Talk:Baruch Marzel

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


Old discussion[edit]

To the annonymous editor posting from 68.80.129.105 :

Firstly: hi and welcome to Wikipedia. You've contributed quite a lot now - why not set up a user account? It tends to make things much easier all round.

Secondly, Hebron is a Palestinian city - this is an uncontroversial fact. On paper, the Israeli government says as much too. Calling it a Palestinian city is taking no stand on the status of Jewish settlements and makes no comment about Israeli military control of the city. It also makes no comment about the racial or religious make up of the city. I've put 'Palestinian' back. If you want to make a statement about the racial or religious make up of the city it belongs in a seperate paragraph, but *really* it belongs in the Hebron article.

Thirdly, I removed the part about "requiring large armed forces to guard them and leading to a serious disrupion for daily life" because it was seriously non-NPOV. I've made an attempt at addressing this. I'm not sure what you mean by "serious disrupion for daily life" unless you are refering to the continual harassment of Palestinians by the soldiers there. Please clarify if you put this bit back in. AW 13:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hebron has been a Jewish city for 4,000 years. Instead of calling it a "Palestinian" city say who lives there and let people decide for themselves what kind of city it is. I think Palestinian is a propanda term itself but if you insist on using it you should include the Jewish position as well. The government of The State of Israel does not have the authority to decide what is a Jewish city and what isn't. It was a Jewish city before there ever was a State of Israel and it is in fact the second holiest city in Judaism only after Jerusalem. It was the first property that Jews bought in The Land of Israel stretching back to when Abraham bought it to bury Sarah.
I didn't put a serious "disruption of daily life". That whole parapgraph was inserted by someone else and I just tried to make it non-biased against Israel. I wouldn't mind if the whole paragraph was removed.
You have a serious problem here - how can anyone possibily define one single "Jewish position"? . Regarding your claim that Hebron is a "Jewish city" - as you well know the Jewish community in Hebron has been a minority for hundereds of years. Calling it a Palestinian city makes no judgement on who should live there and who shouldn't because the term "Palestinian" is a nationalist term with no direct religious implications. I happen to agree with you that "The State of Israel does not have the authority to decide what is a Jewish city and what isn't". The question remains: considering that Palestinian Arabs make up the vast majority of the population of Hebron and that the government of Israel designates it a Palestinian city, what justification is there for calling it a "Jewish city" other than an explictly racist one? AW 21:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jews don't consider themselves to be Palestinian. Only Arabs call themselves that. Therefore we should call it a mixed city. The Jews were massacred by the Arabs there in 1929. The Israeli Government also doesn't have the right to decide what a "Palestinian" city is. Only G-d decides.

I've done what should have been done weeks ago and removed that paragraph completely. It belongs in the article on Hebron rather than here, and I've copied over the only bit of information from here which wasn't already there (the bit about the burial place of Joseph). If you want to carry on this argument, I suggest that Talk:Hebron is a more appropriate place. 194.73.130.132 15:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'falsely'[edit]

What do you mean, it was "delclared (falsely) racist". That isn't even coherent English, but I don't think this was meant as an NPOV statement. The court found Kach to be a racist party, whether it is or isn't should be debated separately. So I have taken out the parenthasized 'falsely'.

March failure[edit]

Pretty funny how he first claimed to have a lot of signatures of people who guaranteed to vote for him so that he would be sure to enter the Knesset, while eventually as of now it appears that they retracted their promises and voted for others. Bye bye Marzel. --Daniel575 20:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, you must be the only one to have actual results an hour after the polls have closed. And it's very obvious that if Marzel doesn't pass the threshold in a few more hours, then these people didn't vote for anyone (just look at the other right-wing party right now). --Shuki 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mug shot[edit]

Shuki: see his own "CV" on his party's website under. Imprisonment, arrests and convictions: http://www.hazit.co.il/Default.aspx?tabid=323

This guy is considered an extremist quack in the Israeli mainstream. I think he's a symptom of much wider racism, but that's another debate. AW 08:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puh-lease. That section is not the main section, and this is an encyclopedia, not some place to push your POV. Even Michael Jackson's page doesn't have a mug shot. --Shuki 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Jackson is not a criminal convicted of violent assault or part of a political group that openly advocates ethnic cleansing. These are facts. AW
It's your POV what crimes are notable or not to deserve a mug shot. --Shuki 17:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The man is a criminal, racist extremist, and mainly known in Israel for this. As noted in the article, he has a long string of criminal convictions for violence (mainly against Palestinians) in ISRAELI courts. This is a fact, one that I've extenisvely sourced in the footnotes. Statements you put back such as "Avnery's support of the Terror group Hamas" are just factually wrong, and I'm sure you're smart enough to know this. AW 08:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asa, that is your POV. To others, he is known as a peaceful and altruisitc man who works with welfare organizations. --Shuki 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"To others"? Give me a break, that means nothing. These are just facts. I notice you don't try to dispute any of these FACTS -- because they are FACTS and nothing to do my my point of view. Stop valdalising this page. AW 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Asa, 'to others'. You really do not even know who he is except for what you read in certain outlets and even then, you really don't care about the article. Yes, I cannot really counter your references. The mainstream Israeli media hates and despises him (as you do) and cannot be depended on to present an objective view of him. Removing your cheap weenie mug shot image is not vandalising the page. Your editing of this article has long since passed WP:AGF. --Shuki 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no right to remove a perfectly relevant image from a page, which is -- after all -- about an Israeli criminal, as stated, detailed and extensively referenced in the article. I notice you do not dare try and remove those facts from the article. You think you can get away with deleting a picture that both backs up and illustrates facts documented in the article, just because you're trying to defend someone most Israelis consider an extremist and a wacko. And your only argument to counter this "yes well thats your point of view". No -- it's a simple fact. AW 13:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You have no right" Excuse me King of WP. Please provide a list of all other people articles on WP in which a person not currently incarcerated has his/her mug shot on the page. Your continued infatuation with Baruch Marzel and the tone of your writing here shows that you have a WP:POINT. Asa, stop violating WP consensus. --Shuki 19:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several politicians have mugshots on their articles, including Gordon Campbell, Vladimir Lenin and Tom DeLay (whose trial is ongoing). As for the comment that Marzel is "known as a peaceful and altruisitc man", surely you are violating your own obsession with POV. The photo shows a FACT - that he was arrested, and facts are not POV. Number 57 22:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57, everyone has a POV. Please recognize the difference between editing in an article and it's talk/discussion page. Similarly, I do not question Asa saying This guy is considered an extremist quack, only that she has taken this opinion to an extreme by taking in the editing in the article. My POV can be clearly assumed, but you can trust me that I would view a similar portraying of left-wing nutcases (yes, my opinion) like Uri Avnery or Noam Chomsky on WP as skewed and psychotic defamation, not an enclyclopedia article. As you can see, those two extremist individuals have neutral portrayals as the Marzel article should be as well. But Asa has virtually highjacked it and I admit that a) there is little traffic and interest here, b) I don't want to bother overhauling the article since I have others I'd prefer to work on, c) it allows Asa some sort of humour to accuse me of vandalising even though WP doesn't think so.
As for the mug shot, bravo on finding one unknown Gordon Campbell, the other two do not have mug shots, neither does Michael Jackson. --Shuki 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the other two do not have mug shots" - I suggest you hit Ctrl-F and do a search - they just don't look like traditional mugshots, but they are there! Personally I think it's fair enough to use his mugshot to illustrate a point - it might be POV if he wasn't convicted, but he was. Similarly if any left-wing activist had a similar photo (e.g. Tali Fahima), I would have no problem using it. Anyway, perhaps we will be seeing a few soon of some of the present cabinet ;) Number 57 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're such a tool Shuki. I wouldn't have any problem with having mug shots of either of those two people, if they exist. I guess Avneri's probably been arrested a few times. I think Chomsky was arrested for anti-war stuff in the Vietnam era. Don't see anything "POV" about adding their mug shots if anyone could be bothered to dig them out. Their detractors could say "ah look - criminals", and their supporters could say "ah look at the sacrifices they've made for the cause". In fact, you could say the say thing about your loony-toons buddy Marzel "look - the godless Israeli state is persecuting the great hero!" (as many settlers in fact do) AW 10:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Asa, now you're violating WP:CIV too on top of WP:POINT among others things. I don't know why you think you know me. --Shuki 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well seeing as you characterized my edits of this article as "psychotic," I really think any talk about "civility" coming from you is a bit of a joke. AW 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asa, please read the English carefully. The edits are psychotic, not you. I try to refrain from personal attacks because I think that most people contributing to WP are generally good people but the anonymity and other issues sometimes exagerates the editing. --Shuki 21:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shuki, please read my English carefully: "characterized my edits of this article..." Funny standard of civility you have: apparently my edits are "psychotic" and I'm not supposed to take offense at this. I don't really care, but don't expect me to take seriously your lectures on "civility". AW 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

This article read like a condemnation from begining to end. I will attempt to cleanup with anyone else interested in the topic. frummer 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one be unbiased about any such violent racist criminal? LamontCranston 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia[edit]

The cat is a somewhat derogatory under WP:BLP and perhaps redundant for a religious person. Theoretically, the cat could be applied to the majority of rabbi, iman, and other religious figures pages on WP. The question is if Marzel is an exception and has specific animosity towards a certain population or this is the label/cat is based on WP:ONEEVENT. --Shuki (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme[edit]

Please bring a neutral definition of 'extreme' so that we would be able to get a cinsensus to place on all 'extreme' activists and politicians. Until then, it probably violates BLP. --Shuki (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a definition be needed, it's reliably sourced. Saying that someone is on the extreme right is no different than saying that someone is on the center-right; an informative article requires more specificity than "right" or "left." It can't be a blp violation to accurately describe people's political stances, as reported in newspapers. "Far right" is probably the more commonly-used terminology, there are references for that too.[1][2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.211.165 (talk • contribs)
Those aren't references, they are name calling. BLP requires us to be as NPOV as possible. Without a neutral, and consensus way to place people on a scale of right and left, it is enough to add in afterwards that others think he is such and such. --Shuki (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're references. It's not name-calling, some people actually are on the far right or far left. NPOV doesn't mean being nice and toning down people's beliefs. A neutral way to place people on a scale of right and left exists: it can be done by using reliable sources, such as newspapers.Prezbo (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to ask the BLP board about this since I assume it's come up before.Prezbo (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came over from the BLP board. I think it's perfectly fair to say he is "right wing." However saying so gives the reader very little real information. "Right wing" could be anyone from Libertarians to National Socialists, and includes supporters of both the Israeli and Palestinian causes. I think it's better to tell the reader exactly what Mr. Marzel's views are (as the article does) than slap a label on him. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the first paragraph calls him this at the end. So no need to say it in the first sentence. I went ahead and changed it. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Bar Refaeli[edit]

We have a puzzling difficulty: Shuki wants to remove a passage supported by a perfectly reliable source, because he thinks that passage is untrue. I would have thought that an established editor is familiar with "verifiability, not truth". The passage in question -- Marzel has urged Refaeli not to "dilute the Jewish race" -- is indeed verifiable. Shuki points to a letter at the website of Arutz Sheva and claims, correctly, that "dilute" does not appear in that letter. This however is beside the point: the JC doesn't say anything about Marzel writing to Refaeli in a letter published by Arutz Sheva. Perhaps the JC is referring to a different letter. It really doesn't matter: the passage is supported with a reliable source in the usual way, and removal of properly sourced material is the problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing puzzling at all. The perhaps usually reliable source here is claiming that Marzel used the controversial expression 'dilute the Jewish race' and he simply did not. The verifiable original Hebrew letter is sourced for all to see. Given that, the Chronicle is apparently not a RS here, perhaps an irresponsible reporter getting info from a third party. You will need to find the source you claim the Chronicle uses in order to reinsert info that is a violation of BLP. --Shuki (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no violation of BLP at all. As for the JC, you're welcome to take that one to the RS noticeboard. As best I can tell, you are simply insisting on truth over verifiability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that BLP could apply, if there is doubt that this English version accurately represents the original Hebrew, I believe that caution dictates omitting the quote pending ironclad sourcing. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here are a couple of additional sources: [4], [5]. Perhaps three is sufficient? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "race" wording is not in either one as a direct quote; that terminology is apparently some writer's paraphrasing. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz (usually more careful than most) has "Jewish people" in direct quote.[6] The original of Mazel's letter is quoted in Hebrew Haaretz [7]. The main part is "עם ישראל הוא עם סגולה, ולא במקרה נולדת יהודיה. הסבתא שלך, והסבתא של הסבתא שלך לא חלמו ולא פיללו שמישהי מצאצאיהם תעשה מעשה שיוציא את הדורות הבאים במשפחתה מהעם היהודי" It means Jewish people or Jewish nation. Zerotalk 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zero, that Haaretz link does not contain an entire letter from Marzel. It contains portions of a letter. We are still left with a problem: the JC is a reliable source and it contains a direct quote. The fact that a letter (or portions of a letter) without it is published somewhere else does not establish that the JC is wrong. "Wrong" is the wrong question anyway, as WP:V makes clear: verifiability, not truth. Those who are removing properly sourced information appear to be having difficulty understanding that core principle of Wikipedia. I don't even see what the BLP problem is: we don't know that Marzel considers this phrase to be a negative reflection on him, and there are good reasons to believe that he approves of it and actually believes the dilution of the Jewish race to be a bad thing -- not least because he is reported to have written it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomo, so with you saying: there are good reasons to believe that he approves of it, you assume that you know what Marzel thinks? I suggest you find the whole letter before including material that violates BLP. --Shuki (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Nomoskedasticity: Just to clarify my position, I have no doubt whatever that "dilute the Jewish race" is a correct interpretation of what Marzel intended, but I am still not convinced that he said it so explicitly as that. The usual writing style for people like this is to use stock phrases like מהעם היהודי and עם ישראל and to avoid the word "race", yet you can tell from their words (talk of descendants, future generations, etc) that for them the Jewish people is a biological entity. What you need to advance your position is a quotation in a good Hebrew source that uses the word "race" directly; English translations can't really be trusted to get the nuances correct. Marzel's whole original letter is surely on the web somewhere. So far the extracts I managed to find match the Haaretz text. Zerotalk 23:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you can't get on the discussion page, can be attempt to skirt elsewhere without 'followers'. Discussion has somewhat continued here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Jewish Chronicle. Usually, one would also want to notify this discussion of other discussions. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vexrog, just to make it easier for you, I went to find the archived discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 60#The Jewish Chronicle
You say that as if there was some sort of consensus in that discussion. There wasn't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recommendation to avoid adding the alleged 'dilute' claim. --Shuki (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Father[edit]

Obituary for Shlomo Marzel, Boruch's father. Horev Principal Rabbi Shlomo Merzel, 79. He was a Yakir Yerushalaim. If there are additional sources, there may be justification for an article. Has anyone seen other coverage of him? Joe407 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced text[edit]

If a source is found this was the exact text "After finishing his studies in the hesder yeshiva in the short-lived Israeli settlement of Yamit in the Sinai Peninsula, at age 20, he joined the IDF. In the 1982 Lebanon War, he fought in a tank regiment within the Armored Corps and participated in the capture of the Beirut-Damascus road. He was later wounded in action. Upon finishing his army service, the army sent him to the United States, where he was involved in public relations and outreach for Israel.[citation needed]" I removed it since it didn't have a source, and was a pretty heavily claim to be unsourced. ShimonChai (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baruch_Marzel&oldid=1205705024"