Misplaced Pages

Talk:Psagot: 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 23:18, 10 September 2010 editYnhockey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators66,997 edits →legality: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 23:21, 10 September 2010 edit undoNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 edits →legalityNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
::Unless you have a valid reason for removing the only sourced piece of information in this article I will be returning the line. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small> ::Unless you have a valid reason for removing the only sourced piece of information in this article I will be returning the line. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>
:::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. —] <sup>(])</sup> 23:18, 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. —] <sup>(])</sup> 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small>

Revision as of 23:21, 10 September 2010

WikiProject iconPalestine Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Stub‑class
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
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-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:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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)
Categories: