Talk:Efrat (Israeli settlement)

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 Wikipedia, 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:

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.
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 Wikipedia, 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 and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

Israel Start‑class Mid‑importance

This 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Categorization : Diffuse articles from Category:Companies of Israel.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.
- Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority

Name

This page should be joined with Efrat, as they are both referring to the same place. 129.98.196.159

The conventional reference to this community is "Efrat." Perhaps we can make that the standard internal ereference within the article? Tewfik 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this back to Efrat, as that is what its referred to on Hebrew Wikipedia, with the official name of Efrata noted. The former is the name which the municipality identifies itself with on its website (despite the URL, which like the roadsigns, is imposed by the national government). Additionally, there are 882,000 Google hits for Efrat, and only 96,600 for Efrata, not that that is really relevant. 129.98.194.133 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

illegality under international law

Ynhockey, you removed a section in the body and a line in the lead on the illegality of this settlement under international law on the basis that it was "undue". Could you please explain? A consensus was established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements that said, in part, that articles with multiple sections, if they contain a section on the legality in the body, should also contain a sentence in the lead. You removed the section in the body without any basis at all. Keep in mind that similar editing has brought other users extended topic bans. Please self-revert your edit in a timely fashion as it is made against an established consensus. nableezy - 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's if they contain a section on the legality in the body. Seeing as how you added the section, which should not be there in the first place, there is no problem to remove it. Moreover, if you continue threatening other editors on Wikipedia with bans, you will be reported. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is if. That if does not entitle you to remove a section so that you can remove the sentence from the lead. What is your justification for completely removing a well-sourced section? You cite WP:UNDUE. What position was not given its due weight in that section. But that aside, how exactly can you claim that such a section should not be included. I am not "threatening" you, but please feel free to report me. I am informing you that similar biased, and baseless, editing by other users has resulted in topic bans. I'll quote a line from the close of the discussion on the inclusion of such material: there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct. Your above comment on such a section not being included pretty clearly puts in you in "the body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted". You are entitled to feel that way, you are not however entitled to edit in such a manner. Absent actual evidence that WP:UNDUE justifies the wholesale removal of a well-sourced section on the illegality of this settlement under international law I will be restoring it. nableezy - 23:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ynhockey regarding the UNDUE nature of the overemphasis on the claimed illegality. Just going around to add the claimed illegal nature of the entities without adding anything else of substantive is the classic sign of a pov-pusher. If this continues it should be brought up to AE.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't a "classic sign of a pov-pusher". AE is for reporting violations of the discretionary sanctions rather than reporting people for implementing policy and an established consensus. I think there are a bunch of articles about settlements in the West Bank in the Religious Israeli settlements category where the legality information hasn't been added yet. Editors should be able to add the information to those without being accused of anything apart from helping to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and established consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"classic sign of a pov-pusher" in a comment that contains the following: "the claimed illegality", "the claimed illegal nature of the entities". That was just funny. nableezy - 12:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two people have now claimed that UNDUE allows for the removal of a section on the legal status of this colony. What in UNDUE supports this position? A simple statement that it just does is not a valid statement. I would rather not take this to AE, but, if you all have not noticed, I am not exactly shy and will do so if there continues to be such disruptive actions that disregards the consensus established on this issue. nableezy - 12:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring the section, as nobody has given any indication of showing how it violated UNDUE. If it is removed again, well, we'll see what happens. There is a clear consensus, in the WT link above, for the inclusion of this material. nableezy - 12:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, the burden of proof is on you why the section belongs, because you wanted to add it (it had not existed before your edits). Please show us why this section should be there, and a simple sentence is not enough. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When discussing a controversial edit, it's generally good form to give other editors sufficient time to reply before making the edit. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:BURDEN? The burden for inclusion is having verifiable sources, that is more than met. But I will, strictly to appease you, expand on why such a section should be included. The status of Efrat, indeed all settlements, under international law is one of the most notable aspects. Many sources, when even just mentioning a settlement such as Efrat, will say that settlements are illegal. For example this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Im sure you know I can go on like this for a while. WP:UNDUE says the following: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. The determination of due weight is based on the prominence of views in relation to each other. It means that a section should not include only one view and disregard another prominent one. It does not mean that you can reduce a section on the basis that the topic it covers has too much "weight". And even if it did, it does not allow for the wholesale removal of a reliably sourced section on grounds that there is an "overemphasis on the claimed illegality" of the settlement. WP:UNDUE would allow you, if there where an actual issue here (there is not), to add additional material from the viewpoint of those that dispute that the settlement is illegal, so long as you do not give that viewpoint a disproportionate amount of weight compared to the super-majority view that the settlement is illegal. But that due weight was already there, the sentence in the lead said Israel disputes the judgment and the section in the body gave a more detailed explanation of Israel's objection. Finally, there is an additional reason for the inclusion of the material. A consensus was established that said that this material should be covered in articles. That consensus stipulated that multi-section articles with a section on legality should include the line in the lead. A new game is apparently being played in which to remove the line from the lead the section from the body is also removed. That is not amusing, and very obviously goes against the consensus established in a months-long discussion. If you, or brewcrewer, do not like the fact that such a consensus was established you are free to attempt to establish a new one. However, you are not free to disregard what is the current consensus. Regarding your P.S, this is not a "controversial" edit. This is an edit that has the backing of an explicit consensus. You can also blame your pal's spurious removal of the NPOV tag for the restoration of the section. Yall dont get to violate NPOV and also remove a tag alerting others to the issue. nableezy - 13:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One last point. The close of the discussion that established the consensus for the inclusion of this material reads as follows:

I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles

This article is a "multi section article" and thus the single sentence belongs in the lead and it should be expanded upon in the body. The linked to discussion very clearly establishes a consensus for the inclusion of this line in the lead of this article and for the expansion of that material in the body. I await an actual reason as to why either UNDUE prohibits the inclusion of the section in the body or why the very clear close of that discussion does not apply here. nableezy - 19:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Why the removal of the photos: "PikiWiki Israel 6078 Efrat settlement.JPG", "View of Efrat from the highway (Efrat137 3773.JPG)" and "Roman aqueduct from Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem.jpg"? And 3 photos replaced by what? A hazy photo of an empty highway with a road sign, light poles and some snow with "beautiful downtown Efrat" barely visible in the distance. --@Efrat (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry that you don't like my choice of photos. If you look at how it was before, you'll see that I only replaced one “"beautiful downtown Efrat" barely visible in the distance” by another “"beautiful downtown Efrat" barely visible in the distance”, but one which has the advantage of showing the “road sign” reading 'Efratah' as mentioned in the article. I first put the "View of Efrat from the highway (Efrat137 3773.JPG)"- picture in the infobox, but then discovered the one with the snow. (Yes, I like snow.) One picture of the town is imo enough, it's not Paris, New York or even Tel Aviv, and I removed the "Roman aqueduct from Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem.jpg"-picture because 1, there is really no room for more than one picture, and 2, it dosn't say what the photo has to do with Efrat. But let's not fight about it, I'm perfectly happy with a different choice. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like snow, too, but you must agree that the quality of the picture is poor mainly because of the contrast. It is fine for giving a feeling of a bleak winter day, but this is not an article about weather. LOL. I do, however, have a much more serious problem with the photo from an editorial point of view. Focusing on the center of Te'ena Hill (a very small part of Efrat) with the huge antennas kind of gives the feel of an armed military camp. Efrat is a sleepy bedroom community (commuter town) though I know that many consider all towns in Judea and Samaria to be military camps. There is already text to satisfy that point of view. Do we also need a photo to clobber people over the head with that point? Especially since the photo focuses on one small part of the town to make such point. It borders on deceptive propaganda.

Efrat is about 5 km long. The photo "Efrat137 3773.JPG (View of Efrat from the highway)" at least shows a truer nature of the town's size, stretching into the distance along the ridge. I wish I could find a photo from the road sign at a different angle to inlude both Te'ena Hill and the rest of Efrat all at once. (As for the snow, Efrat only gets it once every few years for a day or two, so its really not indicative of its true nature, just an rare oddity.) I am fairly certain that some of the residents of the town will change the picture soon. Time will tell. --@Efrat (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think File:Efrat137 3773.JPG is better too. I wouldn't worry about the huge antennas though in the other picture. They don't say "military camp" to me, more like "inconvenient topography". Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not because I'm afraid of “some of the residents of the town”, but agreeing that the snowy picture of (part of) Efrata “borders on deceptive propaganda”, although not in the sense @Efrat meant it, I replaced the picture with the one you two prefer. And if anybody can give a referenced reason why the Roman aqueduct-picture belongs to Efrat, please add it, now that there is room for it, but I don't see any indication, that the picture was taken where Efrat stands today (s. here). Ajnem (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]