Misplaced Pages

Talk:Katzrin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:26, 14 November 2011 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 edits legality← Previous edit Revision as of 23:54, 14 November 2011 edit undoJiujitsuguy (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,155 edits legality: town or city vs settlementNext edit →
Line 34: Line 34:
::Where on Earth did you pull ''Jews living in the Golan Heights are not typically badged as settlers because there is less of a religious angle to the Golan Heights''? Katzrin is in fact . ] is very clear on this point, and you are well aware of the bans that have been handed out as a result of editing against the consensus established there. The line should be returned to the article. If nobody else does so I will in the near future. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)</small> ::Where on Earth did you pull ''Jews living in the Golan Heights are not typically badged as settlers because there is less of a religious angle to the Golan Heights''? Katzrin is in fact . ] is very clear on this point, and you are well aware of the bans that have been handed out as a result of editing against the consensus established there. The line should be returned to the article. If nobody else does so I will in the near future. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)</small>
I have restored the line in the lead, further removals may be reported. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</small> I have restored the line in the lead, further removals may be reported. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::From ''Time magazine'' emphasis added. An equally if not greater persuasive argument can be made for calling it a town or city.--] (]) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


== earthquake date == == earthquake date ==

Revision as of 23:54, 14 November 2011

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
WikiProject iconIsrael Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

My edit

Its an Israeli settlement according to worldview, so that should be before "town", and its also in the Israeli-occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is your POV. The place is above all a municipality the size of a town where people live, learn, and work. After that, other political labels can be added. This has been discussed in multiple discussions, and the consensus is to keep the status quo on all articles until a general discussion can be had for the whole project. There is simply no reason to edit war on this on every article and they are split about half-half now. The cat for this is Golan Heights which is a sub cat to Territorial disputes of Israel. --Shuki (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not his pov, or my pov, it is the world pov. There is a discussion, you can join it at WP:IPCOLL under the current article issues talkpage. Unomi (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Your POV. That cat is virtually empty and you are reverting another change as well. Please get a consensus before starting a new convention. Weird how you used to be a non I-P editor and now you only do I-P. --Shuki (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a category, but a link to the Israeli occupied territories article and it should be in the article since this settlement is there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For Supreme Deliciousness the entire article should be crossed out with a CAPTION OCCUPIED, and then it'll be ok. Amoruso (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages rules, due and undue weight is clear: "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views", "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." so if we are also gonna have the tiny minority it should at the very least be after the most used term. It is also more correct to call it the "administrative center" of the Golan Regional Council, instead of the Golan Heights, as parts of the Golan Heights are not occupied by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We are going back to this discussion which affects about two hundred localities (and many other articles) that was never finalized anywhere. I suggested a status quo ceasefire since the alternating wording ratio seems half:half until such a consensus can be reached across the I-P project. Current the issue is not about weight, but whether the political term is used before the municipal description. I'm sorry that Nableezy has come out of his topic ban swinging wildly and potentially dragging us all into another round certainly affecting you and me too. --Shuki (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"ceasefire" ? .. consensus is based on arguments. Misplaced Pages rules are clear, a neutral pov, due and undue weight, clearly shows us what these places should be called first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
And Im sorry that while I was topic banned you took it upon yourself to restore fringe terminology ahead of international standards. nableezy - 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please revert that lie and go check again. This article was not edited as you allege during your topic ban. And I am still waiting for the policies, not your OR. --Shuki (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The policy is NPOV, specifically WEIGHT. And this article was not edited, others were. nableezy - 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You have yet to revert, strikeout or apologize for the lie you made about me editing in your absence.
It really isn't about NPOV since both terms are included ( and in the past, you eventually had to accept that it is legitimate to include the municipal status in the lead). UNDUE is not about counting how many newspaper articles say this or that. I'm still waiting for the policy about your refusal to allow 'Israel' to be wikilinked here. --Shuki (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Due weight is a part of NPOV. You are placing minority views ahead of majority ones. And you introduced your favored POV into a number of articles while I was away, such as this, this, and this. Please stop saying I am lying, I am clearly not. And I did not say Israel can not be wikilinked here. nableezy - 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You see how you 'continue to lie and mislead people. In all three of those edits, I was not introducing any material but reverting problematic POV. Do proper research before making baseless claims. --Shuki (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No, you reverted a super-majority view on the status of the territory and removing international standards in language, such as saying "occupied territory". What you think is "problematic POV" has repeatedly proven to be what only a tiny fringe minority, even in Israel, believes. Dont call me a liar again or you may see me return the favor of lobbying for a topic ban. Stop acting like a child, and deal with the actual issues. Im past dealing with your nonsense, an RFC was opened about this very topic, and at the end we will see where consensus is on this issue. nableezy - 20:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If yall want to make an argument that town should come first make that argument, but completely removing the most common description in sources is completely unacceptable. nableezy - 22:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

legality

Per WP:Legality of Israeli settlements I added the line in the lead that has consensus for all articles on Israeli settlements. This was removed as "blatant bias". This should be restored. Further removals may result in reports to AE. nableezy - 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really not conducive to collaborative editing when you threaten editors who disagree with your application of a guideline. Substance wise, Jews living in the Golan Heights are not typically badged as settlers because there is less of a religious angle to the Golan Heights. For these reasons, I agree with the edit at issue. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Where on Earth did you pull Jews living in the Golan Heights are not typically badged as settlers because there is less of a religious angle to the Golan Heights? Katzrin is in fact called a settlement. WP:Legality of Israeli settlements is very clear on this point, and you are well aware of the bans that have been handed out as a result of editing against the consensus established there. The line should be returned to the article. If nobody else does so I will in the near future. nableezy - 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the line in the lead, further removals may be reported. nableezy - 22:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

From Time magazine Israeli army tanks advance on the firing range during a training exercise, May 21, 2008, on the outskirts of the Israeli city of Katzrin in the Golan Heights. emphasis added. An equally if not greater persuasive argument can be made for calling it a town or city.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

earthquake date

There is disagreement over the date of the earthquake that destroyed Kasrin in the 8th century. I gave a source for 746–747 and one for 749. The reasons for the disagreement are explained in N. N. Ambraseys, The seismic activity in Syria and Palestine during the middle of the 8th century; an amalgamation of historical earthquakes, Journal of Seismology (2005) 9: 115–125. The date 18 January 749 given in some sources is derived from a Christian source that gives 18 January and a Jewish source that gives 23rd Shevat. These two dates corresponded in 749 and not in the other possible years. However, it isn't as conclusive as it sounds since the Jewish source also says it was a sabbatical year and that year wasn't. Ambraseys thinks the various reports were actually of three separate earthquakes. Zero 09:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories: