Talk:Eden Natan-Zada

Offensive

To Shem: I find the term "Ultra-Orthodox Jew" to be very offensive; please stop using it in this article. Also, referring to the terrorist as Jewish without explaining that his despicable actions are abhored by the vast majority of Jews worldwide, including "settlers," could lead the user to conclude that Judaism condones murder or that he represents the ideal. I recieved your message but am new to Wikipedia and don't know how to send a response. The quotes I added are from the Jerusalem Post, a mainstream, reputable newspaper. URL - http://www.jpost.com Tzvi5742 04:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

To be ultra-Orthodox and Jewish are not synonymous; I am not using the term "Ultra-Orthodox Jew," I am using the term "ultra-Orthodox" so as to distinguish him from mainstream Judaism. I created this article, and from the start included Sharon and Mofaz's unequivocal condemnation. Please stop implying unfairness on my behalf. I'm more than familiar with the JPost; when I asked for links, I meant to the specific online article you are using.

Also, when making comments on Wikipedia Talk pages, editors are to "sign" their comments at the end with a username and time stamp. Just include four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~ , which will become your username with timestamp once you save the page. Shem^(talk) 04:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are distinguishing him from mainstream Judaism and included Sharon's quote. I was simply concerned because ultra-Orthodox has a negative connotation, but I see now that the way you used it is okay. The quotes I added are from various pages on the Jpost website, including: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1123294991450 "ultra-Orthodox" has been added back to where it is appropriate.

Tzvi5742 04:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The latest quote, the one from his mother, can be verified here - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/608938.html

Tzvi5742 06:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I would actually interject that using "ultra-orthodox" here is the worst sort of POV. "Ultra-orthodox" is a term used by non-observant or less-observant Jews or non-Jews specifically to denigrate charedim. It serves no other purpose...in fact it was coined exclusively for that purpose alone. That it has gained some currency since then in other circles is a testament to the influence of the denigrators, rather than to the legitimacy of the term. In any case, nothing constructive whatsoever is gained by characterizing anyone as "ultra-orthodox" here, and so I would respectfully request that the usage be removed. To say that he came from a chareidi family, if that's the case, is NPOV. To say he's "ultra-Orthodox" is inherently POV. Tomer ^TALK 07:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. I see you replaced it with the term "religiously-observant," which is more accurate anyway. Tzvi5742 08:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

To Shem: Concerning your quote "...having recently become involved with Kahanist and banned Kach party activists..." I think its redundant and inaccurate to metion the Kach party in the present tense (you already mentioned his Kahanist association in this sentence), since it has ceased to exist as a politcal party, and the few remaining activists have formed or joined other parties, while retaining their Kahanist idealogy. The reader could get the impression from that sentence that there is still a Kach organization trying to gain acceptance as a legitimate political party when in fact the remaining supporters have joined other parties. Tzvi5742 09:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Reports I have read both consistently and specifically identify Kach activists as one group Zada associated with via the internet. If inserting "former" as a modifier before Kach party would ease clarity concerns, I'm game. Shem^(talk) 09:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"terrorist"

Wikipedia simply does not label individuals in this way; for example, none of the 7/7 bombers are described this way. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has labeled several individuals "in that way," last I checked. Shem^(talk) 08:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If no one argues that what the man did is a terrorist attack, then why should he not be called a terrorist? Someone who murders innocent civilians minding their own business in order to accomplish a political goal and scare the public, is a terrorist. It does not matter what religion they believe in, the religion of their victims, or the place in which it is committed. Therefore Eden Natan-Zada is a terrorist just like the Palestinian suicide bombers, London subway bombers, or Al-Qaeda airplane hijackers. Tzvi5742 08:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to, respectfully, disagree. "Terrorist" implies motive, and as far as I'm aware, no motive can be firmly established wrt this case. That he's an indiscriminate murderer is indisputable. That he did it specifically to instill terror is a matter of [predominantly politically-motivated] conjecture. Tomer ^TALK 08:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

And I have to, respectfully, defend the characterization as per his obvious intent with regard to the pullout and acceptance amongst both Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Shem^(talk) 08:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The intent is only "obvious" as a result of the caricatures made of him by the Israeli media--who, as it happens, also mischaracterize him as a "settler", despite the fact that the only legitimate address he has ever had is in ראשון לציון. Tomer ^TALK 08:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

And I have no reason to buy "rigged media" stories making "caricatures" of an obvious terrorist. Do you claim to have more accurate sources on Zada's attack, Tomer? You clearly have a different take on Zada, but I'm not seeing your evidence, rather a load of semantic games which (pardon my frankness) appear to be themselves (as you put it) "politically motivated conjecture." Shem^(talk) 09:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I have no more "accurate sources" on the attack. I do, however, have a different take on Wikipedia's presentation of the attack. It's one thing to say that "it is believed that his motivation was XYZ", but to say "we know his motivation was PQR" is worse than POV absent anything from him, it's charlatanry. From that perspective, it is preposterous to characterize his intention as "to cause terror", and therefore, to classify him as a "terrorist". Tomer ^TALK 09:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record: Tzvi and I do not object to the usage of "terrorist," while Jayig and Tomer object. In the land of consensus, I don't call that ground for you to run around making arrogant edit summaries like "Sorry, no." Shem^(talk) 09:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

See Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, David Copeland, Buford O. Furrow, Jr.. No use of "terrorist". Jayjg ^(talk) 09:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the 7/7 bombers, see Hasib Hussain, Jamal (Germaine) Lindsay, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer: None of them described as "terrorists". Jayjg ^(talk) 09:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

See Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Timothy McVeigh, and Goldstein. Use of "terrorist." The 7/7 standard is both inconsistent and wrong; if 7/7 was an "act of terrorism," and it was, all seven bombers' articles should describe them as terrorists. If they are not, the 7/7 article should not refer to the bombings as terrorist attacks or acts of terrorism. Shem^(talk) 09:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

(Restore text) The London 7/7 bombers are not considered terrorists or suicide bombers because British Police have not yet definitively established that four men who carried bombs on to London's transport network intended to die in the blasts [1]. Accordingly, we may never know the facts of whether they were innocently duped, terrorists, or suicide bombers. Until the case on the matter is proven, one cannot call the 7/7 bombers, terrorists. The case of Natan-Zada is entirely different.69.209.216.22 10:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, on specifics: There is little material against al-Zarqawi, given how incredibly troublesome he's been to track. Copeland meets the terrorist standard, and his article should reflect that.

Bin Laden is not described as a "terrorist". Jayjg ^(talk) 09:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

He's the "head of a terrorist network" in his article; also, you didn't address the other references. Hello? Shem^(talk) 09:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but he's not personally described as a terrorist, and I doubt you could get that edit to stick in that article either. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that "head of a terrorist network" does not a label of "terrorist" make? Shem^(talk)

It's actually a less controversial claim. As an interesting exercise, try describing Bin-Laden a "terrorist", and see how long the edit last. And keep in mind that Bin Laden has admitted his motivations and actions, unliked the deceased Natan-Zada. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Terrorism

A rough checklist, just to be clear:

• The act is violent and/or life threatening: Check.
• The act is unlawful: Check.
• The motive is political or religious: Check.
• The target is civilian: Check.
• The objective is to intimidate: Check, barring a "media caricature" dissent.
• The intimidation is directed at government or society: Pullout, check.
• The perpetrator is a sub-national entity: Check.

I fail to see why Natan-Zada doesn't qualify. Shem^(talk) 09:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to: A rough checklist, just to be clear:

• The act is violent and/or life threatening: Check.
  • Granted. It was indiscriminate murder. These happen every day in every country in the world.
• The act is unlawful: Check.
  • Gratuitous. Every murder is unlawful.
• The motive is political or religious: Check.
  • Proof of motive, please
• The target is civilian: Check.
  • If the motive is political or religious, esp. opposition to the "disengagement", what possible connection is there to passengers on a bus in shfar`am?
• The objective is to intimidate: Check, barring a "media caricature" dissent.
  • How does this act intimidate anyone?
• The intimidation is directed at government or society: Pullout, check.
  • No, the "intimidation" is a matter of conjecture, and the "society" against which protest of the `Aza retreat would be registered to qualify according to this criterion would be the Israeli government, or perhaps the "pressuring party", the PA.
• The perpetrator is a sub-national entity: Check.
  • The perp was a person, not an "entity" of any kind.

That you fail to see how Natan-Zada does not qualify is not valid rationale for insisting on insertion of your POV. Tomer ^TALK 09:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

What was his motive? What was his objective? How do you know? Jayjg ^(talk) 09:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm using the "crystal ball" described in my 9:39 edit summary: Israel's government and media investigation of Natan-Zada. Shem^(talk) 09:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's according to the shabaq (experts in the art of training and inserting agents provocateurs) and the likes of ma`ariv and ha'aretz (hahahaha oh my, THERE's an NPOV source!) investigations that are characterizing him as a terrorist, then make that clear. "GSS spokespersons have stated that their investigation indicates that..." is a completely different thing from saying "We know definitively that this man was not just a crazed AWOL chayal, he was in fact, a religious zealot! We know because the bus driver said he was wearing a kipa!"

Well, the bus driver is dead. If you know Israel, you would know that a religious soldier going into a Druze village in a public bus is not a common sight. What was he doing there? He simply came up one day and decided to eat some Druze bread? (which is great, btw). Yes, I know, Hamas suicide bombers have the "tact" to left their intentions recorded for posterity in bad-looking tapes. I suppose this boy didn't had a camcorder at hand (thank God for that. Those videos are awful, boring, and generally in languages that I don't speak).--horzer 04:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the government concluded a formal investigation already? Amazing work! And the media did an independent one too, all in under a day. Those Israelis are so efficient, usually it takes other governments months to reach these kinds of conclusions. Or is it possible that they are just jumping to conclusions? Jayjg ^(talk) 10:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you have reason to believe that the statements issued thus far by the Israeli government and media are false and/or "jumped to" conclusions? Or perhaps you're conducting an investigation in Shfar'am yourself, and have uncovered evidence contrary to the statements issued thus far? Amazing work yourself! Shem^(talk) 10:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea, but madmen shoot people up all the time. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, unlike many others. See Tomer's comment below. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's some possibilities for your esteemed consideration: "insanity", "bloodlust", "emotional instability" (a condition his mother informed the IDF of several months ago), "high on crack cocaine", etc. The point is, you're assigning motivation based on what yours would be. That's completely unworthy of the level of evidence the rest of us consider worth mentioning while editing WP. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, it's an encyclopedia. Tomer ^TALK 10:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Became religious?

I rewrote the intro a little. What does "he became religious" mean exactly? And I couldnt figure out where he had gone AWOL from and to, so I left that bit out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

That's simple. He went from being a secular individual to a religious one. If you have detailed information, please feel free to add it.69.209.193.20 09:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

do you have anything constructive to add? or are you just here to troll? Tomer ^TALK 10:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Troll? Buddy, it takes one to know one, you are proof of that.69.209.214.205 10:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It must really suck to have to keep reconnecting to continually extend your 3-month editing ban. Tomer ^TALK 10:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

It must really suck to be Tomer Cheers!69.209.216.22 10:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, as a good sock of the much maligned "triple revert team", I have to say, the only time it sucks is when one of my button eyes comes loose or when Jay doesn't wash his feet. Tomer ^TALK 10:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

LOL!! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's rewrite.

I prefer the old intro over your rewrite, with or without "terrorist" included. To call Natan-Zada a "member of the IDF" is misrepresentative, in my opinion, given his AWOL status and having been a deserter. If need be, we can have a consensus poll over the two intro versions (without the word "terrorist" used). Shem^(talk) 09:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I re-added AWOL to the first sentence. Is that better? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the restored version I (again) re-wikified. Shem^(talk) 10:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Whichever intro we have, it can't be this one. What's a recreant, and what's outwardly religious? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:57, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Eden Natan-Zada (c. 1985 – August 4, 2005) was an outwardly-religious yet recreant Jew who on August 4, 2005 murdered four Israeli citizens, two Christians and two Muslims, and wounded several others when he opened fire on a bus in the northern Israeli town of Shfar'am.

Obviously - aside from not making any sense, it also has no links, and the author is violating WP:3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Um. Am I the only one who thinks this entire discussion has taken a severe turn to the downright stupid? Tomer ^TALK 10:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Difficult to say, Tomer. Are you being "sarcastic" again? Shem^(talk)

"Whichever intro we have, it can't be this one. What's a recreant, and what's outwardly religious?"

An outwardly-religious, yet recreant Jew is an apostate Jew who claims to have made repentance for his sins and appears to have done so, but has not truly repented (in Natan-Zada's case it is obvious since he murdered innocents and this is against Jewish law). Tzvi5742 10:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Recreant is an obscure word that has a connotation of cowardice, and you certainly don't get to decide how sincere his repentance was. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Muslims are supposed to be kind and accomodating to "People of the Book" according to the Qur'an, but the flood of "jihadists" against Jews, Christians, et al out there are still called (as per their self-identification, I suppose) "Islamic." As for the possible sincerety/insincerety of his repentance, I'm 100% with Jayjg. Shem^(talk) 10:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Tzvi, can you show me an example of the word "recreant" in a context where it's used to mean that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:47, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Also, in The Shfar'am attack paragraph, how did the bus driver know Natan-Zada was a "recreant Jewish soldier", was he even aware Natan-Zada was AWOL? See sentence: "According to witnesses, the bus driver was initially surprised to see an outwardly-religious but recreant Jewish soldier making his way to Shfar'am". In any case, "recreant" is too value-laden and POV to be used in either the context of his religion or military connection, unless directly quoting someone who used that term. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, using the term recreant was a mistake. I'm taking it out of the article. Does anyone object to describing him as "religiously-observant?" Tzvi5742 18:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Not if he was, but clearly someone who takes a gun and mows down civilians on a crowded bus is not religiously observant, even if they're Kahanists. Kahane advocated <whisper>transfer</whisper> not murder. I've read nothing that identifies him as religiously-observant other than the press' assertion that he was, which I'm inclined to dismiss as just another jab at charedim by the flagrantly leftist Israeli media. Tomer ^TALK 19:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli media outlets have more information on this incident than you, Tomer, as do government officials who have spoken on the attack. I'll take what they're relating over your "liberal media" and "media caricature" arguments, for Wikipedia purposes. Shem^(talk) 01:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Alleged association with former former Kach and Kahane Chai members

Some facts:

1. Kach disbanded after it was banned and no longer exists.
2. Kahane Chai disbanded after it was banned and no longer exists.
3. Kach and Kahane Chai were two separate organizations.
4. Some former members of Kahane Chai live in Kfar Tapuach, this lends no support to nonsense conspiracy theories that the town is somehow the headquarters of a secret extant Kahane Chai or Kach organization.
5. Natan-Zada and his friends are too young to have been involved in these organizations which ceased to exist in 1994.

Because the German Nazi party's being banned completely eradicated the Nazi ideology, and future Nazi activists. Shem^(talk) 02:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Both Kach and Kahane Chai opposed terrorism and advocated transfer of Arabs not too different an idea to the forced transfer of Jews which every one seems to think is non-racist and kosher.

What do anti-Israel groups in the Middle East have to do with this? Who cares how "kosher" such groups consider view themselves, or how the enigmatic "everyone" views their prejudiced ideals. Shem^(talk) 02:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Some members of Kahane Chai became involved in a movement called the Kahane Movement which is essentially no more than an advocacy group running the website Kahane.org. If you go there it is pretty clear that they do not advcate terrorism or random attacks on Arabs and you will see people who praise such things harshly criticized on their forum.

So please stop adding statements that falsely imply that Kach and Kahane Chai still exist or that Natan-Zada's actions are linked to Kahanist thinking. His actions are clearly far to the right of Kahanism. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

No one is implying that the political parties still exist, and the wording in the article clearly reflects that. This "trying to make people believe they still exist" rubbish is a strawman you're wielding (and nothing more than that) to distract from the Kahanist connections professed by Natan-Zada's mother, the Israeli government, and ever journalistic outlet I've seen thus far. You're simply trying to play semantic games. Shem^(talk) 02:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the page with a non-point a view compromise that I think will satisfy both Kuratowski's Ghost and Shem. Tzvi5742 23:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd still like to know which former Kahane Chai members he was supposedly involved with and how this is even relevant to anything seeing that Kahane Chai was even more moderate than Kach.

I'm guessing that he also ate bread and drank coffee, perhaps the article should emphasize this too, you know how bad gluten and coffee are, they are obviously implicated and should be banned!! He wore shoes too, lets demonize those as well, he was wearing shoes when he committed the act, ban the shoes!! I heard also that everyone in Kfar Tapuach wears shoes!! :P Kuratowski's Ghost 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so my previous attempt at a compromise between Shem and Tomer/K's Ghost didn't work... how about this: [Although the Israeli government considers groups based on Kahanism to be terrorist organizations, Kahanist idealogy abhors terrorism and murder] Tzvi 02:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well the point I'm making is that any connections with Kahanists is largely irrelevant to his actions as these actions are not the result of Kahanist ideology. Natan-Zada is clearly an example of the many young people who are far to the right of Kahanism which they view as weak and ineffectual. I don't know what label to give such people, far rightwing is confusing considering the fact that a decade of propaganda has painted Kahanists as far rightwing. The termed I've heard is simply kitzoni which is not the name of a political movement but simply Hebrew for extremist. Kahanists don't consider themselves to be kitzoni, they reserve the term for people who advocate terror against Arabs. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

While we're rewriting history, why don't we start using a more friendly "Appleton" instead of Kfar Tapuach? Good lord. That this discussion is even regarded as worthwhile is preposterous. Just because inflamatory rhetoric is used to describe the guy is no reason for WP to parrot such tripe. He was an imbalanced individual, a fact the tzahal chose to ignore, who, with his army-issue weapon, engaged in an unprovoked shooting-spree. Anyone ever heard of the Columbine High School massacre? Does anyone seriously believe that just because a kook with a gun goes and starts shooting people that the guy needs to be (illegitimately, I might add) identified with a political group with which there are no confirmable links? The guy was a nutcase. The most ridiculous thing about this entire affair, of course, is that "the settlers" and "Kahanists" and "Kach" and "Kahane Chai" and blahblahblah are being blamed, when in fact the tzahal was negligent. They knew the guy was nuts. They knew he was living in Kfar Tapuach. They (duh!) knew he was AWOL. And they did nothing. Tomer ^TALK 08:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Picture?

Can we get a picture of him? There are some in the google news results, but not well sourced...Dsol 21:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming (surname).

Natan-Zada (hyphenated), or Natan Zada (middle and surname)? Should he be referred to as "Natan-Zada," or simply "Zada" in other articles? I've seen it reported both ways, even from identical quotes. Anyone have an authoritative source for the guy's name? Shem^(talk) 01:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Police had successfully restrained Natan-Zada before the crowd got ahold of him. [2]

Whereabouts should we add this in, or should there be a new section (titled "Death," I suppose) along the lines of his burial controversy? Shem^(talk) 02:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that more details concerning his death should be included in a different section. As the Israeli government continues to investigate, we'll have more information from the Israeli media. Tzvi 02:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

condemnation?

Which "vast majority" of jewish groups condemned his actions? Where I live, in Canada, the jewish groups were all silent on the attack. High contrast to their reaction when a palestinian shoots and kills a jew, don't you think? Also it should be made clear that kahane groups advocate ethnic cleansing. What else would you call forced expulsion of people based on their race and ethnicity?

"All silent?" Perhaps you missed this:

B’nai Brith Canada immediately condemned the vicious murder of four Israeli Arabs and the injuring of others by a Jewish gunman who opened fire inside a bus in northern Israel last Thursday killing four and wounding 12 others.

“We condemn this murderous act committed by a lone Jewish gunman against Israeli Arab civilians,” said Frank Dimant, B’nai Brith Canada’s executive vice president. “Our entire Jewish community is outraged by this unconscionable act.

“Such reprehensible behaviour and all other similar acts of violence directed against civilians – in all parts of the world – must not be countenanced and must be met with the fullest extent of the law.

“We are saddened by the news and extend our condolences to the families and friends of those killed in this tragedy.”[3]

Oh, and I doubt that Kahanists actually state that they support "ethnic cleansing", even if they do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Kahanists definitely oppose the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Yesha which is currently in progress ;) Kahane called for the removal of those who do not qualify as gerei toshav. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You serious? Only a few crazy jewish extremists argue that it is "ethnic cleansing". Otherwise, we'd be mourning the "ethnic cleansing" of Brits from India. Keep in mind they've been there 200 yrs, and not 40 yrs.

There are an unusual number of Kahane supporters at this encyclopedia. It is really quite strange.Heraclius 16:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"Lynching"

There seem to be POV concerns over using the word "lynching" in this article. Discussion? Shem^(talk) 21:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The AFP and UAE called it lynching [4]. BTW, what's the story with the general strike: did it happen? Should we mention how foreign press incites "Israeli Arabs to go on strike"? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to the term lynching. Some reports had Natan-Zada running out of ammo and trying to reload before getting beaten to death. It just seems wrong to call it lynching when people were fighting for their lives.Heraclius 05:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Lynching" is simply the extra-judicial killing of an individual by a large group of people, which is exactly what happened here. If he was out of ammo, then he was no longer a threat. There is a big difference between restraint, and beating to death. Respected news sources use the term. There doesn't seem to be any logical objection to the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean he was out of ammo, I mean his clip ran out and he was trying to reload. So right before he was trying to reload he got attacked. At least that's one of the views I heard.Heraclius 04:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

O.K. Well, I don't see any evidence of that, and I don't particularly see how it is relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[5] There's a source. It's relevant because it's not "extrajudicial". He was trying to reload to gun down even more people. So the Arabs on the bus were acting in self-defense. Now, I know that you will say "but why didn't they just restrain him". I don't see how you can restrain a guy with a gun in his hand who has just shot up an entire bus. Maybe in their attempted "restraining" he was killed. Maybe not. Lynching has usually referred to an execution or hanging after an event. This happened during the event. I think we should mention both points of view, but not state definitively that he was lynched.Heraclius 04:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Scratch my last comment, I just read the Haaretz article. Haaretz is a pretty reliable source and they say that he was handcuffed and then killed.Heraclius 04:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait, there's another problem. The Haaretz article says that Eden was walking through the bus when a man in red grabbed onto a railing and kicked him down. Isn't it possible that it was this man who killed him, and not the "mob"?Heraclius 04:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, I will, as you might guess, be the last person in the world to regard הארץ as an objective journalistic source. The fact of the matter is, their report of him being handcuffed at the time of his death comes straight from the authorities. In fact, I would regard his death at the hands of a mob as an act of abbrogation of the responsibilities of the authorities--he is reported to have been handcuffed and then left on the bus, thus permitting anyone and everyone to do whatever they pleased to him. The objection to calling his death a lynching, regardless of whether it was done "in retribution for his crimes", is a blatant expression of POV. He was lynched. He was killed by a bloodthirsty mob, righteously bloodthirsty or otherwise makes no difference. You want to characterize him as a bloodthirsty Zionist Jew-pig or whatever Jew-hating arabs these days are calling us, and I want to characterize him as an agent provacateur. The fact of the matter is, however, that neither of our perspectives on his rôle are particularly relevant to the discussion. He died at the hands of "a mob" (without any of the negative associations sometimes carried by that term) in an extrajudicial killing. He was, therefore, "lynched". The only objection I can possibly fathom to your dislike of the term is that you think that lynching means something other than what it really does. If so, please, state what the actual objection to the term is, and cite a reference to back up your objection. Otherwise, I can only say that your objection is a result of your dislike of the term. As for your "isn't it possible ..." conjecture, this is an encyclopedia, not a newsrag. In that vein however, would you rather that we say "He was lynched, although Heraclius doesn't like that term" in the article? Would that make you happy? Seriously. What's your deal? Words have meanings, and everything I've read makes it painfully clear, the dreck-for-brains was lynched. Tomer ^TALK 10:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I will not respond to this above rant in order to preserve the peace here. But before you start chastising me for not liking the word lynching and being a "Jew-hating Arab", please take a sec to look at who added the link to lynching back in.Heraclius

It should be responded to. The above was absolutely uncalled for, and can be addressed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TShilo12 . Hopefully, this will prevent it from spilling over into the article itself. Shem^(talk) 21:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, I don't think Tomer was referring to you as a "Jew-hating Arab." If you look at the sentence, I think he simply meant that "Jew-hating Arabs" may refer to Jews as "bloodthirsty Zionist Jew-pig" or similar. I don't see that comment as directed at you at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You want to characterize him as a bloodthirsty Zionist Jew-pig or whatever Jew-hating arabs these days are calling us In my opinion, that implies that I am a Jew-hating Arab.Heraclius 01:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There's an uncharitable reading of that sentence that would allow that interpretation, Heraclius, but the most obvious one is that "Jew-hating Arabs" may use that term, but without implying you're one of them. This may be a case where assuming good faith is appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Uncharitable? You want to characterize him as a bloodthirsty Zionist Jew-pig, it reads. This may be a case where making excuses for obviously unacceptable behavior isn't appropriate. Such inflammatory rhetoric, and I'm supposed to assume good faith on his part? Shem^(talk) 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius: In hindsight, I understand how my statement could be interpreted the way you clearly have taken it. I did not mean to include you in the generalization I was making. While our exchanges have sometimes been terse, I have never had any reason to denigrate you, and certainly wasn't trying to start now. I offer my humblest apology in the hope that you will accept it. Tomer ^TALK 02:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Shem, the sentence is ambiguous, Tomer has apologized for the ambiguity, and has made clear it wasn't directed at Heraclius. In a case like this, it's important to assume good faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, please. "You want to characterize him as a bloodthirsty Zionist Jew-pig" isn't an ambiguous statement. Shem^(talk) 03:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, the few edit-wars we have gotten into have generally been resolved, so I don't consider you to be a disruptive POV-pushing user (though you do have a very strong POV). Still, I feel that the comments above were pretty inflammatory. I accept your apology while at the same time reminding myself not to take internet discussions too seriously. Now it just leaves you and Shem to sort out the larger conflict that seems to exist between you two.Heraclius 03:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Eyewitness account from the man who first detained Natan-Zada

Ahayal Jahnawi describes, in detail, what happened on the bus. [6] Shem^(talk) 03:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

just went to read this now but had disappeared; subsequently found at [7] blacksand 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Letters written by Natan-Zada prior to his going AWOL

"Just as I couldn't carry out an order that desecrates the Sabbath, I cannot be part of an organization that expels Jews." He added the anti-pullout slogan "Jews don't expel Jews" to his letter, and concluded the message with the words: "I will consider how I will continue to serve." [8] Shem^(talk) 03:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

He certainly seems sane.Heraclius 03:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Mass murderer?

Aren't we stretching the term a bit too far? 192.115.133.141 14:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a stretch. There are mass murderers who kill as little as four or five people, but the point is they went out to kill, and killed one after another. Eden Natan-Zada was mostly definately a mass-murderer, who killed four people and might have killed more had he not been stopped. I'm readding the category. - Gilgamesh 17:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Which other mass murderers have killed as few as 4 people? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

People who have killed their families, I think. But I did found out after I added the category, that Category:Mass murderers sets its minimum limit to four, so Eden Natan-Zada qualifies. - Gilgamesh 14:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Exclusive or with Terrorists

Per Category:Mass_murderers, it is not to be used for terrorists, so if this person is in the category terrorist, he should not be in mass murderer and vica versa. Either one, but not both. Thanks -- Avi 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists

OK, the 7/7 bombers are now all categorised as "British terrorists", so as per User:Jayjg I have put this article in Category:Terrorists. —Ashley Y 09:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Murder victim

Anon who puts this category says that legally he was murdered. I do not know if this is true. I would like to see a legal reference. gidonb 12:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

מבחינה חוקית זה רצח לכל דבר. עשו בו לינץ' אחרי שהוא היא כפות באזיקים ע"י שוטרים ואחרי שהנשק נלקח ממנו. כלומר ולכן לא היה מקרה של הגנה עצמית. זה שאף אחד לא נתן את הדין הזה זה לא אומר שהוא לא נרצח. --Haham hanuka 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Update

Legally Natan Zada was murdered, we should write now about the new investigation (which seems to be ended) [9] --Haham hanuka 20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Baruch Goldstein was also legally murdered, as he was killed after being subdued and disarmed. This is documented and referenced (I believe) in the Baruch Goldstein article. --DLand^TALK 20:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

completed details on lynching

and subsequent move to cat.. Amoruso 06:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

From Lone wolf (terrorism)

I removed this from the Lone Wolf article since Natan-Zada is just one in a long line of bullet point examples, and he really shouldn't have a longer entry than Timothy McVeigh. However, if there's merit to this factoid it should probably go in this article. --Saswann 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Prime minister Ariel Sharon described the incident as "a reprehensible act by a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist who sought to attack innocent Israeli citizens." [10] However, under Israeli law, only attacks by "enemies of Israel" are considered terrorism, and so Natan-Zada has not been legally recognised as a terrorist nor the people he killed as victims of terrorism (leading to calls for a change in Israeli law) [11].

Fair use rationale for Image:Eden Natan Zada.jpg

Image:Eden Natan Zada.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mass Murder

Someone is playing with the cats and thinks 'only' four dead means one cannot tag it as mass murder. This defies the technical literature which defines mass murder as from 3-4 in any one place and time. SeeRonald M.Holmes, Stephen T.Holmes, Murder in America, Sage Publications, London 2nd ed. p.54ff. 3-4

Proper category

Please see Category:Mass murderers. "The following lists individuals who have committed mass murder, defined as the killing of four or more people in a single incident. This category is not to be used for terrorists, or for those who carried out massacres in service of a state." Either or, not both. If there is a disagreement, I will be happy to lock the article while the discussion is carried out on the talk page to prevent edit warring. -- Avi (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Terror Ruling

The reverted material contained the following

The Israeli Defense Ministry ruled that the four Arab Israelis shot dead are not victims of terror because their killer was Jewish. This means the victims families are not entitled to the usual compensation for life. Arab Israeli leaders condemned the decision, Mohammed Barakeh, an Arab member of the Israeli parliament, said: "The decision raises a strong scent of racism, which distinguishes between a Jewish terrorist and an Arab terrorist."

This was reverted because of the claim "That's not exactly what the sources said. I've fixed the subtle misrepresentation and brought sources." What the newspaper article cited states

Four Arab Israelis shot dead by a soldier opposed to the closure of the Gaza Strip settlements are not victims of "terror" because their killer was Jewish, Israel's defence ministry has ruled, and so their families are not entitled to the usual compensation for life.

— http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/01/israel

Ofcourse what I wrote was not exactly what the newspaper stated, because that would be plagiarism. Instead I captured the essence of what they said as accurately as possible. That essence was destroyed by the revision, and the revision should probably be undone. The added information of the payouts should remain. TWilliams9 (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The added citation states

Presumably, the prime minister did not know that in order to "benefit" from the compensation law for victims of hostile actions, it is not enough to be shot at by "a bloodthirsty terrorist who sought to harm innocent Israeli citizens"; one has to make sure the terrorist was a card-carrying member of an organization hostile to Israel. The chances of that happening are slim when the murderer is a member of the Jewish religion.

Which I agree does not exactly state what the Guardian article does. But it also does not refute the Guardian reporters accounts. TWilliams9 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have brought a quote from the Israeli Defense Ministry spokeswoman, as well as the Ha'aretz article. I believe that more authoritative than McGreal, who has a history of being accused of misrepresenting fact (See Chris McGreal#Controversy over "Worlds Apart" article). -- Avi (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a reporter challenged by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. The facts are based on the reputation of The Guardian Newspaper, and it is a little frustrating that you chose to discuss this issue with curt edit summaries. In the AP article you brought in also contains the following quotation which you left out of the article

The law doesn't cover Jewish terror," said Orna Kohn, a lawyer with the Adalah legal center for minority rights in Israel. "If this had been the same bus and same attack but committed by a Palestinian terrorist, then they would have been covered by the law."

TWilliams9 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not bring in "red herrings". The Defense Ministry's own spokesperson is the better source, because the Defense Ministry made the decision. McGreal has been called to task by many organizations, Jewish and Arab alike. It appears everyone has a reason to complain about him. Regardless, it is irrelevant; the best sources should be used, which I have done. You also failed to mention that the law was changed as a result of this incident, and that these victims did receive the appropriate compensation. I rectified that issue as well. -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

When dealing with accusations spin I think a reporter is more reputable than a spokesperson, who has a vested interest in spinning for PR reasons. I didn't mention that the law was changed because in the sources I found there was no mention of the law being changed. Once you brought up that the victims were compensated I included that in my edit [[12]] I have sought out a 3rd opinion. TWilliams9 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

When the reporter has a history of being called for "spin" your proposition beomces weakened. Again, regardless, as an encyclopedia, we are better served by bringing the sources for the events, as opposed to others' interpretations of the meanings behind the rulings (especially when said reporter has a history of being accused of being partial). Leave the "re-interpretations" to the blogs and op-ed pieces; we are an encyclopedia. -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I read up about the incident you wrote, and it seems like this guy has a good reputation but upset people because he stuck to the facts like Jimmy Carter, and sometimes the facts hurt. What you are contending is great, we should strive for encyclopedic content, and if you had linked to the actual ruling that would be great. Instead you linked to a PR person's spin of the event. The Guardian is a good source, and this was not a blog or op-ed piece, this was a reporter. I agree, we are a reporter, not a propaganda machine for one side or the other, that is why we should rely on reputable news organizations like the guardian and not PR spinsters.TWilliams9 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

However, I brought a news source quoting the Defense Ministry, as opposed to a news source that does not divulge its sources. I agree, neutrality is the way to go, which is why we should be using a source that is bringing a factual statement, instead of a reporter's opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Avi, do you have a secondary source for your version of the Defense Ministry statement? THF (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The source I brought is a secondary source. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out the next line in the article, whose context was removed by selective quotations from Avi.

Under current law, an assailant must be a member of the "enemy forces" against Israel for the action to be considered terrorism, said Mayan Malkin, a spokeswoman with the Defense Ministry. But in this case the shooter was Jewish and his attack cannot be designated as terror, said Malkin.

— http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/6448.htm

which supports the interpretation of the Guardian article, and is probably what the lead section was based on. TWilliams9 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with the paragraph as currently written. It accurately quotes the Defense Ministry ruling (the Guardian quote that TW9 wants to use does not), and it includes the POV that the ruling was racist. THF (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you find it okay to include the full quotation , "But in this case the shooter was Jewish and his attack cannot be designated as terror, said Malkin." TWilliams9 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that sort of quote-mining unless the quote was independently notable by other sources and was itself a source of controversy. Especially when I've first-hand experienced the Guardian misrepresenting facts in a story to push a political point. The facts are pretty clear: Defense Ministry was hamstrung by a narrowly-defined law; when the Knesset saw the problem with the way the law was written, they changed it. THF (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To be clear the quote comes from the AP and not the Guardian. The Guardian article uses the quote, but does not attribute it to a particular person. Wouldn't it be quote mining to not include the full quotation? TWilliams9 (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No. THF (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, TWilliams9, what is your purpose in adding that part of the sentence? What are you attempting to show? You would not have any ulterior motive for attempting to push a particular POV about the Israeli Defense Ministry, would you? Especiallyafter the law was changed and the victims got retroactive payment? -- Avi (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not relevant. Address the edits, not the editor, especially on the talk page of an article. THF (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going off a story that the Guardian wrote and my jaw dropped when I read the article, it was bold. I was not aware of the defense minister's quotes and I was also not aware of the Guardian Reporters' past. Since you do not trust the Guardian reporter I am now okay going with the AP reporter's quotations of the Defense Minster, her whole quotation. My question to you is why did you read the whole quote from the Defense Minister and then subtely misrepresent the information by only selectively quoting. Then you used a snippy edit summary stating "That's not exactly what the sources said. I've fixed the subtle misrepresentation and brought sources." TWilliams9 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the edits, that was partially an error on my part. I read the Haaretz and another source, both of them explaining the ruling as based on the wording "enemy combatant" and I mentally blanked on the fact the McGreal posed it specifically as a "Jewish" issue, so my first edit summary was incorrect, and for that you have my apology. That does not change the fact that the McGreal (mis)representation is not the proper sentence to use, but that does explain my error. -- Avi (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

McGreal argues that Israel doesn't punish Jewish terrorists the same way as gojim terrorists. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Murder or killing

User:THF claims in [13] that "killed" would be more WP:NPOV than "murdered". I don't agree, the killing in cold blood of innocent civilians is called murder. Perhaps the person hiding behind that pseudonym could explain why (s)he/it considers the killing of two young women/girls who have not been accused of any crime (except being the wrong race or religion, according to Kahanism) to be anything but premeditated, unlawful homocide. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It could just be homicide by virtue of insanity, though I agree it was probably murder. But we adopt the neutral encyclopedic version when we can, given that the killer was lynched before a court determined he was a murderer. I don't feel strongly enough about it to make a big deal about it; I'll abide by a third opinion. THF (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which names killing an armed Kahanist/madman (as if there were a distinction) reloading his gun, by his intended victims, a lynching? The victim lacked melanin, was caught in flagrante delicto and the killers weren't from the USA. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

came here from 3O. even if it is murder, it seems that we dont usually use that word unless we are quoting. i think killed is the most neutral, following the lead of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahimi_Mosque#Security_and_conflict untwirl(talk) 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion I think we can adopt the more neutral, encyclopedia term of "killing" here. Anyone reading the article can come to their own opinions as the legality of the act - the events seem to be pretty clearly described and self-explanatory, and I don't think that using a neutral term introduces any unnecessary bias. The only paper dictionary I have to hand (the Concise OED) doesn't define "lynch" by skin colour or nationality (and neither does Wiktionary), but, leaving that aside, the article only says that the suspects were accused of taking part in a lynching, which seems to be accurate. Although, if that's not the proper legal term in Israel (which I'm guessing it isn't), we should probably change it to something more specific. Anaxial (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

status of lynching trial

The article says that five are "awaiting trial" in 2006. Presumably that is no longer true, and the article could stand updating. THF (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Twelve people were indicted in 2009; they are still awaiting trial or the trial has yet to be concluded per this source. Tiamut^talk 13:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Identity terms

I changed all references to "Israeli Arabs" or "Arab Israelis" to Arab citizens of Israel, or "Arab citizens" or simply people. This change has been reverted by User:No More Mr Nice Guy four times now, the latest here.

The reason I made this change is that the term "Arab Israelis" or "Israeli Arabs" is not used by the majority of the people who are designated by that term (this is explained in the article on Arab citizens of Israel, where it is noted that most identify as "Palestinian" and/or "Arab" and very rarely as "Israeli").

Per MOS:IDENTITY: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article. When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too. (See for example the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".)"

Because there is no universal agreement among Arab citizens of Israel on how to refer to themselves, I have stuck with using the article title used for this group in Wikipedia, which was chosen after long discussion aimed at finding the most neutral descriptor. There is no justification for using "Arab Israeli" when it is a term rejected by many of the people in question.

I would ask that NMMNG refrain from making threats of reporting me and User:RolandR for "tag-team edit-warring" when it is he that hss reverted four times (in violation of both WP:3RR and our MoS guidelines) to restore what he believes is the best name for a group, when many members of that group disagree, and when his restorations go against wht is recommended by our own guidelines. Tiamut^talk 12:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to come to the talk page after you and your buddy edit warred your preferred version in violation of WP:BRD.

To the point, MOS:IDENTITY doesn't apply here since you yourself admit there is no universal agreement on how to refer to Arab Israelis.

In your edit summary you said "Arab Israeli" or "Israeli Arab" are offensive terms. I see you have now dropped that unsubstantiated claim.

I'll read the previous discussion on Arab citizens of Israel and see what the consensus was regarding the most neutral descriptor. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a guideline. Note that it encourages those who do revert bold edit to explain why they have done so, preferably on the talk page. You didn't do that, choosing instead to revert four times in less than four hours, breaking WP:3RR. So your accusing me of edit-warring is bit rich considering your flat out violation.

The term is offensive to some Arab citizens. I can't find a copy of the article online anymore, but as you can see from these two google searches [14] [15], one analysis notes: "Although most continue to identify themselves as Palestinian, preferring to be called Palestinian citizens of Israel, the state identifies them as 'Israeli Arabs' – a term some of them find as offensive as black Americans might today at being called 'negroes'." Your ignorance of this perspective is not my problem.

Also, your patronizing tone is unwelcome and unnecessary. I'm not sure you be so smug when discussing the appropriate terminology for African-Americans or members of the Afrodiaspora with a member of that group. So why with me? Try to show a little sensitivity, "No More Mr Nice Guy".

In any case, there is near universal agreement among the community of the descriptor Arab, and we are citizens of Israel (whether we like it or not). Given that the title name is Arab citizens of Israel, it is best to use that and its variations here, barring reliable scholarly sources using different terminology (not newspapers just mindlessly parroting back what they think is appropriate when it is fact offensive to some). Tiamut^talk 13:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I explained why I reverted. Quite clearly. You have now produced a fragment of something that is no longer online, the reliability of which we can not determine, and on the basis of that we're supposed not to use a term that's common in the English speaking media?

The "newspapers just mindlessly parroting back what they think is appropriate when it is fact offensive to some" bit is pretty rich. You're quite glad to use anything you can find in a newspaper when you think it's supporting your agenda, not to mention we have a little thing called WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a source. I'll read the discussion in Arab citizens of Israel and consider the arguments and consensus made there, assuming there actually was a consensus, but the fact the article is currently titled in a certain way does not prove anything.

I don't think I was being smug and to be frank I really don't think I need to word my comments with your hyper-sensitivity in mind. The fact you find the term Arab-Israeli offensive (whether you are one or not) is really quite irrelevant here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know Hebrew? If so, take a look at this, specifically the following paragraph:

פרק זה, וכן דין וחשבון זה כולו, משתמש במונחים "הערבים אזרחי ישראל", "המיעוט הערבי" או "המגזר הערבי". הוועדה מודעת לכך שהמינוח בתחום זה שנוי במחלוקת וכי זרמים שונים בציבור זה מעדיפים להיקרא בשמות כמו פלסטינים, מוסלמים, או ערבים-ישראלים, כל אחד על פי נטיותיו והשקפותיו. הטרמינולוגיה האמורה נבחרה משיקולי נוחות על יסוד ההנחה שהיא נייטרלית באופן יחסי, ומכל מקום אין היא באה לבטא כל העדפה אידיאולוגית. הוועדה מודעת גם לכך שדבריה בפרק זה מוצגים בדרך של הכללות נרחבות ואינם מתייחסים אל מלוא המגוון של הציבור הערבי, על עדותיו וזרמיו השונים. לדוגמה, מצבם הפוליטי והמשפטי של הדרוזים והצ'רכסים שונה מזה של שאר המיעוטים; הנוצרים שונים מהמוסלמים על פי מספר מדדים חברתיים-כלכליים; מצוקת הבדווים קשה יותר מזו של שאר המגזר הערבי, ועוד. ברם, האילוצים הכפויים על הפרק הזה, מכורח אופיו התמציתי, מאפשרים לו לדון רק במה שנראה כרוב מניינו ובניינו של המגזר הערבי, תוך ויתור מראש על התייחסות פרטנית לכל מרכיביו השונים.

(If that doesnt copy correctly it is number 2 in the source) nableezy - 19:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know Hebrew? Because I doubt what that says is what you think it says. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesnt say that they use the terms "Arab citizens of Israel", "Arab minority" or "Arab sector" because it is "relatively neutral" as opposed to labeling them "Palestinians" or "Israeli-Arabs"? What does it say? nableezy - 06:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you obviously don't read Hebrew, could you explain why you posted in Hebrew something you can't read but apparently have in English?

Anyway, It certainly doesn't say the term "Israeli-Arab" is offensive like both you and Tiamut claimed in your edit summaries. It says that the terms the report uses were chosen out of "convenience", "based on the assumption" that they are "relatively neutral". Your point? If you have one? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So it does not say that the it used the terms "Arab citizens of Israel", "Arab minority" or "Arab sector" because it doesnt express an "ideological preference" the way "Israeli-Arab" does? And my point, as Im sure you realize, is the source says explicitly that "Arab citizens of Israel" is neutral and that "Israeli-Arab" is not. Why dont you stop blustering about what you think I know and acknowledge the simple point made. nableezy - 13:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I says what I said above. That it was convenient for them to assume that "Arab citizens of Israel", "Arab minority" and "Arab sector" are relatively neutral terms. It does not say that "Arab-Israeli" is an offensive term as you claimed in your edit summary.

I'm not "blustering" about what I think you know but wondering out loud why you'd use a source in a language you don't understand but think I do. I see you're once again evading the question.

By the way, could you point me to where this issue was discussed at Arab citizens of Israel? I can't find it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that this source says "Israeli-Arab" is an offensive term. And I do not know Hebrew, but I do know what this paragraph says. And this paragraph explicitly says that where the other terms indicate an "ideological preference" the ones they use are "relatively neutral". They dont say that they use the terms because it is convenient for them but because it is "relatively neutral" and does not express an "ideological preference". nableezy - 14:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you are unable to read the source you provided, let me break down the relevant sentence for you.

"הטרמינולוגיה האמורה" = "the aforementioned terminology", "נבחרה משיקולי נוחות" = "was chosen for convenience", "על יסוד ההנחה" = "based on the assumption", "שהיא נייטרלית באופן יחסי" = "that it is relatively neutral", "ומכל מקום" = "and anyway", "אין היא באה לבטא" = "it is not trying to express", "העדפה אידיאולוגית" = "an ideological preference".

The terms were chosen for convenience because the commission assumes they are relatively neutral and it would not be accused of ideological preference. That's what they are saying. They do not pass judgment on other terms.

Do you have a source that explicitly says that "Israel-Arab" or "Arab-Israeli" are offensive terms? And not to some fringe group like I'm sure you can find people who think "African-American" is offensive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What does the following sentence say?

הוועדה מודעת לכך שהמינוח בתחום זה שנוי במחלוקת וכי זרמים שונים בציבור זה מעדיפים להיקרא בשמות כמו פלסטינים, מוסלמים, או ערבים-ישראלים, כל אחד על פי נטיותיו והשקפותיו

Does it not say that the terminology used in this area, such as "Israeli-Arab", is "controversial". And then when it gives reasons for using the other terms, such as "Arab citizens of Israel", it compares those terms to the others, calling them "relatively neutral"? nableezy - 14:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it says that the commission is aware that terminology in this area is controversial and that different groups prefer different names. It does not say a specific name is controversial but that the terminology in general is. Then they go on to explain that out of convenience they chose the "relatively neutral" term in the next sentence which I explained above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it says in general, and gives specific examples of such controversial terminology. Then it says it uses a "relatively neutral" alternate. Why would you rather not use a "relatively neutral" phrase here in place of such "controversial" terminology? nableezy - 15:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what it says nor what it implies. Can you seriously imagine the commission saying the term "Muslim" is controversial? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To define the Arab citizens of Israel? Yes. But I'll believe you on this, at least until another editor who understands Hebrew comments. But the commission does say that it uses the term "Arab citizens of Israel" because it is "relatively neutral". Is there a reason you would oppose using a "relatively neutral" phrasing? nableezy - 15:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept that "Arab-Israeli" is not as relatively neutral as "Arab citizens of Israel", except maybe for a small fringe group of extreme nationalists. I'd be happy to reconsider if you have a source explicitly saying otherwise. I also have no problem discussing the finer points of what the Or commission said with someone who can read the text.

I'll also point out for the record that you (and I mean you this time) and a couple of your buddies warred in a version you are unable to support with sources under the pretext that a certain term is offensive, despite BRD. If I were one of you I'd probably run to the admin boards with this but since I really don't feel it's worth my time, I'll just note it here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"The question of identity has been most vexed for the Israeli Arabs. The very term 'Israeli Arabs' is a value judgement since, as Michael Wolffsohn has argued, it confers legitimacy on a sovereign entity called Israel in which a substantial Arab minority lives".Israel: challenges to identity, democracy, and the state,by Clive Jones, Emma C. Murphy, Emma Murphy., p 43. Routledge 2002 [16].

The real question here is why you are so determined to edit-war to re-insert this term in the article, even after you have been informed by people to whom the term is applied that they find it offensive and disparaging. Can you give even one good reason why you consider the term "Arab citizen of Israel" to be unacceptable" RolandR (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"In the territories they do not use the phrase that is common here, "Arabs of Israel." When the heads of the Arab community from the Galilee and the Triangle came to make peace between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza, the newspaper headlines in East Jerusalem announced that leaders from the "1948 area" were taking part in pacification committees established in the Strip. They call them the "inside Arabs," or the "Arabs of'48" because the phrase "Israeli Arab" has connotations that are unacceptable in Palestinian terminology." Dani Rubinstein, A Good Position for Mediation, Haaretz 19 July 1992, in United States Joint Publications Research Service report. Near East & South Asia, Issue 92108, p 1 [17] RolandR (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, see the discussion by Laurence Silberstein, in The Postzionism Debates. Quoting anthropologist Dani Rabinowitz, he notes that "'Arvei Yisrael' (Israeli Arabs) is actually a more politically laden tern thaN Palestinian citizens of Israel", and expands on this. (Laurence J Silberstein, The Postzionism Debates:Knowledge and Power in Israeli Culture, Routledge 1999, p 184). RolandR (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There you have three reliable sources, cogently making the point you so vehemently oppose. You do not have to accept this idea; but it would be perverse to refuse to recognise that it is commonly held. RolandR (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the fact an editor claims something to be true is of no value here, as you know very well. It's the sources that count. Nice of you to produce some now after you edit warred your preferred version in despite BRD and ran to the admin boards.

Second, to address the sources you provided, the first one uses the term "Israeli Arabs" itself. It says that the "Israel" part is a value judgment because it confers legitimacy on Israel, but that would apply equally to "Arab citizens of Israel" as well, no? Using the same argument we should change the name of the Israel article.

Your second source says that "Arabs of Israel" is a common phrase in Israel that is not used in the territories. I'm not sure how that is relevant. Some people don't like the term "Palestinian". Are we going to have to find something more "neutral" for this small fringe group as well?

I will read your 3rd source when I have a bit of time. I did notice that the publication it's in uses "Israeli Arabs" in the very first article.

To answer your question, I think "Israeli Arabs" is a very common term, used often by both Israeli Arabs themselves, as well as the Israeli and international media, as well as many published works as you can see here. I do not think wikipedia should cater to a small group of extremists who find this term offensive, even if two of them happen to be editors here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that any of the editors here belong to "a small group of extremists". Would you care to explain who you are referring to? Otherwise, I will treat this as politically-motivated hyperbole. RolandR (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you deny that "Israeli Arab" is a common term used widely in the international media (among other places) and that your objection to it is politically-motivated? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of offensive terms (which I do not propose to repeat here) used to be used in the international media (among other places) to refer to black, Jewish, homosexual and other people. As a result of politically-motivated resistance, these are thankfully no longer considered acceptable. RolandR (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a "no" then? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't understand your comment re The Postzionism Debates about "the publication it's in". It's not "in a publication", it's a book. RolandR (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at the link to the previous source you provided. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, could you translate the first line of this? Are they using the term "Israeli Arab" or am I mistaken? This one seems pretty obvious, as does this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Arabic could either be "Arabs of Israel" or "Israeli-Arabs". The first name used ("عرب إسرائيل") is "Arabs of Israel [or Israeli-Arabs]", the next one ("عرب الداخل") "the inside Arabs", the next one ("فلسطينيو 48") is "Palestinians of 48". I am not sure if "عرب إسرائيل" should translate as "Israeli-Arab" or "Arab of Israel" as I would expect that "Israeli-Arab" would be "عرب الإسرائيلي" or "عرب الإسرائيليون" (plural). The Arabic doesnt use Arab as qualifying the demonym (الإسرائيلي Israeli), it is modifying the word for the state which makes me think that the proper translation is "Arabs of Israel" . But I am by no means an expect in Arabic so I dont feel comfortable saying what the exact meaning is. Did you happen to read the Terminología section in the Spanish link, specifically the sentence Muchos ciudadanos árabes de Israel prefieren llamarse a sí mismos, simplemente, "los palestinos en Israel" o "los ciudadanos palestinos de Israel."? My point in posting the Hebrew link was that it said the term "Arab citizen of Israel" is relatively neutral, not just because it used the term. nableezy - 06:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree that it's unlikely "Arabs of Israel" or "Israeli-Arabs" would be used in Arabic wikipedia if it were as offensive as some people here are trying to make it seem? And that the term "Israeli-Arab" seems to be pretty common in languages other than English as well? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So, as we're obviously getting nowhere here, and I have so far been unable to locate the discussion about this issue in Arab citizens of Israel, I think I shall move it over there where it will get a wider audience.
Any objections? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

anti-israel bias

has anyone noticed this article is outright anti-israel. it should be reminded that the job of wikipedia is not to preach an anti-israel story rather to tell the story from a fair perspective which this article is not doing.--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eden Natan-Zada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721191404/http://news.walla.co.il/?w=%2F%2F922912 to http://news.walla.co.il/?w=%2F%2F922912
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312182114/http://www.hazofe.co.il/web/katava6.asp?Modul=24&id=46144&Word=&gilayon=2770&mador= to http://www.hazofe.co.il/web/katava6.asp?Modul=24&id=46144&Word=&gilayon=2770&mador=
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371030417&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312042207/http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=160151 to http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=160151
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516004802/http://www.counterpunch.org/cook06142006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/cook06142006.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)