| Revision as of 16:37, 11 September 2010 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 edits →legality← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:48, 11 September 2010 edit undoLibiBamizrach (talk | contribs)324 edits →legalityNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| :::::—] <sup>(])</sup> 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | :::::—] <sup>(])</sup> 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''. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | ::::::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''. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | ||
| ::::::::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 ] please) and this is not acceptable to me ] (]) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:48, 11 September 2010
 | Palestine Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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:
Just for fun here are a few more:Settlement of occupied territory is illegal under international law.
But the Settlers' Council has grand plans for the Psagot winery - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thank you for not addressing the issue and again reverting based on a bogus rationale. Here is what the source says: