Talk:Ariel University

current event

ariel declaring itself a university august 2007, added in + name change. Amoruso 11:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

status has officially not changed, and ramifications of the name change still unclear. --Shuki 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ariel College logo.PNG

Image:Ariel College logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

settlement this, settlement that

It's simply poor editing to reuse the same terms endlessly, besides the fact that here they are implied weasel word descriptors. I'm sure there is a better NPOV, linguistic, and professional way to state the fact that the educational institution has always been located in the same area. No one is denying it, please resist the urge to clutter up the article with it. I changed the word community to town, since Ariel was a town at that point, and community is otherwise vague or perhaps otherwise refers to a smaller residential organization of similar-interest people. As for 'country', it is simply misleading and purposeless, other than POV, to insist that 'country' in infobox is stated as Tiamut insists. --Shuki (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How are they "weasel words"? And country only shows up in the location, not represented as an actual country. It shows up as "city, country" with here it being "Areil, Israeli occupied West Bank". The POV push here is to make it seem like this is in a "town" in Israel. It is not. It is in an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. You could call that a "POV" but it is the "POV" of the overwhelming majority to the point that representing something else in its place is non-NPOV. nableezy - 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ariel University

I understand the enthusiasm but it's not yet a university but another important step forward. Please resist the urge to give Nableezy a reason to rack up more edits in his position of enforcer of Israel. --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Try to not mention my username. nableezy - 03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

notable detail: "Two weeks ago, Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister and leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, threatened to block all legislative proposals from Labor unless Ariel College’s upgrade was approved."[1] 194.106.43.95 (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

university is in Israeli occupied territory

Therefor the category is correct: [2] Its not pov when its the entire worldview that its occupied. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian territory cat

Shuki, nobody said this was a Palestinian institution. It is however in the Palestinian territories, specifically the West Bank. Please explain why you removed the cat. nableezy - 22:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Claiming it is in the PA territories is wrong (Area C) or otherwise misleading and false. The reader using the cat would assume that it is a PA institution. --Shuki (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It says "Palestinian territories" which is what the West Bank is a part of. You have a severe misunderstanding of what Area C is, it is a part of the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 23:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

outside of Israel

Built by Israel, operated by Israelis, and the Israeli flag flies there. To say it is outside of Israel is a bit misleading and confusing to the reader. --Shuki (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Being built, operated, or having the flag of Israel does not mean it is in Israel. It is not misleading in the slightest, the only person misleading others here is you. nableezy - 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Did I edit the article to say it is in Israel? No. (though that is an issue of semantics anyways) But it is certainly not in the Palestinian Authority territories. Please stop the inconsistent random POV. --Shuki (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your agenda. Ariel is in the West Bank, somewhere internationally recognised as part of the Palestinian Territories.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice how Shuki keeps adding "Authority" to "Palestinian territories"? Nobody said the PA controls Ariel, what we have said is that it is within the "Palestinian territories". That is not something that can be disputed. nableezy - 14:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My agenda and WP is NPOV and I will push it as you should. Per Peter's claim, then we should be moving all cats of 'in Palestinian Territories' to the more NPOV '...in the West Bank'? Nableezy, what is wrong with that? The PA is beyond any doubt the only recognized ruling body of the Palestinians. Can't wait to see what you edit when your 24h are up at 23:45, 4 April 2010 --Shuki (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So it is "NPOV" to pretend these places are not in occupied Palestinian territory? Or that the Golan is part of Israel? Come off it. nableezy - 16:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice dumb question. Why are you trying to provoke me? That's going back to your disruptive period. ANyway, NPOV might probably move all '...in Palestinian Territories' cats to '...in West Bank'. On all Israeli and Palestinian articles. Could you handle that? --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so long as those "in the West Bank" cats are subcats of "in the Palestinian territories" and not subcats of "in Israel". And it is not a dumb question, it was directly addressing to truly silly assertion that calling these places "in Israel" as you repeatedly have done is NPOV. nableezy - 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion located in the West Bank outside of the Green Line that marks the armistice lines between Israel and the Jordanian-held West Bank. is a rather obfuscated and verbose way of stating Israeli-occupied territory / occupied Palestinian territory, which is, imo, the NPOV and RS consensus descriptor we should be using. There is only 1 country which sees it differently, and to use their preferred verbiage runs afoul of WP:GEVAL. It is not pov pushing to advocate clear, accurate and widely accepted terminology. Unomi (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, some clear thinking from Unomi. The WP:LEAD is not the proper location for a political discussion. In fact, it should merely say 'this college is in Ariel' and then expand on all the issues later. I am not deny issues or trying to remove them from article. Whether territory is occupied or Palestinian or Jewish or Israeli is not the scope of this article. --Shuki (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

But you say it is "the largest Israeli public college" and link to Israel, implying it is inside of Israel. That is an extreme minority position that you assert as a fact without giving any space for the super-majority view. If you want to say it is the largest public university accredited by the Israeli Ministry of Education, or whatever, say that. Not what you are saying now. nableezy - 00:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not about scope of the article, this isn't a matter of theoretical discussion, it is the world consensus, giving any other impression regarding the status of its location is misleading and fails WP:GEVAL. Unomi (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the discussion runs in circles. We are not allowed to say College in Israel, and mentioning 'Israeli college' also is accused of being misleading. So instead we say 'college operated by residents of Israel thought the college is not in Israel and outside the armistice lines of 1949 after Israel came to a cease fire with Jordan and Jordan began occupying the West Bank'?

This is the international view, and more simple and direct for the reader. [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The other version is much more detailed and accurate and less contentious. It looks like you want it to sound a certain way which will always trigger users to change and edit war about it. Makes no sense. Amoruso (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• In my opinion located in the West Bank outside of the Green Line that marks the armistice lines between Israel and the Jordanian-held West Bank. is a rather obfuscated and verbose way of stating Israeli-occupied territory / occupied Palestinian territory, which is, imo, the NPOV and RS consensus descriptor we should be using. There is only 1 country which sees it differently, and to use their preferred verbiage runs afoul of WP:GEVAL. It is not pov pushing to advocate clear, accurate and widely accepted terminology. Unomi (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) <-- Unomi (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

occupied-paletsinian Land is highly POV. there are many legal scholars who see the land as both disputed and under occupation. Nobody says the land must become part of the Paletsinian state. When you decided to add TERRITORIES, OCCUPIED, AND PALESTINIAN, you were pushing your POV. in fact, territories would have sufficed, west bank suffices, and occupied territories even suffices more. green line is the best though for NPOV and accuracy. Amoruso (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I can only refer you to the ICJ:

“ The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power. ”

It absolutely is internationally recognized as occupied territory. Unomi (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The ICJ can only make advisory opinions and recommendations. The wall case in particular has been criticized as political. On July 13, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution HR 713 deploring:

“ the misuse of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)... for the narrow political purpose of advancing the Palestinian position on matters Palestinian authorities have said should be the subject of negotiations between the parties." The Resolution further noted that twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had "submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case. ”

Amoruso (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people criticized it, I don't think many seriously disagrees with their findings though. If so, explain to me why 150 countries voted that Israel should obey the findings and why it is that the US State Dept, the UK Foreign office and of course the ECJ and UN refer to it as occupied territory? Binding or not doesn't make any difference, they were competent to make an assessment regarding extant laws and Israels compliance with it. Unomi (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The ICJ makes determinations on international law and advises the UN, either the SC or the GA. Hence the term "advisory". The ICJ was unanimous in saying that the territory is occupied. And quoting from a House resolution, something that truly is meaningless, doesnt help advance your position. nableezy - 02:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more meaningful than the ICJ wall decision, i.e. political propaganda not taken seriously by anyone, largely antisemitic as well, that has almost no bearing on international law. The U.S. response explains it very well. Amoruso (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The highest judicial body in the world in dealing with international law says, flatly and unanimously, that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory and you say that is "political propaganda". And then you bring the US House of Representatives, an actual political body, passes a resolution that has absolutely no consequence anywhere on the planet, including the United States, and say that means something? Sorry. And yes, some countries felt the ICJ should not have heard the case, but there hasn't been any serious challenge to the basic aspects of the actual decision. But good luck making the argument the ICJ is "political" and the US House of Representatives is not. nableezy - 02:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Both are political and both are regarded that way. Not a judicial body at all - it's a political organ of the UN that gives advisory opinions based on a political format. it's not a supreme court. THE UN, THE ICJ AND THE SEPARATION BARRIER: WAR BY OTHER MEANS. Gerald M. Steinberg is a good article to begin with. The referral itself rejected an earlier draft that asked for a limited legal opinion and it turned into a political one - so the mandate that was given to the ICJ along with Egyptian judge and the others, if you look at the original proposal, was a political one per se. in general though, nobody will take seriously the ICJ decision as having any legal authority or coherence over this issue. Posner found strong evidence that (1) ICJ judges favor the states that appoint them and that (2) judges favor states whose wealth level is close to that of the their own states. I'm not interested in continuing any discussions with you.... just try to calm down your extreme POV bias. The accepted legal position about these territories (Judea and Samaria) is that Israel's rights are more of simply an occupant, because Jordan and Egypt's actions were illegal to begin with. There are many references to this fact[Yehuda Z. Blum, Schwebel etc]. It does not mean, that the relative human rights provisions do not apply (Israeli courts' opinion), but occupation is definitely inaccurate. Amoruso (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted your BLP vio above. Please dont restore it. And there are many more sources, and better sources, that say flat out the Israeli position, that because there was no soveriegn state who controlled the West Bank or Gaza prior to 67 that it is not occupied, is completely specious and without any founding in international law. In fact the ICJ explicitly rejected that outright. nableezy - 03:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The ICJ cannot reject it, because it was a poltiical decision and not a legal decision. Israel did not accept that forum, nor did the U.S. nor did 30 other countries who had objections to its authority. Its decisions are systematically biased, like I explained to you above, and like Posner has proven. Leading international scholars have determined that Israel exerted its right of self defense and it's not the same as an occupying power since its position is better than the former belligerent parties. The best source to this are ones I gave you above. Amoruso (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if, we accept the premise that erecting a wall is an act of self-defense, that still does not mean that they get to do it on occupied territory, which remains the world consensus opinion, quite frankly Amoruso, you seem to be flailing here. It is true that the 1 American judge who refrained from ruling with the majority (dissenting would be too strong to call it) stated that he did so on the basis of considerations of self-defence. But on the point of it being occupied territory he was with the unanimous (as I remember) majority. The problem with the wall was not the construction of it in general, but that it was built on Israeli-occupied territory. Unomi (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court of Israel has ruled on multiple occasions that the West Bank is held by Israel in a state of belligerent occupation. Zero^talk 05:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The self defense is the reason why the area is not occupied, not the wall. Zero is of course wrong. The Supreme Court policy is that the area is classified as occupation only to the extent of human rights provisions and the Geneva Convention but not more. This has been explicitly explained by the supreme court. Israel's position has not changed since 242 and Eugene V. Rostow explaining it. So while true that the court uses the term "occupied territory" it explained time and again, and in the original verdict, why's it's doing that - it chose to do that in order to upheld human rights. It's not an issue of soverignity, and it doesn't call the area "Palestinian territory". Also note that this doesn't include East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights which are inside Israel according to the law and the courts. Amoruso (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Israeli law and Israeli courts, perhaps, but that is still a fringe minority view. Unomi (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. And while true that people use the term occupied (it still might be POV and WTA like "terrorist") it doesn't make it Palestinian in any way shape or form. Amoruso (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reprinted from elsewhere) Amoruso claims that the High Court of Israel does not regard the Territories as under Belligerent Occupation (occupatio bellica). Let us see how this claim compares to the words of the High Court itself. The following are official English translations.

• Case 69/81 (1981): "The legal principles embraced by the Supreme Court on subjects arising in the occupied territories are those of customary international law which gives force also to the local courts in the occupied territories according to Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, adopted in the security legislation."
• Case 785/87 (1987): "the Respondent continues to hold the territory by force of belligerent occupation and is subject to the laws of customary international law that apply in war-time."
• Case 7015/02 (2002): "Judaea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip are effectively one territory subject to one belligerent occupation by one occupying power" ... "The two areas are part of mandatory Palestine. They are subject to a belligerent occupation by the State of Israel." (In another case after the Gaza "disengagement", the court decided that the Gaza Strip is no longer under belligerent occupation.)
• Case 10356/02 (2002): "Israel’s belligerent occupation of the occupied territories is subject to the main norms of customary international law that are enshrined in the Hague Convention."
• Case 769/02 (2003): "The territories of the area of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are under belligerent occupation by the State of Israel"
• Case 2056/04 (2004): "Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation."
• Case 7957/04 (2005): "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation."
• Case 6659/06 (2008): "the territories that are under the belligerent occupation of the State of Israel (Judaea and Samaria)."

I've copied some statements which are especially clear and unqualified, but there are many other cases (continuing to the present) where the laws of belligerent occupation are explicitly evoked regarding Israel's legal position in the Territories. One can also see that in all the cases I listed (and it is also true of all the others I looked at) that the state of Israel does not argue before the court against this interpretation. It is also seen that the court regularly uses the phrase "occupied territories" (and there are many more examples than I gave).

As for the Geneva Conventions, the issue is not whether the situation is belligerent occupation (which is accepted by both the court and the state) but whether the particular provisions regarding belligerent occupation which appear in the 4th Geneva Convention apply. Several of the judgments listed above state that distinction very careful. The court repeatedly notes this issue and avoids ruling on it, just as it refused (case 4481/91) to make a general ruling on the legality of the settlements. Amoruso's version of this is completely false. Zero^talk 14:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Zero's irrelevant quotes don't add anything. I don't dispute that the Israeli courts are using the words "belligerent occupation" to explain Israel's control of the West Bank. They don't call it Palestinian. This is the correct Israel Court position: נקודת המוצא העקרונית של כל הצדדים היתה – וזו אף נקודת המוצא שלנו –

occupatio ;belligerent occupation) כי ישראל מחזיקה באזור בתפיסה לוחמתית 505 ; בג"ץ ( ראו בג"ץ 619/78 "אל טליעה" שבועון נ' שר הביטחון, פ"ד לג( 3 ) (bellica 197 ; להלן – פרשת אבו ( 69/81 אבו עיטה נ' מפקד אזור יהודה והשומרון, פ"ד לז( 2 113 ; להלן – פרשת איוב; בג"ץ ( עיטה; בג"ץ 606/78 איוב נ' שר הביטחון, פ"ד לג( 2 393/82 ג'מעית אסכאן אלמעלמון אלתעאוניה אלמחדודה אלמאוליה נ' מפקד כוחות צה"ל 785 ; להלן – פרשת ג'מעית אסכאן).Amoruso (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

good explanation here

במלחמת ששת הימים נתפסו ירושלים "המזרחית" ויהודה ושומרון על - ידי צבא ההגנה לישראל. בירושלים "המזרחית" הוחלו "המשפט, השיפוט והמינהל של המדינה" (ראה סעיף 1 לצו סדרי השלטון והמשפט (מס' 1), תשכ"ז-1967). שונה הייתה הגישה לעניין יהודה ושומרון. המשפט, השיפוט והמינהל של ישראל לא הופעלו ביהודה ושומרון (בג"צ 390/79; בג"צ 61/80). יהודה ושומרון מוחזקות על-ידי ישראל בדרך של תפיסה צבאית או "תפיסה לוחמתית" (BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION). באזור הוקם ממשל צבאי, אשר בראשו עומד מפקד צבאי. כוחותיו וסמכויותיו של המפקד הצבאי יונקים מכללי המשפט הבינלאומי הפומבי, שעניינם תפיסה צבאית. על-פי הוראותיהם של כללים אלה, כל סמכויות הממשל והמינהל מוחזקות בידיו של המפקד הצבאי (בג"צ 619/78). סמכויות אלה יש שהן יונקות מהדין, אשר שרר באזור בטרם התפיסה הצבאית, ויש שהן יונקות מחקיקה חדשה, שהוחקה על- ידי המפקד הצבאי. במקרה הראשון מפעיל המפקד הצבאי סמכות שלטונית מקומית קיימת. במקרה השני מפעיל המפקד הצבאי סמכות שלטונית חדשה

Israeli Supreme court views correctly that the law applied is that of "belligerent occupation" as opposed to "East" Jerusalem where the law applied is Israeli. It's not an issue of legitimacy or sovereignty - it's an issue of which law to apply. Amoruso (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly about sovereignty. Judging that a region is under "belligerent occupation" implies that it isn't under Israeli sovereignty. You are right about one thing though: the court does not call it "Palestinian". So the court rulings by themselves support "occupied territory" but not "occupied Palestinian territory". Regarding what you wrote above, the court writes נקודת המוצא העקרונית של כל הצדדים היתה – וזו אף נקודת המוצא שלנו when it is going to apply a principle it doesn't want to rule on, such as the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Conventions. (It can't make a blanket ruling on the 4th Geneva Convention since it includes a ban on settlements, so the government helps out by conceding just enough of 4GC to cover the current case.) Plenty of my examples above do not have this formula or a similar one. Zero^talk 08:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely false on all accounts, but I won't get into it now - I don't want to talk about a conflict related issue - it's just your misunderstanding of what I said which was all true. anyway, it's off-topic. Bye. Amoruso (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me just reiterate that the rest of the world views the Israeli position regarding the defacto annexation as null and void. But thank you for making the point that Israeli courts do see the rest of the territories as occupied. Unomi (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This should not be a Talmudic issue. It is located in the West Bank. The West Bank is the eastern part of the Palestinian territories. Unless it is an embassy, it is legally in the Palestinian territories. The United States occupied Germany for 45 years and during that time many American schools and extension universities wee located in the country, but none of them was considered to be legally located in the United States. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, that comparison simply did not win me over. --Shuki (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, is there any doubt in your mind that the world view is that it is in occupied territory? Unomi (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

'worldview' is not a policy or guideline on WP. NPOV is. And so is the importance of good editing. Frankly, if Israel was so wrong on this as you continue to single it out, then a very long time ago, the world would have invaded and forced Israel off that alleged occupation, or at the minimum started isolating it with sanctions. In reality, these are disputed territories which the world has decided will be discussed at negotiations. So calling Ariel 'Palestinian Territory' is a POV that you can have, but not impose on WP. --Shuki (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do see WP:GEVAL, we have presented numerous high quality sources that all call it occupied territory. Yes the final status will be discussed at negotiations, until then it is Israeli-occupied territory. It is that simple. If you take issue with the sources, or you want to present counter sources, fine, but at the moment you seem to simply be ignoring discussion and trying to impose a WP:FRINGE pov on wikipedia. Unomi (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

NOTFORUM

Unfortunately, this has merely turned into a general internet chat and not relevant to the article itself. Several users strive to insert boilerplate POV to clutter the article lead instead of wanting to improve and clean up the lead to a concise intro. That is what should be discussed. Take the other discussion to a general I-P location for more visibility. --Shuki (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we were just trying to accommodate Amoruso and trying to get to the bottom of his argument and its relative merits. It is not quite clear to me if there are still editors who are arguing that it is not located in occupied territory or not? Unomi (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#General_discussion_on_Israeli-occupied_territories. where at this point the consensus affirms that these areas should be clearly identified as being Israeli-occupied. Please do join the discussion and please do honor consensus opinion. Unomi (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

West Bank is not misleading in the least. there's no neeed to politicize every article. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not politicizing to state the facts, simply saying that it is in the west bank is misleading the casual reader. Unomi (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Which facts youy choose can certainly politicize an article, as you are doing here. How is the West Bank misleading? Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Because not all of the west bank is directly occupied in the sense that the land where this facility is located. It is precisely the lack of such indication which is an extreme WP:GEVAL failure, please see WP:SOAP and recognize that wikipedia is not meant to be a vehicle for promoting the fringe views of the GOI. Please join the discussion above so we don't have to repeat the same arguments over an array of articles. Unomi (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow you. All of the west bank is occupied, AFAIK. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see West_bank#Settlements_and_international_law. Unomi (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have. It says nothing about parts of the WB not being occupied. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to argue that it is all occupied then so be it, I do not see how that affects our duty to indicate that it is. Unomi (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agian, I don't follow- You said that just saying 'West Bank' is somehow misleading, since not all the WB is occupied. That it wrong - it is all occupied, and you have failed to show anything that says otherwise - but you still claim it is misleading? How so? Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick, there are parts of the WB which are under Palestinian Authority, and then there are parts which are not. I trust that you agree that the area of the WB where this facility is located is not under PA? My argument was that the casual reader deserves to be made to understand that it is Israeli-occupied territory. It sounds like you are arguing that since it is all occupied then we don't need to state that it is occupied? Unomi (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Shuki, could you explain your exact objections to this version of the lead? You again say it is an "Israeli public college" and link to the article on Israel, implying it is in Israel. And you go even further with imposing favored language ahead of international standards with your description of where it is. Why? nableezy - 02:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you see what is in the lead of other similar articles and try to keep that sort of standard here and on other articles as well. NPOV and especially AGF is very easy to uphold this way. Using confusing wording and redundant descriptions in the lead is unnecessary and reduces quality. Should be simple and to the point without adding extra commentary. Honest question to Nableezy, ani medjool, and Unomi, please answer since you have avoided it elsewhere: Would it be legitimate and productive for me to go add similar information and change the wording on Palestinian college/university articles from near Ramallah, Palestinian territories to near Ramallah, Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories? --Shuki (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not have a problem saying that a Palestinian university near Ramallah is in the "Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories" or "Israeli-occupied West Bank". And I have not avoided such a question, please dont write such untrue things. And you did not answer my questions as to what objections you have. nableezy - 05:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you not adding this to all other colleges? FWIW, I think it clutters all articles. You ask questions I answer. YOu refuse to allow us to put 'college in Israel' and you refuse to allow us to put 'Israeli college'. I am using the wording similar to 'Israeli settlement' which you have argued in the past does not mean 'settlement in Israel'. Can you make up your mind? The college is administered independantly by a president, dean, directors, trustees, etc... not the Ministry of Education. --Shuki (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have explained this to you before, "Israeli settlement" has a specific meaning, it is a noun-phrase. It is not simply the noun settlement with the adjective Israeli. In "Israeli college" "Israeli" is an adjective. The parallel you are drawing is not real. Ill change "administered" to "accredited", that is accurate right? nableezy - 04:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is your understanding of the English language. Please edit the lead in this article like you would other Israeli university articles and do not add redundant unnecessary information about accreditation. --Shuki (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, why do you insist on keeping this article saying that it is an "Israeli" college and linking Israeli to Israel. This place is not in Israel, and you have yet to make any attempt to not push an extreme right wing expansionist view in this and any number of other articles. nableezy - 20:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a good compromise. Since 'in Israel' is not accepted here, we merely say Israeli college, and yes a wl to Israel is quite standard in WP. It is certainly not a Palestinian college, and it is in Area C, no Palestinian areas. Please read the previous discussion, and please avoid inserted awkward - accredited by ... No other Israeli college has this ridiculous wording in the lead. --Shuki (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Who agreed to such a "compromise"? I dont see anybody agreeing to that. "Israeli college" carries the exact same connotation as college in Israel. And yes, a wl is standard, provided the linking article is what is meant. You are linking to the article on the country, and then trying to play cute and say but I am not saying it is in the country. If you want to link to Israeli people that might be better. nableezy - 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oy gevalt. Back to battleground Nableezy I see. Your suggestion is unreasonable. You yourself wish to include wording saying that it is accredited by Israel, now you are denying that the Israeli government (Ministry of Education) is involved and inferring that it is a private initiative by 'Israeli people'. C'mon. --Shuki (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem saying the Ministry of Education is involved, you reverted that to. This is not in the country named Israel, and linking to the article on the country named Israel is inappropriate. nableezy - 21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So what you are essentially saying is that we are not allowed to link Israel to this article? I assume you have a good WP policy to back this claim up. Please provide it to us. --Shuki (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT. You cannot present an extreme minority view as a fact in a Wikipedia article. By linking to the article on the country you are implying that it is a part of the country, and that is not so much an extreme minority view but a nearly non-existent that no serious sources make. nableezy - 21:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not the issue. Can you take part in a mature discussion? --Shuki (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the issue. Can you act like an adult? nableezy - 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, going back to the old 'I know you are but what am I?' To other editors, this discussion should be on Nableezy's talk page, but he bans editors from editing and delete any attempt there of discussion.--Shuki (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, your question was could I participate in an mature conversation. That is dependent on you acting like an adult. If you can act like an adult we can have a mature discussion, if you cant then the conversation wont be mature. nableezy - 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

resumed

Continued from the above, oddly, the use of the link Israel in "Israeli public university" is problematic. If it is "Israeli" based on the fact that its faculty and student body are (largely?) Israeli citizens, then the link should be to Israeli. If it is because it is, as a prior edit summary reads, "a public college funded and recognized by the State of Israel", then the link should be to Ministry of Education (Israel) (which I just changed it to). The only reason to include the link to Israel is to claim that this college is "Israeli" in that it is in Israel. If that is not the claim being made then one of these other links should not be objectionable to any good faith editor. But if that is the claim being made, that this college built in occupied territory outside of Israel is "in Israel", then we have a different problem. nableezy - 03:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the piped link to Ministry of Education (Israel) is a good solution. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This may not be the best analogy but it's the first that came to my mind: Are American oil companies in Iraq not "American oil companies" just because their operations are in another country? The insistence that the Ariel college not be labeled "Israeli" because it's in the West Bank is puzzling, because that would mean that the offices of any business headquartered in one country but also existing in another couldn't be described as belonging to the actual country that the owners are from. The Ariel college is an Israeli college according to the most immediately accessible definition of the term Israeli, i.e. "of or relating to the State of Israel." Or maybe this is a better analogy: Hapo'el Yerushalayim is an Israeli team because, even though it's in Jerusalem etc. etc., it's part of Israel's basketball league, its owners are Israeli, and it represents Israel in international competitions.

And as an aside: Is this ever going to end? I mean, should I expect to have to squander so much of my energy on Wikipedia hopping from one Discussion page to another ad perpetuum, just to have these relatively trivial debates with yother editors over which synonym is more neutral and which wikilink should be piped for the word "Israeli"? How can anyone possibly keep up and still have time left for making meaningful contributions to I/P articles, not to mention other areas of the Project? Or is that the whole point to begin with – to trap unwitting contributors into becoming SPAs?—Biosketch (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You arent expected to squander any energy following me around from place to place, in fact, you are expected not to. You choose to do these things. You can stop at any point, though there may be a point where you are forced to do so. I havent asked for that to happen yet because you have been just a minor annoyance. When the "minor" no longer is accurate, that may change. If you do not want to spend the time on such discussions, dont mindlessly follow me around to revert me. Actually, dont do that anyway, but if you are going to dont then cry about having to spend the time doing so. Regarding your "point". In case you have not noticed, the word "Israeli" is still used. That was not the issue, the issue was linking to the article on the country for a place outside of the country. nableezy - 12:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not start that again, especially considering this, this, this, and possibly this. I'll concede this wasn't an appropriate venue for me to have shared my frustration, so on to the matter at hand. Yes, the word "Israeli" is still used, which is why the wikilink isn't crucial, as long as the compromise is confined to this article and doesn't serve as a precedent across the board. The version before my edit, which had "Israeli" wikilinked to Israelis made no sense. Should attempts be made to edit other instances of Israeli factories/companies/military installations etc. such that the modifier "Israeli" is piped to Israelis, they will be objected to just as this one was.—Biosketch (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Object all you like, but when I see articles on subjects outside of Israel linking to the article Israel when they say they are "Israeli", I will correct them. nableezy - 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, my objection will depend on what you consider to be a correction in each case.—Biosketch (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Cats/naming

See my revert after much edit warring. Discuss->policy consistent consensus... Sean.hoyland - talk 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of reference to settlements

How is it justified? -asad (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A collection of accounts have sought to edit-war out of the article the term Israeli settlement when referencing the settlements of Ariel and Kedumim. There is clearly no consensus for this edit, yet experienced users are continuing to attempt to edit-war it out of the article. Please explain why the use of the term "Israeli settlement" is "unnecessary" or "subtle POV-pushing" or "well poisoning". And also why after the initial edit was reverted there were repeated re-reverts with not one user seeking to establish a consensus for their edit on this talk page. nableezy - 17:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

For my part, the same argument is comes up every time on whether or not to call something a settlement. I already know how this discussion might turn out -- a long discussion and back and forth between editors who have reliable sources and between editors how are trying to push a POV without any sources who attempt to reach there goal by exploiting loopholes in the English language. -asad (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

i think it is quite simple: it says 'west bank'. that overrides 'settlements'. no need to repeat and get into such details for every item. it would be like on the phillip morris page if it says 'richmond, va' and then later says 'former civil war capital' - not relevant for this article. you can say that ariel is a settlement on the ariel page, or on the 'every israeli jew living over the green line lives in a settlement' page. but no need on pages where that is not the topic. Soosim (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That philosophy is flawed because there are two types of living establishments in the West Bank -- the Palestinian cities, towns and villages, and the Israeli settlements. It is important the article distinguishes between the two. Heck, the reason why this article is even remotely interesting to the average person is because it talks about the only university in an Israeli settlement. -asad (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

thank you asad for making my point for me. you are exactly correct. since it can only black/white israeli/palestinian, and since this is an israeli university in the west bank, it can only be (according to you) a settlement. hence, superfluous. Soosim (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My point on naming is backed up by WP policy on reliable sources. Is your idea about readers having to assume something backed up by policy? -asad (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, you can't assume that the reader knows about the status of the West Bank. As far as the reader is concerned, the West Bank could be located in Israel (within the green line). It's actually quite natural for the reader to assume that as the lead says that it "is the largest Israeli public college". --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Soosim to a certain extent. And we do need to question the reasoning of inserting "settlement" repeatedly in infoboxes, image captions, multiple sections, and categories in any given article that has some relation to Israel. Editors may not realize they are impacting the readability and overall tone of articles to such a negative and unencyclopedic extent in their fervor to over clarify. Not everything that happens in Israel or around it needs to be about the conflict even if some feel that is the only thing the reader should take from articles about schools, parks, shopping, and other less tantalizing subjects. It has gotten old the reader can only assume that so many articles link to the conflict for the sake of linking to the conflict.Cptnono (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you read was reverted? It mentions on first reference to Kedumin and Ariel as being settlements, the second mention is plainly as "Ariel". If it is in the West Bank, there is an important distinction that must be made between the towns and settlements. But like I just showed you, that should only be taken care of on first reference, not all the way through the article. Plus, there are plenty of RS that back it up. -asad (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but settlements are part of the occupation. Universities built in settlements need to be identified as being built in settlements. We cannot assume a reader will be an expert and always make the connection that an Israeli university built in the West Bank is part of a settlement.--TM 22:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only is Ariel a settlement, but it's also the subject of a boycott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_%28city%29#Theater_and_boycott because it's a settlement. So the fact that it's a settlement has WP:WEIGHT.

Objective WP:RS sources like the Chronicle of Higher Education http://chronicle.com/article/Despite-Controversy-Israeli/125423/ refer to it as being in a settlement, and think it's important enough to discuss the significance. This Chronicle article alone shows that the fact that Ariel University is in a settlement has WP:WEIGHT.

Wikipedia is written for the average reader, not the specialist, and unless a reader was familiar with the political situation, he or she would not know that Ariel is a settlement. The article has to state it explicitly.

I think that removing references to "settlement" is WP:CENSOR censorship. --Nbauman (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus is clearly for inclusion of the improtant fact. There is no description of what Kedumin is and the reference to the subject being founded there as the "regional" branch of an Israeli university would give most people the idea that it was in Israel rather than in a colony. The qualification does something to neutralise the WP:WEASEL element of "regional".--Peter cohen (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The problematic status of this university as being located in a settlement is one of the most notable things about it and obviously has to be mentioned. Zero^talk 01:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And I don't agree I was reverted yesterday when I wanted to point a radical views of some professor that was mentioned explicitly in source [[4]].If the reader want to know about where it located and what is the political status he can read about Ariel itself.--Shrike (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy the discussion of weight even if you guys are not understanding what "weight" (in a Wikipedia sense) means. Weight has nothing to do with saying it is in a settlement or not. Weight has to do with giving prominence in the prose to one viewpoint over another. Screaming"SETTLEMENT!!!" (which is what is done throughout the topic area if we want to use a little hyperbole) has nothing to do with weight or verifiablity but instead POV. The tone of articles has been skewed to the point that NPOV (what weight is part of by the way) takes back seat to encouraging the reader to only comprehend one aspect of the subject. Go ahead and discuss the boycott and occupation in the prose but wikilinking to settlements at every given opportunity is not what weight is about. It reads as if it is an attempt to steer the reader away from certain aspects (an educational institution) and towards something else. So instead of talking about weight how about you counter the argument that readability and tone (just as important and even part of NPOV) are being disregarded.Cptnono (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

captnono - well said. Soosim (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The word "settlement" is mentioned no more than two times in the lead. That is not "screaming settlement". --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is what relevance the political status of the city has to this article about the college. The article certainly hasn't established that it's in any way pertinent. Also, remember that the editor who started this little episode did try to push three instances of "settlement" into the lead – here and here. It's precisely that kind of nonconstructive ax-grinding that keeps drawing us into these time-squandering disputes.—Biosketch (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's your pertinence - [5] -asad (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That isnt exactly the start. The start of this little episode has been a collection of IPs have been removing the term settlement and claiming that this is a college located in Israel in a place they call "Judea and Samaria". Then some named accounts began, thinking they would be able to force through favored phrasing by sheer force of numbers, edit-warring without even attempting to discuss the issue. One of those users has yet to be seen on this talk page. nableezy - 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I have said many times prior in this thread, there is an absolute need to distinguish between the Palestinians cities, towns and villages, and the Israeli settlements. If you don't see a need to differentiate between the two, that shows the kind of POV nature you are bring to this dispute. I am not going to waste my time and bring in a bunch of reliable sources showing that many news organizations and others mention that Ariel is a settlement at least one time in reference to the university, you can do that simply by googling " "settlement" "ariel" university west bank ". -asad (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevance and notability are determined by the sources; whatever reliable sources choose to emphasize and focus on, that is what we are supposed to follow. You can look at any collection of sources about Ariel University (for example, I just looked at all the articles in the past few years in a subscription news archive) and you will find that the controversial nature of the university derived entirely from the fact that it is located in a settlement is one of the most commonly noted facts about it. If we suppress that fact here, we are distorting the sources. Two uses of the word "settlement" are actually few few. I'd be happy with one, provided it is applied to Ariel. Zero^talk 10:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Kedumin must be noted as a settlement as well though. -asad (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at WP:WEIGHT:

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.

Most of the WP:RS -- for example, the Chronicle of Higher Education http://chronicle.com/article/Despite-Controversy-Israeli/125423/ -- bring up the fact that Ariel University is in a settlement. That's a significant viewpoint published by WP:RS. I think it belongs in a separate Controversy section. Agreed? --Nbauman (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

as i said, i think it is enough to put 'west bank' in the lead, and then yes, if you want to add a 'controversy'm section talking about how both kedumim and ariel are settlements, then let's see how that looks. Soosim (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the most notable things about this college is that it is constructed in an illegal settlement in occupied territory. This is seen in the way that sources invariably say that this college is located in a settlement. See for example this, or this, or this. To pretend that this is just a school in a village does a disservice to the reader and to Wikipedia. Despite the imaginations of some users, the word settlement is emphatically not repeated over and over. We identify Ariel as a settlement. That is pertinent information that only those who wish to pretend that Israel's colonies are simply normal villages without any controversy surrounding them would claim should not be included. The fact is that reliable sources make explicit mention of Ariel's status as an illegal settlement in occupied territory in the context of covering this college. We have to do the same. nableezy - 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refresh and read again WP:NOTFORUM discuss what source says not your own opinion on legality of Israeli villages in the administrative area of Judea and Samaria and more to the point the source says only one sentence about the legal status of Ariel with connection to the University what justify it being in lead and not breaching WP:UNDUE?--Shrike (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in my above comment violates NOTFORUM. Your comments on Israeli villages in the administrative area of Judea and Samaria dont matter here, what matters is that sources give the location of this college as being in a settlement, and often say that before anything else. Sources routinely give prominence to the fact that this is located in an illegal settlement in occupied territory. Why should this be in the lead? Because sources give that fact prominence, and it is one of the most notable things about this college. It is not as though there are that many colleges located in illegal settlements in occupied territory in the world. Read UNDUE carefully and quote what from it backs the view that we should not include the fact that this place is located in a settlement in the lead. nableezy - 16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

All this wikispeak above. I think your reasoning is a little off, Shrike, since UNDUE does not exactly deal with prominence of facts even though it is often mislinked to assert that. I actually considered NOTABILITY when chiming in way up above but decided not to since that has to do with article creation. The real problem is POV. COATRACK is part of NPOV and NOT points to NPOV. Wikipedia is not here to make a point but wikilinking to settlement everywhere distracts the reader and entices them to leave the article to look at another subject (politics as opposed to education). We also do not need a whole section for controversy. But a "History" section with discussion of the settlement issue is of course something I would support. Many editors feel that institutions of higher learning or worthy of notice for an independent article so I assume that this article would be here even without the coverage from sources discussing the settlement issue. That is why I think we need to try extra hard to not warp this into a political article or try to wikilink the reader away in the first few sentences. This article is about an institution and politics are part of its history That is much different then it being about how the institution plays into politics. I do agree with you, Shrike, that UNDUE (as in the "spirit" it is often understood) is a concern. But the issues of COAT and leading the reader with a general tone of negativity are the real problems. But to be extra clear: Yes, I think we should have some room for the sourced criticism of Israel that has had a negative impacted the university. I just don;t think we need to point the reader to politics in the first few lines. Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I am pretty sure policy on reliable sources overrides your assertion that wikilinking distracts readers. -asad (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Policy on reliable sources has nothing to do with the request. Care to address the reasoning provided?Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, will you be adding clarification to the Featured Articles about universities? See Duke University ("in Durham" not "in the city of Durham") and many others such as Florida Atlantic University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, Ohio Wesleyan University, Oriel College, Oxford, Shimer College, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, Tuck School of Business, United States Military Academy. One exception appears to be Georgetown. I assume it appears to the reader that the article is being politicized. I have no problem saying it is in a settlement somewhere in the lead even but not the first line since it reads weird and alters the tone of the article too much.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Clever trick trying to compare "City of xxxx" to "Settlement of xxxx". If it is backed up by RSs, how are you claiming it is POV? Is that your concern, or are you concerned with it sounding awkward? Because it sounds perfectly fine for me. -asad (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Boycotts in the lead

An editor removed as "POV" material in the lead on the various boycotts against the college. WP:LEAD specifies that notable controversies should be included in the lead, and further a section in the article should be summarized in the lead. Could somebody please explain what is "POV" about the removed material and why such disregard for the policies of this website should be tolerated? nableezy - 12:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on the Chronicle of Higher Education article, I think the boycotts are notable enough to include in the lead.

If the supporters of Ariel University want to do something about the controversy, they might expand the Controversy section using the Chronicle article to give more of the context. --Nbauman (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And now one user is claiming that the wording that the college has been boycotted due to it being in occupied territory in inaccurate (or not close to the text). And another account makes the truly bizarre edit that the West Bank is only "considered by some" to be in the Palestinian territories while once again removing the material on it being under occupation. The text says, explicitly, that the cause of the boycotts have been the result of the college being located in occupied territory. Please explain why this detail is being edit-warred out of the lead. nableezy - 13:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This has once again been removed. The edit summary shows the failure to understand the point, it is because the college is in occupied territory that there have been boycotts. And the {{cn}} is silly, there is an entire section that contains the citations for that sentence. See WP:LEADCITE. That edit should be reverted. The repeated removal of material on solely political grounds is not conducive to building an encyclopedia and is not in compliance with the discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 06:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Nableezy -- I think you may perhaps inadvertently confuse those readers who take what you wrote above at face value ... that is, if they don't check the guidance that you cite to. It stands for the precise opposite proposition of what you hold it out for.

It says, in pertinent part (emphasis added),

"The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged ... should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads..... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."

Clearly, by the controversy reflected above between you and other editors, this is a "controversial" subject. And therefore, by the terms of the very guidance you cite (in support of the opposite proposition), an inline citation is in order. You are accusing other editors of "failure to understand" and of being "silly", but simply checking the guidance you point to suggests that the opposite may well be the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for choosing to respond to the substantive issue here, that being the removal of the word occupied when discussing boycotts that were specifically targeting the college because it is in occupied territory. That is something that you yourself have done in this article, so perhaps you may want to consider justifying that edit here. If you want a citation in the lead it can be provided, but given that there are a number of citations already in the article about that specific point it can not possibly be a good faith request for an editor to put a cn tag on something like that. But, again, that is the secondary concern. The primary one is the repeated deletion of the word occupied, a deletion that is made with out cause, and as yet, without justification here. nableezy - 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy -- you made a completely misleading statement to the community as to what the wp guideline says. You raised the issue -- nobody else. While belittling whichever editor it was who made it.

And now you are complaining that your misleading statement has been pointed out?

You may want to consider supporting my assumption as to your statement, by saying: "Yes, when I made the misleading assertion it was inadvertent, but I agree that I misread the guideline, and of course was not seeking to mislead the community intentionally". This might perhaps be better than you failing to admit that you erred (inadvertently), and you reacting by complaining that someone has responded to your very own assertion. By quoting what the guideline actually says.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, thank you for completely ignoring the issue of substance here. To quote myself, the primary issue is the removal of the word occupied when discussing boycotts that were specifically targeting the college because it is in occupied territory. That is something that you yourself have done in this article, so perhaps you may want to consider justifying that edit here. To you plan on justifying your edit or not? Does anybody? The lead has a citation, and the request was very obviously made in bad faith, but that really does not matter anymore. Why was the word occupied removed? If this is not answered it will be restored. nableezy - 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As nobody has responded with a reason for the removal of occupied for five days now, I have restored that word. The boycotts are due to the occupation, and that cause should be included. nableezy - 13:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)