Misplaced Pages

Talk:Psagot

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nableezy (talk | contribs) at 13:29, 26 November 2019 (→Winery). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:29, 26 November 2019 by Nableezy (talk | contribs) (→Winery)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psagot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Psagot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
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:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

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.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration

Mitzpe Ha'ai

Thanks J, I can't find anything substantial to show that this Mitzpe Ha'ai outpost even exists anyway though I'm looking for more info. Would be interesting to create a new article after this current freeze. --Shuki (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also known as Givat Ha'ai per the Peace Now source. There's some information out there, although its notability is dubious for a separate article (no, I'm not suggesting I'll contest it; that seems silly). Also, a "Psagot East" outpost seems to have been constructed and later dismantled, according to some sources, but the details weren't clear enough. Lovely satellite picture of both at the PN source as well.--Carwil (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Peace Now is not a RS. I usually don't mind attributing them for numbers since they often exaggerate them anyway. In any case, mentioning them in the article does not add anything, since I'm not finding anything about this place. Trust me, I would not hide it. --Shuki (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that Peace Now were a reliable source? This is an extreme fringe group that even falsifies the numbers on people who attend their rallies. If the material is of notability and value, there will be other sources. Don't edit-war over (I'm understating it:) crap sources. Jaakobou 05:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Say users who repeatedly edit war to use settler propaganda as a "reliable source". nableezy - 13:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a very large difference between an NGO funded by foreign sources and an acredited member of the Israeli press corps. I seen the same type of arguments about FoxNews and the endless attempts to discredit it as well. --Shuki (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't confuse him with facts please.
p.s. add 'extreme fringe' before 'NGO'. Jaakobou 15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you even understand what your first line is, or would you like some lessons in English? Yes, Shuki, there is a difference. One of those groups does not publish fringe propaganda. Ill let you guess which one does. nableezy - 16:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jaakabou, fringe has a particular meaning here on Misplaced Pages, described at WP:Fringe, and it's about theories unaccepted by mainstream publications in a field.

Instead of speaking of "fringe" sources, we have standards of reliability at WP:Source. Such as these: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. ... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments … Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications"

The material under question here does in fact appear in respected mainstream publications such as the New York Times and Haaretz. By Misplaced Pages standards this suggests Peace Now's Settlement Watch is a reliable source.

Peace Now, which issued its 2006 report (the one I cited here on talk; based on unofficial Civil Administration data from 2004), updated it when new facts became available (a court ordered the Israeli government to turn over the Civil Administration land database in late 2006), by producing a new report in 2007. Details are here. In both cases, the reports combine Peace Now assesments of buildings and boundaries with Israeli government sources on ownership to produce a set of percentages. Their methods are spelled out. There willingness to revise based on new data and all these internal factors tend to show Peace Now's Settlement Watch is a reliable source.

All of that said, the new government data in the 2007 revision for Psagot in particular, is contradicted by our other sources. The 2006 CA data has 160 dunams more of private land in Psagot, smack in the middle of the settlement, probably the municipal parcel described in the article. Whatever the CA's and PN's reliability, the new data is mistaken (or has reclassified the municipal land as private for some good reason I can't think of) and shouldn't be used here.--Carwil (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Carwil, reliable source has a particular meaning here on Misplaced Pages, described at WP:RS. Thank you for taking on Peace Now's case. They are an NGO, they can be quoted in articles, but not in first-person WP. They are not 'reliable source'. FWIW, you deciding which data is mistaken is interesting. And while the NYT is usually a RS, their publication of Peace Now claims is patheticly Haaretz-like and seems to hold no water in court. Should I point you to court cases where Peace Now has had to retract its wild claims? --Shuki (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, I read the Peace Now article, so I think I know the cases you're talking about; the corrected material is in the 2007 report I cite. And I quoted WP:RS in what you replied to. NGO covers a lot of territory, but the above standards ("a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments") from WP:RS are often met by non-governmental organizations. More over, per Jaakobou below, NGO reports often provide systematic data in a way that journalistic sources rarely do. A re-analysis of the settlement land data by another organization would be extremely unlikely given that PN has published theirs.
However "interesting" or derived from WP:IAR common-sense fact checking may be, it's better than creating non-controversies (like "but PN's analysis claims 99% of Psagot is built on private land") based on quoting data without thought.
If what you're saying (about "first-person WP") is that we need to say, "A Peace Now analysis of a Civil Administration database found that..." then we're on the same page.--Carwil (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If Peace Now were somewhat reliable, I'd agree with you - and we could cite two sources with opposing views. They are not and what you've been proposing is giving credence to creative writing as if it were encyclopaedic content. Find a normative source please.
p.s. see my comment below and please stop using the term "analysis" in regards to their advocacy materials. Jaakobou 03:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
"Peace Now assesments" fit the definition "creative writing". Find a proper source for the content you wish to add please. If it is of such notability there should be no problem to find other less creative sources.
p.s. Nableezy, off "course!" Peace Now doesn't publish propaganda. Never has... they just write creative content for their advocacy. e.g. *sigh* Jaakobou 16:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, Im sorry, I must have forgotten to check that so very reliable source CAMERA. I swear Jaak, the laughs I get from comments like that make this place well worth the price of admission. nableezy - 04:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I know the "colonial" reality makes you laugh. Peace Now is out. Jaakobou 09:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Uh no, you dont get to make these determinations as if you control things here. The fact that you cite CAMERA as a source to supposedly demonstrate that Peace Now is unreliable is funny but without any validity at all. nableezy - 13:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you quit the silliness, they are not rejected because of CAMERA. They are rejected on their own merit of fabricating content. e.g. (the case in question) making stuff up and saying it exists in an external report when it doesn't (I checked). Jaakobou 15:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont exactly believe most (all) of what you claim, so unless you can provide a source disputing what Peace Now said the material should be reinstated. nableezy - 16:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy,
The content they fabricated to be in a report is not in that report.. don't let any facts confuse you. Peace Now is out.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says they fabricated this data? If not, I will be reinserting this material once protection is lifted. You dont get to push in garbage sources like Arutz Sheva and ITIC all over the place and reject Peace Now. nableezy - 18:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Nableezy,
The content they fabricated to be in a report is not in that report. If you can find that information in the report, that's great, but until then - you cannot use the non reliable source called Peace Now. Also, I don't use those sources all over the place, but I do consider Arutz Sheva to be reliable on issues of news (not on issues of opinion). They have an established history of reporting the news with accuracy, moreso than some of the other sources (esp. foreign ones) we use frequently. Nevertheless, try to avoid this irrelevant ad-hominem. I don't use the claim that you supported the notoriously antisemitic publication of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida when talking about Peace Now. OK?
Warm regards, Jaakobou 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont know what you are talking about, but I dont plan on going through a Hebrew primary source to fact check for Peace Now. Is there or is there not a source that disputes what Peace Now said? If not, your claims about them fabricating this information is just that, a claim made by some random person on the internet that has no bearing on what is placed in a supposed encyclopedia. Now, once again, please provide a source backing your claim that what Peace Now reports about this settlement is false. nableezy - 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It's very simple. Peace Now are a fringe advocacy group who were never a reliable source to begin with. Your demands, to find a secondary source refuting a non reliable source about fabricated materials, are unreasonable and you are accusing me of lying. Please stop. Jaakobou 23:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
That isnt true, I am not "accusing of lying", I am saying you are providing unsourced assertions that Peace Now is fabricating data. You cant just say the source is not telling the truth and expect others to accept your word over the source. Yes or no, is there a source disputing what Peace Now says? nableezy - 01:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, from what I can see, Peace Now is an advocacy group, so they aren't the sort of source we should be using. Anyway, I'm posting here, mostly because your argument seems to be getting slightly heated. PhilKnight (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Explicit attribution was given to Peace Now, we werent presenting this as anything more than what Peace Now reported. The issue here is that isnt even allowed here. nableezy - 02:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
In which case, I'd suggest posting on WP:RSN. PhilKnight (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS/N#Peace Now in Psagot nableezy - 16:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nab! I've amplified the request there so we can deal with all the main uses there might be for these reports from Peace Now. Jaakobou, do you really doubt Peace Now's satellite maps show Mitzpe Ha'ai? Just curious.--Carwil (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit repetitive here, but Peace Now publications have been refuted on numerous occasions. Sure, some of their material might be accurate, but we're not about to start using jewsagainstzionism.org in articles about Israel just because small portions of their content is correct. Jaakobou 19:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
What's the disputed diff here? Sol (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Without voicing an opinion on whether Peace Now is a reliable source, I would like to affirm that Jaakobou is quite right in protesting its use for this information, especially since the original source - the Sasson report of 2005 - is readily available. The information cited on the Peace Now website appears in Appendix A of the report, the detailed list of outposts, and the website is an accurate summary of the information contained in that appendix. The settlement is also referred to in the body of the report. The report is available from the Prime Minister's office. The final report is not available on-line, but the interim report (not including the appendixes) can be read here. (I am guessing that Jaakobou thought that Givat Ha-ai was not mentioned in the report because he was reading the summary, available on numerous websites, and not the full report.) Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ill leave adding material from a Hebrew source to omeone who knows Hebrew. As it is, there is a fairly clear consensus that Peace Now can be cited, so Ive re-added the material that had been removed. nableezy - 00:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I added the Sasson report reference --Ravpapa (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

One of the benefits of many editors of all POVs visiting an article is that it enjoys an incredible amount of attention and usually great expansion. Rather than leave it an eternal stub, it blossoms into a large article. Which location are we moving to next. I want to go to the library and get prepared. Can we do Beit El? The size of the article does not do justice to the size of the location. --Shuki (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

How about what happens next is you provide the quotes and translations requested. nableezy - 22:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
To clarify the request, I am asking for quotes from the source and translations of those quotes for the following citations:
  • In the spring of 1982, the supreme court dismissed the claim and this paved the way for a rapid expansion including an immediate fifteen trailer homes with the help of Uri Bar-On and another 48 housing starts approved by the Minister of Housing and Construction David Levy cited to Hoberman, Haggai (2008) (in Hebrew). Keneged Kol HaSikuim (1st ed.). Sifriat Netzarim page = 196-7
  • and the Supreme Court of Israel confirms. cited to the same source
nableezy - 22:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you really expect me to type out an entire page and then translate it? --Shuki (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I expect you to abide by the policies of this website. Specifically WP:NONENG, part of WP:V. Quoting from that policy: When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page. nableezy - 16:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ooh but your reply does not match my question. AGF fellow editor. I haven't refused anything, just need to get the book back. --Shuki (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I answered the question, I told you exactly what I would like you to provide, and I made this same request in a comment on 02:06, 31 October 2010. If you are going to oblige great. If not I will be removing the material. nableezy - 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's cute how you always need to get in the last word on everything. --Shuki (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I sincerely hope that you have the last word here, those words being the quotations and translations requested. nableezy - 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Funy shit right here. But now Nableezy is removing some lines and not others. So yes, Shuki, provide the text of a page. If you feel that it is to much time (totally understand) then think of alternatives. Do you have a scanner at work? If so, shoot it over to me via email. Not sure if I will be any help but I am curious. I tried finding a copy of the book online to nab but got nothing. I can move this up a comment to give Nableezy the last word still. Wait for it... bye ;) Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-English source

Per WP:NONENG, could I request that someone provide the text of the relevant pages from Keneged Kol HaSikuim in Hebrew, a work the article currently cites? Please also provide an English translation of the relevant pages. Thanks! ← George 06:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the article use direct quotes? Jaakobou 09:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't think so. ← George 09:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit - Oh, it looks like Nableezy requested the same thing earlier. Feel free to reply in either thread; I'll look for it either way. ← George 09:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have a live link I might be willing to quote it. In general though, if the source is legit and the text is not a direct quote, then there shouldn't be a problem leaving it as is. Off course, an English replacement would be preferable. What's the content about anyways? Jaakobou 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It's an offline source. I think Shuki added it as a reference, so hopefully they have access to it, or know where to find it. It doesn't really matter if the source is being used for a direct quote or not (per WP:NONENG, "When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page."). I don't really care what language it is in, so long as a translation I can understand is provided. It's being cited for quite a few things - more than any other source currently in the article. The statements in which it is currently the only source being cited are:
  • " expresses the hope that the new village will achieve a peak in settlement and study of the Torah."
  • "In 1981, Ariel Sharon, then Israeli Minister of Defense, told Pinchas Wallerstein, head of the Mateh Binyamin Regional Council, that he would support initiatives to settle the area."
  • "After the first families moved to the site, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered a freeze on further settlement activity in the wake of an Arab property claim that was later rejected. In the spring of 1982, fifteen trailer homes were brought to the site and building plans for 48 houses were approved by the Minister of Housing and Construction David Levy." ← George 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The first two I recall are translations of short lines anyway, the last one is actually a summary of a few paragraphs. --Shuki (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to provide the full pages in Hebrew and translate them (which could be a copyright violation), but if you can provide the Hebrew & English of those relevant sentences/paragraphs, that would be great. ← George 20:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Might also want to include the sentences/paragraphs that support the "Israeli Supreme Court confirms this" phrasing. I know it's been removed from the article, but I suspect it's something that editors are going to edit war over for a while. Cheers. ← George 20:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that. I think it's quite important to mention a freeze and eventual unfreeze outcome to that in the same paragraph. Removing it leaves the reader in suspense. --Shuki (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

הרעיון להקים במקום נקודת התיישבות היה של שר הביטחון אריאל שון שהציע לראש המועצה האיזורית מטה בנימין פנחס וולרשטיין: "אם תעלו על ההרף אעזור לכם לאכלס את המקום"

לאחר שעלו חמש המשפחות הראשוניות לפסגות, הקפיא בג"ץ את המשך ההתיישבות במקום.

בסופו של דבר נדחתה העתירה בחודש אדר תשמ"ב, ומשפחות ה"כולל" עברו מעפרה לפסגות.

I got the book now, provided some lines, anything specific wanted? --Shuki (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think just whatever is necessary to support the statements in the article attributed to the source. If the source was readily available in English online, I would just go and find the relevant sentences/paragraphs and read them to confirm that the source says what it's being cited for. Same thing here, just that I need someone with access to the book and a translator. :) ← George 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have requested, multiple times now, that you quote and translate the material that backs up the lines In the spring of 1982, the supreme court dismissed the claim and this paved the way for a rapid expansion including an immediate fifteen trailer homes with the help of Uri Bar-On and another 48 housing starts approved by the Minister of Housing and Construction David Levy and and the Supreme Court of Israel confirms. Please do so. nableezy - 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In the end, you want me to transcribe the whole section, I'm sure that will have copyvio issues. I'm working to get access to the author/researcher and find out if he minds and if an English translation is planned that would be important for WP:Israeli Settlements that Carol wants to create. --Shuki (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, if you wish to use a Hebrew source you are required to provide original quotations and translations of the material you say supports what you put in an article. As you have refused to do so for almost 2 weeks now I will be removing the material sourced to this source unless you provide those quotations and translations. nableezy - 14:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Relax, I haven't refused so stop lying. Like I said, I'm trying to locate the author, and it's not easy when my free time is not during regular working hours. --Shuki (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
After weeks of not complying with a simple request, you say I am lying? Interesting. I expect that to be struck out or we might see another AE fun-filled weekend. nableezy - 14:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
You can deal with copyvio, I will not. I am getting closer to contacting the author like I have said and you refuse to AGF accusing me of refusing to cooperate. Go waste your weekend with AE and more frivolous kettle reports, I intend to enjoy mine. --Shuki (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted material on legality

Gillibrand has removed the following material on legality prior to the protection of the page:

Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Psagot, are widely considered illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this

This follows rather intense discussion here and on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues about the text, which was inconclusive on the lead/position, but admitted the material as NPOV and relevant. WP:Synth, of course, comes up because "Psagot" does not appear in the BBC citation included (although that refers unequivocally to all settlements, including Psagot. In any case, the following citations do include Psagot:

  • "This is Psagot - what Israelis call a village and the rest of the world calls an illegal settlement." Brian Whitaker, "The summit of Middle East tension," Guardian, 3 September 2001.
  • "The settlements, viewed as illegal by much of the international community and a threat to the country's long-term survival by critics inside Israel, have become one of the major issues of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." In the following article on the Psagot and other wineries: Dina Kraft, "With wineries and tourism, settlers try to rebrand settlements for Israeli public," Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 21, 2010 .

Now, a great deal of effort has been put into making this sentence NPOV and well-documented, relying foremost on the BBC article. I'll present an even better version shortly, but there is absolutely no remaining reason to remove it. Gillibrand?--Carwil (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new text:

Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Psagot, are considered illegal by the international community; the Israeli government has strenuously challenged this argument.

Citations:

  1. Guardian citation above
  2. JTA citation above
  3. BBC citation above
  4. Wedgwood, R. (2005). "The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Israeli Security Fence and the limits of self-defense". American Journal of International Law. 99 (1): 52–61. ISSN 0002-9300.

Comments?--Carwil (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Was Gillibrand the only objector to this? BrewCrewer? Agada? anyone care to confirm they're okay with it? We need affirmative responses since the page is now protected.--Carwil (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the sentence could be improved upon, but generally support its inclusion. ← George 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
remove the word "strenuously" and i see no problem with this addition to the legality section. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe - and Carwil can correct me if I'm mistaken - the question is whether or not to add it to the lead. ← George 22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
For now, the text has been removed from the body by Gillibrand, who was reported to administrators on other grounds and seems to have disappeared. The page is protected, so reinserting it in the body requires discussion here.
As far as the lead, WoookieInHeat and I deadlocked on the issue above (WIH argued it isn't significant to the topic of Psagot), and I decided to await the discussion on WP:IPCOLL before starting in on an RfC or other dispute resolution. You're free to add to the discussion above if you wish, though I already quoted you on the notability of international legality.--Carwil (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the sentence in the lead (without the word "strenuously"), its about the illegal/legal aspect of the settlement so its very notable information, and its both the world and Israeli pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the neutrality tag on the assumption it was referring to ilegality, which has now been sorted out at WP:IPCOLL. If it was referring to something else please direct it to the section where that's discussed.--Misarxist 08:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Winery

It is news to me that Ruth Eglash is a man, or a settler born and raised in Ofra. Perhaps the editors with trigger happy fingers on the revert button should take more care to read what they are reverting. They might also want to think long and hard about this criteria, unless they want it to be used whenever a Palestinian or Arab journalist's work is used. Several policy reasons for removing the lengthy quote from Levy were given, including WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMOTION. If you want another one, it is that you do not have consensus to add this disputed content, and must seek it here. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The "Ruth Eglash" issue is a result of your inserting a ref without any commentary into the middle of a commentary related to a different ref. I moved the inserted ref to the end of the commentary as an additional ref or it could go in separately with its own commentary if you prefer.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors with trigger happy fingers on the revert button should take more care to read what they are reverting

De te fabula narratur, i.e. that is what you did, confusing Akiva Novick with Ruth Eglash. There are no problems I can see with citing just over 5% of an article for a quotation. If you disliked the format -a citation- paraphrase was available, and in paraphrase the policy caviling objections -. WP:PROMOTION is egregiously silly since most of our sources are promoting Psagot wine -are dissolved. Why didn't you paraphrase? Since no one can dispute that the record states Palestinians affirm documented title to that land, and ownership is crucial to any description of a property, that information goes back in, in one form or another. Lastly, consensus does not mean persuading one editor when three are present on a page. The minority view requires talk page consensus to revert it out.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I restored Levy and Levac, that is not a copyvio, and WP:PROMO prohibits self-promotion. Not liking something is not a valid reason to remove something, and making up arguments when the policies linked do not support, not even a little bit, is tendentious editing. nableezy - 13:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Categories: