Talk:Women for Israel's Tomorrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Women for Israel's Tomorrow is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Women for Israel's Tomorrow is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] On use of the phrase "Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories"

I thought we should transfer our discussion to Talk rather then conducting it via means of invisible comments within the article. The last exchange was:

  • Returned "Palestinian territories" and "Israeli-occupied" making political hay is trying to obscure what is overwhelmingly classified in the world as an occupation; we must not make assumptions about what readers "must know" when it comes to such an important distinction which was my comment (AladdinSE).

to which Jayjg replied:

  • As opposed to the Bulgarian-occupied Mongolian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? They may generally be considered occupied, but the question is, what does the phrase add to this article? Is it some sort of disambiguation? Clearly not, since it only serves to make political claims, and actually makes identifying the exact territories discussed more difficult.

You can make light of it, but for countless readers, the territories might as well be the Bulgarian-occupied Mongolian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip for all they know. There is just no justification for deleting this phrase, especially since we are describing the notion of Population transfer, which requires the context explanation that this is quite feasible because Israel conducts a military occupation of those territories. --AladdinSE 09:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, these are some of the most famous territories in the world, and their status is well-known. Anyone who comes to the obscure Wikipeida article on "Women for Israel's Tomorrow" will without doubt know exactly what we are talking about. As for the discussion of the notion of population transfer, again, the reader is not going to assume that Israel was planning to fly its troops to some far-off land and then try to transfer Arabs out of that land; rather, the reader knows that it involves transfer out of lands controlled by Israel. In an article that is discussing the legal status of the territories, of course a discussion of occupation is entirely relevant. The name of the territory isn't "Occupied West Bank", it is simply "West Bank"; plopping in the words "Occupied" before every mention of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is, depending on your viewpoint, either a waste of words or an attempt to enforce a political viewpoint. Even worse, it adds confusion; by "Occupied West Bank" are you distinguishing this from the "Unoccupied West Bank" (e.g. Jericho, and other areas controlled by the P.A.)? But surely those advocating "population transfer" intend it to be from P.A. controlled areas as well. The use of the words "Palestinian territories" causes the exact same problem; they also do not add any information in terms of defining exactly which territories are meant, but merely serve to re-inforce the claim of one side in a political debate whose outcome is not yet clear. Wikipedia should not be taking sides in political conflicts, but should be attempting to provide clarity and concision to the reader. Your version is a political statement that is both less clear and less concise. Jayjg (talk) 15:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about "Israeli-held West Bank and Gaza Strip" or "Israeli-controlled ..." or something of the sort? I don't think the PA-controlled territories make a lot of difference. The PA is far from being sovereign, their territory is relatively small, and it is often encroached by the IDF, so I can't imagine anyone wondering whether this includes or excludes PA territory (and the same can be said for East Jerusalem, which may or may not fall under "Israel", the former no man's land, Shebaa Farms, and all the other pieces of land that don't need special attention). I think the phrases I suggest above are concise, factual and informative - while many people around the world have heard of the Israeli-Arab conflict, you'd be surprised how few actually know what is the status of each territory involved. Even among Israelis there's much ignorance regarding the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I find it quite conceivable that someone that doesn't know exactly who controls the West Bank may stumble across an innocent-looking group called Women for Israel's Tomorrow and want to know more.--Doron 10:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The PA territories will soon include the entire Gaza Strip, which is significant. I still think it's completely unnecessary, but in the interestes of compromise either one is fine with me; both handle AladdinSE's concerns without falling afoul of the obvious issues with his wording. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That Israel occupies these various territories is a fact so overwhelmingly, so internationally recognized, that these "held" and "controlled" compromises are simply unacceptable because they are a pro-Israeli POV that attempt to "euphemize" facts. Now you know I can I can provide a plethora of sources for this classification if you insist on removing it. The only country in the world which tries to de-emphasize or redefine the occupation, is the occupier. The notion that the status is of the territories is so well known that no elaboration is necessary has been well rebutted by myself and Doron. Finally, there are no "PA-controlled areas." The entire West Bank and Gaza strip are under the control of Israel. Partial civilian administration, withdrawn and returned at the whim of the Israeli government, is not control. It's not like the PA is a rebel movement which has military and civil control over swaths of territory, like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or the FARC rebels in Colombia. The designation of "occupied" is both factual and crucial in the con text of Population transfer. Now, the only compromise I can think of which does not try to obscure what is internationally classified as an occupation, is to insert a caveat that Israel objects to that term, which is similar to the consensus worked out in the Golan Heights article. If you can insert it gracefully into the concerned paragraph, I will not object to it. --AladdinSE 00:43, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aladdin, I think the West Bank and Gaza Strip should stand alone without the big-long preceding adjective describing its status. It's the most common and neutral way to describe it. Even the Arab news media refers to it simply as "Gaza Strip" or "West Bank". Here are some random examples [1][2][3] --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
The additional phrase is an off-topic editorial, as in the other articles. In an article which actually discusses the status of the territories it would be appropriate; here, it is irrelevant. What's more, common usage militates against it. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MPerel: "Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories" is hardly big-long. I don't know if you watch much Arab news on TV, but I do whenever I can, and unless my Arabic is very off, I can't recall one instance where their journalists didn't end their reports with "Occupied Jerusalem" or "Occupied Ramallah" etc etc at the end. Even one of the sources you cited specifically uses the wording "The Palestinian cabinet has declared a state of emergency in the Palestinian territories as a massive offensive by Israeli occupation forces continues to claim tens of lives in the Gaza Strip." [4]. The last source [5] you cited says: "Also on Saturday, Israeli occupation forces fired tear gas and rubber bullets ..." Here are some more random sources from around the world: Al-jazeera.net Al Ahram China Daily TIME Kirkby Times News orb6 BBC CNN UN ABC News Online CBS MSNBC Reuters PBS Amnesty International Sydney Morning Herald The New Zealand Herald Human Rights Watch NPR Encyclopaedia Britannica which clearly and routinely use the occupied label. This edit is not an off-topic editorial, rather it is an essential designation which is internationally recognized as neutral fact whose omission would be illogical in the context of explaining Population transfer, where military occupation of the areas to be depopulated is central. Seriously now, around the world, what termionology is considered more common and neutral? --AladdinSE 14:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Probably the best solution in these cases where there is conflicting POV about what constitutes neutral language is to directly quote the source. Is there a direct quote on the population transfer issue you can use that describes the WiG view? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 16:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Good idea. The material is commented out, pending direct quotations. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I provided the source clearly in the form of the WiG article "Transfer of Arabs Is The Only Sound Solution For Peace!" dated September 30, 2003, it appears in the next paragraph (the paragraph was broken up by another editor). It's in their "what we say" section of their website [6]. In it they say:

Most Arabs came into the Holy Land from surrounding Arab lands within the last 100 years. Transfer could be made to Jordan where the majority of the population is made up of so-called Palestinian Arabs. Or they can be sent back to many of the Arab lands from which these Arabs originally emigrated to Israel. Fair payment can be made to those Arabs who agree to leave the Holy Land. Arabs who wish to remain, can do so, provided they agree to be a citizen of a Jewish State.

There's more of course. They are extreme right-wing activists, they claim all of the occupied territories as part of the Land of Israel, naturally they do not use the word "occupied." I have provided a plethora of sources showing clearly the overwhelming international view that these territories are viewed and labeled as occupied. The article is pretty rambling, if you want to condense a quotation about the Transfer issue, go ahead. I don't think it's needed, after all when we write encyclopedia articles we don't quote for every single fact. However if it helps resolve this issue about the occupied description, I won't object to its inclusion as long as it is not overlong. I have removed the invisible comment markers in the interim. --AladdinSE 21:23, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It's one editorial out of hundreds on the site, so its interesting you would focus on that specific one. Anyway, since you wanted to draw attention to it, I've accurately represented its content and import, mostly by quoting it directly. A number of things are unclear in that editorial, and I don't think your assumptions about their meanings are accurate; regardless it's best not to guess. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing sinister about "focusing" on that one editorial. It deals with a a central policy goal of WiG. If you think other important policy aims discussed in other WiG sdources have been overlooked, by all means point them out for us. I've reverted to the descriptive narrative, because the article, as I mentioned earlier, is too rambling to quote gracefully. Nevertheless I kept the reference to the "fair payment" info, which is important and was overlooked until you mentioned it. --AladdinSE 04:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

If you think that's a "central policy goal of WiG" you'll have to provide some reference explaining why that is so. As for the quotations, since your parphrases were not an accurate representation of WiG's goals, their own words must be used insteadin accordance with the WP:NPOV policy. And if you're looking to remove rambling stuff, you could start with that rambling essay you added at the end of the Israeli settlements article. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the current version, using WiG's own words to describe their views is more fair and representative than a straw man paraphrase of their views from their opponent's perspective. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simple question

A simple, perhaps silly, question: why is the word "custom" within quote marks? (As in, ...due to its followers' "custom" of wearing green hats, as a deliberate contrast to ...) --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)

[edit] Characterization of Editorials contained in the WiG official website

Jayjg and I have been engaged in a disagreement over the characterization of editorials contained in the WiG official website, specifically dealing with the issue of a proposed WiG policy of an involountary "Population Transfer" of the Arabs living in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories to neighboring Arab states. I am of the opinion that the views detailed in any policy article on the group's official website is a totally legitimate source for describing the group's views and policies in a straight forward and undisguised manner. I am concerned that the narrative portrayal, favored by Jayjg (see difference in our versions [7]), that this particular policy of "Population Transfer" is not an official policy at all but merely an idea proposed by one author in an isolated editorial, is a white-wash of what is generally viewed a very unpopular and extreme idea around the world, akin to ethnic cleansing. This is a policy the WiG have been notorious for for some time, and is one of the main reasons they are classified in the far right of the Israeli political spectrum. All the editorials and articles contained in the official WiG website are listed under the WHAT WE SAY heading, a clear indication that this is a collection of their POLICY PAPERS. Accusations that citing them as actual policy is original research, is utterly groundless. If anyone can introduce any other verifiable official WiG source that contradicts this stated Population Transfer policy, then I would be very happy to reevaluate my position on the nature of these policy papers, essays, and editorials listed on the website. All interested parties please contribute to the discussion. --AladdinSE 02:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

At the very least, this editorial shows that the group is not adverse to the idea. The fact that it is not countered by an opposite editorial is sufficient proof that it is official policy or close enough to policy to be described as that if the link is given. --Zero 04:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between being "not adverse" to an idea, and it being an official policy. In addition, as pointed out months ago (above), AladdinSE's original paraphrases of the views presented in the article were negatively slanted; at least he has finally conceded that quoting them instead is far more neutral. Also, the version which has been in for months is completely factually accurate; AladdinSE's version makes assumptions. Finally, as AladdinSE points out, the group has dozens of position papers; singling this particular idea out for prominence in the article smacks of POV pushing. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

My two cents. I think there's a lot of presumption in AladdinSE's wording. For example, it may very well be true that WiG customarily wears green hats "as a deliberate contrast" to the Women in Black; however, we don't really know, do we? We can only presume it unless WiG explicitly states they deliberately do it for this reason. And presuming a group's motives (especially ones we disagree with and feel compelled to paint negatively) is not very encyclopedic.
As far as attributing one individual's editorial as speaking for the entire group, well this is more complicated in this case I think. The editorials are listed under the website's main tag, "What We Say", and there doesn't seem to be any disclaimer that the editorial views given are not necessarily the views of the organization. However, does one person's editorial realistically represent the views of the whole group? I think it would be more accurate to say, "A member of WiG" or "Some members of WiG" and not "WiG" since these views are not stated explicitly as WiG policy. Perhaps Jayjg's version distances the view too far from belonging to WiG, but AladdinSE's version attributes it too officially to WiG. I think something inbetween might portray a more realistic representation of the group's views. Also, is this view even a prominent one typically held by WiG members? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Another suggestion, couch it this way: "One of the more controversial views held by at least some members of WiG is ... as expressed in an editorial on the official website." --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not concede that my narratives were negatively slanted. WiG is extremely hawkish, and they need little help from me in that regard. What you see as a negative slant is simply the unpopular truth from an extremely right-wing organization. Notice that I did not insert loaded adjectives like "outrageous," "racist," or even "hawkish" to describe their population transfer views. I simply described what they themselves propose is the "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is their official policy, and as mentioned by MPerel, there is no disclaimer in any article or in the "What We Say" section of the website that indicates these position papers and essays are mere independent editorials coincidentally contributed by WiG members. I never saw so clear a presentation of a group's official policies and views. What's more, if this "Population Transfer" were really just an editorial that one would hesitate to attribute to the organization as a whole, then we ought to find contradictory statements from the same source. And the challenge remains unanswered, show us one official WiG citation that contradicts this published "Transfer" policy and I will concede the inconclusive nature of the published articles, and accept the compromise suggested by MPerel. Also, the suggestion that "singling this particular idea out for prominence in the article smacks of POV pushing" is simply not true. Of course this policy article is given prominence, it encapsulates, in a nutshell, WiG's "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! Do you propose it be given equal verbiage with every other idea proposed in their "What We Say" section? This is an encyclopedia, naturally the most central views, points, and controversies (such as the Judenrat letter incident) will be summarized. This is not to say that no further policies or information will be included; we are all free to add to it based on our research and citations.

As regards the matter of the color of the hats, this contribution was not mine, but I kept it because it it's an important piece of information about the origins of the group, that they formed partly as a reaction to a left wing organization espousing opposite views. The term "deliberate contrast" is not in the least pejorative, but if anyone finds it so, I see no harm in changing it as long as the Women in Black link is mentioned. --AladdinSE 18:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

You're now using the argument "if they don't deny it, it's an official policy"? That is particularly weak, and reverses the buirden of proof. You say it is a policy, so prove it. If this is an important policy of theirs, surely you'll find other material backing it up, statements from their leaders etc. As for it being prominent because it encapsulates the WiG "solution", more assumptions and original research. Again, if it's true, you should surely find some supporting material with ease; some editorial about them, article describing them, article by them, etc? Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[it]

This version of the editorial reveals the authors are the cochairwomen of WiG. Let's attribute the views directly to them. Also note Matar's comment in the last line of this article. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work, MPerel. See, a little work turns original research into proper research. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope that's satisfactory to everyone. Also to AladdinSE, the change you made to the hat wording is better, thanks. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add my warm approbation. I found Jayjg's version to be a disconcerting whitewash that ascribed this central, widely known WiG theme to some anonymous causal editorial writer with no authority to speak for the organization. This method of quotation clearly establishes authority and substance and mentions the authorship of the co-chairs. Great research, MPerel. Jayjg, I really wish you'd stop beating this OR dead horse, especially in light of the fact that you leave so much self-defined OR in place among dozens of articles you routinely edit. In this case, you have not put forward one remotely valid argument that classifies the previous wording as OR. In fact, if we were to apply your reasoning, MPerell's wording would be just as unacceptable, as it relies on the same September 20003 article. It is a published official WiG article, and always has been. In fact on the website is it organized under "Media Releases - September 2003." There is no essential difference between saying WiG believes so-and-so based on an article published on their website, and saying The Co-Chairs argue so-and-so in a an article published on their website. The Co-chairs lead the organization in an official capacity and are empowered to speak on it's behalf. They released the statement as an official Media Release. They made no disclaimer that they were not speaking on behalf of the organization, and in fact as MPerel proved, signed their names in their official capacity. I prefer the co-chair wording myself, as it leaves no room for misinterpretation. I have only one change I plan to make, as "articulate" sounds slanted in their favor, as if they made their point well. I'm changing it to "argue". I think "Claim" is too much in the opposite direction. Anyway, great work all round.--AladdinSE 07:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Yay... I like when things get resolved. You two shouldn't be so hard on each other, you each keep the other on his toes, which makes for a better article in the end. Nice work to all. And I agree "argue" is better than "articulate". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "Women in Green"

Is there a way to have that phrase disambiguate to this page? I had no idea what the "actual name" of the group was/is, so I typed in "women in green", and Wikipedia said there was no such page.FlaviaR 15:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel template

Is the State of Israel infobox really necessary in this article? -- Nudve (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)