Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:40, 18 July 2010

Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Settlers and other fun

Edit summaries with explanation points, heated rhetoric, and caps is not helping anything. Edit warring is bad. Per the recent closure of the RfC and in accordance with NPOV, the IPs edits need to be reverted. They can be discussed more but this article started out one way and has had words inserted into it to change the tone. Settlement even receives prominence in the lead so the additional pointing isn't even needed. Enough is enough. Any objections? I am within the standard set forth in the recent decision to revert but would prefer not to kick something off.Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no standard there and even Sandstein says in his close that there is nothing binding in what he wrote. nableezy - 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like someone already fixed it but if you feel like edit warring it would serve some purpose.Cptnono (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you are removing valid sources. "Illegal settlement of Halamish" is not taken from Suleiman, that is written in the narrative voice by Goldenberg. nableezy - 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you are edit warring needlessly. "Like other settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Halamish is illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this" is not verified here. The additional source is sufficient so the original is not even needed.Cptnono (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That source backs up that this settlement is illegal. Why did you remove it? You are incorrect on saying that line comes from Suleiman. nableezy - 00:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree obviously so removing the failed verification template then reverting is edit warring. Again. And to make it worse, it was pointless and trivial. You consider it being a narrative from the author and it appears to me to be a paraphrase of the one guy's comment.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The failed verification tag was removed because another source, which you just admitted was fine, was inserted, so the sentence does not fail verification. Reverting your removal is hardly edit-warring. nableezy - 00:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not addressing the failed verification tag by keeping in the questionable source then reverting after that is surely not collaborative editing and I believe most would consider it the start of an edit war. You not understanding that may be the problem but hopefully you will get it sooner or later. Like I said, this was a trivial issue and you have decided to hit the revert button. That is surely not appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You decided to remove a perfectly valid source. And even after you say that the other source verifies the sentence you are whining about a failed verification tag? You just said that the other source verifies the sentence, why on earth should I leave the tag when I add another source? And I get it, you want to be able to remove whatever you wish, revert any edit that you wish. But if I revert you then I am edit-warring. I get it, I just refuse to recognize such an inane argument as having any basis. nableezy - 00:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But it being a perfectly valid source is disputed by another editor so you should not be removing templates then hitting the revert button again without seeking the talk page. I was typing up something quick here when you made that revert so maybe in the future you should slow down with it since it has been a problem made aware to you by numerous editors. If you wish to deflect that is all fine and good but maybe we need to see if other editors want to weigh in on the validity of that citation since it is clear neither of us is convinced of the other's argument.Cptnono (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And I made 1 revert while you made two. Sorry to try to squeeze in the last word but there is clearly no double standard here.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Read this carefully. The template you used, {{Failed verification}}, is for sentences that are not verified by the sources cited. You just said that the second source that I added when I removed the tag verifies the sentence. That being the case, you have no cause whatsoever to complain about that tag. I doubt that would even be considered a revert, it is the same thing as providing a citation and removing a citation needed tag. Next, you dispute that the first source is valid. Why does that give you the right to remove it when another editor has said that it is perfectly valid. For some reason I doubt you were coming here to write something as I both reverted your removal and made a comment here about that in the five minuted after your removal. nableezy - 00:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) list my 2 reverts. If you want to claim that providing a source that you admit verifies the sentence and removing the failed verification template is a revert, all I can say is good luck. nableezy - 00:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(Intended)I did a search for the word "illegal" and could not find it in Guardian ref. In other ref I could not find neither the word "illegal" nor the word "Halamish".--Mbz1 (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, that is an unacceptable edit. The prior name for Halamis was "Neveh Tzuf". The second source, discussing Neveh Tzuf, says "Although the settlements are illegal under international law". The first source says "he was transported in a lorry to the illegal settlement of Halamish, along with dozens of detainees." You are quite plainly wrong that the word "illegal" is not in the sources. Revert your edit. If you I dont I will, but I would rather not have my opinion of you degraded. nableezy - 01:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The term is used. Did you have match case on or something like that? The first one does not say anything about it being illegal under intl law but either the author paraphrasing a member of the Palestinian security forces or editorializing does say "illegal settlement of Halamish". Too many redflags and not clear enough. The other source has a presumably now Israeli lawyer considering it "illegal under international law". I thought her thoughts on it might be acceptable since she is on the other side of the dispute so admitting that is nice and she is a lawyer. The other name for the place is used in that source. Both have there problems but the second is not bad even though it could be better. Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I misspelled, so I did add it back, but I changed the language a bit. After all, if this animal, who murdered innocent children, is described as "often referred to as a terrorist", the neutrality of the statement in the discussed article is in question.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is quite a difference there. Describing a person as a terrorist is not as clear cut as describing an act as a terrorist act. Or describing murder as illegal. Or saying a settlement is illegal under international law. Every settlement in occupied territory is illegal under international law, this is not a matter of "some" sources saying this. This well documented fact. nableezy - 02:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you have failed with your RfC, you try another front. FWIW, BLP does not exist for localities, but maybe it should. Calling a place illegal should be sourced to a source that specifically mentions a ruling in a court of law and not just some mention in passing per someone's personal reasoning. There are a few places that have been called illegal by courts, you should bring sources from them. --Shuki (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles