Talk:Almon, Mateh Binyamin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Legal section is not specific to this settlement[edit]

Your edit just doesn't make sense, Nableezy. If you think it's specific to the settlement then it should come after the land dispute section. That's how logic works. Placing it above it pushes the legal statement in the readers face because it's out of place. The encyclopedia should be striving for logical flow of content and quality presentation. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This violates NPOV. No other encyclopedia includes this information, let alone twice, let alone when its the only repeated information in the entire article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Violates NPOV???? Pray tell, what exactly in NPOV does this violate? Michael, unless you would like me to remark on what I think of your intentions, kindly reconsider your comment. Ill respond to the substance, what little there is, in the morning. nableezy - 03:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know what to say, Nableezy. If you don't see the POV push in how prominent the legal section was made, then we have a serious problem understanding each other. Adding a specification to Almon in a standard statement that appears twice in such a small article to justify placing it illogically and give it prominence, with a lengthened title so it's way disproportionate to the others, is so blatant an effort to give it undue weight that I have a hard time believing you don't see it. I've modified my comment but please don't hold back about what you think my intentions are. I just hope we can start discussing things in a more collaborative way and with an effort to understand each other. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim that the section was not specific to the settlement is demonstrably false. Prior to Brewcrewer's tendentious revert, the first sentence of the section read The international community considers all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, including Almon, to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on the transfer of an occupying power's civilian population into occupied territory.. The reason this should follow the history section is because the illegality of the settlement is a byproduct of its being founded in occupied territory. The land dispute section is not related to its status under international law, it makes no difference under GCIV whether or not the land expropriated for the construction of this colony was privately owned or if it was state land. What matters is that it was built in occupied territory. That is related to the history of the settlement. This game of claiming that anything that makes the Glorious State look anything less than lily white by moving any piece of material that is objected to on tendentious grounds to the end of the article is tiring and has no basis in any policy, especially NPOV. Due weight requires that we provide an appropriate amount of weight to a subject relative to its weight in reliable sources. The single most often noted piece of information about this settlement is that it is illegally built in occupied territory. NPOV dictates that this information be given the appropriate weight, and unfounded claims of it being disruptive to a logical flow of content remain baseless. nableezy - 16:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody plan on responding to these points? If not I will be restoring the section to where it logically fits. nableezy - 20:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'll respond. Here in the Guardian, a high quality mainstream reliable source, there's an article by Rachel Shabi about Almon that contains various information that may be useful. It doesn't take her very long to say "Like all Jewish settlements in the Palestinian West Bank, Almon is illegal according to international law" because that is what quality sources in the real world do. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The legal statement is a standard one placed on many other pages of settlements. Adding in the name of a settlement to suggest it makes it specific, does not make it specific. The source in the legal statement doesn't cite the Guardian article. It already appears in the lead anyway. There's no reason to push it as a POV and to have it disrupt the content of the article. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
How does saying that Almon is illegal under international law not specifically about Almon? It isnt a "POV" that Almon is considered illegal under international law, it is a verifiable fact backed by countless sources. You did not come close to addressing what I wrote. To make this easier on you, Ill repeat myself. The illegality of Almon is due to its being constructed in occupied territory, it is a function of its history. Not due to any "land dispute" over whether or not the land was privately owned before being expropriated for the building of this colony. As such, it belongs below the history section. Do you have any response to this? nableezy - 22:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Your words about the general illegality and not "land dispute" prove what I'm saying. You have the legal status in the lead, a section on the land dispute in the middle and another section on the legal status at the end. You don't have to push it any more by interrupting the text that's specific for the settlement and pushing the legal status disruptively to the middle. I've said this several times already, I think that's enough. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Im sorry, but you are simply ignoring the points made. To begin with, you did not answer the question How does saying that Almon is illegal under international law not specifically about Almon? Next, you ignore what I wrote about the illegality being a function of the settlement's history, and that is why it should follow the history section. You repeatedly make unsupported assertion after another, with yet another repetition of the somewhat absurd claim that the placement of the section following the history section is disruptive. You have indeed said it several times, but not once have you provided a reason for such a claim. So no, that isnt enough. nableezy - 01:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And done. nableezy - 16:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, you are required to justify your reverts. Simply saying This violates NPOV is not a justification. You failed to address the issues raised, namely that the illegality of this colony is a product of its establishment, that this is part of the history of the settlement. Address those issues or stop your tendentious and disruptive edits. nableezy - 17:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
MN and myself have explained our positions. We don't have to continue responding to you until you agree that our responses are satisfactory to you..--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I responded to his claim above, and have not had any response since. Again, you need to justify your revert. Just saying This violated NPOV does not do that. How exactly does placing the section below the history section violate NPOV? Respond to the points made or stop reverting. That isnt a difficult thing to comprehend. nableezy - 17:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
And brewcrewer, if you want to claim there is "no consensus for this change", there was no consensus for the pushing down the section to the end. If you cannot address the issues with your disruptive revert I will re-revert. nableezy - 20:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Nableezy, if you don't settle down and stop your political pushing and shoving, it'll not end well. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Funny. Really, laugh out loud funny. nableezy - 22:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody plan on actually answering the questions? Or is an RFC necessary here? nableezy - 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)