This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LibiBamizrach (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 10 September 2010 (→Settlements, West Bank, etc.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:29, 10 September 2010 by LibiBamizrach (talk | contribs) (→Settlements, West Bank, etc.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
POV changes for West Bank
I doubt that the user who just changed "occupied West Bank territories" for "liberated Judea and Samaria" will take care to discuss his or her viewpoint here, but if someone is willing, let me state that there is a consensus in Misplaced Pages to consider the term West Bank as the correct English neutral wording, as opposed to Palestine or to Judea and Samaria and that nobody doubts the fact that this territory is military occupied - it is not part of the State of Israel, not according to the UN and not according to Israel's law (the latter except for Jerusalem, but the Ahava plant is not located in Jerusalem). Besides, the source cited, The Guardian, uses the term "occupied territories", so keeping it is keeping the source's wording. Changing it could be considered as POV-vandalism.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Shuki, I undid your revert because unless debated here, there is no reason not to label the placement of the settlement as "occupied West Bank territory". I don't know which POV case in arbitration you refer to, please explain here - I might have missed something. If you refer to the ArbCom case of West Bank vs Judea and Samaria, I think this case is about behaviour of editors of the Settlement page, and about the justification of the use of Judea and Samaria, not about NOT using the term West Bank, which you deleted here. But maybe I'm mistaken - listen to your arguments.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strange feeling to be the only one to argue on the talkpage, when everybody feels free to change the text without giving any explanation. Remember: a reader must understand what the boycott is about and the word "settlement" might apply to any place people live. It's the question of territoriality which sparked the controversy. This is important context.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits
This small page has received a lot of attention in the last few days, not all of what appears to be appropriate. Concerning the Code Pink boycott, my view is that the following points should be on the page, no matter what the exact wording:
1) the manufacturing plant is on occupied territory
2) Code Pink should be mentioned by name, not a (false) label such as "anti-Israel" (?)
3) the reasoning behind the boycott should be briefly described.
This version http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ahava_(company)&oldid=315362164 for example would meet these, with the possible proviso that "West Bank" be modified to "occupied West Bank" since the legal status ties into the reasoning behind the boycott.
Also, the external link to the boycott page http://www.stolenbeauty.org/article.php?list=type&type=415 is IMO entirely appropriate in this context, much like the Ahava homepage. I wouldn't be in favour of removing the link to the company's homepage. --Dailycare (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with your reasoning that the legal status ties into the reasoning behind the boycott, it is therefor very important to have "occupied". That is also the npov view that its occupied following npov Misplaced Pages rules due weight since all countries on earth (maybe even including Israel) say its occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- User:Noon has reverted this edit for a second time now. I don't want to get into an edit war, but their reasoning for reverting it - "selective and inaccurate presentation from a biased source" - sounds more like the user's own selective misrepresentation. A fact is a fact. The user has offered no good reason not to keep the information in the article, and has not given their own input. 'Selective' - how? 'Innacurate' - how? 'Biased' - how? To describe this:
as selective or inaccurate is disingenuous. The sentence could be edited for grammar, but that's pretty much it. It's also a shame that the spam link for the Australian store has been added back into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.238.199 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)"The Ahava factory is in an Israeli settlement in the Occupied Palestinian Territory on land that was a Palestinian village of Arab et Ta'amira."
- User:Noon has reverted this edit for a second time now. I don't want to get into an edit war, but their reasoning for reverting it - "selective and inaccurate presentation from a biased source" - sounds more like the user's own selective misrepresentation. A fact is a fact. The user has offered no good reason not to keep the information in the article, and has not given their own input. 'Selective' - how? 'Innacurate' - how? 'Biased' - how? To describe this:
Settlements, West Bank, etc.
Replacing any location like "Deas Sea shore" with "West Bank" and so on makes the article less informative. The controversy is covered in body, no need to push it into lead and share holder parts. Also, please keep close to sources, if source says that the company is from Holon, keep the infobox that way. After all the article is about the company, not about the I-P conflict. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and trying to add the "summary of 3 sentences" is pointless and repetitive. People can just go read the 3 sentences instead of needing a summary and then the sentences. It's an encyclopedia so keep it like one. LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)