Jump to content

Talk:Zionist entity/Archive 1

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

Early comments

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, even less a dictionary of pejorative terms. This article should be deleted. --FvdP 21:59, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that it is not a dictionary however, due to the unfortunately all too common use of the term "Zionist Entity" in the Arab World's press statements and historical documents, it carries some historical and political connotations that make it necessary to be included in the encyclopedia. We can link it to pejorative political slogans though. What do you think? 

-Leumi
You'll note that terms cited in "List of pejorative political slogans" tend not to have their own article, e.g. "islamofascism": instead, islamofascism redirects to LoPPS. If I remember well, this was the result of a request of deletion for Islamofascism, which I supported as well BTW. I think people who read "zionist entity" know pretty well they're actually reading "israel", they do not need this article to enlighten them. The term "zionist entity" might well be cited somewhere in Wikipedia though, but I don't like the idea of Wikipedia be used as a receptacle for hate speech. --FvdP 23:49, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is no state that uses the term "Zionist Entity" that recognizes Israel's right to exist. 

-Leumi
  • Zionist entity. Not a NPOV title. Dictionary definition of a pejorative term. No reason to stay here, IMO. --FvdP 22:01, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Somewhere on Wiki must be a discussion of which countries have refused to recognise Israel at what times. Discuss the use of this term there and redirect. Onebyone 10:41, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Its a quite neutral term. Is it "Zionist", "entity" or both terms that you find pejorative? Bertilvidet 11:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, I'm rather surprised. The combination is pejorative. Only anti-zionists use this combination, and it must be emphasized in the article. --Gabi S. 11:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I can not see how it is a pejorativ. Both terms seem neutral. It is completely different from "Zionist pigs" (a title that I immediately would nominate for speedy deletion) that you suggested in an edit summary. Bertilvidet 14:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking for the quoted term "Zionist Entity" in a well-known search engine, the first 100 references are mostly from Muslim countries or, peculiarly, from Germany. It seems that the term is not used in any of the Americas, Africa, Central Asia, Eastern Asia, most of Europe, Australia and some small Middle-Eastern countries. And wherever it is used, it is usually in a negative context ([1], [2], [3] and more). I rest my case. --Gabi S. 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
237.000 hits on Google should make it clear that the term is used. The first hit is "Global Security". It will be an exhausting task to analyze how it is used. I would also expect the term to be used mainly in Muslim countries, and so what? The term is clearly used to describe the state of Israel. Bertilvidet 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is used, no one disputed it. But it is used as a pejorative term by Muslims and anti-Zionists. The "Global Security" article uses the term as tongue-in-cheek. I did analyze the first 100 entries, and the results clearly show that wherever the term is used, it is usually in a negative context (I gave some examples above). To claim that it's a neutral term is incorrect and misleading. --Gabi S. 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I believe you. The term might primarily be used by people who question Israel's right to exist. But I can still not see how the term per se is pejorative. Bertilvidet 17:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Leaving the "pejorative" issue aside, the definition "Term used by anti-Zionists to portray Israel as an illegitimate state" is accurate and NPOV. Redirecting it directly to Israel is taking the term out of context, and misleading. --Gabi S. 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...In princile I can agree on finding a short description for this page rather than a redirect. But we shouldnt judge the purpose of using the term. How about something like: Another term for the State of Israel. The term is primarily used by individuals, organizations and states who question the legitimacy of Israel ? Bertilvidet 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead. As for your previous question, many terms look pejorative to one side but perfectly neutral for the other side. For example, Final Solution probably sounded like a good solution to some European problems at that time, at least to Nazi supporters. --Gabi S. 17:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Why should this have its own page, when the one line description (already) fits easily into the List of political epithets#Zionist entity? If the entry there expands significantly, then we should perhaps consider a separate page. In the meantime, is anyone opposed to a redirect? TewfikTalk 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Not me, obviously. It's not "another term for the State of Israel", it's a disparaging epithet used by those who can't bear to let the country's name cross their lips, lest by so doing they somehow give it some legitimacy. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with redirect per Tewfik and Jay. 6SJ7 16:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If redirect we do necessarily have to redirect to what "Zionist entity" is, and we all know it is Israel. Bertilvidet 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it re-directed to the List of political epithets, which is what "Zionist entity" is, and which discusses "Zionist entity". Please stop changing this against consensus, and pretending that your reversions to your previous versions are "compromise". Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right, there is no consensus. For this reason there is a request for mediation. So far may I suggest that we find a compromise. IMO a compromise is a little sentence about the expression, rather than any of the redirects we would prefer. If each of us impatiently opt for our own preference it will just be a never-ending revert war. As you can see here on the talk page Gabi S agreed on the compromise. It isnt my preferred option, but I realize that we need to seek compromise here. Bertilvidet 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No, there is a consensus. 4 editors have stated it should re-direct to List of political epithets, and one (you) wants it to be something else. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wikipedia articles are not dictionary definitions. Gabi S was beaten down by your constant reverting, and your particular version was indeed your version, not a "compromise". Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I will not analyze on Gabi S' reasons to agree with my suggested wording. As I understand you don't agree may I ask for your suggestions? Bertilvidet 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to analyze her reasons, I just need to look at her edits to see her preference: [4] [5] My suggestion is that you respect the consensus. Jayjg (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
May I kindly urge you to have a look at the talk page. Indeed, Gabi and I had debates about to where this article should redirect. However, I deeply respect Gabi for taking the time to engage in debates and searc for a compromise rather than blindly reverting. This is how we reached the sentence Another term for the State of Israel. The term is primarily used by individuals, organizations and states who question the legitimacy of Israel. You have of course your right to dispute this compromise. But may I then suggest you to come with other proposals than starting from the very beginning. Bertilvidet 18:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
My I kindly urge you to look at the dates of Gabi's reversions; she reverted you days after the alleged "agreement" on this Talk: page. As explained above, "Zionist entity" is not just "another term for Israel", it's a pejorative epithet. The fact that Gabi took my response to your "compromise wording" above and inserted it verbatim in the "list of political epithets" while thanking me should tell you something. The fact that a number of others disagreed with you should also tell you something. But don't call your particular POV version, which no-one agrees with, a "compromise". My personal preference would be to delete and protect this article against re-creation; the fact that it exists at all is a compromise. Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion. I agreed to Bertilvidet's suggestion on 29-Aug-2006, then I thought it over, and changed my mind (as explained right here, below - Zionist entity DOES NOT EQUAL Israel). I think that "Zionist Entity" is more than a term "used by those who question Israel's legitimacy"; it is something worse, a disparaging epithet, and that's why I changed it to redirect to List of political epithets. Due to this disagreement with Bertilvidet I filed a request for mediation on this issue. I hope that whatever is suggested by the mediation comitee will be regarded as a long-term solution. Ah, by the way, and irrelevantly to the discussion, I'm male. --Gabi S. 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I stand corrected, and will thus refrain from changing the page until the request for mediation has been adressed. Bertilvidet 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Zionist entity DOES NOT EQUAL Israel

Zionist Entity is a term used by Anti-Israel persons, because they are afraid that saying "Israel" might mean they support the State of Israel. I have a similar example: If person A calls person B a "nigger", he doesn't mean just to say that B is a black person of African origin. It has a negative context that cannot be ignored. So claiming that "Zionist entity" is Israel is wrong. The negative term "Zionist entity" is a political epithet, and that's where it belongs. --Gabi S. 07:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I also reaffirm my position - this should be a redirect to List of political epithets#Zionist entity. TewfikTalk 19:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I have archived the old version of the talk page from before the mediation. To see what was there beforehand click here. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment

"the State of Israel", not "Israel", see Disambiguation.

Quotes

Wouldn't it be more helpful to have actual quotes from people opposed to Israel's existence using the phrase, rather than people attacking people who oppose Israel's existence? I'm sure that there are people who use the phrase to describe Israel, but from the quotes here, it makes it seem as if the phrase is only used in polemics against those who deny Israel's legitimacy. --Jfruh (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The account of the term's origin is unsourced, and I believe, wrong. This URL [6] gives a 1947 Arabic usage translated as "Zionist Entity." The reference to the Rogers plan is mysterious and wrong, at that date the US just thought the West Bank should go to Jordan, so I removed it.John Z 08:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The article is now just a list of quotes denouncing the use of the term. This is POV, not to mention useless and irrelevent. Kauffner 07:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Israel" as a taboo word

The quotes have been converted to references, but what they say is still highly emotional and quite misleading. There is no taboo against using the word "Israel" and it is easy enough to find examples of Arafat, Nasar, Khomeini and other leaders using it. The word "Israel" is even in the PLO Covenant.[7] The origin of the term "Zionist entity" is most likely a turnabout of the phrase "Palestinian entity." Kauffner (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"Existence"

User:Kauffner keeps removing the word "existence" from the phrase "denying Israel's existence", despite these reliable sources which use it:

  • Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. pp. 161. ISBN 1-55111-376-7. "Nations can be ignored by not recognizing their existence. Some Arabs would prefer not to speak of 'Israel', but of the 'Zionist entity'."
  • Kirkpatrick, Jeane (1988). Legitimacy and Force: Natural and International Dimensions. Transaction Publishers. pp. 7. ISBN 0-88738-647-4. "In this Arab world where faith and politics are linked, traditionalists and radicals, Saudis and Libyans, can unite in hostility against the state of Israel - whose right to exist they deny, whose very existence they refuse to acknowledge, whose name they refuse to utter, calling Israel instead 'the Zionist entity' or 'the deformed Zionist entity'."
  • Sank, Diane & Caplan, David I. (1991). To Be a Victim: Encounters with Crime and Injustice. Plenum Press, 289. ISBN 030643962X. "The very phrase 'Zionist entity' reveals the ultimate intention of those who use it. The State of Israel cannot be dignified by being called by its proper name. To refer to it as 'Israel' is to acknowledge its existence as a legal entity."

Please don't remove factual, reliably sourced material again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No one gets works up about a thing that they don't believe actually exists. It's a ridiculous claim no matter how many authors make it. Look at the examples of actual Arabs using the word: "The Zionist entity now feels that its end is near and it is acting in hysteria." If something doesn't exist, how can it be "acting in hysteria"? The people that you are quoting are political writers, not linguists. Kauffner (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Kauffner here. Refusing to recognize a country as a legal entity is not the same as "denying its existence". Israel obviously exists, nobody in their right mind would deny that, the Arab states just refused recognition, which is a diplomatic denial. The phrase "denying its existence" makes it sound as if Arabs are suffering from some sort of mass hallucination, which is surely not the meaning you are intending to convey. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter if you and Kauffner agree that the claim is ridiculous. Numerous reliable sources have described the claim exactly so - and we can't indulge in personal research, to change what reliable source say. NoCal100 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand Wikipedia standards. The person who wants to include the material has to justify it. What "reliable sources"? None of these sources are authorities on language use. Of the quotes listed, it is only Kirkpatrick who states clearly that Arabs don't believe Israel exists. In fact, the last quote says the opposite: "To refer to it as 'Israel' is to acknowledge its existence". I can assure you that Arabs often refer Israel as "Israel." The word is even in PLO covenant. Kauffner (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand Wikipedia standards very well, apparently, much better than you do. The standard on Wikipedia is verifiability - and it has been verified that multiple sources have said the phrase refers to non recognition of "Israel's existence". End of story. NoCal100 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes but that's exactly my point NoCal. They deny recognition to Israel, they do not deny that Israel exists. Only a lunatic would do the latter. Gatoclass (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The sources very clearly say they deny Israel exists. You may think it is lunacy, but I disagree - and the bottom line is, on WP, we go by what reliable sources say. NoCal100 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, they don't say that at all. One says "The State of Israel cannot be dignified by being called by its proper name". That's not the same as denying the country exists. Another says "whose very existence they refuse to acknowledge". If I refuse to acknowledge you when I pass you in the street, does that mean I am denying that you exist? No, it just means I am withholding recognition. Choosing to ignore something and denying its existence are different things. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at what you have just quoted: ""whose very existence they refuse to acknowledge""". That is very explicitly what our article claims - that they refuse to acknowledge the existence. NoCal100 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but again, that is just my point. "Refusing to acknowledge" something is not the same as denying it exists. When Ehud Barak went to Camp David to meet Arafat, he sat with his back to Arafat the whole time. That was refusing to acknowledge his existence. But does that mean he would deny that Arafat existed? Of course not. He spoke about Arafat numerous times, what he was doing was denying Arafat respect. Gatoclass (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If we have reliable sources that say that Barak does not acknowledge Arafat's existence, we'd quote them, regardless of what we think of Barak's actions or the sources. the sources we have here say that those using the term 'Zionist Entity' refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel. If you'd like to change "denying Israel's existence and right to exist." to denying Israel's right to exist and refusing to acknowledge Israel's existence", I think I'd be fine with that. NoCal100 (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass, you seem to be ignoring the first source too, which states "Nations can be ignored by not recognizing their existence. Some Arabs would prefer not to speak of 'Israel', but of the 'Zionist entity'." Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Clear example of the tendentious editing by inserting misconstrued and/or highly selective quotes that has become popular in a certain WP camp lately. The last one is particularly laughable, but to the credit of the editor, at least he didn't truncate the last four words even though he could theoretically have. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I had to think about it too, but he is talking about the Sank and Caplan quote, the "last four words" of which are "as a legal entity". In other words, the quote implies that people who use the word "Zionist Entity" do acknowledge that Israel exists, it is just the legality that they deny. Kauffner (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The entire first sentence is a personal attack on contributors. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
No, a comment on edits, such as this one. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That was a comment about content, unless you count "credit to the editor" as a comment on the contributor. The suggested new content, that had no support even in these highly selective quotes, has now been changed, which is good. MeteorMaker (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
At least the text now agrees with what one of the purported sources says, which is a step forward. But what it says is still nonsense. Arabs use the word "Israel" all the time. Look at Daily Star of Lebanon, Saudi Gazette, or Arab News. An Arabic-language Google search reveals 95 million hits for "Israel"[8] (اسرائيل) versus 1.2 million for "Zionist entity"[9] (الكيان الصهيوني) So "Zionist entity" really isn't mainstream usage at all. (On a lighter note, I discovered that on Arabic Wikipedia "Zionist entity" is a redirect to "Israel.") Kauffner (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
What, specifically, do you find to be "nonsensical"? NoCal100 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
First off, "Zionist entity" is described in the text as a "euphemism". This implies that from an Arab point of view, "Israel" is a dirty word and they avoid using it. Second, the Kirkpatrick quote, which is the number one most prominently displayed source, states this idea explicitly -- that Arabs use "Zionist entity" because "Israel" is a "name they refuse to utter." Finally, the Sank quote is comically wrong: "To refer to it as 'Israel' is to acknowledge its existence as a legal entity." If only this was true! Kauffner (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added a half-dozen other reliable sources discussing the phrase. Have you had a chance to review them? Do you have any which have differing views? Jayjg (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think it needed any more refs, the article already looked untidily overreferenced without them. I don't think Kaufman's criticisms have any substance, it doesn't matter whether or not Arabs sometimes refer to Israel as Israel, all that matters is how and why the phrase "Zionist entity" is used, and that has already been adequately documented. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The burden of proof should be on those who want to put this stuff in, not on me to find a source that justifies removing it. I notice that when I point out that your sources are mistaken, you don't even try to defend them. Even Hezbollah can use the word "Israel", as in "Israeli Domain Registration Server Hacked". So what Kirkpatrick writes can't possibly be true. The fact that you have a source is not a sufficient reason to add material if it can be shown that the source is mistaken. Kirkpatrick certainly isn't an expert on Arabic language use. Finally, to have footnotes filled with one-sided political commentary that are three or four times the length of the text they supposedly source is at very least an unusual format. Kauffner (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please familiarize your self with the basic wikipedia policies. The standard we operate by is verifiability, not "truth", whatever you imagine the latter to be. Every single statement in the article is verifiable, and impeccably sourced to reliable sources. If you think those sources are wrong, and want to argue against them - start a blog, post to usenet, write a letter to the editor. Here, we go by what reliable sources say. NoCal100 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
"Impeccably sourced"????? Please tell me you are kidding. Kirkpatrick is no one's idea of an Arabic language specialist. Kauffner (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so you don't understand the wiki concept of a reliable source - that's why I asked you to familiarize yourself with our basic policies. Kirkpatrick is quoted in Legitimacy and Force: Natural and International Dimensions, which is a reliable source. Seriously, do yourself a big favor and understand the concepts and principles this project is built one- otherwise you will not only be very frustrated in your editing, but will likely get into trouble (read: blocked or otherwise sanctioned) sooner or later. NoCal100 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
So Legitimacy and Force: Natural and International Dimensions is where language specialists publish? I didn't think so. Even if they did, it doesn't necessarily follow that we have to include the quote in the article. Kauffner (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Verifiability does not override neutrality. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Quoting irrelevant pieces of policy is not helpful; in this case the material is both verifiable and neutral. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality doens't mean the source must be neutral. It means we have to report without taking party and in giving them their due weight all the relevant material on a topic... But I think that is what is done in Jayjg's version. If somebody wants to add something, because there would be another analysis of relevant information, he has to (globally) : 1. provide a wp:rs - 2. argue there is no undue:weight... Ceedjee (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

original research moved to talk

I've moved the following section to here for further discussion:

The phrase gained prominence during the lead up to the 1967 war.<ref>Karsh, Efraim, ''Islamic Imperialism'', p. 167.</ref> For example, [[Algerian]] Prime Minister [[Houari Boumedienne]] called for "the destruction of the Zionist entity" at this time.<ref>"[http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/threats.asp Arab Threats Against Israel]"</ref> A more recent example is provided by Muhammad Raad, head of [[Hizbullah]]'s faction in the Lebanese parliament: "The Zionist entity now feels that its end is near and it is acting in hysteria." <ref>"[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125286 U.S. Intel Chief: Hizbullah May Have Killed Mughniyeh]", February 17, 2008.</ref>

To begin with, the first citation does not actually back up the claim made for it, that the phrase came to prominence during the lead up to the 1967 war - I've checked the source. The next two sentences are pure original research; mere examples of primary sources using the term, rather than secondary sources discussing the use of the term. Why choose these two uses out of many thousands? Are they notable or noteworthy in some way? If so, according to whom? In contrast, the material I replaced it with used only secondary sources that actually discussed the term's usage. Can anyone explain why we should include this paragraph, given the material is already dealt with in the article using reliable secondary sources ? Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add that we could discuss the reliability of the website provided to source the information. Jayjg version is better (more encyclopaedic). Ceedjee (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no rule against using primary sources. The guidelines say to use them "with care." By defining Arab sources as "primary", Jayjg wikilawyered his way into creating an article where a single point of view is presented relentlessly, again and again. How can this be considered NPOV? From reading comments on the Web by Arab users, a significant number of Arabs have no idea how strongly Israelis feel about this issue. They think of "Zionist entity" as another name for "Israel" and they will switch back and forth between the two words like it's TO-MAY-TO and TO-MAH-TO. There are almost as many Arabic hits for "Zionist entity" and "Israel" together as there are for "Zionist entity" by itself. In other words, it is very uncommon for an Arab to use "Zionist entity" exclusively and to refuse to say "Israel."Kauffner (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Kauffner,
On wp, we don't care the truth.
If wp had been written and the time of Galileo Galilei, his theory that the earth is not at the center of the universe but that in fact just turns around the sun would have been forbidden.
I understand you point and it is highly possible that Arab are not fully aware that the state in the Middle could be named Israel and that Zionist entity is pejorative.
Nevertheless, in that case, you have to provide wp:rs sources that give that analysis.
We are not here to perform our own analysis (how clever they are -> see WP:PR. We are here as reporters of WP:RS sources. In that context, we can only use primary sources as illustrative of points of reliable (academic) secondary sources.
There is no other way to deal with that else, it would be chaos. Ceedjee (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
This is a patronizing tactic. "I understand your point" -- and then you proceed to turn what I wrote on its head. I have pointed out repeatedly that "Israel" (اسرائيل) is the common usage in Arabic by an overwhelming margin. This is something you would never guess from reading the article as it is written now. To define stuff you agree with as "secondary" and stuff you disagree as "primary" and then claim that we can't use primary sources is a transparent dodge to get around the NPOV rule. There is no ban on primary sources and reasons for avoiding primary sources are not present here. We are not talking about obscure ancient literature that requires a specialist to explain, nor is it material held in an archive that is difficult to access and verify. Kauffner (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't write that the primary sources your provided are false.
But how can we be sure that there are not just 10 such exemples and not 1,000,000,000 others. The contrary could also be true and maybe Zionist entity is not at all relevant.
We cannot state one or the other if we don't have a wp:rs secondary source, typically a scholar on the issue, who commented the topic. The more scientific his methodsn, the better
What you claim will always remain your claim, ie the one of an anonymous wp editor. You have no more and no less reliability that any of us, which means 0.
Bring clues, ie wp:rs secondary sources, that is the only solution.
An Arab or Muslim scholar, even a journalist from al-Jeziraa would be considered as a wp:rs source for this, of course. Ceedjee (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've had to remove more original research to this talk page, as follows:

However, Egyptian President Nasser and other Arab leaders repeatedly used the word "Israel" rather than "Zionist entity" during the 1967 crisis.<ref>"[http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/crucial_quotes.htm 6 Days War: Crucial quotes]"</ref>

As is quite apparent, the sources themselves don't make this argument, or even use the term "Zionist entity". Per WP:NOR, please restrict your insertions to material that actually discusses the term "Zionist entity", which is the subject of this article. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Original research" seems to be your all-purpose description for material you don't like. What does, "Before 1967 the term was the standard one used by Arabs to refer to Israel" mean? If this means that Arab leaders at that time avoided the use the word "Israel", that is a claim about the word "Israel." It is also a claim that is easily disproven with counterexamples. Writers on international affairs are a poor source of linguist information, as is evident from this example. Just give me an honest answer to this question: Is it NPOV to claim that Arabs all use the term "Zionist entity" and thereby express race hatred? That seems to be the gist of the article the way it is written. This is traffiking in ethnic stereotypes, like having an article about how stupid Polacks are. Kauffner (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
"Original research" is my description for Wikipedia editor written arguments that attempt to "disprove" what reliable sources say by bringing "counterexamples". Please review WP:SYNTH for more information. As for the rest of your comments, a) I have never removed material that actually discusses the term "Zionist entity", and b) the article does not claim that Arabs all use the term "Zionist entity" and thereby express race hatred. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR link to the same page, a page that doesn't say anything about counterexamples? The article should present the evidence and let the reader decide what's proven or disproven. I also notice you didn't answer my question. The set of claims made in the article could be considered not just POV, but also quite offensive by a reasonable person. All your arguments relate to sourcing, but surely NPOV and the need to create an encyclopedic tone are at least as important. I'm sure that you sincerely believe that you are enforcing important standards, but as near as I can tell the sourcing rules you follow are your own little thing. Kauffner (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. WP:SYNTH links to a specific section of WP:NOR. I'll quote it for you, to help:

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research.

Now, you inserted the novel conclusion that "However, Egyptian President Nasser and other Arab leaders repeatedly used the word "Israel" rather than "Zionist entity" during the 1967 crisis." Did any of the sources reach that same conclusion? Did any of them discuss Nasser's and other Arab leaders use of the term at all? No, I thought not. Now, regarding your latest insertion, you've selectively cited it and managed to leave out the main topic of the article, so I've cleaned that up for now, but can you please explain where it discusses the euphemism "Zionist entity"? I couldn't find any such reference. Jayjg (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
If you object to my summary of the Arab leader quotes, the obvious solution is to include a few word for word quotes -- although I have tried that before without success. I don't see how a direct quote can be considered OR. The source has to relate to the "subject" of article, which is not the same as requiring that the name of the article appear in every source that is used. Kauffner (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The sources didn't discuss "Zionist entity", and your novel conclusion was not found in any of the sources. To avoid WP:NOR, you need to find sources that discuss the term "Zionist entity", and you can't fix that by re-wording sources that don't. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
If a source is faithfully summarized or quoted, that's obviously not original. You throw around the phrase "original research" in a way that suggests you don't know or care what the phrase means. Kauffner (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please re-read may comments above, particularly the excerpt from WP:SYNTH, and the WP:NOR policy in general. This section is also relevant:

Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research; see below.

The bold parts are in the original. You can't do your own research on who or what have used the term "Israel" at various points, and then try to use advance a position that contradicts what reliable sources have said on the the subject of the term "Zionist entity". The sources you have do not address the term "Zionist entity", neither directly, nor explicitly.Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Writing the same thing over and over is supposed to prove what? You don't even attempt to address the point I made: A quotation or faithful summary is not the same as original research. Kauffner (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
How do you know that material in question is relevant to this article? Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Euphemism"

Regarding Kauffner's edit, not only is the term "Zionist entity" a euphemism for Israel, but reliable sources say it is. Please stop removing cited fact in favor of your own views. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Standard article

This article, 8 paragraphs long, devotes 7 paragraphs to discussing how Arab textbooks avoid using the term "Israel", and one paragraph mentioning that in contrast, Al Jezeera and other media do use the term. The term "Zionist entity" does not appear once in the article. Either this article is not appropriate for use as a source, in which case all quotes sourced to it go, or, if it is acceptable to use its final paragraph, it is equally valid to use the other 7, which are the main theme of the article. Removing the latter, but keeping the former is not acceptable. NoCal100 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Those textbooks are for beginning speakers of Arabic. It is a very small niche compared to Al Jazeera. The article on Wiki repeatedly implies the reason Arabs use the phrase "Zionist entity" is because they wish to avoid using the word "Israel." So the fact that the Arab media freely uses the word "Israel" is, I think, relevant. I don't see what counting paragraphs in the Weekly Standard article is supposed to prove. Kauffner (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It shows that you are cherry picking a certain piece of the article, which is a side-note to the main theme, while the main theme is that Arab textbooks go to lengths to avoid using "Israel". The article does not once mention "Zionist entity", and it is original research to use it as a source in this article. NoCal100 (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If the word "Israel" is standard usage on al-Jazeera, then obviously "Zionist entity" is not. So an article can say something about "Zionist entity" without actually using the term. If you think this is cherry picking, you can confirm it by checking the Daily Star of Lebanon or pretty much any other mainstream Arab news site. The common practice is to use "Israel" in news articles and "Zionist entity" only in quotes and opinions. Kauffner (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you time and again, the above is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed on this project. In order to include something along those lines, you need to find a reliable sources that says it, explicitly. If the Weekly Standard article said something like "the word "Israel" is standard usage on al-Jazeera, who do not use "Zionist entity" " - it would be Ok to include it. But for Kauffner to deduce it, is original research. The cherry picking I am reffering to is taking one line out of a long article that discusses how Arab textbooks AVOID using Israel, in order to push the opposite POV. NoCal100 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You cite the part of the source that is relevant. If you think this is "cherry picking," you don't understand the concept. Textbooks for second language beginners are a tiny niche, not representative of mainstream language usage. But if you want to include them, that's fine with me. There is no rule to the effect that all cited sources must have name of the Wiki article in them. We can just present the evidence and let the reader make the deductions. Before the issue was secondary vs primary sources. Now that I've come with a secondary source, lo and behold, a new set of nonsensical sourcing rules. NPOV and verifiability are the core principles on Wiki, yet this article consists of 15 opinions representing one side of a controversial issue. Kauffner (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
And who is to say that the single line you cite is "relevant", but the 8 paragraphs you ignore are not relevant? where is the reliable source that claims "Textbooks are a tiny niche"? Please review WP:SYNTH, as your editing violates this basic policy. NoCal100 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I've left the original research material in for now, but restored the main thesis of the article. It's quite obvious that if the side-note that a couple of Arab media sources use the term "Israel" is relevant, then the main thesis of the article (the fact that Arab textbooks avoid the term "Israel") is relevant. In fact, it's even more relevant, since this article is about exactly that; Arab sources which avoid the term "Israel". If the main thesis of the source is removed again, then I will remove the entire source. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be relevant if the textbooks used the term "Zionist entity", but the quoted article makes no such claim. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Nor do the two Arab news sources use the term "Zionist entity". In fact, the cited article doesn't refer to the phrase "Zionist entity" at all. By all rights it should be removed entirely from this article, which is about the term "Zionist entity", a euphemism used by Arab sources to avoid saying or writing "Israel". Now, the fact that the cited article spends 90% of its contents noting that Arab textbooks also use euphemisms to avoid writing "Israel" is obviously directly relevant to this article; if the OR argument works at all, it is for the material that discusses Arab sources that use the term "Israel", which is not the topic of this article. In other words, contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, the main thesis of the article (and the least OR piece of it) was removed, while the side-bar (and most OR piece) was retained. Now, as I said, I think it should all be removed as OR; but if it's going to be included, then the article will certainly not be selectively cited in order to leave out its main thesis, and the facts in it that are most salient and relevant to this article. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
When you say "the fact that the cited article spends 90% of its contents noting that Arab textbooks also use euphemisms", what exact passage in the text are you referring to? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is that the textbooks avoid saying "Israel", as do those who use the pejorative euphemism "Zionist entity" instead. For example: The broader question raised by the acrobatic cartography of these textbooks is why the authors are so determined to avoid the word 'Israel.'. Jayjg (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but you said it was a fact that the article "spends 90% of its contents noting that Arab textbooks use euphemisms". Isn't that a fact any more? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article does point out that in a couple of cases the term "Palestine" is used instead, rather than the more common tactic of simply omitting any reference to the name. In any event, as I said, this article is about the term "Zionist entity", a euphemism used by Arab sources to avoid saying or writing "Israel". Did you have any comments you wished to make about article content, or did you just want to continue making meta-comments about my own comments? Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That's an unusual (and IMO improper) way to dismiss valid criticism of the premises of your edits. You prop up inclusion of an irrelevant fact in the article with "90% of its contents [notes] that Arab textbooks also use euphemisms to avoid writing "Israel"", and when it turns out that the figure instead is exactly 0%, basic honesty demands that you withdraw that premise as support for your conclusion. If the textbooks actually used "Zionist entity", you would have a case, but again, that is not what the article says. What it does confirm, however, is that "ZE" is not standard terminology in Arab news, which is otherwise an impression the article reader is left with. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The "premises of my edits" were explained quite clearly above, when I quoted myself. I'll repeat them. This article is about the term "Zionist entity", a euphemism used by Arab sources to avoid saying or writing "Israel". As for your argument regarding "standard terminology in Arab news", not only is your conclusion WP:NOR, but the source in question in any event doesn't support it. Rather, it points out that exactly two Arab news sources uses the term "Israel". Both, as it turns out, are Western oriented. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Does it bother you at all that the claim that the Arabs avoid using the word "Israel" is factually nonsense? I can list any number of Arab news sources where "Israel" is standard usage. Even on Hamas and Hezbo sites, "Israel" is used at least as frequently as "Zionist entity." Someone above argued about that we have to go with the majority opinion, just like Earth going around the Sun vs Sun going around the Earth. But this article makes rather serious accusations against Arabs as an ethnic group which I think puts it in a different category. It's not like Kirkpatrick and the others are Arabic language specialists whose opinions can command respect on that basis. Kauffner (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
we report what reliable sources say. This article makes the verifiable claim that ZE is a pejorative term used to avoid using the word 'Israel'. It does not say 'Israel' is never used, so even putting aside the clear wikipedia policy against the kind of original research you are engaging in, from a pure logical perspective, you are arguing against a strawman. NoCal100 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone with no background on the issue who reads this article is likely to conclude the ZE is standard usage, which is misleading at best. Just because verifiable material doesn't fit your agenda doesn't mean it is original research. Kauffner (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
why would they conclude that, when the article does not say that? And you are simply incorrect - verifiable material which is strung together in order to reach a conclusion not made by the sources themselves is most certainly original research - read WP:SYNTH NoCal100 (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Why would a reader conclude that Arabs avoid saying the "Israel" and generally use ZE instead? Have you, well, read the article? The Kirkpatrick quote says the Arab world is "unite[d]" in "refus[ing] to utter" the word "Israel." She is cited as if she is a leading authority. I just summarize what the sources say and put that in the article. The conclusion is up to the reader. You seem to be confusing my article edits with what I write on the talk page. Kauffner (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The sources say that major Arab News media use "Israel". The article says exactly the same. No obvious issue with WP:SYNTH that I can see. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This article is not Arab media, nor is it Israel. Feel free to add this claims to either one of those articles. NoCal100 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anybody claiming that either. Is your position still that it's WP:SYNTH to include the quote, and, if so, what conclusion do you see that wasn't in the original text? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The source in question no-where refers to the phrase "Zionist entity". Please review WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "Israel"

Entities that use the term and entities that avoid the term are both relevant. Please do not delete either one, as they are both cited. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Should we just remove the entire sentence? -- Avi (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
well, there could theoretically be a "use of the word israel section" which they both could apply to and would need to be fleshed out a bit. but, probably a brief chronology of usage - when and by whom, wikilinks to the relevant conflicts or incidents, and a passionless description of each sides' position seems best here. the lead as it is seems to imply that all arabs and muslims use it exclusively to deny israels existence and, frankly, is overcited and repetitive. untwirl(talk) 17:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
By all means, a dispassionate (as best as we can) history would be great. -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"Israel" has always been both formal and common usage among Arabs. I can easily come up with any number of examples to demonstrate this. All the major Arab papers use "Israel" as the standard form. Nasser used it even during the 1967 war. It's even in the PLO charter. Textbooks for first year language learners are hardly representative of mainstream language use. There is no rule that says that the wiki article title must appear in every source used. An example of an Arab source using "Israel" is obviously not going to include the word "Zionist entity". Unrebutted material on how racist and hateful the Arabs are -- this is NPOV? Kauffner (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Where does it say that Arabs are "racist and hateful" in the article? -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"reflecting racial hatred". Second line from the top. And of course again in reference 10. Kauffner (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of quoting random phrases . That sentence means no more and no less than the fact that Virginia Tilley is of the opinion that the use of the term "Zionist entity" is an element of the hatred against Jews evinced by certain Arabs and Palestinians, to wit, suicide bombers, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Only if you believe that all Arabs share those values, Kauffner, could you even begin to make the erroneous argument relying on the fallacy of composition. And even were that true, that is still your own opinion, and WP:OR/WP:NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
So if I object to racial stereotyping, the reason must be because I myself am a racist. Man, that's deep. You could have just written, "I know you are, but what am I?" Kauffner (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, not at all. Reacting to racial stereotyping is a noble and honorable endeavor, and you are to be commended for your inherent empathy for victims of stereotyping. However, there are some flaws with your arguments here which have you pointed in the wrong direction, I am afraid. There is no racial stereotyping in this article. There is the statement that Virginia Tilley believes that Palestinian suicide bombers, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other people are exhibit racial hatred of Jews. Firstly, by your taking Ms. Tilley's statement about specific people, and applying it to all Arabs, you are, unintentionally I am sure, exhibiting some form of stereotyping. I do not think all Arabs hate Jews, nor do I think Ms. Tilley meant that either. As I pointed out above, you are guilty of the fallacy of composition, unintentionally stereotyping all Arabs in the process. As you are obviously a decent person, appalled by such behavior when you recognize it, I am glad to be able to help you prevent yourself from falling into such a trap. Moreover, even if your fallacious argument was valid, you would need to take it up with Ms. Tilley. The wikipedia article makes no statement about Arabs; it makes a statement about Ms. Tilley's understanding of the use of the term "Zionist entity" by a specific group of people, including Palestinian suicide bombers, Hamas, etc. I'm glad that we had the opportunity to discuss this at such detail, and to help prevent all of us from being guilty of ugly inappropriate generalizations. -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I've already dealt with your fallacy/stereotyping psychobabble. Tilley is a very pro-Arab author. The material quoted in the article is her attempt to explain the Israeli POV. I suggest we replace it with a Tilley quote where she gives her own opinion: "The 'Zionist entity' later denounced in Arab rhetoric was the Jewish state, not the Jewish presence." (The One-State Solution, p. 202.) Kauffner (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, Kauffner, you are confusing logic with psychology. Psychology is the study of mental function and behavior. I fail to see where we have discussed your mental functioning. Instead I myself logically deconstructing your arguments, and you responding with fallacies of argumentum ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi. If you have anything pertinent to respond to the arguments above, please do so. Otherwise you diminish the quality of the conversation by trying to deflect discussions on content with irrelevant, and inaccurate, discussions about editors. -- Avi (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
So I take you have no objection to changing the quote? Kauffner (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe we should discuss it in a new section, which I will start below. -- Avi (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does there need to be a section exclusively on usage of the term Israel? This article isn't proclaiming that "Zionist entity" is the only term used or that it is even used more frequently than the word Israel. Surely the issue should be mentioned but it doesn't necessarily necessitate its own section.ShamWow (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the article? The number one reference has a quote from Kirkpatrick which claims that the entire Arab world avoids using the word "Israel," which is a lot of nonsense. The phrase "pejorative euphemism", which appears in main text, implies that Arabs are offended if they hear the word "Israel", which would suggest that they don't use it. Kauffner (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"implies that…" and "which would suggest…" are both WP:OR. We need to have properly cited references to prevent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
You quote random phrases I write and then cite irrelevant rules. It's a fascinating writing style, like something an auto-objection bot might have produced. I can't possibly have "properly cited references" for assertions about the article itself. Kauffner (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess you just failed the Turing test . Or, perhaps, you are not a wikipedia regular, so I will explain the brief comment above in more detail, which you will hopefully be able to follow more easily than the original terse note. Wikipedia forbids editing articles to reflect editor's opinions. If it did not, there would be no such thing as a stable article. Instead, it requires that additions to articles be based on outside sources. This is described in more detail, should you be interested, in the policy called Wikipedia:No original research. Moreover, even logical conclusions based on existing outside sources cannot be added for the first time in wikipedia, as described in specific at Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. When you stated your concerns about the article's implications and suggestions, that was your own feelings and opinions that were coming through. While there is nothing wrong with feelings and opinions, they are not adequate reason, in and of themselves, to make changes to wikipedia articles. To delete information from an article, it must violate one or more of wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Furthemore, the policy on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view does not demand that articles be written as if by lobotomized editors. Rather, it requires that "all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias." If there is a legitimate, properly-cited, non-fringe point-of-view that the term "Zionist entity" is used in a pejorative, if not outright rascist/hateful, fashion, it would be a violation to leave it out. The proper response to balance the article is to bring legitimate, properly-cited, non-fringe sources that show an alternative point-of-view. I hope this makes it clearer for you, Kauffner. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
So if you find a source that traffics in ethnic stereotypes, then you must add it to the appropriate wiki article? I'm speechless. Kauffner (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see above where I show, using forensics and the exposure of logical fallacies, how, inadvertantly I am sure, the only person guilty of stereotyping Arabs here, Kauffner, is you. -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Kauffner, the article is about the term "Zionist entity," not the term "Israel." All sources in this article must discuss the term "Zionist entity." You can find sources that make counter-arguments but you can't construct it with primary sources or you'll be falling into WP:Original Research.ShamWow (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
NOR doesn't say anything like what you are claiming. There is no requirement that every source include the title of wiki article it is used in. Nor is there a ban on the use of primary sources -- they must be used "only with care." Moreover, the NOR article is talking such primary sources as archival documents, witnesses, and technical or ancient sources that require interpretation. An easily verifiable published example of someone using a certain word is not in the same category. Secondary rules about sourcing should not be used as pretexts to evade NPOV, or as a license to engage in ethnic stereotyping. Kauffner (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage in the West and by Christians

It would be interesting if the article could determine whether the term has ever been used by prominent people in the West, as well by Christians in both East and West. There is an important following of right-wing Christians led by Pat Buchanan in the United States and Jean-Marie Le Pen in France which more or less tends to regard Israel as a Zionist entity. There are also groups of Arab Christians in Lebanon that are strongly anti-Israel and that have adopted similar positions to those of the organization Hezbollah. ADM (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan, as virulently anti-Israel as he is, says "Israel." He may also use the term "Zionists" but I have never heard him use "Zionist entity" instead of Israel. I don't know about any of the other people or groups you mention, but the use of "Zionist" entity in the U.S. is very rare. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tilley quote

Above, Kauffner wrote:

Tilley is a very pro-Arab author. The material quoted in the article is her attempt to explain the Israeli POV. I suggest we replace it with a Tilley quote where she gives her own opinion: "The 'Zionist entity' later denounced in Arab rhetoric was the Jewish state, not the Jewish presence." (The One-State Solution, p. 202.) Kauffner (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)</quote>

I would think that if Tilley is a very pro-Arab author, her admission that the term Zionist entity is a pejorative example of the racial hatred of Jews by certain peoples carries more weight. I think the quote Kauffner brings is relevant as well, and I would suggest both quotes be in the article, but of course, as usual, I reserve the right to change my mind if convinced by effective arguments. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

PLO Charter

It seems that I have to explain WP:NOR yet again. No, it does not ban the use of primary sources. I quote: They "may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." The kind of the primary source NOR is referring to is material that is difficult to verify, such as witness testimony, unpublished information, archival data, and ancient documents requiring expert interpretation. A published example of a particular word usage is not in the same category. The purpose of a Wiki article is to present useful, NPOV, verifiable information to the reader. But here we see arbitrary sourcing rules used as a pretext to generate a one-sided article full of misinformation. Kauffner (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem using the Charter as a source, but only as to what it says. What it does not say is, obviously, not in the Charter, and thus, a violation of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. I know, it is frustrating, but with I/P articles we are all best served by strictly adhering to policy and guideline in all cases. Once we make an exceptionin one article, it is hard not to start making larger exceptions in other articles. Therefore, on order to be absolutely compliant with plicy and guideline, please find a source that makes a reference specifically to the Charters NOT using specific terms; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote Farm

Kauffner, this is not a quote farm. There are a few quotes but it most definitely does not constitute a quote farm. Not even a full sentence is a quote. It didn't seem to be a quote farm when the Tilley quote you inserted was there [10]. Does not make sense. ShamWow (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference section is being misused as a quote farm. It includes numerous quotes that aren't needed to source anything. There are three full-length quotations just to establish that Arabs use the term. If you look at the history of this article, the quotes came first and then text was written to justify using the quotes as references. Show me another article where the reference section is four times as long as the text it is referencing. The highly emotional tone of several of the quotes is out of synch with the material being sourced.Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Israel

Opinionated or controversial material should not be in the "unqualified narrative voice of the article," as they call it on the notice boards. The sentence, This phrase is seen as a means of expressing hostility towards Israel, refusing to acknowledge its existence, or denying its right to exist certainly sounds like some sort of language expert or reference has been consulted. But in fact the cited sources are political polemics, some which strike me as overly emotional for this purpose. At very least, this material should be labeled in a way that clarifies where these people are coming from. Kauffner (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do the sources describe themselves as 'pro-Israel'? Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an article in the Washington Post about Jeane Kirkpatrick entitled "Israel's cheerleader" (February 25, 1989). "The doubts about Bush's approach arise even among generally pro-Israel conservatives like [Jeane Kirkpatrick]" (WP, Aug 24, 1990). Most of the other authors are actual Israelis, so perhaps we can say, "Israeli and pro-Israeli authors." These people are not authorities on either language use or Arabic, so the only basis I see for using them at all is if they are treated as representatives of the Israeli view. Even the PLO had the word "Israel" (and not ZE) in its charter, so Arabs clearly don't think the same way Kirkpatrick does on this issue. Kauffner (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Tilley

Tilley was the only pro-Arab source. Now the article has a dozen pro-Israeli sources and no pro-Arab sources. Not that I liked Tilley much, but there needs some sort of balance. Kauffner (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe quoting Tilly, a biased and fringe source when it comes to these matters ("The Case for Boycotting Israel"), is an appropriate for this article. It would actually detract from the piece. This article need not be "pro-Arab" or "pro-Israel."ShamWow (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I would support the sources reflecting the sources on the issue in the RSs. That is what we seek on wp. Not a 50/50 balance based on any leanings, but a general mirroring of the RSs on the subject at hand.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Distinction between Zionist Entity and Zionist Regime

Should there be? Aonana (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, is there WP:RS that discusses this? LibiBamizrach (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Why would any source discuss why such self evident terms have different meanings? Zionist Entity is perjoritive and means the entire state of Israel and it's population. Zionist Regime is exactly that, a ... Zionist ... regime. Some might see no difference in the terms but most of the world would see one as perjoritive and the other as an accurate description with no perjoritive meaning. At the moment there is no way to link Zionist Regime to anything that is not both POV and perjoritive. The redirect for Zionist Regime to this article should be cancelled and replaced with Zionist Regime (disambiguation) where, as there would be insufficient cause to warrant it's own article, the two words can be linked individually.Wayne (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Wayne. The two things are different, although to be on the fair side, you wont hear the term "Zionist Regime" much outside Anti-Zionist circles, where it is quite common, usually coupled with the word "destroy", see [11] [12] [13]. A dab page would seem to be the best solution (though not with the two words, see MOS:DAB). Of course, take it with a grain of salt as I am a citizen of the "Zionist Regime". --Muhandes (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Zionist entity and Zionist regime have used interchangeably by many people including Iranian government and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Any attempt to excuse this pejorative term avoiding use of proper name Israel is just POV push. Redirect is only logical action. LibiBamizrach (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I tend to think that Libi is correct, but could be persuaded by more diffs on either side.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

References

The citations should be cut down to the book info and page number. The quotes are unnecessary.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Some quotes could be kept as footnotes, such the first recorded usage in 1917. But something is wrong when the references are several times longer than the text they reference. They were originally a list of somebody's favorite quotes and turning them into references was an afterthought.Kauffner (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the quotes; on the contrary, citation templates have a specific parameter for them, because they improve citations. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
We really need three multi-sentence quotes to establish the fact that the word is "sometimes used by Arabs"? The reference section is being used as a quote farm. Kauffner (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I've seen quote farms, and this isn't one. Simply careful support for propositions, well-cited.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence

I'm not sure about the current last sentence: "Several internationally read Arab media outlets currently refer to the country as "Israel" in both English and Arabic." While I expect this is quite true, it seems like a bit of OR. IronDuke 01:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It directly paraphases the reference given: "On the Al Jazeera homepage, you can find the word 'Israel' in both English and Arabic. The same is true of the homepage for Asharq Al-Awsat, the internationally-read Arabic newspaper headquartered in London." From the context, it is apparent that the author picked these two sites to be representative of the Arab media. A search of Arabic Google will reveal that "Israel"[14] outpaces "Zionist Entity"[15] by seven to one. What's more, the vast majority of sites that use ZE also use "Israel". Check the site of the Lebanon Daily Star or that of any other major Arab paper.[16] The all use "Israel" as their standard usage. A site that uses ZE is typically something Hamas or Hezbollah oriented. Readers should not be given the impression that ZE is a standard usage in the Arab world. Kauffner (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
"It directly paraphases the reference given..." Right, I'm not disputing that. It's more a question of whether "Readers should not be given the impression that ZE is a standard usage in the Arab world" is in fact true. I can well imagine that you could go out and do a pretty spiffy roundup of what's out there, in terms of usage, but that's exactly what OR is. Can we get a source saying "No one outside of terrorist or Islamist orgs really uses 'Zionist Entity' anymore," or words to that effect? IronDuke 23:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
All kinds of decisions on Wiki are made based on Google hit counts. Are you arguing this process is OR? Kauffner (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Google hit counts are really part of my argument at all. IronDuke 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
A couple of questions. Can either of you explain how this directly relevant to the topic of the article, and not a fork, if it does not appear in an RS treatment of the article subject? Also, K -- can you explain how "two" to you is directly paraphrased as "several"? And how you conflate mention of two to an assertion that the author "clearly" meant to say that it was representative of the Arab media? I read a fair amount of the Arab media, and can tell you from my own OR those two publications are anything but representative. They are in my view two of the best publications in the Arab media. But that like saying that the NYT and the Washington Post are representative of the US media. Not quite ... they certainly are not representative of the vast majority of the US media. As to google searches, we do use them as a toll in certain respects. But we don't use them to support OR we put into an article. I know its troubling -- as OR often yields information that would interest me as well. Unfortunately, we need the RS to do the research and print it -- that's the wikipedia way. Frustrating at times.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree the wording is not ideal - although IMO it's too conservative if anything. I do think it's important to emphasize that this is not "standard usage" in the Arab world anymore - at least not to my knowledge. But certainly, I'm flexible on the wording and open to ideas. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If you present an RS that says what you have in mind that you would like the article to reflect (avoiding synth/OR issues), I'll be happy to take a look at it and work on the language with you. I had btw already attenuated the lede, with the addition of another "some".--Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
That was helpful, thanks. However, I had to revert the following edit as the source did not actually state that the word "Israel" is not used in US Arabic textbooks. My apologies, I failed to read the entire article, and missed the fact that it does in fact say that. However, I still believe the statement is not relevant because the source is referring to books published by US publishers. Gatoclass (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Are you suggesting that the Arabic textbooks are by non-Arabs? If they are Arab, it does not matter for purposes of the article of course whether they are within or without the US.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who the books are by, because the source doesn't say. However, I hardly think that Arabs can be held responsible for what U.S. publishing houses decide what to/what not to publish. Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Another ref

This article contains a discussion of the use of the term, which someone may wish to weave in.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Also this.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That was an interesting read. According to those sources, the term Zionist entity in Arabic is only meant perjoritively if enclosed in quotation marks. The pdf also mentions that the Arabic media sometimes adds the quote marks regardless of what the speaker meant to further their own view. Wayne (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Zionist entity vs Zionist regime

Hi!

In the USSR's media the Russian direct equivalent to "Zionist entity" i.e. "сионистское образование" was never used. The USSR on the other hand, frequently used the term "Zionist regime". I think this is because the USSR recognized Israel as a state and not as and "entity", but expressed hostile attitude towards its pro-Western government (i.e. the regime).

The source says only the word Zionist/ism was used as a perjoritive and doesn't mention regime. Russia may have used the term "Zionist entity" but you admit it refered to the government not the state. A country expressing a hostile attitude to the government does not make the term perjoritive unless the term is only used to express hostility which it is not. A similar example would be the term right wing which is a neutral descriptive of a political stance but can also be used to express hostility, without the term being regarded a perjoritive in all uses. Wayne (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Weekly Standard OR again

I'm moving this material Kauffner keeps inserting to the Talk: page for discussion:

In contrast, the mainstream Arab media currently uses the word "Israel" to refer to the country in both English and Arabic.[1]

It's not the first time we've had this discussion, as Kauffner is well aware: see Talk:Zionist entity/Archive 1#Weekly Standard article. The material was already show to be OR in that discussion, since the source nowhere mentions the phrase "Zionist entity". In addition, his insertion markedly changes the text that was in this article before, which was

While textbooks for first-year students of Arabic avoid using the term "Israel",[2] Al Jazeera and Asharq Al-Awsat currently refer to the country as "Israel" in both English and Arabic.[1]

As has already been pointed out in the previous discussion,

This article, 8 paragraphs long, devotes 7 paragraphs to discussing how Arab textbooks avoid using the term "Israel", and one paragraph mentioning that in contrast, Al Jezeera and other media do use the term. The term "Zionist entity" does not appear once in the article. Either this article is not appropriate for use as a source, in which case all quotes sourced to it go, or, if it is acceptable to use its final paragraph, it is equally valid to use the other 7, which are the main theme of the article. Removing the latter, but keeping the former is not acceptable.

Again, Kauffner is well aware of this, since he participated in that discussion. However, rather than including the main thesis of the article - which, by the way, confirms that Arab sources avoid the term "Israel" - Kauffner cherry-picks the last paragraph, to try to refute the sources used in this, the Zionist entity article. To compound this, Kauffner distorts and abuses even that one paragraph. As the previous article wording pointed out, the source says Al Jazeera and Asharq Al-Awsat use the phrase, not "the mainstream Arab media". In fact, the source discusses two Arab media, and, given that they are specifically geared to Western audiences, not traditional sources geared to audiences in Arabic speaking countries, it's hard to understand what makes them "mainstream". All in all, this is about as bad a misuse of a source as one can imagine. I've brought it here for discussion, but it's hard to imagine there's any defense for this. Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I cite only the aspect of the source material that is relevant. Why would I cite any of the seven irrelevant paragraphs in The Weekly Standard article? You seem to believe that there is a requirement that every source mention the title of the article that it is sourced in. I have no idea where you get this peculiar notion from. This is a lot of excitement considering that this material has been in the article for quite a while now. The larger point is that this article makes some rather nasty and unfair accusations against the Arabs. I am thinking here in particular of the way the reference section is being misused as a POV quote farm. Balance and NPOV require that we point out the "Israel" is not actually a taboo word that Arabs "refuse to utter," as Kirkpatrick claims. How many Arab media are required to make this point? I can easily come up with more. News in Arabic is certainly not "specifically geared to Western audiences". Kauffner (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. Why is only 1 paragraph relevant of the source, and not the first 7, considering that the entire source is on the same topic? Please make a better argument, this one is absurd.
  2. Why is this source relevant at all? It doesn't discuss the term "Zionist entity", which is the topic of this article. Please review WP:NOR, and come up with an answer that does not merely consist of "because I say so".
  3. Which "many more" sources do you have that discuss the term "Zionist entity"? Please list them.
  4. You've made this specious claim of a "POV quote farm" regarding this article many times, and it's as empty as when you first stated it. The article contains very few quotes, and the references/citations contain them for verification purposes. That's what the quote parameter in the citation templates is for. Please make more accurate Talk: page statements.
  5. "Balance and NPOV require that we point out" what reliable sources have to say about the term Zionist entity. That's it. Wikipedia isn't interested in your theories about the term, or about "taboo words".
Please make sure your next response focuses on accurate statements and actual policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources here are partisan material by Israeli and pro-Israeli writers. A proper source for a controversial linguistic claim is a specialist linguistic source. So right there we have a POV problem. The way the sourcing is done is a parody of the NPOV style. A timid claim that word is "sometimes used by some Arabs and Muslims" is a used as a pretext for six (6!!!!) references that include several multi-sentence anti-Arab diatribes. Kauffner (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If you believe a specific source is neither reliable nor verifiable, please bring it up at WT:V or WT:RS. Cherry picking and potentially misrepresenting sources is ipo facto a POV violation and not the way to potentially balance any articles; let alone a very contentious one. Statements such as "sources here are partisan material by Israeli and pro-Israeli writers" often indicate the presence of a POV problem. -- Avi (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This post is just petty insults and no substance. So I'll talk about a real issue instead. Answer this question: Do you think it factually true that the phrase "Zionist entity" is the standard usage in the Arab world, or that there is some large group of Arabs who refuse to utter the word the "Israel"? If you do, I can easily show that neither of these things are in fact the case. If you know this not true, or even if you are agnostic on this question, then does it not follow that the article as it stands is misleading? Kauffner (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. What has "no substance" is your specious claim that "The sources here are partisan material by Israeli and pro-Israeli writers". Were you referring to Randal Marlin? Diane Sank? Thomas G. Mitchell? Stephen R. Humphreys? Virginia Q. Tilley? You've made this nonsensical assertion before; please don't waste our time by making it again.
  2. Even if they all were "Israeli", Wikipedia doesn't care what the nationality of sources are. In the future, please restrict your comments regarding characteristics of sources to relevant policy (e.g. WP:V) and guidelines (e.g. WP:RS).
  3. I don't know if it's factually true that the phrase "Zionist entity" is the standard usage in the Arab world, or that there is some large group of Arabs who refuse to utter the word the "Israel" - and neither do you. In any event, the article doesn't make either of these claims.
  4. I am not interested in you "show[ing] that neither of these things are in fact the case" - nor is Wikipedia. This Talk: page is for discussing what reliable sources have to say about the phrase "Zionist entity" - that's it. This is not the place for your original research about what Arabs say or don't say. Please review WP:TALK. Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So you admit that you don't know, or even care, about the most basic information regarding this subject. The page is just a place to collect quotes that caught your eye. Perhaps there is a page somewhere about a subject that you actually have an interest in. Kauffner (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. Please don't attribute to me things I haven't said. Discuss only article content.
  2. This is an article about the phrase "Zionist entity", not about whatever you imagine it to be (or say). Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Kauffner, we need to go by what reliable secondary sources actually say, not what you personally think is the truth. See WP:V.Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What does this mean? Weekly Standard is at least as RS as the sources that are used in the article currently. Kauffner (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it's not nearly as reliable as most of the sources here, which are typically books, often written by academics and published by university presses; more importantly, it's irrelevant, since the Weekly Standard source doesn't say anything about the phrase "Zionist entity". In any event, I suspect Plot Spoiler was responding to your most recent posts here, which were all about what you believe to be the TRUTH™, rather than what sources actually say about the term "Zionist entity". Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
They are mostly books about Mideast politics, and certainly Kirkpatrick is notoriously partisan. Yet they are cited as if they were language references. Before your defense for removing the Weekly Standard material was that the Israel/Zionist entity usage question wasn't the proper subject of the article. But now that you have added the Lutz material, the issue is certainly in there. Kauffner (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
As you well know, the Weekly Standard material was removed because it didn't (and still doesn't) refer to the term "Zionist entity". On the other hand, the Lutz material refers directly the term "Zionist entity", discussing both its meaning and use. I have no idea what your point is. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The guidelines do not say that every source must contain the title of the article that it is used in. You are using a sourcing rule of thumb to override NPOV. Is it really a strech to connect the terms "Israel" and "Zionist entity"? The Weekly Standard article focuses on language use, unlike many of the sources that are currently being used. Kauffner (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The policy states that the material must be directly related to the topic; unless the source actually refers to the topic of this article, the term "Zionist entity", it's not directly related, but at best indirectly related. And quite frankly, that "override NPOV" claim you continually claim is long past its "use by" date. You have produced zero reliable sources that in any way indicate an NPOV problem. On the contrary, all you have done is insist that your own personal opinion is the TRUTH™, regardless of the fact that essentially every reliable source that opines on the topic of this article directly contradicts your POV. The closest you've ever come is by misquoting an article that didn't even mention the term "Zionist entity", and ignoring 7/8ths of its contents. This article is exquisitely NPOV. Please don't waste further time here expressing your personal opinions; if you have any sources that discuss the term "Zionist entity", then bring them forward, but don't continue to smear this article and its editors with unsubstantiated and non-factual claims. Jayjg (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Golly, I'd say somebody needs a chill pill. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You've been inserting OR into this article and making these same refuted claims on the Talk: page for 4½ years now. You've been abusing this specific Weekly Standard article for over two years. Four and a half years of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT can be a mite wearing. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"primarily a description, not a pejorative term"

Cs32en has argued that the phrase "Zionist entity" is primarily a description, not a pejorative term. At the same time, the description is (often) being used in a pejorative way. To begin with, it's not actually a "description" of a country; "Zionist entity" could mean pretty much anything, including an organization, a religious movement, a building, or many other things. Israel is a country, not an "entity", and it politics are neither solely nor exclusively Zionist (at least 1/4th of its citizens are either non-Zionist or explicitly anti-Zionist). Most importantly, however, is that that is not what reliable sources say "Zionist entity" is. They're all quite clear it's a pejorative - for example, they refer to it as a "pejorative metonym", a "pejorative phrase", and a "derogatory term", and none say it's merely a "descriptive term that is (often) being used in a pejorative way". Please discuss this proposed change here, basing any discussion on what Reliable Sources explicitly state regarding the phrase. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A "pejorative metonym" is not a "pejorative". (I suggest to continue the discussion in the section below.)  Cs32en Talk to me  21:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Reliable sources refer to it as a "pejorative phrase", "derogatory term", etc. I can provide others, but I don't think its really required. The pejorative article defines a "pejoratives" as "words or grammatical forms that connote negativity and express contempt or distaste", which is obviously (and exactly) what "Zionist entity" is. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
A "term" is something different from a "word" or a "grammatical form".  Cs32en Talk to me  19:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Not seeing the relevance, though - a "term" is "words", and it's still a pejorative. Jayjg (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Phrase", not "term"

User:Cs32en has argued that "Zionist entity" is a "term", not a "phrase". I'm not sure why it cannot be both, though. Reliable sources found in this article refer to it as (among other things), "the pejorative phrase, 'the Zionist entity'" and "The very phrase 'Zionist entity'". Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Even the sources that have been used in the article also use the terms "expression" and "reference", and at least some of those sources should be cited inline anyway. "Term", although not used by the sources cited in the text (which differ with regard to the choice of words), seems to be a neutral description of what the sources say.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think I understand again. It's a "term", "phrase", "expression", or any other synonym. I don't understand why you think "phrase" in particular is inappropriate, but "term" is appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The articles Terminology and Phrase may help to understand the difference.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The first says a "term" consists of "words" or "compound words", and the second says a "phrase" is "any group of words". Jayjg (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Improperly cited WP:PRIMARY WP:OR moved to talk

I've moved the following material here for discussion:

In 1917, a preacher at Al-Taqwah Mosque in Algeria used the term in his Friday sermon in reference to the [[Balfour Declaration of 1917|Balfour Declaration]].<ref name="BBC1917">"North Africa: Roundup of Friday sermons", ''BBC'' 3 Nov 1917. The sermon was relayed live to mosques nationally. "The preacher followed on by saying that as a result of the weakness of the Muslim nation, the Balfour Declaration was announced on 2 November 1917 to pave the way, he added, for the creation of the "Zionist entity" in the heart of the land of Islam."</ref>

As is fairly obvious, the material suffers from two primary problems:

  1. The citation is dubious at best: "North Africa: Roundup of Friday sermons", BBC 3 Nov 1917. What is this? Where can it be found? Where can it be verified?
  2. Even more seriously, the material is allegedly an example of the term's use, based on primary sources. Did the speaker mean the same thing by it as is meant in a post-1948 context? Why would this use be relevant or notable? In accordance with WP:NOR and WP:V, we have been very careful in this article to use only reliable secondary sources that discuss the phrase, rather than inserting examples of primary sources merely using it. If we wanted, we could add hundreds of examples of primary sources using the phrase, but to what end? Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING - we don't need random lists of examples of phrases or terms being used. If you think a specific usage is relevant or notable, please provide a secondary source that shows this to be the case.

Thanks, Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Here it is. Title, source, date -- it is perfectly good citation. We can certainly cite material that's behind a pay wall. The problem with primary sources is verifying them, which is not an issue here. They may be used "with care," according to the guideline. The earliest recorded examples of a phrase are always significant, if you know anything about etymology. There are so many problems with the other sources for this article. To pick this source out as the problematic one strikes me as quite agenda-driven. Kauffner (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
In summary, then, you have not seen the source yourself, and you have no secondary source confirming it as "earliest recorded examples of a phrase", or indicating its actual meaning or significance. Also, you have given no reason whatsoever why this primary source should be the only primary source used in the entire article. Finally, you have provided no evidence that any other sources here have any "problems" (much less "many"), and completed your "argument" with a personal attack, "agenda-driven". Well, that was very disappointing. O.K., come back when you have reliable secondary sources for this article that discuss this phrase. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Kauffner, given that you have not seen the material itself, and have no reliable secondary source for this material, why have you restored this OR? And why did your edit summary not mention you were making this edit? Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Kirkpatrick source

Kauffner has removed a source and confirming quote from Jean Kirkpatrick's book Legitimacy and Force: Natural and International Dimensions, using the edit summary Reducing the use of the reference section as a quote farm for expressing political opinion. Kauffner, can you explain this edit in terms of policy? Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I also support his position (User:Kauffner) that the reference section is bloated with opinionated cherry picked quotes. I will trim it if no one objects - and then I will merge and redirect the couple of lines of text that I would have left about this little used phrase to a section in more notable related article. - Clearly I am not going to do that as I couldn't stand the heat that would likely be generated, but that is what I think is the correct weight to give this expression. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "cherry-picked quotes"? Do you have a specific objection to that source? Do you have any other sources that discuss the term "Zionist entity"? I haven't found any. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps cherry picked was the wrong expression. If you are stating that all the sources available that discuss the expression are already in the article that would support the rest of my comment. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
All the sources I could find. There may well be many other sources that discuss the term - I welcome you to find and add them. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Jay - this so called article is basically a few lines of content that can be cited with a couple of externals with a massive bloated external section -- this article is not an article at all - its a cite farm , a quote farm - actually it appears more as promotion of the phrase with perhaps historic context than a correct weight report about it. - enjoy it if you like but its not correct as per standard wikipedia article - Off2riorob (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Too many quotations?

I just read the short article and only see two quotations (not including stylistic ones, which can be rewritten as prose). Can the editor re-adding the tag please clarify why this article warrants a "too many quotations" tag? —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article now has these quotations in it (I paraphrased the two longest, though they weren't very long):
  1. "politicians and intellectuals throughout the Arab world"
  2. "the traditional Arabic political term for Israel"
  3. "less prominent"
This doesn't seem excessive to me. Is there a specific one User:Kauffner thinks should be paraphrased? Jayjg (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
O.K., I've added some sources and detail, and one more quote, "mainly French people of Arab descent", because I wasn't sure how to re-phrase that. I've also re-organized the material so that it's a bit more clear. I think that should deal with any lingering issues. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

I have removed some materials from the Weekly Standard from the lead section. The materials don't talk about the term "Zionist entity" at all and their relevance to the article is debatable. Even if it is relevant though, it shouldn't be in the lead section per WP:LEDE, because it doesn't summarize any other content in the article. There were actually discussions about it here and here, so I'm not sure why it keeps being re-added. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The deleted passage simply paraphrases what the source says. There is no guideline that says that the title of an article must be mentioned in every source. The article is now full of statements by Kirkpatrick and others to the effect that Arabs refuse to use the word "Israel." A whole series of dubious claims are based on this premise. But in fact everyone from the Daily Star to Hezbollah uses "Israel". On GBooks, there are 600,000 post-2000 hits for "إسرائيل" (Israel) , 30,000 for "الكيان الصهيوني" (Zionist entity). "Zionist entity" isn't popular usage either. On Google Trends, the search ratio is 25 to 1. Kauffner (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kauffner, doing an analysis of Google search results like this and using it in the way suggested runs counter to WP:NOR. We can't do our own research to come up with new data that isn't already published in a reliable source, and use it to counter or weaken the strength of statements found in reliable sources. (We sometimes do this sort of analysis for measuring weight when the concern is whether the article has WP:UNDUE problems, but that's not the concern being brought up here.) And, we actually already have a source, Jesse & Williams 2010, which comments directly on the change in the frequency of the use of the term over time. If you could find more of this kind of source, that would be helpful for the article.

Regarding "There is no guideline that says that the title of an article must be mentioned in every source.": Please review WP:SYNTH. The removed passage was implying that the material found in the reliable sources used is out of date or irrelevant. A claim like that would need to be sourced to a reliable source stating that explicitly.

Taking a step back, I think the thing you are concerned about (if I understand it right) isn't really present in the article. You appear to be saying that the term "Zionist entity" really isn't used that much any more and you are concerned that the article is saying something like "All Arabs and Muslims say 'Zionist entity' and never say 'Israel.'" But that is not what the article is saying. The article is only saying, "There's a term called 'Zionist entity' and here's what it means when it does get used..." Cheers... Zad68 04:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The source needs to be reliable for the purpose that it is used, per WP:IRS. Kirkpatrick, Sank and many of the other writers quoted are giving political commentary, although they are being used here as if they were authorities on Arabic language usage. I have to wonder if you have read the article. It describes "Zionist entity" as "standard usage". The quotes given in the reference section claim that Arabs "refuse to utter" the name "Israel", that "The State of Israel cannot be dignified by being called by its proper name." etc, etc., although I have rebutted such claims above. Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This is, of course, supposed to be an encyclopedia article explaining the significance of the use of the term, and not just a dictionary definition provided only by Arabic-language linguists. What I said previously still stands: Take a closer look at the article, it doesn't say "It describes 'Zionist entity' as 'standard usage'" as you stated--actually, it says "Before 1967, 'Zionist entity' was the standard term...". I've now had a chance to review the archives for this article talk page (I apologize for not having done so in the first place!) and I see that I have independently come up with the same Wikipedia policy-based points regarding the proposed content that have been brought up for nearly four years now. Please consider that this might be an indication that the points being brought up by your fellow Wikipedia editors have merit. As nothing new is being added to this discussion, I'll decline further engagement per WP:EXHAUST. Zad68 15:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Radio Méditerranée


This may be the source of this claim. Not sure if this counts as a reliable source (and its possible Mathlouthi has changed his mind about this during the last eight years).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Here's another mention of Tawfik Mathlouti, in this 2005 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance: "Speeches were made by Tawfik Mathlouti, founder of the private Paris radio station Radio-Méditerranée, who never names Israel and refers to it as 'the Zionist entity'." http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/activities/14-public_presentation_paris_2005/presentation2005_paris_study_EN.asp. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Perhaps Mathlouti made this claim to get attention. Many people might tune in to confirm whether the station really does this or not. I'm sure he got viewship boost out of it. There is only one hit for "entité sioniste" on the site, and that's in a quote, see "entité sioniste" site:www.medi1.com. Kauffner (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I suppose we could amend this section to state that the station's owner (and not necessarily the station itself) has stated that he only uses the term "Zionist entity" instead of Israel.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Not a neutral point of view/wrong "facts" listed.

This article should be flagged as not having a neutral point of view. The first sentence says "Zionist entity is a phrase used by Arabs and Muslims as a pejorative and a statement of nonrecognition of the State of Israel". This is a falsehood. I am neither of Middle Eastern descent, nor Muslim, but I do proudly call the "entity" known as "Israel" as a Zionist regime, because it is illegally occupying parts of Palestine. Some proper wikipedia authors need to re-edit this article heavily, to remove all the incorrect facts that people of this regime have lied about in this article. This article is deeply offensive, and needs to be written in a way that is instead factual and accurate. Stopde (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So you don't dispute that Arabs and Muslims use this term as a pejorative against Israel, but only that some non-Arabs and non-Muslims also use this term in a similar context. If you want to add a sentence stating that some non-Arabs and non-Muslims who hate Israel also use this term in a perjorative manner, then you can propose this, assuming of course, that you have reliable sources to back this up (and before you ask, your personal declaration above doesn't count). Also, please feel free to point out all of the "incorrect facts" from the "people of this regime" (i.e. Israelis) that you claim are besmirching this article's accuracy.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC))
Unproductive discussion not related to article closed per WP:TPNO, please use the article Talk page to discuss improvements to this Wikipedia article only
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You should try educating yourself, instead of making ad hoc attacks. Go to this website to educate yourself. Good luck. http://jewsagainstzionism.com/ Stopde (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't engage in any Ad-hoc attacks. Rather, I simply suggested you point out all of the supposedly "incorrect facts" from the "people of this regime" (i.e. Israelis) that you claim are besmirching this article's accuracy. If you don't want to do so, that is your decision. I also pointed out that your personal declaration (i.e. that you proudly use the term "entity" instead of Israel) is not relevant to the information contained in this article. Finally, I suggested that you should add a sentence stating that some non-Arabs and non-Muslims (e.g. you) who hate Israel also use this term in a perjorative manner, provided of course, that you have reliable sources as per Wikipedia guidelines. You have not done this either, which is also your decision. Instead, all you have done is accuse me of making Ad-Hoc attacks and suggested I "educate" myself by reviewing an anti-Israel website. Well, I have reviewed this website, and it consists almost entirely of cretinous polemics and idealistic nonsense.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC))
Not sure what your issue is, you should educate yourself, instead of making personal attacks. I gave you a link up above, you should have gone to it. It shows that there ARE JEWS that are anti-Zionist, so the foolishness on the main article: "Zionist entity is a phrase used by Arabs and Muslims as a pejorative for the State of Israel." IS A LIE. That very page I listed is by JEWS and they are anti-Zionist. Go educate yourself. That article is STILL obnoxious, inflammatory, and filled with lies, by people like you that continue to perpetrate them, and to mis-educate the public. I would trust an anti-Zionist JEW over a pro-zionist jew like you anyday. Here is a video on a Jewish Rabbi talking about how the very state of Israel is forbidden. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjnvQHWyLE Stopde (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You are correct: There are Jews that are anti-Zionist. However, they are a fringe group that is largely rejected by most mainstream Jewish organizations - while many Jews are critical of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, only a tiny minority belief that the state of Israel itself should be destroyed. You apparently have adopted the view that Anti-Zionist Jews are correct in their view that Israel should be destroyed - I, on the other hand, have adopted the view that while Israel should be subject to criticism (just like any other state), I still agree with the vast majority of Jews that Israel should not be destroyed. Clearly, we disagree on this matter.
I do have one piece of advice for you to consider: I suggest you consider the possibility that maybe the vast majority of Jews are correct in their belief that Israel should not be destroyed, and it is the tiny minority of Jews who do seek the destruction of Israel who are incorrect (I realize this is a radical and iconoclastic concept, but just for fun, why not consider it?)
Second, it seems that you don't understand the meaning of the first sentence - "'Zionist Entity' is phrase used by Arabs and Muslims as a pejorative for the State of Israel." This statement is correct, Arabs and Muslims do indeed use this term to describe Israel. However, it certainly does not state (or imply) that Arabs and Muslims are the only people who use this term. Many others, including anti-Zionist Jews, who seek Israel's destruction also use this term. So your accusation is incorrect - the first sentence is in fact true; at best, it is incomplete (i.e. maybe the sentence should state that "'Zionist Entity' is phrase used by Arabs, Muslims and others as a pejorative for the State of Israel.") However, it is certainly not a lie, as you keep claiming.
Anyway, if you really feel so passionately that this article is "obnoxious, inflammatory, and filled with lies" due to the devious efforts of "people of this regime" (i.e. Israelis and Jews), feel free to post a complaint to Wikipedia asking that this contemptible language be removed. Likewise, if you have information from reliable sources that support your point of view, by all means, add them (although I will let you know in advance that a youtube video, a fringe website, and your own personal declaration do not count as reliable sources in Wikipedia). Likewise, if you really believe that "people like you" (and no offense, but you don't know me) are "continu[ing] to perpetrate [lies], and to mis-educate the public" by all means, feel free to file a complaint with Wikipedia. Given your above attitude and your remarkable people skills, I'm sure your allegations will be taken very seriously and your efforts to expose all of the malevolence on this page will earn you the love and respect of many Wikipedia editors.
Finally, based on your above line: "I would trust an anti-Zionist JEW over a pro-zionist jew like you anyday", you seem to be making an assumption that I am of the Jewish faith; How did you come to this conclusion? I have never indicated that I am (or am not) Jewish. Actually, its too bad for you; I was going to tell you what religion I practice, but due to your discourteousness vitriol, I've decided not to tell you, so I guess now you will never know the truth (heh heh heh).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC))


I doubt complaining on this talk page will get you anywhere. Nobody else has responded to you, as

Removed link to the "ZOG" wiki page

Primarily because the two have nothing to do with one another. "ZOG" is a conspiracy theory largely touted by neo-nazis or white supremacists based around the idea of the "secret Jewish government behind the scenes" and with emphasis on the Jews supposedly wanting to "pollute" or destroy the white race. Standard white supremacist fare, really.

But completely unrelated to this term for Israel.

70.27.7.64 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the removal was appropriate. Thanks Shalom11111 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Racism?

Well, I know some people that see this as racism towards the Jews. Should this count as being racist? 58.170.108.95 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it should be classified as such. The term, when it is used, is used in relation to the creation of the Israeli state at the expense of the Palestinians on a massive scale. Some of the people who end up using the term could end up being racists, but "Zionist entity" by itself is not inherently racist. 70.27.7.64 (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Your last point is correct. But saying the term is "used in relation to the creation of the Israeli state at the expense of the Palestinians on a massive scale" is not politically correct, if not morally and factually wrong. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


I'm not going to get into some big argument over this, but that is one of the main rationales given for the use of the term. Of course, it should be judged on who's using it-- I can understand Palestinians or Lebanese or Jordanians making use of the term "Zionist Entity", but I wouldn't accept say a member of the banned "Hizb-ut-Tahrir" in Pakistan or an outright member of the Taliban or Al Qaeda using the term.

I guess what I mean to say is that the term, when it was really in vogue, or if it's still being used, was used in reaction to the circumstances that arose in the process of the creation of the state and its aftermath, and most prominently by people in states that had direct problems/confrontation with the Israeli state.

70.27.7.64 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds a lot better, I can understand now what you meant. Shalom11111 (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Counter-Factual

"It’s to show the clear difference between the zionists and the Jews, which are big opponents."

Well, I am removing this sentence since it's without doubt that more than 50% of the Jews are Zionists as nearly half of them already live in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That's part of the problem when it comes to the Jews. At least half, if not more, are categorically anti-Palestinian and slavishly devoted to defending Israel when it comes to Palestine and Lebanon, no matter what it did or does to those peoples.
But the Jews are still not "jewnited" in terms of this sort of thing. Thanks for small favors, I suppose. The kyle 3 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I am reverting your edit because it's important to note that "Zionist" and "Jew" are not interchangeable, even when you consider the very disappointing track record on that score when it comes to self-styled "advocates for Israel" and of course for hating the Palestinians for existing. The kyle 3 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I also changed the part in the first sentence where it said "the so-called State of Israel" to "State of Israel". This article was clearly written by an anti-Israel person and probably even anti-Semite. Anyways, there is no "so-called" state, there is a solid and real state called State of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably just someone who has legitimate issues with Israel and Zionism. If that poster wanted to express legitimate anti-Semitism, then you would think that it'd be considerably more blatant/obvious. The kyle 3 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitism category

I removed the category because (1) it is not supported by the article, and (2) it is a blatant POV violation.

@Shrike:, since you are insisting on restoring it, the onus is on now on YOU to justify its inclusion. Also, is Tsaika a alternate account for you? Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I would not be surprised at all if he was running multiple accounts. Luckily, the spurious inclusion to the antisemitism category hasn't been re-added to date. 2607:FEA8:A4E0:11EC:DCD4:645F:5F8B:9692 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
IP editor, Shrike is an editor in good standing, and the account Al-Andalusi mentioned was a sock of another user. Regardless, I wanted to comment here to inform you that you can’t edit the article page directly until you’re WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. I presume your IPs are dynamic, and that the user(s) who made the last several edits were both you... I did leave one of your contributions though, the Farsi transcription; I’m unable to read it, but I assume it’s accurate. See my edit summary why the other two were inappropriate. Most claims, especially extraordinary ones, need to be sourced, especially in a contentious subject area such as this; your most recent edit didn’t meet WP:V, and used an existing reference that said the opposite of the claim you added. No worries, though. The learning curve can be kinda steep here for new editors. As to this particular subject area, please read WP:ARBPIA4 for the editing restrictions. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Name one thing I said in my edit that's an "extraordinary claim". Also, no I didn't add the farsi translation, so it must be coincidental that that person's IP is similar. For the record I've seen enough blatant violation of the POV rule from pro-israel editors so to be honest I don't really take Wikipedia's rules on this issue all too seriously as they're not remotely universally enforced. Look at the talk pages for the individual incidents of Palestinian militancy against Israelis that apparently warrant their own separate pages for example. Just being honest here.2607:FEA8:A4E0:11EC:DCD4:645F:5F8B:9692 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

New source to rewrite article

As others have noted before, this article has some problems with regard to both and content and to sourcing. The sources are all very partisan and political. Several sources refer to the language used by the Arabic media at the time of the 1967 war in a way that treats the propaganda usage of this period as a linguistic standard for Arabic. To the extent that this is a language article, it should be based on linguistic sources. This is from “Pre-Peace and Post-Peace Referring in Jordanian Journalistic Arabic” by Ibrahim Darwish in Names, Vol. 58 No. 4, December, 2010, 191–96.

In the past, references to Israel in the Jordanian press included Filastiin “Palestine,” al-ardh al-muhtallah “the occupied land” and al-kayaan as-suhyuuni “the Zionist entity.” These names were used to not only deny Israeli land claims in the conflict with Palestine, but also reflected the state of war between Jordan and Israel at that time. They also reflected the writers’ ideologies during this period of armed conflict.

On October 26th, 1994, Jordan and Israel reached an agreement that ended the state of war between them. This political event has left traces on Jordanian journalistic language. More specifically, new neutral nomenclature such as Isra'il “Israel” and daulat Isra'il “the state of Israel” was employed to refer to Israel, replacing older, hostile names. This study is intended to compare and contrast the names employed in the Jordanian press to refer to Israel and Israeli symbols prior to and directly after the signing of the 1994 Peace Treaty between Jordan and Israel.

Tunnel of fun (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Adesnik, "How Do You Say 'Israel' in Arabic?", The Weekly Standard, April 20, 2007. "Although it may be impossible to discern the motivations of the authors, one should compare their silence with the more direct approach taken by Arab media. On the Al Jazeera homepage, you can find the word 'Israel' in both English and Arabic. The same is true of the homepage for Asharq Al-Awsat, the internationally-read Arabic newspaper headquartered in London." Cite error: The named reference "Adesnik2" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Adesnik, "How Do You Say 'Israel' in Arabic?", The Weekly Standard, April 20, 2007. "WELL, HOW DO you say 'Israel' in Arabic? The wrong way to answer that question is by consulting a textbook for first-year students of Arabic. Those textbooks will instruct you almost immediately how to say 'Palestine' or even 'Mauritania.' One of them even includes a handsome drawing of the young Yasser Arafat, with his full black beard. But when it comes to Israel, these textbooks remain silent."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionist_entity/Archive_1&oldid=1197216927"