Talk:Israel Journal: The Holy Land has an image problem

This was absolute rubbish! I heard nothing about Israel the country itself, nothing about Israelis or any interviews with Arabs. Just some blabbering philosophical thoughts? The photographs are lame too, just some photos of some people and an airport (???). I have travelled many places and I have much more interesting stories like getting arrested by Basiji (political police) in Iran :) Wikinews should let me try to write one of these. Genjix 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see some style-problems with the first-hand story-telling nature of this article. And sharing not only what people say, but also personal thoughts ... stylistically it is a huge departure for Wikinews and I think a lot of people will have problems with this as far as maintaining neutrality and avoiding editorializing. --SVTCobra 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is good as many people enjoy reading this sort of article, and as long as it is marked as it was I don't mind if the occasional article is like this, although I do not what Wikinews to be an opinion site and I completly understand your concerns
 * Why? I, personally, don't see a problem with this article. We should make an exception as this will get more attention on Wikinews rather than on the blog.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 18:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any other time anyone wrote anything remotely close to this style (in my experience), were given the essay tag and either rewritten or deleted. --SVTCobra 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I share SVT's concerns. This does read more like a blog entry than a neutral article (a very well written blog entry but still a blog entry). JoshuaZ 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would agree...BUT he is there, reporting for Wikinews...in a once in a lifetime chance for us and WMF. So if we have to bend the rules, to get a kick ass article and allow him to write this, then why not? We don't allow this at all if ever, so i think given the circumstances, it should be allowed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NPOV is a Foundation level policy. I'm not sure bending it is allowed at all. This is great material, but there may be a better way for David to present it. (Maybe we could put this on the Wikinews blog since it is in many ways closer to a blog entry and the blog isn't restricted by NPOV). JoshuaZ 01:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no NPOV concerns here...he states all facts. Although its not in the normal frame of how we write, it follows policy. If you can tell me what is opinion...point that out to me because I see none. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How is remembering warnings that your family gave you "facts"? --SVTCobra 02:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To refer to Israel as "The Holy Land" is somewhat POV.--77.101.73.67 22:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is holy to many religions, it is a land, therefore it is a holy land. I am non religious but have no problem with Israel being reffered to as the holy land. --User:Anonymous101 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the holy land. Birth of Christ. Highly religious...DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What do the non-Abrahamic religions think of that assertion? There are other people than Muslims, Jews, and Christians! --SVTCobra 02:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My first impressions of the very nature of this article is that it damages the internationally-neutral perspective of Wikinews. Why would English-speaking Israeli readers of Wikinews need a report on their own country? --78.149.202.211 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My take on this: My feelings are mixed. Its definitly interesting and well written, and its not something that real newspapers don't do, but it is, as SVT said, a huge departure from the traditonal wikinews. So in all honesty, I have no idea what my opinion is. (I think that quite possibly was one of the most useless things I've ever said. I repeated what others said, and then said I didn't know [[image:wink.png|19px]].) oh well Bawolff ☺☻ 06:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Published?
Was there any kind of concesus reached before this was published?--SVTCobra 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, there are no OR notes as of yet. --SVTCobra 02:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was some discussion on WN:WC. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, so a "Hi guys, I am going on a trip in a little while" at the Water Cooler now qualifies as original reporting notes. Great. --SVTCobra 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of the later part of the article was a bit heavy on technology talk, however considering this is the first of a whole series to come it seems like a good intro. I'm looking forward to it. 68.175.118.95 07:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I reworded the disclaimer and published. I'd like to see us learn from this and give it a little leeway to develop. We may need notability guidelines for the trip to prevent people coming along and writing about their summer holidays.
 * David has, in my opinion, stuck to NPOV as closely as can be expected for this type of report. It is very well written and quite, quite readable. I highlighted it on the ComCom mailing list and the key criticism it received was the COO issue being mentioned. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a little odd, if I may say so. It doesn't quite fit. It strikes me as relatively NPOV- not more so than the wonderful interviews we've been getting of late. It's good. I am looking forward to seeing the rest of this series.

122.57.83.93 11:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)(Furius on Wikipedia)

Neutrality
I don't understand the people who continue to say that this fits within WN:NPOV. How many slurs against Palestinians as terrorists does the article need before it breaks NPOV? How about the paragraph that speaks in glowing terms about what a wonderfully "multi-dimensional and pluralistic society" Israel is and how stable its democracy is. I am not attacking David's integrity, but this is the narrowest possible POV of all. A story told and observed through one pair of eyes, led—no less—on a guided tour by the government of Israel. This on-the-go reporting can only tell what David sees and hears, which is being controlled by the government. --SVTCobra 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not NPOV, because there's only a single POV. This is simply an editorial, which does seem to be banned by WN:NOT.  However, I think it would make more sense for Wikinews to allow editorials, which are common in brick and mortar newspapers, as long as they're clearly labelled as such. Superm401 | Talk 06:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superm401 (talk • contribs)

Arab Israelis
David, please cite a source for reversing my claim that most Arab Israelis identify as Palestinian. My source is this "today the majority of Israeli Arabs identify themselves as Palestinians by nationality and Israeli by citizenship." from this BBC article. Thanks, --SVTCobra 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I already reverted this long before you wrote the above, citing that I misread what you wrote. --David Shankbone 18:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

structure more pertinent than content for me
hi folks,

first a short note to say that I hope this kind of article can find a place on a project like this - the presence of a clear byline means the author can and should write honest reflections without slavish subservience to an abstract concept of neutrality - ultimately it is the author's credibility at stake, and perhaps the 'right' to publish such articles could eventually rest on some sort of community process? hmmmm... (with apologies that these are pretty clearly first thoughts on the matter)

Secondly, I wonder if some discussion may be appropriate as to the structure of the piece. Perhaps it could be broken down into several pages, with an option to view the entire content on a single page? That could be achieved manually if desired - and I would say that it renders the whole thing more readable - and will encourage people to complete the article - I think to immediately have it all on one page is a perhaps slightly too much.

That's my tuppence... Privatemusings 00:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it easy to read the entire article in one go; read it several times already. I disagree that such pieces should give scope to wildly deviate from our neutrality underpinnings and don't think this one does. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

POV? so what
Most newspapers have something they call "editorials". Wikinews is different from the 'pedia in that it allows original research, so why not editorals. David Shankbone has shown that he writes with an open mind. I think that's what the world needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njaard (talk • contribs) 09:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Editorials are not allowed because there is too much room for speculation. David's journal entry does, if you read it in a certain way, highlight that his hosts would rather he avoid what they consider "typical" reporting on the conflict. It is not an editorial, the general point of an editorial piece is to present the opinion of the author and try and persuade you to agree with it. This piece offers a chance to do a first-person report where what you'd expect in an editorial (presentation of arguments and statement of position) is being presented by David to his hosts and he is reporting how they react. Wikinews generally does, and should, attempt to balance within a single article. This does the best that can be expected in the circumstances. It is clearly "Here's what my family thought and said" - the typical perception of the region, and "here I am, my hosts want to prove the stereotype is inappropriate". David is not presenting the Israeli POV as his own, he is accurately reporting that this is what they are seeking to do. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Print Edition
I am includiing it in the Print Edition with warnings about its neutrality. If anyone has severe objections tell me so I can see if I can fix the problem--User:Anonymous101 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Vardi
I've read many articles on the guy (in Hebrew) and have never seen him being referred to as "the father of Israeli invention", it seems like glorification to me. Yonatan 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It was how he was described by the tech leader discussing who we are meeting, although I think they said "Entrepreneurs" instead of invention.  But, he is intrinsically linked to their tech sector and trying to increase it.  His importance to that sector can't be underestimated, and he is a very public and influential guy known for seeding many companies. --David Shankbone 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Due to my living in Israel and my father being an acquaintance of his, I know all that. :) Granted, this isn't a normal news article that needs to adhere to NPOV but nevertheless my point is that the phrase is a superlative that could be restated as - one of the Israeli tech industry's most prominent figures, something I could more easily agree with. Anyway, if you're around Ramat Hasharon, you're welcome to drop by my house. :) Yonatan 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Googling Vardi with either of the phrases "father of invention" or "father of entrepeneurs" (and a few variations) doesn't turn up much except this and the other Israel journal. --SVTCobra 00:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some comments
I really like this story-telling style David has, and he does it ever so well -it makes me LOL. But I don't agree with "Wikipedia and Wikinews, influential sources of information". --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)