Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 12:53, 19 December 2024

This is an archive of past discussions about List of cities in Israel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"consensus"

I fully intend to restore the tag, arguing there is consensus for this title on the basis of "no consensus" closes is asinine. The closer of the last RM literally said the current title is misleading. nableezy - 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Since this continues to be removed, I will be opening another RFC. The idea that no consensus closes mean that there is consensus for the status quo simply does not compute. nableezy - 21:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No.... enough with the RFCs. The matter has been argued to death and yes, it finished up as no consensus, which isn't ideal but that is still an outcome in its own right. Which means that the issue is settled for the time being, there is no outstanding debate and the tag should be removed. It's time to move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, this continual flogging is fruitless and needs a hiatus. I'd suggest a year before this is re-visited. The point-making, and vile accusations of "propaganda" by the OP need to be stepped back a little before this should be allowed to restart. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, but how does no consensus mean that the issue is settled? Can somebody please explain in what world no consensus to remove means there is consensus to include? There are core policy issues here, NPOV and Verification are both violated in this, but because there is "no consensus" that means it is settled? nableezy - 21:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. Once we deal with a situation a few times and nothing changes, we stop. Now is the time. Try again in 2020. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously I have no idea what that means or how it in any way applies to my comment. I dispute the neutrality of including places not in Israel in a list of places in Israel. There has of yet been no consensus to that issue, and every discussion about it has been closed as "no consensus", and the material remains, despite the majority of users in the RFC agreeing it should not. So that means it should stay? And what does that have to do with a battleground? nableezy - 21:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Seriously you have no idea what it means to just stop arguing and tagging things and gaming the system? Really? Just stop doing that, and we might make some progress. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ive already said what I think of your accusation about gaming. But no I do not think that "no consensus" RFCs are a reason to stop discussion of what I find to be a problem. If and when there is ever a consensus against my position I can assure you I have no issue accepting that. But just saying it was discussed is not a reason to not discuss it if that discussion did not result in a consensus. nableezy - 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. to validate the 1RR thing, you definitely need to make sure the edit notice is applied here, if that's a real thing. Otherwise no-one will know they're under your specific terms when editing the article. It's not fair at all to wheel out 1RR when there's no notice at all, and certainly not excusable via applying a dubious template when you're involved. Don't do that again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This isnt my user talk page, but to the point Ive added the arbitration template to this talk page. If an admin wants to add a 1RR edit-notice they can do that, but regardless, all articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are under a 1RR. That is not something I decided, that is what the Arbitration Committee decided. nableezy - 23:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

People need to be notified of that. You get that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I do, thats I why I just put the template on here. Beyond that, there isnt much more I can do. As far as the tagging and RFCs, its been suggested that I instead use the formal dispute resolution noticeboard, and Ill do that instead. nableezy - 23:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Well do bare in mind that you went all supernova over 1RR when this article had no such notification. You need to work on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

And as for the dispute resolution noticeboard you are of course welcome to go there and say your piece, but as a neutral observer I would say it really is a pointless exercise. The debate concerning both the list's content and its name are over. Closed as no consensus, but nonetheless over. You would be far better served to just forget about this issue for a year or two and move on. It is difficult when you feel strongly about something, as you clearly do. I know all about that, I've been there as well with issues I felt strongly about. But nothing you do can change the situation and it's better for your own health to accept that earlier rather than after yet another round of bickering.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This isnt something that I feel particularly passionate about. This is to me is one of many small problems that Misplaced Pages has, and there are numerous examples where Misplaced Pages subtly pushes the POV, a fringe POV among qualified sources I might add, that the West Bank is "in Israel". Now if I dont feel passionate about it why then am I persisting? Well mostly because it's one of those small things that I might actually be able to correct. Once upon a time it took literally years to include an undisputed statement of fact about these settlements in their articles, that they are widely regarded as illegal under international law. Some of the same users that now oppose removing those settlements from a list of cities "in Israel" and further oppose specifying that said list includes places outside of Israel. But, through repeatedly showing that the overwhelming majority of sources supported that material, and by engaging the wider community over and over until a consensus, any consensus, was reached, that undisputed fact is actually included in those articles. And if at any point along the way there had been a determination of consensus against my position I would have shut the hell up about it and left it alone. But saying that Closed as no consensus, but nonetheless over. allows for users to filibuster any improvement on the basis of showing up with enough numbers at any one discussion to shout down the change. Im sorry, but that goes directly against what our editing policy calls for. No consensus means more discussion with more people, not less. And honestly, I find considerable fault with the closes of both the requested move and the RFC. It is not supposed to be an exercise in counting. Specific NPOV violations were called out and never refuted. The strength of the argument seems to have been analyzed and then ignored in the requested move. What I see here is a set of users filibustering against correcting policy violations, and never once actually responding to those specific violations. Multiple users in the above RM made comments that so obviously were false that they should be ignored entirely (the ones saying it covered Palestinian cities when the title says Israeli cities). So no, I do not agree to the idea that a. there is nothing I can do, or b. I should accept that. nableezy - 00:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

When an article title does not match the content, either the title or the content should be changed. The situation can never be stable until the mismatch is corrected. It isn't rocket science, just good editing. Zero 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a limit on how long we should persist with the same circular arguement. Walls of repetitive text and edit warring over tags does not encourage uninvolved editors to get involved - to the contrary.Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"List of Israeli cities" is synonymous with the current title. It is a lexical smoke grenade. The possessive adjective "Israeli" (with a nisbah) stems from the noun Israel, meaning the state. The English variant is "Israel's".

The current title is pragmatic, because it includes regions that are disputed, but controlled by Israel. They are de facto in Israel, without prejudice to their status under international law. It's a valid simplification, with a reasonable loss of detail. Also, "neutral point of view" is an oxymoron. What comes close is the "no point of view", i. e. some kind of radical skepticism or nihilism.

Distinguishing by legal status in the title leads to clumsy and complicated formulations like List of cities in Israel (de jure) vs. List of cities in Israel (de facto), or List of cities by Israel. It's like insisting on the abbreviation "U.S.A." instead of the shorter "U.S." (or "America"), although everybody knows (or should know) that there is more to America than the US, and there are also the United States of Mexico. For comparison, the List of cities in Serbia includes those in Kosovo, although Kosovo is de facto sovereign. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Generally, NPOV tags should not be removed until there is a consensus, This is common sense, if there was consensus the tag would not be needed but it also says it in the documentation for those who need proof of this kind of thing: Template:POV#When_to_remove. Seraphim System 16:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Um not even Israel claims any of the settlements in the West Bank are in Israel. They are not "de facto in Israel", that is a POV that has literally no backing in any serious source. Again, not even Israel says that any of the settlements outside of East Jerusalem are in Israel. nableezy - 17:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that there is no consensus for the current title. However, I also believe that the problem is not that much about neutrality (NPOV) as about factual accuracy of the current title. Consequently, the tag should reflect this; a NPOV tag is inapropriate.

I do not object to another RfC in a few weeks if its wording will give it a reasonable chance to pass. An article title is quite an important issue - also because titles are used by Google as answers to queries - so I see no reason to force the discussion to break for a year. — kashmīrī  18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The split option

Has the split option been fully explored in previous debates? That is, create a new page called List of Israeli cities in the West Bank and move the four West Bank cities there? ImTheIP (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Now I found List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank so I take it that the idea has already been discussed and rejected.ImTheIP (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Existence of another list does not really have any bearing here. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, but do you oppose the proposal or not? ImTheIP (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, as this relitigates the remove option. These cities are overseen by the Interior ministry, are included in the same CBS statistics (e.g. understanding where Haredi Jews live is skewed without two of these...), vote in the same local and national elections, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can suggest a compromise? Because if "your side" isn't willing to compromise, then I think Nableezy et al are entirely justified in creating RFCs again and again to challenge the unsatisfactory status quo. ImTheIP (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "list of cities overseen by the Interior ministry" nor cities "included in CBS statistics". Read the current title again. And now read the content. See? The two don't match. Nableezy et al. are trying to resolve the discrepancy somehow – for the readers' benefit. A new RfC is fully warranted. And existence of other articles partly duplicating this one is certainly a fact that can be considered. — kashmīrī  03:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Just reminding everyone that the compromise already agreed-upon in the past was the title List of Israel cities. I think there is pretty broad support here for this title, as it resolves any factual/technical accuracy issues, but also strong opposition among a small number of editors. I feel however that there is a lot of WP:IDHT going on here. There have been three requested move discussions and an RfC, and a proposed compromise, yet the discussion continues. I am guessing that this is in hopes of tiring everyone so that whoever is left wins. Therefore I take issue with this discussion itself. Personally I am fine with either the current title or List of Israeli cities as a compromise, but this has already been stated, and I have a feeling it's not going to satisfy the aforementioned group of editors. —Ynhockey 10:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course you personally are fine with your favored position but you unequivocally do not have any authority to shut down a discussion about a NPOV violation in an article, despite whatever issues you have with it. Likewise, given your fondness for telling others not to violate WP:NPA and to follow WP:AGF, you might do well to review those links. To the point, neither this title or the List of Israeli cities option fix the NPOV violation here, namely that these illegal colonies are not in Israel and calling them Israeli cities continues that misrepresentation. nableezy - 16:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

And as far as IDHT, are any of the settlements listed in Israel? You seem to have trouble either hearing that question or answering it, Im not sure which. nableezy - 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Israeli settlements are generally considered to be Israeli - as we might see in our title choice of Israeli settlement. These particular Israeli settlements happen to be cities - thus they fulfill the definition of "Israeli city". Whether they are or not "illegal colonies" is immaterial. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how unsourced opinion is going to help resolve the current dispute. Seraphim System 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

NYT - Tania Rashkovski, 24, playing with her baby, Martin, in the West Bank Israeli city of Ariel, ....A West Bank Enclave Is on Edge, NYT, 9 September 2010.Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A minority of sources when not directly discussing where a settlement is use "Israeli city". However it is much more common among sources to call it a settlement, Israeli or Jewish, including the NYT, but also the BBC, or AFP, or really you already know this could be expanded to huge number of sources dont you? But how about you answer the direct question, are any of the settlements in Israel? nableezy - 19:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

United States Fleet Activities Sasebo is not in the US. The question is irrelevant, as sources that see these areas as outside of Israel still call them Israeli settlements.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ynhockey, I think that is a defeatist attitude! Arafat and Rabin reached an agreement so why can't we? :) I also don't think it is right to quelch the debate because if there is no consensus then people should be allowed to continue to discuss. Perhaps you can state whether the "split option" is acceptable to you? It seems like that is the way cities in Palestine are handled so there is precedent. There is Lists of cities in the State of Palestine but that article doesn't list anything and instead splits it up into List of cities administered by the Palestinian Authority, List of Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank and List of cities in the Gaza Strip. ImTheIP (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is not acceptable, because it changes the scope of the article, which is not justified. I don't think the way Palestinian cities are organized should have any weight here, it's really not relevant. I don't think they are organized correctly either, but I will leave it to other editors to decide whether the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are administered by separate entities is the determining factor for whether to keep the Palestinian cities in one list. For Israel there is no such issue, and the only difference with the local authorities in the disputed territories is the technicality that they are not officially "in Israel". That technicality is easily resolved by changing the title to List of Israeli cities. I know that some editors are disputing that these cities are even Israeli, but that's a real stretch—unless someone wants to rename Israeli settlement to "Jewish settlement in the West Bank administered by Israel" or whatnot.

Even with the current title there is no actual NPOV issue. Lots of lists contain entries that are not directly related, and sometimes those entries are not even split into a separate section like here. For example, almost all country lists contain partially-recognized countries or non-country entities. List of countries by GDP (nominal) lists State of Palestine and the European Union. No one claims that this is an NPOV violation, and the same applies here. Titles aren't meant to describe every detail in the article, they are meant to be a very concise summary of what the article is about. Even the lead section often doesn't summarize everything, but in this case the lead actually does discuss the issue in depth (maybe even undue depth).

—Ynhockey 09:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

As there has been no progress and no consensus on this title or the material I am opening a new RFC. nableezy - 16:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)