Talk:Ohalo College

removed pov

Inserted neutrality according to worldview: [8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

university is in Israeli occupied territory, therefor the category is correct. Its not pov when its the entire worldview that its occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Golan Heights, Israel"

This article currently says that this college is located in "Golan Heights, Israel". The Golan Heights is not in Israel. I cannot believe that we need to have the same discussion in 20 different places. This college is located in an Israeli settlement in occupied territory, Wikipedia cannot assert a fringe view that this place is in Israel and further assert this fringe view as fact. nableezy - 19:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If the local garbagemen, postmen, and policemen are paid by the Israeli government, it's in Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Entire worldview is that its occupied land and not part of Israel. The United Nations [9] United States [10] European Union[11] United Kingdom[12] Arab League[13] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Brew, sorry but that is ridiculous. Not even Israel claims the Golan is in Israel. nableezy - 19:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not going to change reality by editing a wikipedia article. If you dont like the fact that Israel is the governing entity in the Golan Heights, then petition the Syrian government to try to get it back. The fact is if I wake up in the morning and walk out in the street I see traffic signs in Hebrew and I have to follow Israeli traffic laws. So the reality is that I'm in Isreal. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

brewcrewer, this has been discussed 5 million times. You go to the Golan Heights article, and when you get consensus there that it is a part of Israel, you can ad it in this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, I am not trying to change reality. The reality is that Israel is the occupying force in the Golan. That you would have to follow Israeli laws is irrelevant to where the Golan is. It is nearly undisputed that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The "change in reality" is when certain users insist that Greater Israel has the right to claim anything it pleases. The Golan is not in Israel, countless scholarly sources can be provided that say this incontrovertible fact. nableezy - 20:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed countless times, yes, but there never was a consensus to change the reality to wiki-reality. The horrible land-hungry Israel with an occupying fetish can be denounced by every single scholar and NGO, but reality is reality. Until a citizen in the Golan wakes up in the morning and has to follow laws of a country that is not Israel, the Golan is in Israel.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, multiple noes. We report what the sources say, and the highest quality sources are almost unanimous on this issue, the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. It is not in Israel. But as you insist on portraying a fringe sized view as fact I will take this to the NPOV noticeboard. nableezy - 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You keep on repeating yourself, as if you're in some sort of trance. No offense. It's irrelevant whether the majority of nations, scholars, NGO's, Wikipedia editors, insist that Israel is not the rightful governing entity of the Golan. If the garbageman, postman, fireman are paid by the Israeli government, it's in Israel. All this debate about why, who, what, when Israel should give back the land took in a war belongs in the article - Golan Heights. But we can't go around changing the reality of each entity within the Golan because it's a "fringe view that Israel is the rightful governing entity of the Golan." Now I'm going back to play pingpong. I'll give some time for a response that pertains to the actual points that are raised. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, what is irrelevant is your personal opinion on what makes a territory a part of a country. What is relevant is the countless sources that say flatly that your personal opinion is incorrect. Sources state, and there is no real dispute about this, that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. nableezy - 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What counts is the sources, not reality. What counts is the majority of sources, not reality. Anyway, brew, why feed the confused? This reminds me of the claim that an Israeli city means 'city in Israel', Israeli village means 'village in Israel' but Israeli settlement does not mean 'settlement in Israel'. They refuse to accept that the English language is much more complex than their reasoning and that Israeli town means a town built and lived in by Israelis. Tell me, if you fly to Taiwan, are you flying to China? --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I know you are well aware on the policies of verifiability and NPOV. It is not neutral to assert a fringe sized POV as gospel truth. And what matters on Wikipedia is the sources. The sources say that this is in Syrian territory occupied by Israel. And I am not confused, and "Israeli settlement" has a well-established meaning. Dont play these stupid little games with me. nableezy - 21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

okay, i'm back from the pingpong games. i won all the games, but i'm not sure how much they count. sexism aside for a second, they were all against a girl.

@Shuki: of course, there are sources. but there are sources for any terminology preferred by pov-warriors. we can have sources smackdown here, but the time-consuming google searches won't get us anywhere. my point assumes arguendo that zero sources exist that can be used in favor of the term "Golan Height, Israel. because there is nothing to debate where the actual governing entity is clear.

@nableezy: my claim that what makes "a territory part of a country" is the actual governing entity, not the ideal governing entity, is no less OR then your claim that the actual governing entity is irrelevant. Again, sources can chant from today to tomorrow that the Golan Heights is Syrian occupied territory, but its irrelevant for the Wikipedia articles on entities withing the Golan Heights. There is no reason to shove politics in the face of one reading about a small college in the Golan Heights unless we're here to create a wikireality instead of an enyclopedia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Brew, by definition, occupied territory is both outside of the occupying country and governed by the occupying country. To say that the governing entity determines what country a territory is in makes the word "occupied" completely meaningless. To put it bluntly, that argument is plainly incorrect. nableezy - 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No. There's plenty of place on Wikpedia for the "occupied" issue to have relevance. Try Golan Regional Council, International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict, UN Security Council Resolution 452, UN Security Council Resolution 465, UN Security Council Resolution 471, Israel–Syria relations, Independent Israel–Syria peace initiatives, to name a few. It's a ridiculous POV-push to remind everyone at every turn that Israel "occupies" the Golan. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The POV push is the one in which a fringe view is presented as a fact. You know, exactly what you are doing now. nableezy - 02:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just came across this discussion. Why not just put that this college is in the "Golan Heights", neutrally, and without labeling the Golan Heights as either being in Israel, nor labeling it as being "Israeli-occupied"? If editors want to know more about the Golan Heights, they can go read that article. ← George ^talk 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the lead not mention that it is an Israeli college in the Golan Heights and not just supported and recognized (whatever that might mean)? --Shuki (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Israeli college" is the real question. Are only students who are Israeli citizens allowed to attend? If that's the case I would mention that. And what does being "supported" and "recognized" by Israel mean, anyways? Does "supported" mean that Israel funds the college (as in a public college), and "recognized" mean that it's accredited by the Council for Higher Education in Israel? If that is the case, say that. But I don't think trying define the Golan Heights makes sense here, when we have an entire article dedicated to that highly controversial subject. ← George ^talk 00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Information on the English Department

Sorry Shuki. You can't remove this information; certainly not with the reasoning that you provide. Please do not remove the information again without discussing it first. The English Department is an integral part of the institution and has every right to be featured. The citation that you are asking are for general departmental policy and pedagogical goals. That makes no sense. If at all, the citation is found in the information about the department that you removed (what event the department has put on; which courses it teache; etc) - and in the the links to the department's offcial web page and facebook page. I left out some of the information that might appear like advertising and restored the links. Again, please don't touch this section again without prior discussion. 2knowledgeable (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you read up on WP Manual of Style, as well as learn to provide references to information you include in article. It would be in the interest of Ohalo and yourself, to verify the format of other similar academic institutions and follow those standards rather than making this article look weird, besides the undue weight that you give the English Department which might make it seem the most important faculty. Why not assist and improve the whole article? --Shuki (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you refrain from vandalism and war editing. I'm willing to engage and discuss this, but if you make one sided changes you may be blocked from editing in the future. 2knowledgeable (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read Pot calling the kettle black, 2knowledgeable. Improper use of warning templates helps nobody. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 06:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss changes before making them. Otherwise the use of warning template is merited. But to the point: why are you so afraid of discussing this? This very heavyhanded - deleting content with no apparant reason, giving me some reading assignmnets.., and getting all pophy. relax. If you have a good argument, let's hear it. What do you have against the english department? And stop war editing... it's not very nice. 2knowledgeable (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, your usage of a warning template was not merited. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We have nothing against the english department. What we *do* have something against is repeated addition of unsourced information, and that is why we have been removing it from the article. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention Shuki's concern about there being no particular reason to feature the English department so heavily... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Let's talk about it (no... don't revert me again). You are raising a number of mixed arguments. Let's see what we can pull out and make sense of. First, the English department is important. The article is in... English, and we are carrying this discussion in English (although I suspect that some of us are native Hebrew speakers). Moreover, the Ohalo English department is the only program in the Israeli North to offer courses on English Literature, Culture, Media and other topics. So it is important. This said, there is room for adding paragraphs about the other departments and study programs at Ohalo. What stands out, actually, is that there is nothing in the article about what is taught at Ohalo, which is supposed to be the most important feature of an academic institute. Your other argument is that the information is insufficiently sourced. Now, you have been repeatedly deleting some of the most obvious sources (the department official website and its facebook site). So my first advice is to let the links stand. We can discuss what information you think needs sourcing and try to provide it. But it seemed to me that you wanted sourcing for the goals of the department and its list of events, which seems excessive. Maybe I got this wrong. What exactly needs sourcing here? I look forward to discussing this in a professional manner and I am sure that everyone can be satisfied. Thank you.2knowledgeable (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is not a valid source. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The language we're having this discussion in is not relevant to the importance of the information. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If the English department is so important, then provide cites that it is in reliable, verifiable secondary sources (haaretz, jerusalem post, et cetera would be good ones for this kind of article). --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A departments goals and/or list of events are likely to be violations of our policy on not giving undue weight. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Andrensath, I am sorry that you are so belligerent and that you removed the information again. I am not reposting it, but I would ask you to take a deep breath and explain to me seriously what you except. This is a small college, and importance is relative. The department of English is of immense importance to the college, which is the topic of discussion. But you are not telling me is what you would like sourced in the first place. Are you looking for proof that the department exists? Are you looking for proof that the college teaches English? Do you need sufficient documentation that… what? Can you explain to me exactly what needs documentation here? 2knowledgeable (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not belligerence, it is following our policy that all information should be sourced to 'reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have said before, please refrain from personal attacks. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not looking for proof that the department exists, or that the college teaches English. What I *am* looking for is for you to provide citations for all of the information you want included, as the WP:burden of sourcing falls to you. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But what *exactly* do you want documented? I mean: what specifically in the paragraph calls for documentation? Can you be a little more clear on this? 2knowledgeable (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is 'all of the information' unclear as to what I want documented? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The links for the department and facebook are external links, not sources. And since you allow the college's website, I don't understand why you don't allow the department website, which is a part of the college. Again: What do you want? 2knowledgeable (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I miscounted lines and thought you *had* put them in the reference section, not the external link one. However, that just makes linking the department redundant with the link for the college as the whole. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The site is not redundant. First, the department site is in English while the College site is in Hebrew. Second, the site provides information about (you guessed it) the English department. 2knowledgeable (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Andrensath here. 2knowledgeable, why don't you just stop arguing and try to improve the whole article? Just choose another non-controversial college or academic institution and use the same format. Not all of it has to be sourced, but you are clearly going overboard with WP:UNDUE, and the goals section is not professional. --Shuki (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I partially disagree with Shuki here. Sources should always be provided first, and *then* we can discuss how much to have so it doesn't violate the undue weight policy. I do agree that the goals section shouldn't be included at all, however. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue, but I am trying to understand what you are asking for and what you think that I need to document. Telling me that I should document "all of the information" doesn't help me. May I humbly suggest that I will rewrtie the setion to the best of my ability and post it on the talk page for you comments? I am sure that this is an issue that can be solved with good will, and I would like to assume that good faith is extended. 2knowledgeable (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Telling others to WP:AGF implies you're not. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's go through the sentences you want. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

'Every college in Israel runs an English program, training students to reach the minimum level of competency in English required by the Council of Higher Education.'

Does every college in Israel? Is there a minimum competency level required, and is it by this organization? Where are the citations from reliable and/or (preferably and) secondary sources? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

'Ohalo College, however, is the only program north of Haifa that provides a four-year program in English Culture, Literature, Media, History and Politics, stressing essential skills such as oral proficiency, writing, research and rhetoric.'

Is it the only one north of Haifa? Does it stress 'oral proficiency, writing, research and rhetoric'? Citations? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

'Realizing its unique position as a provider of English Education in the north, the English Department at Ohalo has also began to establish itself as a home for English Language activity, hosting poetry readings, academic conferences and other cultural events.'

So what? We're not promoting Ohalo College here. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

'Over the last two years, the English Department at Ohalo has undergone dramatic changes.'

Has it? Citations? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

'The number of courses offered by the department nearly doubled, and new faculty members were hired.'

Have the courses nearly doubled in number? Have new staff been hired? Citations? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

'The faculty at the English department includes well published scholars and experts on pedagogy, literary and cultural theory, linguistics and almost any other conceivable facet of English Studies.'

If they're 'well published scholars and experts ... of English Studies', then surely it shouldn't take long to find suitable cites saying so? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

'While mainly training future English Teachers, the program aims at producing and placing graduates with a wide background in English Studies that will be able to pursue further studies and careers related to English whether in public relations, foreign affairs or in business.'

More promotion of Ohalo College. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On a separate note, why is the english department so much more important to you than the other departments that you're willing to try to edit war a large amount of detail on it into the article? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I'll try to work with that. Some things are easy to document (EAP college requirements) and others are more complicated. I'm not sure that all of this is merrited but I'll my best. 2knowledgeable (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Deparment of English

Well here's an attempt. I don't dare put it on the actual page, so I am placing it here for your approval.

Ohalo college currently offers a B.Ed. degree with a concentration on English Teaching and has recently submitted a program to the Israeli Ministry of Education for a complete B.Ed. program in English. In addition, the English Department at Ohalo has undergone some dramatic changes in the past two years: It has almost doubled the number of courses that it teaches and introduced new courses in Media, Linguistics, Culure and Literature and hired new faculty members who are well published scholars and experts on pedagogy, literary and cultural theory, linguistics and almost any other conceivable facet of English Studies .

One facet that distiguishes the English Department at Ohalo is that while every college in Israel runs an English program, training students to reach the minimum level of competency in English required by the Council of Higher Education - Ohalo College, however, is the only program north of Haifa that provides a four-year program in English Culture, Literature, Media, and other facets of English studies. This also puts the deparment in the position of a provider of English Cultural events to the region, hosting poetry readings , academic conferences and other events.2knowledgeable (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, I've never said you can't put statements in the article if they're cited to reliable sources, as per policy. The problem was that you were failing to supply sources, which meant under that same policy we couldn't have those statements on the 'live' version of the page. You also don't need anyone's approval to add things to the article, nobody owns them. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 12:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

2knowledgeable, it looks like you need to re-read WP:RS. For one thing, you can't use other wikipedia articles as sources. I'm also doubtful that a site like freelists.org would be acceptable -- these are merely email messages with unverified content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but I think that context is also important here. This is a small peripheral college and most of what is done there will be reported on social networks and possibly local press. This is probably why nothing else in the article is documented.. I sugest that we accept that the department grants a B.Ed in English because it's already mentioned in the aricle. As for freelists.org, again, let's consider context. A conference in English at Ohalo will not be published in Haaretz, but if you consider the subject matter in relation to the topic of the article then perhaps we can set the burden of proof aproriately.2knowledgeable (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to start with the assumption that this material must be included, therefore the "burden of proof" can be adjusted. That's not my view of how policies like WP:RS work; whether material can be included depends on whether there are sources that support it (which means, in part, whether the events/characteristics in question are significant enough to merit coverage by reliable sources). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, my assumption is that if Ohalo is important enough to merit an article, then one of it's departments is important enough to be included. I'm not talking about specifics. Some things may stay and some may go. I might be able to find a local press article for the poetry reading. But so long as the article stands (without documentation...) there should be a way for the department to stand as well. 2knowledgeable (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)