| Revision as of 22:19, 13 November 2011 editBrewcrewer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers55,075 edits →legality: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:07, 13 November 2011 edit undoNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 edits →legalityNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| Per ] 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)</small> | Per ] 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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :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, --'']] ]'' 22:19, 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, --'']] ]'' 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 . ] 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> | |||
Revision as of 23:07, 13 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:
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.
|
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)