Talk:El Matan

"failed verification"

Biosketch, I think you are misreading the sentence, or my writing of it is not clear. The clause "though Israel disputes this" is about Israel disputing that settlements violate international law, not something specific to outposts. The line is there to include the fact that the international community does not differentiate between settlements authorized by the Israeli government or outposts built without permission and that all of them are illegal colonies in occupied territory. If you would like though, we can remove though Israel disputes this. nableezy - 14:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And here is a BBC source about Israeli outposts that also includes that All settlements in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. nableezy - 14:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No, what you're inviting me to do is corrupt the boilerplate formula at WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. I've already pointed out to you that you were specifically instructed to obtain consensus before introducing any change in the way the boilerplate text is formulated.—Biosketch (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You cant say that both the current sentence is unacceptable and then also say that no changes can be made. And you ignore that the source I just supplied makes the same statement in an article on outposts. But you did not even address my comment on what the sentence means. Would you care to try to be constructive and engage in honest debate, or is there a reason besides improving the article that led you here? nableezy - 15:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Legality is non-negotiable. The current sentence, which you added on 3 July, is inconsistent with the formula agreed upon at WP:Legality. You can't possibly expect me to believe you don't see how your formulation differs from the boilerplate text.—Biosketch (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? Non-negotiable??? What exactly would you like to change about the sentence? There must be something, or else you would not have tagged it. And no, I do not see how this formulation differs from the boilerplate text, except that it also says that the international community considers outposts to be settlements. Do you dispute that? Would you like me to separate the sentence so that this a stand-alone sourced sentence? Again, would you care to try to be constructive and engage in honest debate, or is there a reason besides improving the article that led you here? Im not interested in these player-vs-player interactions you seem to seek out. What exactly about the article would you like to change? Do you dispute that the sentence isnt saying anything about Israel's views on the international community's view of outposts, only on their view of settlements? If not, why? If so, how does the sentence fail verification? nableezy - 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be under the misguided perception that you or I can suggest a modified boilerplate text and that'll be acceptable. That's not what WP:Legality says. It says, "I expect Nableezy to either conform their future edits to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, or obtain consensus for their new version." Just because you and I tend to disagree on everything here doesn't mean that a consensus between us at this article can circumvent the consensus vis-a-vis WP:Legality. The fact remains that your wording is in violation of an Arbitration ruling, yet you're continuing to argue with me here as though what either of us says makes any difference. The last time you were caught trying to modify the consensus wording, it was on account of the word "occupied." Now you're trying to add stuff about outposts. These may seem like subtle, inconsequential changes to you, but they're not. To conclude, then, either conform your edit to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, or else obtain consensus for your new version. I'll have nothing more to add at this venue.—Biosketch (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. You have doggedly refused to answer a simple question, what do you want to change with the current wording? And you also refuse to answer any of the the other things I have written. Your objections appear to be based on antipathy for a particular user rather than a concern for the content of the article. If and when you would like to engage in good faith discussion I will be here. Until then, bye. nableezy - 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Master plan - misleading source?

Hi, @Nishidani:

I looked at the sentence at the end of the article and wanted to get information by going back to the source. I was surprised when I found it was to the POICA NGO (ARIJ/Land Research Center collaboration), and not a piece by Haaretz itself. I then read the sentence more carefully, and realized that it was apparently describing a legal advert in the print edition, which POICA was itself commenting on.

I find this a little problematic, as it confuses the reader. It, perhaps unintentionally, lends the reader the impression that it is sourced via reporting by a well-respected newspaper. I'm hesitant to call POICA WP:RS (especially for interpretation). If it were RS, it would be only for the fact that such an advertisement ran, not the facts within the advertisement, and would also lack any context about the author of the plan, the process of approval of such a plan, etc., which may lead the reader into a misunderstanding about the plan and its acceptance. Judging from the language used, POICA's description is their own freely-interpreted excerpt from the plan, and probably POV in and of itself (e.g., master plans do not usually use words like "confiscate"):

Here is the article text and source as written:

On October 2 2014, Haaretz carried notification of a master plan envisaging the confiscation from Wad Qana, an area farmed by Palestinians, of 100 dunams of land for the El Matan outpost.

If we can get a copy of the original master plan or its published (advert) summary, that would be fantastic. If not, here is an alternate proposal that may ease spin that POICA may have introduced (:

POICA, a Palestinian NGO, has observed the October 2014 public notification of a master plan that may affect the Wad Qana reserve, including El Matan. Per POICA's interpretation, 100 dunums of land will be reassigned from Wad Qana agriculture to El Matan construction.

Since it uses the same source, the end of the lede's first sentence also becomes difficult: "on the lands of Wad Qana in the Salfit Governorate." I can't find any RS relating to Wad Qana at all. Do you have anything, perhaps in Arabic? I only found some information dating back to 1943 dexcribing it as a forest reserve within Deir Istiya, Jinsafut and Kafr Laqif.

Dovid (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wad Qana is the Arabic name for Nahal Kaneh. Zero^talk 10:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)