitudes in Israel,' at The Times of Israel, October 30, 2012. From Joint List:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)