Jump to content

Talk:Katzrin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 92: Line 92:


--[[User:Jiujitsuguy|Jiujitsuguy]] ([[User talk:Jiujitsuguy|talk]]) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
--[[User:Jiujitsuguy|Jiujitsuguy]] ([[User talk:Jiujitsuguy|talk]]) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
:You still have not answered my questions. Do you actually dispute that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams? Do you dispute that the CBS is by far more reliable than a collection of news reports for the size of the cities, villages, towns, settlements, localities, whatever in the Golan? If not, why are you deliberately wasting our time? If so, on what basis do you argue that a news report is of greater reliability than official census data? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 22:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 22:04, 13 December 2011

WikiProject iconIsrael C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

My edit

Its an Israeli settlement according to worldview, so that should be before "town", and its also in the Israeli-occupied territories. [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

This is not a category,[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia rules, due and undue weight is clear: [3] "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. [4]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
"ceasefire" ? .. consensus is based on arguments. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The policy is NPOV, specifically WEIGHT. And this article was not edited, others were. nableezy - 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I have restored the line in the lead, further removals may be reported. nableezy - 22:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Time magazine Israeli army tanks advance on the firing range during a training exercise, May 21, 2008, on the outskirts of the Israeli city of Katzrin in the Golan Heights. emphasis added. An equally if not greater persuasive argument can be made for calling it a town or city.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

earthquake date

There is disagreement over the date of the earthquake that destroyed Kasrin in the 8th century. I gave a source for 746–747 and one for 749. The reasons for the disagreement are explained in N. N. Ambraseys, The seismic activity in Syria and Palestine during the middle of the 8th century; an amalgamation of historical earthquakes, Journal of Seismology (2005) 9: 115–125. The date 18 January 749 given in some sources is derived from a Christian source that gives 18 January and a Jewish source that gives 23rd Shevat. These two dates corresponded in 749 and not in the other possible years. However, it isn't as conclusive as it sounds since the Jewish source also says it was a sabbatical year and that year wasn't. Ambraseys thinks the various reports were actually of three separate earthquakes. Zerotalk 09:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The world turns

The lead has been copyedited for repetition of the same terminology and phrases used over and over, and new sources have been added to supplement old, outdated sources. As in all settlements, villages, towns and cities, populations increase/decrease, institutions and services are introduced/close down; and culture evolves. Articles about them need to reflect this.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"largest town"

Majdal Shams is the largest town in the Golan Heights, as even the Israeli CBS census data shows (see here). Majdal Shams is more than 30% larger. nableezy - 13:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a more recent source puts Majdal Shams population at 11000 (see here). nableezy - 13:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current data is based on reliable and current sources that include the New York Times and the English language paper of Lebanon, which even describes Katzrin as a city. Your claims are original research - there is no such comparison made anywhere - and you are citing 2008 census data. The JP article you cite specifically describes Majdal as the largest Druze town. --Geewhiz (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The JPost article also says that population of Majdal Shams is 11000, a number that I dont think any source has claimed Katzrin approaches. Gila, news reports can contain errors, and an insistence on repeating those errors despite the evidence is not what one expects from a serious editor. The last official data from the state says Katzrin is more than 30% smaller than Majdal Shams. A recent news report gives Majdal Shams a population of over 3000 more than what this article says Katzrin is. Yet this article makes the claim that Katzrin is the largest city in the Golan, a demonstrably false claim. nableezy - 14:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And more recent census data (here). As of the end of 2009, Katzrin had a population of 6500 and Majdal Shams had a population of 9600. nableezy - 15:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also about twice the growth rate. The CBS table also has provisional mid-2010 figures, which is only about a month before the Haaretz article cited as saying that Katzrin is the largest. In the case of conflicting sources, we either expose the discrepancy between them in the article or we go with the most reliable source. I can't imagine how a travel writers in newspapers can compete in reliability with the CBS, so we should take the second option here. Zerotalk 05:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should note that while it is the second largest town it is also the largest settlement. Anybody have a reason why we should not? nableezy - 19:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your point? Read the first sentence of the article which you skillfully inserted and have defended since last summer.--Shuki (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, what? My "point" is that the article should note that Katzrin is the largest settlement in the Golan. It does not currently do that. Is there a reason we should not? nableezy - 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"district town"

Apparently, once upon a time (1991), a single news report called Katzrin a "district town". That is now apparently enough of a reason to say that Katzrin is described as a "district town" in the lead of the article. Can somebody explain to me a. what exactly is a "district town", and b. why should this single twenty year old news report be included in the lead? nableezy - 14:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the Israeli government classify localities as "city", "town", etc? How does it classify Katzrin? Zerotalk 05:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
according to the official israel 'central bureau of statistics', katzrin is a 'yishuv', translated as 'town'. here is the link to the pdf, in hebrew, which gives all of the demographic data and how it is classified. Soosim (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But does district town mean anything? nableezy - 19:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Town is a general description of a mid-sized populated place not yet a city. A more accurate municipal status is Local council (Israel). Perhaps district was an attempted English translation of that or of the fact that Katzrin is considered the administrative centre of the Golan Heights. --Shuki (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is Katzrin a local council? nableezy - 21:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Town redux

Currently, the lede contains erroneous information in that it classifies Katzrin as the second largest town in the Golan. The cited refernce does not explicitly say this but we're supposed to make the inference based on the population numbers presented. First, making that inference is Original Research. If we're going to make the assertion that Katzrin is the second largest town in the Golan, we should find a specific refernce that makes that explicit assertion. Second, when we say largest town, are we referring to population or geographical space? I pose this question to highlight the absurdity of drawing inferences based on WP:OR. Moreover, I have five reliable sources that explicitly classify Katzrin as the largest town/city on the Golan Heights. From Fox News Israel National News Haaretz AFP and The New York Times. I was previously berated from some quarters for suggesting otherwise and would like some thoughts on the issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS shouws that Katzrin is not the largest town in the Golan. If you want to continue claiming that a town several thousand people smaller than the largest town in the Golan is actually the largest town in the Golan you can do that, but try it on your blog. There is no inference drawn from the CBS data, it clearly and unequivocally shows that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams. nableezy - 19:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we can remove that it is the second largest town, but claiming it is the largest when we know for a fact that it is not is just silly. nableezy - 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've just disregarded Five sources that say otherwise and in typical fashion you've disparaged me in the process by gratuitously adding "but try it on your blog." I ask you to restrain yourself and kindly refrain from attcking me personally.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not disregard anything, I said that the CBS data conclusively and unequivocally shows that Katzrin is several thousand people smaller than Majdal Shams. Insisting on including material that you know is false is disruptive. You know that Majdal Shams is larger than Katzrin. The official data from the state conclusively shows this fact. Yet you want to bring sources that are clearly incorrect to insert a factual error into the article. Do you actually dispute that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams? Do you dispute that the CBS is by far more reliable than a collection of news reports for the size of the cities, villages, towns, settlements, localities, whatever in the Golan? If not, why are you deliberately wasting our time? If so, on what basis do you argue that a news report is of greater reliability than official census data? nableezy - 19:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, please do not refer to my attempts at making an article right "disruptive." This is again a personal attack that I do not appreciate. Second, in Wikipedia, we rely on reliable sources and what they actually say and not what we may infer. The five sources that I've provided are considederd RS and all say that it is the largest town/city. Are you seriously going to tell me that Fox News, Haaretz, AFP, The New York Times and Israel National News are all wrong and unreliable?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we rely on reliable sources, and the most reliable source here is the CBS. When source of greater reliability shows that news reports are wrong, demanding that we ignore the evidence that the news reports are wrong is in fact disruptive. There is no inference in citing the CBS data to show that Majdal Shams is larger than Katzrin. You havent answered my questions, so Ill repeat them now. Do you actually dispute that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams? Do you dispute that the CBS is by far more reliable than a collection of news reports for the size of the cities, villages, towns, settlements, localities, whatever in the Golan? If not, why are you deliberately wasting our time? If so, on what basis do you argue that a news report is of greater reliability than official census data? nableezy - 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the issue to the RS/N. See here. nableezy - 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wasting our time?" A third personal attack. You certainly are on your best behavior today. I never realized that a discussion concerning making the lede more factually accurate constitutes "wasting our time." You have not answered my question. We have five reliable sources that state unequivocally that Katzrin is the largest city/town on the Golan vs a census where we're required to draw inferences. Are you saying that all of the noted sources, NYT, Fox, INN, AFP and Haaretz, are wrong?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except you arent trying to make it more factually accurate, you are attempting to make it less so, and knowingly so. You have yet to answer any of my questions. One more time, do you actually dispute that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams? Do you dispute that the CBS is by far more reliable than a collection of news reports for the size of the cities, villages, towns, settlements, localities, whatever in the Golan? If not, why are you deliberately wasting our time? If so, on what basis do you argue that a news report is of greater reliability than official census data? nableezy - 20:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again you refer to my discussion at the talk pages and the listing of reliable sources as "wasting our time." A fourth personal attack. Please stick to the discussion at hand and avoid attacking me personally.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep claiming that all I am doing is personally attacking you, or you can actually respond to the simple questions asked. Your choice, though I doubt youll surprise me by actually answering the questions. nableezy - 20:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, since when are those news sources not a RS? Maybe they also cannot be depended on to declare something occupied? Maybe the CBS is politically slanted? --Shuki (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont understand what you wrote. Are you seriously claiming that the CBS is politically slanted by publishing data that shows Katzrin is several thousand people smaller than Majdal Shams? It isnt that the NYTimes or Haaretz or AFP isnot nominally a reliable source. It is that we have a much more reliable source that directly refutes what those news reporters write. Is anybody seriously claiming that any of the news sources are more reliable than the CBS for the size of Katzrin and the size of Majdal Shams? If so, on what basis? nableezy - 20:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that five reliable sources say explicitly so. As opposed to your source that requires us to draw inferences.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not answered my questions. Do you actually dispute that Katzrin is smaller than Majdal Shams? Do you dispute that the CBS is by far more reliable than a collection of news reports for the size of the cities, villages, towns, settlements, localities, whatever in the Golan? If not, why are you deliberately wasting our time? If so, on what basis do you argue that a news report is of greater reliability than official census data? nableezy - 22:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]