Talk:Liberalism in Israel

Shinui

The article should be updated to show that Shinui is not relevant anymore on the political scene. I think it would also be appropriate to discuss the reasons of its spectacular rise and fall and how/if this is related to a 'rise and fall' of liberalism in Israel and/or other factors. --Shuki 21:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's great that editors are updating this article. An unintended and positive side-effect of me nominating the article for deletion I guess. But please keep in mind that content must be sourced and if it isn't it should be deleted. ImTheIP (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

@Checco: It appears that you are one of the main authors of this page. If so, and if you want your content kept, you must provide sources for it, demonstrating that it is related to the topic, Liberalism in Israel. That the info is from linked articles is irrelevant - each claim needs to be backed up by its own inline citation per WP:V. I will not revert you now, to give you a chance to provide sources. But if you are unable to, the content must be deleted. ImTheIP (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The article was started by higly-respected User:Wilfried Derksen (now User:Electionworld) and the bulk of it, including the intro, was not written by me, but of course I largely contributed to the article over the years. There can definitely more sources, but please consider that this article is a timeline, which is basically a compilation of information taken from other Wikipedia articles. In the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberalism in Israel (result: keep), User:Gidonb wrote that "articles are evaluated by sources, not by references", while User:TimothyBlue correctly observed that "the article is also a timeline, so it functions as a list and does meet the criteria for WP:CLN to function as a chronological navigation list". One example: does really make sense to add a source for each and every election, when there is already a Wikipedia article on each election and those articles are properly linked in this article? However, I will take some time and add several inline sources, even though I strongly think that most of them are entirely redundant (you do not need references in templates, lists, etc.). --Checco (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Checco:, thank you for pinging me. I have watchlisted, but please ping me again if further questions arise I case I miss it. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  09:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to add references. Yes, sources must be added to all statements. WP:V reads All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Without references, incorrect information may be added to Wikipedia. For example, "Party X won Y seats in the Knesset in the 1988 election." If there is no reference, how can we know that the claim is true? Perhaps it only won Z seats or perhaps X is a socialist party and not a liberal party? ImTheIP (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

ImTheIP, No sources do not have to be added for each list element, V states, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." It says all material must be verifiable, not have an inline citation. List elements without target articles should have sources, but it is very common for navigation lists not to have references since the references establishing notability and content is verifiable in the list element target. If some material is likely to be challenged and the list element does not have a sourced target or a citation, tag the list element with {{cn}}. Insisting on sources for every element in a navigation list is creating unnecessary work.   // Timothy :: talk  12:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and WP:V specifically mentions lists and captions for exactly that reason. You may consider it extra work but our readers, who can be reassured that the information on Wikipedia is accurate, will thank us for it. ImTheIP (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Being verifiable is not the same as having an inline citation. You can add all the refs you like, but do not misinterpret V as an excuse to delete elements from navigation lists.   // Timothy :: talk  12:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article is more in the line of a navigation list of sorts, and that the important information required for the article itself need not necessarily be referenced within this article; keeping the sources within the subject articles linked to (i.e. those of the various political parties and organisations mentioned) would be fine. Also, in the meantime, I would ask for the timeline in the article to be left as it is without content deletions while additional sources may be added.--Autospark (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikipedia defines what a "navigation list" is. In any case, the sections of this article forms a timeline and are certainly not exempted from WP:V. I will not delete content for now, but as I wrote in November "content must be sourced and if it isn't it should be deleted." ImTheIP (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The guideline for timelines and navigation is WP:CLN. No one is claiming the items are exempt from WP:V. Being verifiable is not the same as having an inline citation.   // Timothy :: talk  11:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)