Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:40, 28 October 2010

Israel Stub‑class Low‑importance

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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.

Palestine Stub‑class Low‑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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Palestine Collaboration

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

legality

Could somebody explain what is "POV" or "undue" about the only referenced piece of information in this entire article? A certain editor, who we can all guess what their previous username was, has removed it on those grounds. nableezy - 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

what is that supposed to mean? if you have a kind of grudge against me it's fine but don't accuse me of something with out saying some evidence LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not addressing the issue and again reverting based on a bogus rationale. Here is what the source says:

Settlement of occupied territory is illegal under international law.
But the Settlers' Council has grand plans for the Psagot winery

Just for fun here are a few more:

• : This is Psagot - what Israelis call a village and the rest of the world calls an illegal settlement.
• : the heavily fortified illegal Jewish settlement of Psagot.

Unless you have a valid reason for removing the only sourced piece of information in this article I will be returning the line. nableezy - 23:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how inserting a superfluous line (or two) about the general legality of Israeli settlements into a two-line article about Psagot does not constitute undue weight. —Ynhockey 23:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a line about this specific settlement being illegal under international law sourced to an article on BBC discussing this specific settlement and saying it is illegal under international law. Explain how whitewashing that fact, a fact that is worded in a NPOV way by saying it is "considered illegal under international law", is consistent with NPOV which requires that all significant published views be included. nableezy - 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand how your argument is relevant to the question about undue weight.

Secondly, I am in favor of including all significant published views. Which significant published views about the geographical location, jurisdiction, population, founding year or the founders do you think are missing? (these are the facts currently mentioned in the article).

Back to undue weight—the article's 39 words (including prepositions, etc.) encompass at least 5 important facts about Psagot. If you feel that the legality is another important fact, feel free to mention it in 8 words or less (or even better, expand the article significantly and then add something about legality). However, the BBC source you provided says something different from the edit, and extreme-leftist The Guardian should not be used as a source for such claims, just as (I assume) you would not want to use Arutz Sheva as a source.

Moreover, I have a feeling that you have not read the BBC source. It actually gives both points of view, but you chose to only include one, in complete opposition to your own principle of " all significant published views". I'm not even talking about the fact that the article is about the winery in Psagot, notable for the article, but apparently you are ignoring this completely to extract only the bit that suits your point of view. I propose that you use the source to improve the article (write about its winery) and in the process we can think of something regarding the legality issue. Until you make it clear that your goal is improving the article, I will have trouble supporting your edits about legality.

—Ynhockey 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You "have a feeling" that I have not read the source that I introduced and quoted here? Interesting. I have a feeling you write things without thinking. Please quote what exactly I should have included from the other "point of view" that the BBC article includes. I have a feeling that you did not read the source and instead assume that like almost all BBC articles on settlements that this one contains the line "though Israel disputes this" (it doesnt). The Guardian is nowhere near the vicinity of Arutz Sheva as far as being a propagandist rag used by settlers and their supporters to question what real sources say. I dont much care if you support my edits about legality, and I dont care about the winery so I have no intention on adding anything about it. If you feel that information should be added to the article you add it to the article. What I do care about, the well documented fact that all Israeli settlements, and this one in particular, are illegal under international law, is what I will add to the article. You have yet to give a policy based reason for why you have removed, and apparently support an obvious sock continuing to remove, a sourced edit on the published viewpoint (in fact what you know is the super-majority view) that this settlement is illegal under international law. You can pretend that me adding a source and information from a source to an article that currently does not have a single source cited is not "improving the article" but that is and will remain a bogus charge not founded in any rational thinking. As far as you request that I do it in 8 words, fine. Psagot is illegal under international law. nableezy - 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

excuse me if you continue to make accusation about me we will have a problem do not call me "an obvious sock" you have no evidence. if you have it then please show to the world so we can settle this matter but otherwise it is a personal attack (see WP:NPA please) and this is not acceptable to me LibiBamizrach (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I will, dont worry. nableezy - 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This has come up before. I have raised the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Legality and edit warring Cptnono (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. We now have gone from a simple, well sourced, statement of fact regarding the legality of this settlement in the lead of the article here to a a somewhat confused expression of an opinion that does not even accurately reflect the consensus of the "opinion" in the body but no mention in the lead. What at the was accepted as under an 8 word mention in the lead, due to weight concerns with the article's 39 words (including prepositions, etc.) that number was arbitrarily imposed, we now have 0 words in the lead when the article is over 170 words. Just lovely. nableezy - 23:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not as technically aware as you are to understand what you are saying now. As for the format issue, so how does repeating this claim twice in the same article make WP better? --Shuki (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Technically aware"? What does that even mean? Everything in the lead is repeated in the article, that is what a lead is. nableezy - 19:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus on this yet. The reasoning might be fine but it would be best if people stopped doing what they think is best without support from other editors.Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a policy based reason to oppose an edit. Consensus does not mean that users can just say no. Not one policy based reason has been given for rejecting the edits. I am getting more than a bit fed up with seeing your username wherever I edit, from pages on Palestinians who died 30 years ago to isolated settlements with a handful of residents. There is no reason for you to constantly show up at articles that I edit. nableezy - 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus does not mean that users can just say no."

Actually, it does. That's based on policy—the consensus policy. —Ynhockey 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesnt, and I would expect an admin to understand this. You should really read the links you give before you lecture others on their contents. Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy, not by a simple counted majority. Policy based reasons are required, saying no is not a valid reason. nableezy - 21:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand one thing: How is the notion that "all settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories" are illegal relevant to this article? I never understood this part, hopefully someone can explain. We can have something about the legality of Psagot, but how is the legality of Ariel, for example, relevant here? —Ynhockey 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It provides an explanation. If you would rather go into some detail on why it is illegal, such as saying "as violating the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibitions on the transfer of civilians into occupied territory" then we can remove that bit. But just saying it is illegal without any explanation is useless. It does not inform anybody of anything. nableezy - 21:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy and guideline based reasoning has been provided. There are issues on how to present it and where to present it. A request to see if there should be a centralized discussion has already been made (linky up above) and multiple editors are discussing it. An editor also proposed a draft solution and put it on Nableezy's tlak page (which he rejected). At this time there is not consensus on how to handle it and it isn't simply "no". I actually haven't even provided an opinion since I thought it would boggle it up. I personally see no problem with a line in the body since the article has been expanded. I could see reasoning to limit it in the lead and only use the wikilink but also understand that leads need to be proper summaries. The line needs to be tinkered with it looks like since there is not consensus on how it should read. I don;t know the best way to word it.Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we need sections in such a tiny article? Does it make the article better, except providing a "cool" look? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think every article benefits from sections. The info isn't terribly long so I suppose we don't need them. I think that could potentially be trying to find a solution to the prominence of the duplicated lines that would negatively impact the article even more. Not sure though.

Also, can people stop tinkering with it until we have some sort of consensus? I know it is attempting especially when you might disagree with the current version. Things might go smoother if we take Shuki's advice and also use this talk page or the centralized discussion as intended.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)

Irrespective of the discussion above, the information regarding its possible "illegality" should not be repeated twice in the article. If its the only content repeated in the article it smacks of a major POV violation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is meant to summarize the article. If it is in the lead and not in the body you will just say that it cant be in the lead without being in the body. If it is in the body it should be in the lead as a notable controversy. Per WP:LEAD the lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. nableezy - 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, but you failed to notice the part about how the lede should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The repetition about the "illegality" in the lede while the only other information is the obsolete population numbers is not in accordance with the "appropriate weight" clause of WP:LEAD.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that is to adequately summarize the rest of the article, not remove the only thing in it that does so. nableezy - 02:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But you put in the lead the very same thing that now found in body, so it is not summary. If you want to say the samething about this in both lead and body, then to "summarize" the stuff about other topics we should also just copy and paste same sentences into lead? So we have article that has 2 paragraphs identical repeated? LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, that is not true. The body said Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Psagot is illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. The lead summarized that and said Psagot is illegal under international law. Neither of those are paragraphs and they are not identical. nableezy - 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(ec) Contrary to popular opinion, I can't do everything around here. My edit improved the article. Prior to my edit the article was in violation of Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV policy. My edit removed the violation. If one of us has time or interest we can write up a proper lede. However, as you know quite well, Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV policy tells us that less information is better then non-neutral information.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. You will find nothing in WP:NPOV that justifies removing a notable controversy from the lead that fairly reflects the sources. nableezy - 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly do you claim that this has consensus here? nableezy - 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussion, not one editor has really agreed with anything you have proposed. I don't mean to be harsh, but that's just the fact.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

One person has objected to what you removed and nobody has commented on the weasel word you inserted. That, even under the most generous of assumptions of good faith, cannot honestly be called a "consensus". nableezy - 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair assessment of the discussion directly above us. Besides myself and Ynhockey, I see two other editors expressing displeasure with repeating the information, namely User:ElComandanteChe and User: Shuki. Not one editor has agreed with you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats probably because it isnt what I was assessing. The edit I asked you about, where you claimed a consensus on the talk page, is where you removed the part like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories and added considered to the line saying Psagot is illegal. One user, Yn, has commented on the like all ..., nobody has said anything about considered. Yet you claim, in the edit summary, that there is consensus on the talk page for that edit. nableezy - 02:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like new words put in. "Considered" by whom? It's not very helpful information to reader if it just says "considered". But I also did not agree with the last version either. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

i've reverted the readdition of the leaglity content in the lede. Brewcrewer is correct, this information is redundant in the lede while it is repeated in the history section word for word. article is about the settlement, not its legality. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

as i said about a similar edit at the Shilo, Mateh Binyamin article; maybe a new section covering legality with a link to the main article about the israeli settlements is warranted. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, almost all the information in the lead should be redundant with the body of the article. And the advice to "include notable controversies" in the WP:LEAD is anything but confusing. Moreover, legal status is a pretty basic item concerning a settlement. Often the first sentence will include something indicating status such as incorporated, unincorporated, unrecognized, etc.

Are you seriously arguing that the status of Psagot under international law is not any of the following: a basic fact about Psagot; a notable controversy about Psagot; an adequate summary of a legal status section which could become longer than it is now? For any one of those reasons, it belongs in the lead.--Carwil (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

i have no opinion on the status of psagot under international law. an article lede should summarize the contents of the information below it, not repeat one sentence word for word. summaries are useful, reading the same thing twice is redundant. WookieInHeat (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is violated when the only information that is repeated in the article is information regarding its legality. This position is both elementary and reflecive of the consensus above this comment.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a few editors who are attempting to build a consensus on this. I suggest you check this out --Shuki (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What complete nonsense. NPOV is violated by including a notable controversy about this place in the lead, exactly what WP:LEAD says to do? It is violated by including the super-majority opinion, exactly what NPOV says to do? nableezy - 18:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

More reverting by the same editors, huh? There is an ongoing centralized discussion that you can comment on if you feel this strongly. Placement (lead? Body? Both? and so on started yesterday.)Cptnono (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And what was the point of that discussion if after all that and the seemingly wide consensus that this line belongs in the lead two editors can again remove it? If you want to even continue pretending that either NPOV or the "process" means anything at all to you then you can revert this edit. nableezy - 19:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is not concluded which is precisely why people shouldn't be screwing with it yet. Carwil jumped the gun.Cptnono (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We can continue this discussion there (no one was talking about its placement, and the quibbling could go on forever about issues that don't affect the text). However, to be clear to Wookie and BrewCrewer, I'm not arguing that the text should be in two places unless there is more text concerning Psagot's legality in the article. However, it must be in the lead, for any of the three reasons I stated. So please, if you want to argue, don't talk about redundancy but about placement.--Carwil (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Placement was being discussed actually. Easy to miss in all that text, though. It looks like it is close to a resolution over there o chiming in would be great.Cptnono (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We can't have a per se rule about inclusion in the lede. It really depends on how much the rest of the article is fleshed out. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. Thus it certainly cannot be the only place containing legality content, and legality content can only be repeated in the lede, per WP:UNDUE, if the lede repeats other notable information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

also, i checked the discussion over at icoll, but its TLDR. If anyone would like to point out my position for the record over there, it would be greatly appreciated.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you simply read the discussion in the following section: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Further_colloquy_on_resolution.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you better start reading since there is a possibility of the ideas hammered out there being rolled out across the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

that project page cannot force their consensus on articles. the editors involved in that project in no way reflect any sort of representation of editors involved in the I-A conflict.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:UNDUE, a part of NPOV, supports what you claim it does and attempts to say that it does result from either ignorance or willfully lying about the policies of this website. nableezy - 19:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making a personal attack. You should know better. Also, it is clear you did not read the discussion if that is all you have to say about it.Cptnono (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no "personal attack". The untruth that brewcrewer wrote was either the result of being ignorant of the policy he was citing or, if he is not ignorant of the policy, willfully misrepresenting the contents of that policy (also known as lying). And why do you ask that question like you think I care about what you think about me? You should know better. nableezy - 20:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the following basic facts about Psagot are repeated (or spelled out in greater detail) in the body of the article:

• is a communal Israeli settlement
• in the West Bank
• located on the Jabel Tawil/Mount Tawil hill
• near Ramallah,
• it falls under the jurisdiction of Mateh Binyamin Regional Council.
• The offices of the regional council are located in Psagot.
• In 2008 it had a population of 1,623.

Why is it a problem to put its legal status there as well?--Carwil (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is obviously no reason to continue discussing the matter with you. You keep on reverting and hopefully everyone else will come to a solution over at the centralized discussion. Thanks for your time, guys.Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That accusation is demonstrably false. nableezy - 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Stub-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Stub-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles