Talk:Psagot/Archive 1

Archive 1

legality

Could somebody explain what is "POV" or "undue" about the only referenced piece of information in this entire article? A certain editor, who we can all guess what their previous username was, has removed it on those grounds. nableezy - 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

what is that supposed to mean? if you have a kind of grudge against me it's fine but don't accuse me of something with out saying some evidence LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not addressing the issue and again reverting based on a bogus rationale. Here is what the source says:

Settlement of occupied territory is illegal under international law.
But the Settlers' Council has grand plans for the Psagot winery

Just for fun here are a few more:

• [1]: This is Psagot - what Israelis call a village and the rest of the world calls an illegal settlement.
• [2]: the heavily fortified illegal Jewish settlement of Psagot.

Unless you have a valid reason for removing the only sourced piece of information in this article I will be returning the line. nableezy - 23:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how inserting a superfluous line (or two) about the general legality of Israeli settlements into a two-line article about Psagot does not constitute undue weight. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a line about this specific settlement being illegal under international law sourced to an article on BBC discussing this specific settlement and saying it is illegal under international law. Explain how whitewashing that fact, a fact that is worded in a NPOV way by saying it is "considered illegal under international law", is consistent with NPOV which requires that all significant published views be included. nableezy - 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand how your argument is relevant to the question about undue weight.

Secondly, I am in favor of including all significant published views. Which significant published views about the geographical location, jurisdiction, population, founding year or the founders do you think are missing? (these are the facts currently mentioned in the article).

Back to undue weight—the article's 39 words (including prepositions, etc.) encompass at least 5 important facts about Psagot. If you feel that the legality is another important fact, feel free to mention it in 8 words or less (or even better, expand the article significantly and then add something about legality). However, the BBC source you provided says something different from the edit, and extreme-leftist The Guardian should not be used as a source for such claims, just as (I assume) you would not want to use Arutz Sheva as a source.

Moreover, I have a feeling that you have not read the BBC source. It actually gives both points of view, but you chose to only include one, in complete opposition to your own principle of "[including] all significant published views". I'm not even talking about the fact that the article is about the winery in Psagot, notable for the article, but apparently you are ignoring this completely to extract only the bit that suits your point of view. I propose that you use the source to improve the article (write about its winery) and in the process we can think of something regarding the legality issue. Until you make it clear that your goal is improving the article, I will have trouble supporting your edits about legality.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You "have a feeling" that I have not read the source that I introduced and quoted here? Interesting. I have a feeling you write things without thinking. Please quote what exactly I should have included from the other "point of view" that the BBC article includes. I have a feeling that you did not read the source and instead assume that like almost all BBC articles on settlements that this one contains the line "though Israel disputes this" (it doesnt). The Guardian is nowhere near the vicinity of Arutz Sheva as far as being a propagandist rag used by settlers and their supporters to question what real sources say. I dont much care if you support my edits about legality, and I dont care about the winery so I have no intention on adding anything about it. If you feel that information should be added to the article you add it to the article. What I do care about, the well documented fact that all Israeli settlements, and this one in particular, are illegal under international law, is what I will add to the article. You have yet to give a policy based reason for why you have removed, and apparently support an obvious sock continuing to remove, a sourced edit on the published viewpoint (in fact what you know is the super-majority view) that this settlement is illegal under international law. You can pretend that me adding a source and information from a source to an article that currently does not have a single source cited is not "improving the article" but that is and will remain a bogus charge not founded in any rational thinking. As far as you request that I do it in 8 words, fine. Psagot is illegal under international law. nableezy - 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

excuse me if you continue to make accusation about me we will have a problem do not call me "an obvious sock" you have no evidence. if you have it then please show to the world so we can settle this matter but otherwise it is a personal attack (see WP:NPA please) and this is not acceptable to me LibiBamizrach (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I will, dont worry. nableezy - 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This has come up before. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Legality and edit warring Cptnono (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. We now have gone from a simple, well sourced, statement of fact regarding the legality of this settlement in the lead of the article here to a a somewhat confused expression of an opinion that does not even accurately reflect the consensus of the "opinion" in the body but no mention in the lead. What at the was accepted as under an 8 word mention in the lead, due to weight concerns with the article's 39 words (including prepositions, etc.) that number was arbitrarily imposed, we now have 0 words in the lead when the article is over 170 words. Just lovely. nableezy - 23:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not as technically aware as you are to understand what you are saying now. As for the format issue, so how does repeating this claim twice in the same article make WP better? --Shuki (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Technically aware"? What does that even mean? Everything in the lead is repeated in the article, that is what a lead is. nableezy - 19:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus on this yet. The reasoning might be fine but it would be best if people stopped doing what they think is best without support from other editors.Cptnono (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a policy based reason to oppose an edit. Consensus does not mean that users can just say no. Not one policy based reason has been given for rejecting the edits. I am getting more than a bit fed up with seeing your username wherever I edit, from pages on Palestinians who died 30 years ago to isolated settlements with a handful of residents. There is no reason for you to constantly show up at articles that I edit. nableezy - 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus does not mean that users can just say no."

Actually, it does. That's based on policy—the consensus policy. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesnt, and I would expect an admin to understand this. You should really read the links you give before you lecture others on their contents. Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority. Policy based reasons are required, saying no is not a valid reason. nableezy - 21:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand one thing: How is the notion that "all settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories" are illegal relevant to this article? I never understood this part, hopefully someone can explain. We can have something about the legality of Psagot, but how is the legality of Ariel, for example, relevant here? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It provides an explanation. If you would rather go into some detail on why it is illegal, such as saying "as violating the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibitions on the transfer of civilians into occupied territory" then we can remove that bit. But just saying it is illegal without any explanation is useless. It does not inform anybody of anything. nableezy - 21:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy and guideline based reasoning has been provided. There are issues on how to present it and where to present it. A request to see if there should be a centralized discussion has already been made (linky up above) and multiple editors are discussing it. An editor also proposed a draft solution and put it on Nableezy's tlak page (which he rejected). At this time there is not consensus on how to handle it and it isn't simply "no". I actually haven't even provided an opinion since I thought it would boggle it up. I personally see no problem with a line in the body since the article has been expanded. I could see reasoning to limit it in the lead and only use the wikilink but also understand that leads need to be proper summaries. The line needs to be tinkered with it looks like since there is not consensus on how it should read. I don;t know the best way to word it.Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we need sections in such a tiny article? Does it make the article better, except providing a "cool" look? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think every article benefits from sections. The info isn't terribly long so I suppose we don't need them. I think that could potentially be trying to find a solution to the prominence of the duplicated lines that would negatively impact the article even more. Not sure though.

Also, can people stop tinkering with it until we have some sort of consensus? I know it is attempting especially when you might disagree with the current version. Things might go smoother if we take Shuki's advice and also use this talk page or the centralized discussion as intended.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs)

Irrespective of the discussion above, the information regarding its possible "illegality" should not be repeated twice in the article. If its the only content repeated in the article it smacks of a major POV violation.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is meant to summarize the article. If it is in the lead and not in the body you will just say that it cant be in the lead without being in the body. If it is in the body it should be in the lead as a notable controversy. Per WP:LEAD the lead should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. nableezy - 02:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, but you failed to notice the part about how the lede should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The repetition about the "illegality" in the lede while the only other information is the obsolete population numbers is not in accordance with the "appropriate weight" clause of WP:LEAD.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that is to adequately summarize the rest of the article, not remove the only thing in it that does so. nableezy - 02:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

But you put in the lead the very same thing that now found in body, so it is not summary. If you want to say the samething about this in both lead and body, then to "summarize" the stuff about other topics we should also just copy and paste same sentences into lead? So we have article that has 2 paragraphs identical repeated? LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, that is not true. The body said Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Psagot is illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. The lead summarized that and said Psagot is illegal under international law. Neither of those are paragraphs and they are not identical. nableezy - 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(ec) Contrary to popular opinion, I can't do everything around here. My edit improved the article. Prior to my edit the article was in violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. My edit removed the violation. If one of us has time or interest we can write up a proper lede. However, as you know quite well, Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy tells us that less information is better then non-neutral information.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. You will find nothing in WP:NPOV that justifies removing a notable controversy from the lead that fairly reflects the sources. nableezy - 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly do you claim that this has consensus here? nableezy - 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above discussion, not one editor has really agreed with anything you have proposed. I don't mean to be harsh, but that's just the fact.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

One person has objected to what you removed and nobody has commented on the weasel word you inserted. That, even under the most generous of assumptions of good faith, cannot honestly be called a "consensus". nableezy - 02:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair assessment of the discussion directly above us. Besides myself and Ynhockey, I see two other editors expressing displeasure with repeating the information, namely User:ElComandanteChe and User: Shuki. Not one editor has agreed with you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats probably because it isnt what I was assessing. The edit I asked you about, where you claimed a consensus on the talk page, is where you removed the part like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories and added considered to the line saying Psagot is illegal. One user, Yn, has commented on the like all ..., nobody has said anything about considered. Yet you claim, in the edit summary, that there is consensus on the talk page for that edit. nableezy - 02:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

the reason for the edit was explained in the edit summary.[3] speeches about other settlements seemed like the classic wp:coatrack. if you would like to offer an alternative to "considered", i'm all ears.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like new words put in. "Considered" by whom? It's not very helpful information to reader if it just says "considered". But I also did not agree with the last version either. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

i've reverted the readdition of the leaglity content in the lede. Brewcrewer is correct, this information is redundant in the lede while it is repeated in the history section word for word. article is about the settlement, not its legality. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

as i said about a similar edit at the Shilo, Mateh Binyamin article; maybe a new section covering legality with a link to the main article about the israeli settlements is warranted. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, almost all the information in the lead should be redundant with the body of the article. And the advice to "include notable controversies" in the WP:LEAD is anything but confusing. Moreover, legal status is a pretty basic item concerning a settlement. Often the first sentence will include something indicating status such as incorporated, unincorporated, unrecognized, etc.

Are you seriously arguing that the status of Psagot under international law is not any of the following: a basic fact about Psagot; a notable controversy about Psagot; an adequate summary of a legal status section which could become longer than it is now? For any one of those reasons, it belongs in the lead.--Carwil (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

i have no opinion on the status of psagot under international law. an article lede should summarize the contents of the information below it, not repeat one sentence word for word. summaries are useful, reading the same thing twice is redundant. WookieInHeat (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is violated when the only information that is repeated in the article is information regarding its legality. This position is both elementary and reflecive of the consensus above this comment.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a few editors who are attempting to build a consensus on this. I suggest you check this out --Shuki (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What complete nonsense. NPOV is violated by including a notable controversy about this place in the lead, exactly what WP:LEAD says to do? It is violated by including the super-majority opinion, exactly what NPOV says to do? nableezy - 18:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

More reverting by the same editors, huh? There is an ongoing centralized discussion that you can comment on if you feel this strongly. Placement (lead? Body? Both? and so on started yesterday.)Cptnono (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And what was the point of that discussion if after all that and the seemingly wide consensus that this line belongs in the lead two editors can again remove it? If you want to even continue pretending that either NPOV or the "process" means anything at all to you then you can revert this edit. nableezy - 19:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is not concluded which is precisely why people shouldn't be screwing with it yet. Carwil jumped the gun.Cptnono (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

We can continue this discussion there (no one was talking about its placement, and the quibbling could go on forever about issues that don't affect the text). However, to be clear to Wookie and BrewCrewer, I'm not arguing that the text should be in two places unless there is more text concerning Psagot's legality in the article. However, it must be in the lead, for any of the three reasons I stated. So please, if you want to argue, don't talk about redundancy but about placement.--Carwil (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Placement was being discussed actually. Easy to miss in all that text, though. It looks like it is close to a resolution over there o chiming in would be great.Cptnono (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We can't have a per se rule about inclusion in the lede. It really depends on how much the rest of the article is fleshed out. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. Thus it certainly cannot be the only place containing legality content, and legality content can only be repeated in the lede, per WP:UNDUE, if the lede repeats other notable information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

also, i checked the discussion over at icoll, but its TLDR. If anyone would like to point out my position for the record over there, it would be greatly appreciated.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you simply read the discussion in the following section: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Further colloquy on resolution.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you better start reading since there is a possibility of the ideas hammered out there being rolled out across the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

that project page cannot force their consensus on articles. the editors involved in that project in no way reflect any sort of representation of editors involved in the I-A conflict.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

okay, i commented there.[4] thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:UNDUE, a part of NPOV, supports what you claim it does and attempts to say that it does result from either ignorance or willfully lying about the policies of this website. nableezy - 19:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making a personal attack. You should know better. Also, it is clear you did not read the discussion if that is all you have to say about it.Cptnono (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no "personal attack". The untruth that brewcrewer wrote was either the result of being ignorant of the policy he was citing or, if he is not ignorant of the policy, willfully misrepresenting the contents of that policy (also known as lying). And why do you ask that question like you think I care about what you think about me? You should know better. nableezy - 20:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is obviously no reason to continue discussing the matter with you. You keep on reverting and hopefully everyone else will come to a solution over at the centralized discussion. Thanks for your time, guys.Cptnono (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That accusation is demonstrably false. nableezy - 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this all is making us all a bit confused. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, apologies, Carwil. My comment was directed at Nableezy not you.Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That is likewise a demonstrably false accusation. nableezy - 20:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the following basic facts about Psagot are repeated (or spelled out in greater detail) in the body of the article:

• is a communal Israeli settlement
• in the West Bank
• located on the Jabel Tawil/Mount Tawil hill
• near Ramallah,
• it falls under the jurisdiction of Mateh Binyamin Regional Council.
• The offices of the regional council are located in Psagot.
• In 2008 it had a population of 1,623.

Why is it a problem to put its legal status there as well?--Carwil (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

they are not facts that tickles anybody's fancy. thus its non compliance with WP:LEAD does not violate WP:NPOV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether something "tickles anybody's fancy" does not have any effect on its neutrality. You have continued to assert that it is a violation of NPOV to include a notable controversy about this colony in the lead without once ever saying what in NPOV backs up that fantastical claim. nableezy - 21:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As i explained numerous times on this talk page already, the repetition of contentious content while non-contentious content is not repeated is a violation of wp:npov. similarly, the inclusion in the lede of contentions content while the lede does not summarize any other non-contentious content is a violation of both WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. the cause and effect is really clear. Finally, repeatedly demanding an explanation in an aggressive manner to all editors that disagree with you will not get you the result you are seeking. Just calm down and communicate civilly.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is not a single quote from a single policy in that response. That you think something is "contentious" is not relevant. You have repeatedly misrepresented the policies of this website in an attempt to whitewash this and other articles. nableezy - 21:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

everyone agrees its contentious and its proven by the very fact that 10 editors are arguing about its inclusion, including one who insists that there is "whitewashing" going on..--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

10 editors? And you, ironically, are playing the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT game. Whether or not certain editors feel something is "contentious" has no bearing on its neutrality or if it should be in the lead. Please quote what exactly from WP:NPOV you claim makes this line a violation of that policy. You have repeatedly thrown up random letters hoping to hit on a policy that supports you but you have not once actually said what in that policy supports that fantasy. nableezy - 21:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you try once to respond collegialy? Just once. As for the substantive part of your response, its editors at a talk page that decide what is contentious that will trigger a POV analysis and what is not contentious that will not trigger a POV analysis. Are you really claiming that the legality of settlements are not contentious? We're going backwards here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ill respond "collegialy" once you respond with something other than a strawman. If you havent noticed, I did not say it was not "contentious", I said whether or not it is "contentious" is irrelevant. One more time, please quote what from WP:NPOV backs your claim that the line in the lead does not comply with WP:NPOV. nableezy - 21:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know what you're arguing over. If something is contentious, and now we apparently agree that the "legality" of Jewish villages in the Judea and Samaria region are contentious, we have to make sure this contentious content is not unduly emphasized in an article. For if contentious content is unduly emphasized, it would violate out WP:NPOV policy. It's really that simple.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You are now intentionally misrepresenting the policies of this website and what I have written. Israeli colonies in the occupied territories are illegal under international law. That is not a "contentious" sentence except in the minds of Wikipedia's Defenders of Israel Legion. You again fail to quote anything from WP:NPOV that backs your statement. At this point it is apparent that you do not do so because nothing in that policy backs up your imaginations as to what the policy says. nableezy - 22:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

it's contentious because it creates controversy, not necessarily because it is a matter of disagreement. Again, please calm down.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I swear, its almost as if Im talking with a record player that is skipping on the same track, over and over. How does it supposedly being "contentious" make it not comply with WP:NPOV. Quote what from WP:NPOV backs that view up. nableezy - 23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Contentious content per se does not violate any policy, but the undue emphasis on contentious content violates WP:UNDUE (a sub-policy of WP:NPOV). I really can't make it any clearer. I'm saying this will all integrity, maybe you should go outside, take a walk, and then come back. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please quote what from WP:UNDUE supports that line. All "notable controversies" are "contentious", but WP:LEAD explicitly says to include notable controversies. Quoting from WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

That clearly says that the amount of weight given to topics in the lead is based on the emphasis that "reliable, published sources" place on it. Not whether or not Wikipedia editors dont like it. Quoting from WP:UNDUE: 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.

That clearly says that the weight given to viewpoints is "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" in reliable sources. Not that if Wikipedia editors dont like the fact that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law they can remove it on the basis it is "contentious". Now, one more time, quote what in any policy supports your argument. You have yet to quote what from any of the policies you have cited supports your view. Please do so. nableezy - 01:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The applicable policy is right there, you even quoted it directly, and it's actually in the front sentence. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article, means the lede should not include information that is not included in the body of the article. Otherwise it would not be an overview. This is also amply supported by the repeated words of "summary" and summarize" in the WP:LEAD guideline. The lede is the place for a summary of the article; it is certainly not the place to have content that does repeat itself later in the lede.

which brings to the second applicable policy I cited and which you aptly quoted: 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. It may be clear that the significant viewpoint is that the Jewish villages in Judea and Samaria are illegal and the minority viewpoint is that they are legal. However, this does not mean that the significant viewpoint get repeated twice in tiny stub, taking up 75% of the article. That is significant viewpoint overkill. If the articles were to say something like "opinions differ regarding the legality," that would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. However, the article makes it clear that the anti-Israel viewpoint is the majority viewpoint. If the article is expanded to an extent that the content of the legality vis-a-vis illegality is proportionate to other information about the village, it would make the most sense to repeat the legality issue in the lede. However, to WP:COATRACK a tiny stub with 5 cites to its legality and one cite to its population, is overkill and not consistent with our WP:UNDUE policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I had to read that a few times to fully understand just how asinine your argument is. You say that the lede should not include information that is not included in the body of the article. You then say that it is UNDUE to include information from the body in the lead. You are playing a game of wikilawyering, though fortunately you arent very good at it. You are too focused on getting in the buzzwords "anti-Israel" and "Jewish villages in Judea and Samaria" that you forget you shouldnt contradict yourself. WP:LEAD specifically says that the summary should include any notable controversy. You then throw in COATRACK as if it means something in the context other than being a collection of capital letters in a transparent, and unsuccessful, attempt to make your argument appear to cite policy. Finally, you purposely misrepresent what is at issue here. The article is not a "tiny stub" and the material you removed did not take up "75% of the article". Such dishonest arguments are not appreciated. At this point I think I should take the discussion elsewhere as I have no doubt that you are simply filibustering. I cannot think of another explanation for such a plainly specious argument. nableezy - 02:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess there is no point in asking you again to cease with your personal attacks. And again, you assume I say something, you attack me with all kinds of names, until I explain it another time or two.

The confusion may be the result of the conflation of two different policies, WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD (technically a guideline), both of which should be conformed to.

There are three possible scenarios of where to include the information about the "illegality": (A) in the lede only (B) in the lede and the body (C) in the body only. Option A may conform with WP:NPOV, but does not conform with WP:LEAD. Option B conforms with WP:LEAD and may or may not conform with WP:NPOV. It depends on the rest of the article and the rest of the lede. If the rest of the article and the rest of the lede have a healthy proportion of non-legal content, the legal content can be included in both the lede and the body. Option C always works - WP:LEAD is moot and WP:NPOV is satisfied provided the legal issues are not elaborated upon in a disproportionate manner. This much I tried to explain before, but perhaps this does the job. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering by trying to manipulate the clear language in those policies to say what they do not say. LEAD specifically says the lead should include notable controversies. NPOV does not say anything about material being proportional to how ultra-nationalists feel about the country they have sworn to protect from all threats, virtual and imagined. nableezy - 14:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping things would improve the next day, but alas I can't get responded to without being personally attacked. You keep on pointing to the "notable controversies" of WP:LEAD, which i totally agree with. However, WP:LEAD and pretty much all articles instructions, require that the lede summarize article content, and the lede should not be the place for original content. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And yet when Carwil includes a complete section in the article and a short summary in the lead it is removed, with some of the same users arguing now that it does not belong in the lead at all. I am shocked, shocked I say, that users are only concerned with protecting the image of Israel and not abiding by the policies of this website. I cannot imagine such a thing, how is it possible? nableezy - 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

i did not make that revert, and implying that i did is unfair.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not make that implication. nableezy - 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, your emotions do appear to be getting the better of you Nableezy. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

contentious or not, repeating one sentence from the article word for word in the lede doesn't make sense. the lede is supposed to be a summary of the information below it, repeating one line from the article word for word is the opposite of summarizing. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, actually removing any mention of it from the lead is the opposite of summarizing. Repeating it is not the best summary, but it is a summary. nableezy - 21:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

sum·ma·ry
adj.
1. Presenting the substance in a condensed form
the condensed form of that sentence would be caveman english. repeating information with the intent of making it as conspicuous as possible is not the same thing as summarizing. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Attempted solution

Following the above objections, and repeated requests for reasons not to put the new sentence in the lead, the only objections in replies were: redundancy because of verbatim repetition, and the need for the lead to summarize. Seeing little hope of civil resolution, I added this proposed solution to the article, which has been reverted. The proposed text would add this to the lead:

Psagot has been involved in conflicts with local Palestinians and, like other Israeli settlements in the West Bank, is considered illegal by both Palestinians and the international community, although the Israeli government disputes this.

and add this section below:

Conflicts and legality

Israeli settlements, including Psagot, have been a major element of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the subject of international criticism. According to the Israeli human rights activists, Jewish settlements in the Ramallah area, such as Beit El and Psagot, prevented the expansion of the city and cut it off from the surrounding villages. Psagot, its residents, and Israeli soldiers stationed within it have been involved in exchanges of one- and two-way gunfire with Palestinians living in Ramallah, and the settlement has been used by the Israeli army to fire rockets into the city. Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered illegal by the international community, but the Israeli government disputes this.

Does this respond to the concerns raised about having a single sentence in the lead?--Carwil (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

like i said above, have no problems with a new section on the legality issue, but i disagree that it needs to be added to the lede of the article. figured a new section would give the subject a raised profile in the article (hopefully satisfying those who would like the information more prominent) without lending undue weight to the one topic by adding it to the lede. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

First, does this mean we have consensus on my ability to put in the body section here (not the text, just its introduction so that everyone else is free to edit it)?

Second, on the question of the lead, I've raised three reasons for inclusion:

• It's a notable controversy per WP:Lead
• Legal status is a basic fact about any human settlement, parallel to "incorporated city" or "unrecognized village."
• Since there is a legal status section of the article, it should be summarized in the lead

For any one of those reasons, this text belongs in the lead. Frankly, I don't understand why this material is WP:UNDUE. It's hardly immaterial to life in Psagot (especially as reframed regarding conflict); it appears to be mentioned in nearly every outside RS writing about Psagot; and it arguably (as George argues in the other discussion) is the primary reason that Psagot is notable (besides the inherent notability of human settlements).--

the information just doesn't appear to be significant enought to warrant the mention in the lede. the article is about the settlement, not its legality. WookieInHeat (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wookie, be specific. What do you think of the three or four reasons given? Explain why it "doesn't appear to be significant," despite its relation to armed conflict and prominent placement in articles about Psagot.--Carwil (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You really are assuming way too much good faith. Earlier Wookie said i have no opinion on the status of psagot under international law. an article lede should summarize the contents of the information below it, not repeat one sentence word for word. summaries are useful, reading the same thing twice is redundant. Now the user says that even if the material is expanded in the body that they feel it does not belong in the lead. This is just a game to these people, make whatever argument that removes the information. Once that argument is addressed move on to another. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is the only reason these users are making these absurd arguments. nableezy - 14:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

i never said "create a section about it, then you can summarize it in the lede". i proposed a new section as a compromise between putting it in the lede and having a single sentence at the end of a section about it. your assumption that i am "playing games" is just that, an assumption. regardless, think what you like of my reasoning, makes no difference to me. the whole charade seems to have only the ultimate purpose of getting a political POV into the lede of the article that is nto about that political view. if this information is sufficient to justify a mention in the lede then maybe the Silwan article should have a mention in the lede about the Yemenite Jews in the 1930's; they hold roughly the same significance to their respective articles. WookieInHeat (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wookie: Why is it not a significant fact about Psagot? Why are the reasons I said it belongs in the lead not applicable? Please try to answer, and use something other than assertion of your opinion.--Carwil (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

i've said this a number of times; the article is about the settlement, not its legality. i proposed a new section as a compromise, to raise the topic's profile while avoiding giving the subject undue weight in the lede. you are not attempting to compromise with the new section you wrote, you created it with the sole intention of using it to put a mention in the lede. it is your opinion that this is significant enough for mention in the lede, it is mine that a new section is suffcient to convey the significance to readers. we are both giving our opinions, why do you hold different expectations from me then yourself? WookieInHeat (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I explained my opinion, and referenced policy. And was hoping you would do the same. You're opinion also seems to have changed (a summary was desired before, and now it's opposed) as well. Generally, "significance" is not just a personal feeling, it's a way of describing the importance of certain information to a subject.

For instance, this is a "notable controversy" (WP:Lead) because it appears in much of the material that describes Psagot, and it is the primary reason Psagot appears in a number of reliable sources. This is a "basic fact" about Psagot, because all legal statuses are basic facts, regardless of whether I consider important or not that my town is an "incorporated municipality." And third, the material in "legality and conflicts" is highly relevant to the settlement of Psagot: it's in armed conflict with its neighbors, over which blood has been spilt, and due to which soldiers are stationed there.

To fairly exclude the material from the lead, you would need to explain why all three of these things are false. However, since you are attempting to recast this as a simple difference of opinion of two editors, consider this comment from George at the larger discussion on the issue:

Quote Taking Psagot as an example, we dedicate a full paragraph to the "economy" of this settlement of 1,600 people. What does that paragraph discuss? A single, twelve-year-old winery, and the types of wine and number of bottles they produce. You could pick a couple blocks of almost any city in the world and get a larger population with a more complex economy than that. It's a supremely tiny subject, yet we dedicate a full paragraph to it, while ignoring the elephant in the room. It isn't easy to even find an article from a reliable source about that winery that doesn't discuss it in the context of the broader settlement issue, or in the context of the I-P conflict in general. While I certainly agree that there's no rush to include this information, and we shouldn't be giving it more emphasis than it deserves, we also have to keep in mind that for some of these smaller settlements, the very fact that it is a settlement is what makes it notable. ← George ^talk 22:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Unquote

We would seem to be past the "third opinion" stage. What else do you need? Are you willing to join the collective discussion on placement of such a sentence at the collaboration? Should we initiate an RfC?

For what it's worth, I've added to this page in the hope that discussing "the elephant in the room" would make it a more complete, more honest article. But it's difficult to assume good faith in return if you can't make the turn from a discussion of preferences (whether or not we like the sentence in the lead) to a discussion of policy.--Carwil (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

despite nableezy's assertion that my opinion is "shifting" and i am merely playing games, this is not the case. in the previous discussion i said that a lede should be a summary of the article below it, in no way was this meant to imply that i supported the addition of this information to the lede, i was discussing the issue as it stood at the time. while i haven't wikilinked to any wikipolicies, i haven't been ignoring them. i have discussed many policies, such as WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, just not to the satisfaction of your wishes. on the same note, you have completely ignored my attempts at finding a compromise by suggesting the new section, which you happily created and added to the article before continuing on your quest to get this topic in the lede. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

also, i would like to thank you for your civil tone and calm demeanor in regards to an issue that can peak some peoples emotions. cheers to that :) WookieInHeat (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And now all mention of this settlement being illegal under international law has been removed on the absurd grounds that it is "synth" despite several sources having been provided that explicitly say that this colony is illegal under international law. How wonderful!! nableezy - 19:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Psagot is a colony?

The lede says Psagot is a colony. Did neutral and reliable Falk mentioned Psagot specifically? I'd be surprised, though I might be wrong. Meanwhile I'm removing both source and claim, per WP:BRD, till exact quotation is provided, for verification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

assuming he does refer to Psagot specifically, "colony" is a super-minority terminology and should not be given more then its proper due weight in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is BS. You could check the source yourself, I gave a publication and page number. Neither of the sources cited are Falk. But for the editors here more concerned with protecting the image of this illegal colony, here are the quotes. So now there is no excuse for you not to self-revert:

• Fisk, p. 494: Unable to bamboozle my way through the Israeli roadblocks on the highway from Jerusalem, I drove up to the illegal Israeli colony of Psagot, from where I had an Israeli-eye view of this new battle to destroy the Palestinian Authority.
• Taraki, p. 113: Psagot is an Israeli colony of around one thousand colonists that was illegally built in 1981 on Palestinian land.

Restore what is cited to two reliable sources. nableezy - 14:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, Nab, since major reliable source like NYT/CNN/BBC/Washington Post do not describe Psagot as "colony", I'd be OK with attribution, instead of synthesizing: Falk describe Psagot as "colony", Taraki describe Psagot as "colony". In case other editors agree. However this claim does not belong to the lede, anyway, since it does not summarize the body. And I know it is as controversial as the fact that NI is a country. Some editors claim that NI is a region or province, since NI even does not have an official flag. So let's hear other editors opinions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The second book is published by Syracuse University Press. It is a reliable source that needs no attribution. It is a higher quality source than those that you mention (read WP:RS for why books published by university presses are higher quality than news sources). Again, return what is cited to two reliable sources. There is no synthesis, there is no original research, there is no undue weight in the material you removed. Self-revert your edit. It was made without regard to the policies of this website. nableezy - 15:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case NYT/CNN/BBC/Washington Post quote also should not be a problem. And FYI, NI is region or NI is province could be also reliably sourced. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont care about Northern Ireland, why you bring that up is not something that I understand or care to understand. I dont need to provide sources from the news media, I provided higher quality sources already. For the last time, restore what is cited to two reliable sources. If you do not I will. nableezy - 15:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And I did. You earlier claimed you were removing it until quotes were provided, even though such a position is not supported by a single policy of this website. I am very much looking forward to the next illogical reason for removal. nableezy - 15:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. Believe me Nab, I not only understand in Irish Whiskey, but also understand in Israeli settlements, I even visited Psagot once about 20 years ago. And agree with Falk, the way there from Jerusalem ( at least 20 years ago ) was not a happy experience. Psagot is a good example of what is rotten in the Israeli settlements generally. However the WP:NPOV way to describe Psagot is an Israeli Settlement. Agree with BC, it is a question of WP:DUE. If "colony" is a major trend, I am sure BBC would say so. Those guys excel in Politically Correct Terminology. My advice Nab, try to reach a consensus, via discussion, instead of edit warring. Maybe "colony" somehow will be integrated in the article, I don't know. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So let's hear other editors opinions. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It isnt Richard Falk that is cited. You have to make a policy based reason for excluding reliable sources. Just saying UNDUE is not that. Neither is saying that the BBC has to be cited. A book published by a university press explicitly calls this colony a "colony". Another book authored by Robert Fisk calls this place an "illegal Israeli colony". Here is Australia's public broadcaster calling this place a "Jewish colony". nableezy - 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess BBC would be better, but ABC.net.au is a is good start, Nab. The exact quote In the West Bank, automatic weapons were fired at the Jewish colony of Psagot, east of Ramallah. I guess there is nothing wrong with "colony" term generally, both Jerusalem and Haifa have "German Colony" המושבה הגרמנית historical neighborhoods. The question is why does it belong to lede? Brewcrewer what do you think? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Ah I see that you made your revert already, good for you, Nab. I personally do not really care, but I am not sure your edit was within consensus, since BC did have a chance to express his opinion yet. But I hope no one reverts Nab, since it could spark an edit war. I guess waiting on this edit Nab, would not hurt anyone and only improve the quolity of this article. After all Wiki is a collaboration effort, more eyeballs - better. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the terminology employed by one controversial writer and one unknown writer represents the super-minority terminology and should not be included in an article already teeming with WP:COATRACKS and pov-pushes. Its inclusion should perhaps be revisited in the future when the article is fleshed out and is proportioned properly.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Fisk is a reliable source. Something published by a university press is a reliable source. There is no COATRACKing, both sources explicitly call this settlement a colony. Your reason is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT disguised as Wikipedia policy. However, nothing in any of the policies you claim support you does. Please quote what from them does. nableezy - 16:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

it's not a RS issue, but a NPOV issue. "colony" is not a mainstream terminology.

Anyone can find tons of RS's that refer to Psagot as "village", "town", "city", etc. just like you found two sources for "colony." Theoretically we can plaster the lede of the article with every possible terminology, but I would prefer a normal neutral article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See also historian Dilip Hiro in Sharing the Promised Land, and the architect/writer Eyal Weizman cited elsewhere in the article (whose look at what a post-final-status reincorporated Psagot would look like is part of an exhibit called Decolonizing Architecture, and uses the term extensively). These address Psagot specifically.

From a larger perspective, "settlement" was once arguably a euphemism, since it neutrally describes a new place for people to live, without reference to the context of occupation. Now, however, its familiar link with this context gives it a connotation of "something less than permanent on someone else’s land." See these conflicting views 1|2. In Latin America or Spain, the press routinely uses colonías and colonos which are also used for domestic agricultural migrants who takeover forests. I suspect the BBC, NYT, etc. represent a geographic preference that might not extend to Palestinians or South Asians.

Finally, if the term is widely used by Palestinian sources (regardless of POV), it should definitely be here in the lead, since they represent most of the people who see and encounter Psagot on a daily basis. I have no idea whether that's usage is common or not.--Carwil (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please quote what from WP:NPOV supports your view that this a "NPOV issue". Am I understanding your position as being one that says only "Israeli settlement" should be used as the label in articles on Israeli settlements? How is what is sourced to a book published by a university press not "mainstream terminology"? And I provided 3 sources for colony, one by Fisk, another published by Syracuse University Press, and another published by the public broadcaster of Australia. nableezy - 16:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

we have a source for "town" [5], a source for "suburb" [6] and source for "village." [7] Are we supposed to add all these terms to the article or should we actually write a real article?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont think anybody is stopping you. But if you feel that the only label should be Israeli settlement I could accept that if the labels "town", "village" or "suburb" (or neighborhood) are removed from the articles on the other settlements . Right now though many of those articles include those labels and even use them before settlement. So I dont see why if those labels are acceptable elsewhere that colony is not acceptable here. nableezy - 17:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

two labels, one for each side of the POV isle would be more then sufficient. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And I suppose you are going to say that "Israeli settlement" is one of those "sides" and not the term used by everybody but the "sides". If you want the label each "side" uses then include "village" and "colony" and then also include what the rest of the world uses, "settlement". nableezy - 17:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but i think if i tell you that "settlement" is the majority term your concerns will be somewhat mollified.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Outdent
The premise of this argument is incorrect from the start. The lede should ultimate include all alternative names and unique designations for the subject. However, we must ask ourselves, is 'colony' a unique designation? The answer is no; 'Israeli colony' is a synonym for 'Israeli settlement' used by detractors. There is no point to include less common designations that are synonymous with existing ones. It would be similar to writing that 'A hat is a head covering, also called headgear ...'—completely pointless—and in our case with the added POV issue. If someone can prove that 'Israeli colony' is a more common term in English than 'Israeli settlement' to describe these places, then we should simply replace the word. Of course, this is completely false and the term 'Israeli colony' is only used by the fringe. This issue has nothing to do with sources either. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

agree with Ynhockey, well said, quite objective. WookieInHeat (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that isnt true. By definition, books published by university presses are not "fringe". Robert Fisk is not "fringe". The public broadcaster of Australia is not "fringe". It is not surprising, though it is funny, that a user that in the past has argued that the primary description of the settlements should not be "Israeli settlement" and instead we should have a less common, in fact more "fringe", term be the primary description now say that other less common descriptions should be completely removed. Unless somebody can explain why the terms "village" or "town" are used in articles on settlements there is no cause to remove what is properly sourced as another label, that being "colony". nableezy - 19:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring your ad hominem attacks for a minute, the argument is flawed. The term 'city' or 'village' is indeed a unique and informative designator, as I've stated in the past. Besides the fact that 'city' and 'local council' have very specific properties under the law, the term also points to both the relative size of the settlement, and the type (e.g. communal settlement vs. kibbutz vs. moshav). You will also notice that I did not advocate using one of these exclusively, but as the primary description (with no object to the term 'Israeli settlement') also being in the lede. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Colony has a specific meaning and is a "unique and informative designator". There are those that use the term "settlement" who do not mean that the settlement is outside of Israel. The term "Israeli colony" specifies that this colony is established outside of Israel. But back to the point, you said the term is only used by the "fringe". Can you quote what from any policy or guideline says that books published by university presses, noted journalists, or mainstream news organizations are considered "fringe" and how any policy or guideline allows for the removal of well sourced material specific to this colony? nableezy - 20:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this is not an issue of specific sources. No matter how reliable or awesome a source may be, if something is used by 2 or 50 sources out of a million, that's not going to cut it. Also your statement about the colony vs. settlement is untrue. Neither term implies what you say. A moshava translates as colony, as you will find in many mainstream sources, but all moshavot are in "Israel proper". Same with settlements—the term is used by pro-Israel and anti-Israel elements alike, and does not imply that the locality is within or outside of Israel. And if someone is in doubt, they can the link that points to the main article. In fact, internal linking is a tool that Wikipedia has been using for longer than either of us have been editing to avoid cluttering articles with redundant synonyms and/or descriptors. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The English word "colony", in contemporary usage, means a locality established by a state or its citizens outside of the territory of that state. I dont honestly care what the Hebrew equivalent means. This aint the Hebrew Wikipedia. nableezy - 20:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And what a surprise. Another user predictably removes well sourced material from this article without having the decency to come here and say why. I wonder why it is that users with an established record of editing without regard for sources and only concerning themselves with how a certain state looks are removing material on this being called a colony or on the illegality of this colony? Really, I wonder. nableezy - 19:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please address these simple points? Three reliable sources, one by a noted author, another published by a university press, and another by a mainstream news organization, have been provided calling this particular settlement a "colony". How are those 3 sources "fringe" and why should they not be included in the article? nableezy - 23:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

i think it's pretty clear what the general consensus is, "colony" is not a mainstream term used to refer to Psagot and as such is unsuitable for the lede of the article. trying to keep the debate rolling probably isn't going to change that, but no harm in trying eh. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody put this in as the primary description. Books published by university presses are "mainstream", as is the public broadcaster of Australia. You are now doing here what you did above, make comments not supported by the policies of this website and claim that "consensus" is with you. "Consensus" requires that you cite policies that support you. Please do so. nableezy - 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

never claimed to represent everyone, hence "general consensus". WookieInHeat (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's the difference between a settlement and a colony? ← George ^talk 02:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

none, except that colony is being used as a pejorative (i.e. non-neutral) term here while the most common term used to refer to israeli "colonies" is the word "settlement". colonies are most often associated with empires, calling Psagot a colony appears to be an attempt to associate zionism with colonialism; which could be considered true in some aspects, but wikipedia (let alone this article) is not the place to establish this. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference. "River to the sea" people will use the term settlement without acknowledging that settlements are not in Israel. "Colony" is clear that the colony is not in Israel. But Im confused as to why whether or not there is a difference matters. There is a well sourced alternate label. The initial reason for removal was that quotes were not provided. Quotes have since been provided. Another reason, again without any basis in Wikipedia policy, was that news organizations do not call this place a colony. Even though that is plainly an absurd reason, a cite to a news organization was provided calling this place a colony. Now it is being argued that the term is redundant. Can somebody show me what Wikipedia policy supports the removal of material sourced to books by noted authors, those published by university presses, and those cited to mainstream news organization? The entire removal, here as above about the legality of this colony, is because ultra-nationalists WP:DONTLIKE any material that makes a certain state look less than the perfect beacon for all humanity that we all know it is. nableezy - 15:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nab, quotes were provided also for NI is a province, NI is a region. However those claims still are not included in the NI lede. Why? Because Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by WP:consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAP is not a reason. Would you like to try again? nableezy - 15:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you might be misunderstanding me, my friend. The question of discussion and consensus still persists. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus requires reasons based on Wikipedia policy. You cannot just say no. nableezy - 15:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason was provided, Nab, please re-read this discussion. I'm moving on now. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you failed to answer the question, Ill ask again. What Wikipedia policy supports the removal of material sourced to books by noted authors, those published by university presses, and those cited to mainstream news organization? nableezy - 15:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So it seems to me that, in terms of the meanings of the English words, the two are interchangeable. However, it also appears that reliable sources generally avoid the term "colony", in favor of "settlement", and the topic seems to be contentious. I have no problem with Nableezy including the term "colony", provided that it is properly cited to reliable sources, but I think it should be included with an inline citation in the sentence, per the citing sources guidelines on "particularly contentious" material (which I think this is). So I think Nableezy could write "Person X, Person Y, and Group Z describe Psagot as a colony." Honestly though, I think that sort of information would be better at the main Israeli settlements article than here. ← George ^talk 19:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

George, browse the rest of WP and you'll see that the term settlement is in fact interchangeable with locality and populated place. Only when it has an Israeli adjective added does it become a derogatory word. Calling it a colony is simply misleading and a typical POV push to include extremist wording in a simple encyclopedia article. --Shuki (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless somebody provides answers to my questions citing Wikipedia policy I will be restoring this well sourced label. nableezy - 13:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE for your answer. --Shuki (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, but a book published by a university press, or one authored by a noted journalist, or the public broadcaster for Australia cannot be called "fringe". Each of them are reliable sources, not fringe sources. nableezy - 16:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest addition

I'm quoting User:Sean.hoyland, about Wiki, generally, might be appropriate also here, imho: This is what articles shouldn't look like. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned with latest addition here. The addition is not neutral. I'd like to remind everybody, that centralized discussion was opened here in order to avoid silly festive wars. This article was mentioned there specifically. Please join in. The collaboration is the Wiki way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That is specifically about Psagot and is sourced to a book published by a university press. Removal of it is not in line with the policies of this website. If there are sources that say something else you are free to add them. nableezy - 15:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No one said that the addition is not properly sourced. Did you read what I said? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did. And I repeat: if there are sources that say something else you are free to add them. You cannot just say something is "not neutral". If sources disagree with the one provided you can add them, but just saying "this is not neutral" is not a valid reason to remove well-sourced material. nableezy - 15:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, my friend, neutrality is the Wiki policy and not negotiable. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You apparently dont understand what "neutrality" means in a Wikipedia context. WP:NPOV spells it out for you. "Neutrality" means including all viewpoints as published in reliable sources. If you feel that the published viewpoint that I provided does not cover all viewpoints you are free to find other reliable sources that cover those other views. You are not free to remove what is sourced to such high quality sources because you dont like it. "Neutral" is not the same thing as "views that AgadaUrbanit finds acceptable". Finally, I removed the picture you added for two reasons. One, Sean.hoyland has made no comment here so including his username next to your commentary is not acceptable. Two, this is a talk page for an article and serves a particular purpose. That purpose is not served by including images that increase the load time of this page and do nothing else. nableezy - 16:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nab, please don't comment on my understanding. You have said yourself, that the addition might need "balancing". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That isnt what I said. What I said was if you feel that it needs balancing you can find reliable sources that provide a different view. What you cant do is claim, without any sources, that something is not "neutral" and by that means suppress it from the article. In fact, the word "balance" or "balancing" does not appear on this talk page prior to you writing it, so including it in quotes implying that I said it is very dishonest. nableezy - 16:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, please re-read centralized discussion. Do you feel that addition is neutral, per Wikipedia standards? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What a <redacted> question. Obviously I do or I would not have made the edit. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute the sourced information I provided? If not, you have no basis for questioning the neutrality of the material. In the hopes that you actually read and respond to the question, I will repeat it once more. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute the sourced information I provided? nableezy - 16:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What does <redacted> means? I would not clutter this discussion, but I am not allowed to comment on your talk page........ . However you are always welcome to use mine.

However this is definitely not personal. Many sources were provided in the centralized discussion. Did you miss it? Do you still feel that the addition in question is WP:NPOV? What sources should I add? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

removed this edit, information is already covered in the "conflicts and legality" section immediately below. feel free to use your ref to expand that section. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How incredibly surprising that you removed, once again, material that does not show a certain state in the very best of lights. Perhaps we could add something about the arab/muslim invasion in the history section. nableezy - 18:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

don't see what relevance the islamic caliphates have to a settlement that was created a thousand years after their existence. WookieInHeat (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nab, Wookie is at least partially right about placement of this new text; Conflicts and Legality could expand. (And should be summarized in the lead, I would add). Wookie's wrong about the material already being in that section though, private ownership by Palestinians is a separate issue. And Agada is reasonably suspicious about the balancing the text; it would be surprising if there isn't a denial of the claim of expropriation, although it would help if Agada would look for it, 'cause I can't seem to find anything... except the apparently non-RS resident Chaim Bloch in a widely published interview with Ahdaf Soueif, claiming, the Israelis "always" purchase land for settlements (full text here, but it's published by reliable presses, and was—I think—first written for Al-Ahram Weekly). Elsewhere the same Bloch makes a different claim to a Florida newspaper, "Here the land was given to the people of Israel by God 4,000 years ago. We lived here and had a kingdom here. The Palestinians never had a state in this territory. It's so far back." If Bloch is notable or represents Psagot in some way we could include these statements, otherwise they're inappropriate.

Even when something is university-published, it's often nice to find higher quality sources than an offhand remark. They abound for this case:

• Peace Now's settlement-by-settlement overview of land ownership, complete with satellite photos is here: conclusion is that 75.69% of the settlement is on private Palestinian land, although the center is on the state parcel I described in the article.
• The architects, Sandi Hilal, Alessandro Petti, Eyal Weizman, cited in the article, perhaps not using as much of the outlying area controlled by Psagot as Peace Now, found "About half of the area occupied by the P'sagot colony belongs to private owners with the other half registered as belonging to one of various kinds of collective lands."
• The settlement also surrounds parcels of Palestinian land known as enclaves: "In settlements like Psagot and Anatot, it is possible to identify Palestinian enclaves that have become little more than abandoned lots. On some of them, destroyed agricultural terraces can be seen. Sometimes public buildings are erected on them" (reprinted from Haaretz)
• A further conflict exists over nearby olive groves, which Palestinians are expanding because they cannot be legally appropriated by settlements. [8]
• As we know, central Psagot was acquired by the state to make a recreation facility. The legality of using state land is claimed by the Israeli government and, I think, disputed by the Palestinians (although I don't have a cite for that). B'Tselem also disputes it here.

Suggestion: all this material should be compiled on a subpage of Talk:Psagot, and the objecting editors given 5 days to add the material claiming legality that we can't find. Whatever comes together by then goes into the article, which of course can be edited at any time.--Carwil (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That line belongs in the history section as it is specifically about the history of Psagot. nableezy - 18:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on this, and providing a reason for my revert, this material in particular is not about the current illegality of this, and all, Israeli settlements. This is specifically about this particular settlement being illegally established on Palestinian land. That is not a comment about the current legal situation but on the history of this settlement and as such belongs in the history section where the founding of the settlement is covered. nableezy - 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the source is reliable. Wikipedia and possibly you too might be exposed to legal action if this is not true.--Shuki (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The book is published by Syracuse University Press. If you would like to argue that such a source is not reliable you may do so at WP:RS/N. By the plain words of WP:RS this source is reliable. Wikipedia is not subject to Israeli laws so unless there is something in this sentence that violates either US or Florida law there is no legal issue here. Although you really need to consider if repeatedly saying these things constitutes a legal threat (read WP:LEGAL). nableezy - 18:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry Nab, the addition is properly sourced.
• However, the addition is not neutral, and you are edit warring again, disregarding this and other discussions, imho. I'm moving on also here, in this discussion.
• Putting last comment in discussion, does not mean that consensus was reached. Good luck, my friend. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, you cant just say something is not neutral. You need to provide reliable sources that dispute what the sources I provided say. Unless you can do so your view that it is not neutral is meaningless. nableezy - 18:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please dont modify your comment after it has been responded to. WP:CONSENSUS requires that you provide reasons based in Wikipedia policy. Just saying "not neutral" is meaningless. Again, are there any reliable sources that dispute what the sources I have provided say? If not then how is it "not neutral". nableezy - 18:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

would you please kindly self-revert your addition until some sort of consensus is reached on its placement in the article? would be much appreciated WookieInHeat (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

or alternately, move the information into the "legality" section for the time being. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can answer these questions I might. Is the material in question about the current legal status or about the legal status when the settlement was founded? If it is about the status when this specific colony was founded, why should it not be in the section dealing with the founding of the settlement? nableezy - 19:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources were provided there, since you are part of it, I hope you have noticed it. In no way am I saying that settlements generally or this one in particular is "legal" or not on "occupied Palestinian land". Please see verbose explanation about what is neutral per Wiki policy. It would be better to agree about neutral wording, per available sources, balancing carefully points of view. Let me quote the policy: This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. And I really have to go now, sorry, Nab. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This isnt about whether or not settlements violate international law, which is what the discussion at that page is about. This is about this specific being built on private Palestinian land. Sources have been provided about this specific settlement and its being established illegally on private Palestinian property. Do you have any sources that dispute that? You are conflating related but separate topics. This line is not about whether or not this settlement is illegal under international law. Unless you have sources disputing what the sources that have been provided say the sentence is neutral as "neutral" is defined in WP:NPOV. nableezy - 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess we aren't going to have a sentence for each source one can find, the question of legality is already covered in the section below, citing Taraki adds nothing to it for it's unclear if she means private land or Palestinian territory as such. I hope it's clear enough and citations from WP:NOT can be saved. Regarding Peace now data on Psagot area: it's of Psagot and Mitzpe Ha`ai outpost, in the current form it's a misinterpretation of the source. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe and Agada are both misunderstanding the concern with land ownership. Land ownership status is not the main feature of the international law objections raised by "the international community" (insert whatever phrase makes you feel comfortable). The are an issue under domestic Israeli law, and a separate concern raised internationally. They are also a relevant feature of the settlement. Che, it might have been more dignified to edit the text to include the information you found, rather than deleting it entirely.--Carwil (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Carwil, I completely agree. I've been thinking of copiediting to include Mitzpe Ha`ai area, but tended to find it irrelevant. We are going to need specific sources for Psagot land ownership issue (Peace now site worth checking). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How so very interesting. So now instead of having material sourced to an English book published by a university press about this settlement being built on Palestinian land we now have material sourced a Hebrew book for which no quotes, no translation, and no page number is given, that the Palestinian claims to the land are "false". How so very surprising. I swear, every edit I see made here gives me an even greater respect for Wikipedia and the people who edit it. nableezy - 01:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And even more impressive, we now include that the Supreme Court of Israel "confirms" that this settlement is not illegal under international law. Again sourced to a book in Hebrew for which no quotes, no translation, and no page number is given. I am very much interested to see how aggressive the users that have been suppressing content from reliable sources will react to this. Edge of my seat. nableezy - 01:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop whining, I'll give you a page number. The Israeli Supreme Court is certainly no rubber stamp of the settler movement, as we saw with their approval for the 'disengagement' and shortly after the destruction of Jewish homes in Amona, and is one of the most highly regarded in the world. --Shuki (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop confusing Nableezy with facts. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were oh so sensitive to personal attacks? nableezy - 02:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I want a quote and a translation from the source saying that the Israeli Supreme Court says this settlement is not illegal under international law. I would likewise like quotes and translations for the claim that the Arab claims to this territory are "false" and that the Supreeme Court said so. Finally, I would like to understand why what Peace Now says about the land this colony was built on is not allowed in the article as an attributed view but this books assertions, assuming you are not lying about the source, are allowed as unattributed fact. nableezy - 02:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All Sharks vs. Jets nonsense aside, I would really love to see an English version of the text as it would answer a number of questions in an ongoing debate. Sol (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the author myself, perhaps you'll have more luck. The two volume book includes many official documents, dated maps, and original pictures of the enterprise over forty years. --Shuki (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm also sensitive to chronological order in comments. Btw, do you feel attacked when you add the word "colony" to Jewish localities? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As you seem sensitive to "chronological order in comments" to everybody's comments except your own, Ive returned the favor. And no. nableezy - 04:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And now tags placed on the article as a result of these edits and the issues discussed here are summarily removed. How inspiring such editor conduct is. nableezy - 02:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The same legitimacy that gave you the right to put the tags gives others the legitimacy to question that and remove them. mm, kay? --Shuki (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, consensus is required to remove tags. You can see that in the tag itself. You still havent provided the quotes and translations requested. nableezy - 13:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability says nothing about ease of verifying. Of course, special care is still needed. See Wikipedia:Offline sources (the best essay ever) Cptnono (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This isnt an English source, you are required to provide quotes and translations for non-English sources. Additionally, placed the tag because what is sourced to high quality English sources has been repeatedly removed. But please, tell us more about what wasnt under dispute. nableezy - 13:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Tags removed

Tags placed on an article should not be removed without cause and consensus for their removal. Each of the tags is about issues discussed extensively here on this talk page. Both Shuki and Jaakobou have repeatedly removed tags and additionally remove material that was meant to remove the need for the tags. Such behavior should result in bans and if it continues I may ask for them. nableezy - 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ive restored the tags. There is clearly a dispute about the accuracy and neutrality of the article and editors wishing to hide that fact are reminded that tags should not be removed without consensus. nableezy - 14:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy insists on adding 3 tags to this article after I edited out every sentence that might be construed as problematic. Every single sentence is solidly sourced. I have no interest whatsoever in settlers and settlements. But I will not allow Nableezy to commandeer information about them.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, you removed information that was added to address the tags. The article has had every sentence about the illegality of this settlement removed. The lead has had that information removed. The article has replaced reliable English sources saying this settlement was built on privately owned Palestinian land with Hebrew sources (for which quotes and translations still have not been provided) that say those claims are "false". The article is incredibly slanted in its presentation and the wholesale removal of both the material and the tags only makes the problem worse. nableezy - 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Gila, no need in tags generally. Feel free to discuss specific changes, Nab. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

All the contentious material has been removed. I am very sorry that you didn't like my edits. I only wanted to help. --Geewhiz (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And what pray tell was "contentious" about the well sourced fact that this colony is considered illegal under international law? And why would it matter if material is "contentious". Why exactly should a book published by a university press saying this colony was illegally built on Palestinian land be expunged from the article? Why should Peace Now reporting that 79% of this land this settlement was built on is private Palestinian land not be in the article? How is "neutral" to only include the views of ultra-nationalists that this place is a legal Israeli village? And why should a tag alerting readers that the article is under dispute be removed when there very clearly is a dispute about the neutrality and the accuracy of the article? nableezy - 15:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh great Shai-hulud, we're talking about removing tags generally, Nab. Feel free to discuss specific changes. I'm moving on. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You dont know what "we" are talking about, I am talking about the removal of the tags from this article. Have fun moving on. nableezy - 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's funny. If the article was so wonderful before, how come you tagged it?--Geewhiz (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it when certain users repeatedly removed any material that did not conform with their ultra right-wing nationalist agenda. You just finished the job for them, removing even information they didnt even try to (such as the material in the body on the illegality of this settlement under international law). nableezy - 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What does <redacted> means? I would not clutter this discussion, but I am not allowed to comment on your talk page........ . However you are always welcome to use mine. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Then dont clutter this discussion. This section is about the tags removed from this article. The word "redacted" does not appear once in this section. Kindly stop disrupting the purpose of the talk page. nableezy - 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh Nableezy, I have made a terrible mistake. Please restore this article to its former glory.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You can fix your mess on your own. Once you drop the sarcasm. nableezy - 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Righteous indignation. Always funny ;) Discuss specific changes, Nab. Agree though Psagot is looking very attractive now, Wine and Torah, so fun I might move in! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice. Next time try to keep up and not say the same irrelevant line multiple times. nableezy - 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Explanation

I'd like to note that the edit history shows me making an edit with edit summary Fix blatant NPOV violation after the page was full-protected. This would of course be improper, but the thing is that the page was not protected when I made the edit, and I received no indication that it was protected when I hit the Save button. I am about to revert my edit on principle, although I really do feel that the wording in the article is so un-neutral as to constitute a policy violation. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There is very clearly a dispute about the neutrality of this article and its factual accuracy. Can those tags be restored? Or does Jaak get away with removing tags without having the courtesy to discuss why? nableezy - 18:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-English source

Per WP:NONENG, could I request that someone provide the text of the relevant pages from Keneged Kol HaSikuim in Hebrew, a work the article currently cites? Please also provide an English translation of the relevant pages. Thanks! ← George ^talk 06:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the article use direct quotes? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so. ← George ^talk 09:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit - Oh, it looks like Nableezy requested the same thing earlier. Feel free to reply in either thread; I'll look for it either way. ← George ^talk 09:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a live link I might be willing to quote it. In general though, if the source is legit and the text is not a direct quote, then there shouldn't be a problem leaving it as is. Off course, an English replacement would be preferable. What's the content about anyways? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an offline source. I think Shuki added it as a reference, so hopefully they have access to it, or know where to find it. It doesn't really matter if the source is being used for a direct quote or not (per WP:NONENG, "When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page."). I don't really care what language it is in, so long as a translation I can understand is provided. It's being cited for quite a few things - more than any other source currently in the article. The statements in which it is currently the only source being cited are:

• "[The name Psagot] expresses the hope that the new village will achieve a peak in settlement and study of the Torah."
• "In 1981, Ariel Sharon, then Israeli Minister of Defense, told Pinchas Wallerstein, head of the Mateh Binyamin Regional Council, that he would support initiatives to settle the area."
• "After the first families moved to the site, the Supreme Court of Israel ordered a freeze on further settlement activity in the wake of an Arab property claim that was later rejected. In the spring of 1982, fifteen trailer homes were brought to the site and building plans for 48 houses were approved by the Minister of Housing and Construction David Levy." ← George ^talk 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The first two I recall are translations of short lines anyway, the last one is actually a summary of a few paragraphs. --Shuki (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to provide the full pages in Hebrew and translate them (which could be a copyright violation), but if you can provide the Hebrew & English of those relevant sentences/paragraphs, that would be great. ← George ^talk 20:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Might also want to include the sentences/paragraphs that support the "Israeli Supreme Court confirms this" phrasing. I know it's been removed from the article, but I suspect it's something that editors are going to edit war over for a while. Cheers. ← George ^talk 20:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that. I think it's quite important to mention a freeze and eventual unfreeze outcome to that in the same paragraph. Removing it leaves the reader in suspense. --Shuki (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

הרעיון להקים במקום נקודת התיישבות היה של שר הביטחון אריאל שון שהציע לראש המועצה האיזורית מטה בנימין פנחס וולרשטיין: "אם תעלו על ההרף אעזור לכם לאכלס את המקום"

לאחר שעלו חמש המשפחות הראשוניות לפסגות, הקפיא בג"ץ את המשך ההתיישבות במקום.

בסופו של דבר נדחתה העתירה בחודש אדר תשמ"ב, ומשפחות ה"כולל" עברו מעפרה לפסגות.

I got the book now, provided some lines, anything specific wanted? --Shuki (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think just whatever is necessary to support the statements in the article attributed to the source. If the source was readily available in English online, I would just go and find the relevant sentences/paragraphs and read them to confirm that the source says what it's being cited for. Same thing here, just that I need someone with access to the book and a translator. :) ← George ^talk 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have requested, multiple times now, that you quote and translate the material that backs up the lines In the spring of 1982, the supreme court dismissed the claim and this paved the way for a rapid expansion including an immediate fifteen trailer homes with the help of Uri Bar-On and another 48 housing starts approved by the Minister of Housing and Construction David Levy and and the Supreme Court of Israel confirms. Please do so. nableezy - 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In the end, you want me to transcribe the whole section, I'm sure that will have copyvio issues. I'm working to get access to the author/researcher and find out if he minds and if an English translation is planned that would be important for WP:Israeli Settlements that Carol wants to create. --Shuki (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, if you wish to use a Hebrew source you are required to provide original quotations and translations of the material you say supports what you put in an article. As you have refused to do so for almost 2 weeks now I will be removing the material sourced to this source unless you provide those quotations and translations. nableezy - 14:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Relax, I haven't refused so stop lying. Like I said, I'm trying to locate the author, and it's not easy when my free time is not during regular working hours. --Shuki (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

After weeks of not complying with a simple request, you say I am lying? Interesting. I expect that to be struck out or we might see another AE fun-filled weekend. nableezy - 14:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You can deal with copyvio, I will not. I am getting closer to contacting the author like I have said and you refuse to AGF accusing me of refusing to cooperate. Go waste your weekend with AE and more frivolous kettle reports, I intend to enjoy mine. --Shuki (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Mitzpe Ha'ai

Thanks J, I can't find anything substantial to show that this Mitzpe Ha'ai outpost even exists anyway though I'm looking for more info. Would be interesting to create a new article after this current freeze. --Shuki (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also known as Givat Ha'ai per the Peace Now source. There's some information out there, although its notability is dubious for a separate article (no, I'm not suggesting I'll contest it; that seems silly). Also, a "Psagot East" outpost seems to have been constructed and later dismantled, according to some sources, but the details weren't clear enough. Lovely satellite picture of both at the PN source as well.--Carwil (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Peace Now is not a RS. I usually don't mind attributing them for numbers since they often exaggerate them anyway. In any case, mentioning them in the article does not add anything, since I'm not finding anything about this place. Trust me, I would not hide it. --Shuki (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that Peace Now were a reliable source? This is an extreme fringe group that even falsifies the numbers on people who attend their rallies. If the material is of notability and value, there will be other sources. Don't edit-war over (I'm understating it:) crap sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Say users who repeatedly edit war to use settler propaganda as a "reliable source". nableezy - 13:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a very large difference between an NGO funded by foreign sources and an acredited member of the Israeli press corps. I seen the same type of arguments about FoxNews and the endless attempts to discredit it as well. --Shuki (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse him with facts please.

p.s. add 'extreme fringe' before 'NGO'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you even understand what your first line is, or would you like some lessons in English? Yes, Shuki, there is a difference. One of those groups does not publish fringe propaganda. Ill let you guess which one does. nableezy - 16:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jaakabou, fringe has a particular meaning here on Wikipedia, described at WP:Fringe, and it's about theories unaccepted by mainstream publications in a field.

Instead of speaking of "fringe" sources, we have standards of reliability at WP:Source. Such as these: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. ... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments … Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications"

The material under question here does in fact appear in respected mainstream publications such as the New York Times and Haaretz. By Wikipedia standards this suggests Peace Now's Settlement Watch is a reliable source.

Peace Now, which issued its 2006 report (the one I cited here on talk; based on unofficial Civil Administration data from 2004), updated it when new facts became available (a court ordered the Israeli government to turn over the Civil Administration land database in late 2006), by producing a new report in 2007. Details are here. In both cases, the reports combine Peace Now assesments of buildings and boundaries with Israeli government sources on ownership to produce a set of percentages. Their methods are spelled out. There willingness to revise based on new data and all these internal factors tend to show Peace Now's Settlement Watch is a reliable source.

All of that said, the new government data in the 2007 revision for Psagot in particular, is contradicted by our other sources. The 2006 CA data has 160 dunams more of private land in Psagot, smack in the middle of the settlement, probably the municipal parcel described in the article. Whatever the CA's and PN's reliability, the new data is mistaken (or has reclassified the municipal land as private for some good reason I can't think of) and shouldn't be used here.--Carwil (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Carwil, reliable source has a particular meaning here on Wikipedia, described at WP:RS. Thank you for taking on Peace Now's case. They are an NGO, they can be quoted in articles, but not in first-person WP. They are not 'reliable source'. FWIW, you deciding which data is mistaken is interesting. And while the NYT is usually a RS, their publication of Peace Now claims is patheticly Haaretz-like and seems to hold no water in court. Should I point you to court cases where Peace Now has had to retract its wild claims? --Shuki (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I read the Peace Now article, so I think I know the cases you're talking about; the corrected material is in the 2007 report I cite. And I quoted WP:RS in what you replied to. NGO covers a lot of territory, but the above standards ("a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments") from WP:RS are often met by non-governmental organizations. More over, per Jaakobou below, NGO reports often provide systematic data in a way that journalistic sources rarely do. A re-analysis of the settlement land data by another organization would be extremely unlikely given that PN has published theirs.

However "interesting" or derived from WP:IAR common-sense fact checking may be, it's better than creating non-controversies (like "but PN's analysis claims 99% of Psagot is built on private land") based on quoting data without thought.

If what you're saying (about "first-person WP") is that we need to say, "A Peace Now analysis of a Civil Administration database found that..." then we're on the same page.--Carwil (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If Peace Now were somewhat reliable, I'd agree with you - and we could cite two sources with opposing views. They are not and what you've been proposing is giving credence to creative writing as if it were encyclopaedic content. Find a normative source please.

p.s. see my comment below and please stop using the term "analysis" in regards to their advocacy materials. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"Peace Now assesments" fit the definition "creative writing". Find a proper source for the content you wish to add please. If it is of such notability there should be no problem to find other less creative sources.

p.s. Nableezy, off "course!" Peace Now doesn't publish propaganda. Never has... they just write creative content for their advocacy. e.g. [9] *sigh* Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Im sorry, I must have forgotten to check that so very reliable source CAMERA. I swear Jaak, the laughs I get from comments like that make this place well worth the price of admission. nableezy - 04:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I know the "colonial" reality makes you laugh. Peace Now is out. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh no, you dont get to make these determinations as if you control things here. The fact that you cite CAMERA as a source to supposedly demonstrate that Peace Now is unreliable is funny but without any validity at all. nableezy - 13:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you quit the silliness, they are not rejected because of CAMERA. They are rejected on their own merit of fabricating content. e.g. (the case in question) making stuff up and saying it exists in an external report when it doesn't (I checked). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont exactly believe most (all) of what you claim, so unless you can provide a source disputing what Peace Now said the material should be reinstated. nableezy - 16:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

The content they fabricated to be in a report is not in that report.. don't let any facts confuse you. Peace Now is out.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says they fabricated this data? If not, I will be reinserting this material once protection is lifted. You dont get to push in garbage sources like Arutz Sheva and ITIC all over the place and reject Peace Now. nableezy - 18:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy,

The content they fabricated to be in a report is not in that report. If you can find that information in the report, that's great, but until then - you cannot use the non reliable source called Peace Now. Also, I don't use those sources all over the place, but I do consider Arutz Sheva to be reliable on issues of news (not on issues of opinion). They have an established history of reporting the news with accuracy, moreso than some of the other sources (esp. foreign ones) we use frequently. Nevertheless, try to avoid this irrelevant ad-hominem. I don't use the claim that you supported the notoriously antisemitic publication of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida when talking about Peace Now. OK?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont know what you are talking about, but I dont plan on going through a Hebrew primary source to fact check for Peace Now. Is there or is there not a source that disputes what Peace Now said? If not, your claims about them fabricating this information is just that, a claim made by some random person on the internet that has no bearing on what is placed in a supposed encyclopedia. Now, once again, please provide a source backing your claim that what Peace Now reports about this settlement is false. nableezy - 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple. Peace Now are a fringe advocacy group who were never a reliable source to begin with. Your demands, to find a secondary source refuting a non reliable source about fabricated materials, are unreasonable and you are accusing me of lying. Please stop. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That isnt true, I am not "accusing [you] of lying", I am saying you are providing unsourced assertions that Peace Now is fabricating data. You cant just say the source is not telling the truth and expect others to accept your word over the source. Yes or no, is there a source disputing what Peace Now says? nableezy - 01:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, from what I can see, Peace Now is an advocacy group, so they aren't the sort of source we should be using. Anyway, I'm posting here, mostly because your argument seems to be getting slightly heated. PhilKnight (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Explicit attribution was given to Peace Now, we werent presenting this as anything more than what Peace Now reported. The issue here is that isnt even allowed here. nableezy - 02:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In which case, I'd suggest posting on WP:RSN. PhilKnight (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS/N#Peace Now in Psagot nableezy - 16:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nab! I've amplified the request there so we can deal with all the main uses there might be for these reports from Peace Now. Jaakobou, do you really doubt Peace Now's satellite maps show Mitzpe Ha'ai? Just curious.--Carwil (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit repetitive here, but Peace Now publications have been refuted on numerous occasions. Sure, some of their material might be accurate, but we're not about to start using jewsagainstzionism.org in articles about Israel just because small portions of their content is correct. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the disputed diff here? Sol (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Without voicing an opinion on whether Peace Now is a reliable source, I would like to affirm that Jaakobou is quite right in protesting its use for this information, especially since the original source - the Sasson report of 2005 - is readily available. The information cited on the Peace Now website appears in Appendix A of the report, the detailed list of outposts, and the website is an accurate summary of the information contained in that appendix. The settlement is also referred to in the body of the report. The report is available from the Prime Minister's office. The final report is not available on-line, but the interim report (not including the appendixes) can be read here. (I am guessing that Jaakobou thought that Givat Ha-ai was not mentioned in the report because he was reading the summary, available on numerous websites, and not the full report.) Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ill leave adding material from a Hebrew source to omeone who knows Hebrew. As it is, there is a fairly clear consensus that Peace Now can be cited, so Ive re-added the material that had been removed. nableezy - 00:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the Sasson report reference --Ravpapa (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)