This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 10 September 2010 (→legality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:21, 10 September 2010 by Nableezy (talk | contribs) (→legality)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- 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: