Talk:Keshet (Israeli settlement)
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Other meanings
editChannel 2 (Israel) have a concessionaires named "Keshet" and the articles Reshet and Channel 2 (Israel) have link to here (but they need to link to the article of the concessionaires). see the hebrew article "שידורי קשת"
Settlement
editIsarig, Keshet is an Israeli settlement. All Israeli communities in the occupied Golan Heights are referred to as "settlements" by the international community. What is your justification for removing this reference here?--Doron 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've given you my explanation. (1)They are not referred to as such in Israel (2)As the Golan is part of Israel today, they are not any different in terms of legal status from any other Israeli community. 1+2 means that the term is dispute and controversial, and WP should not use that POV designation. I further pointed out to you other WP articles about towns in th eGolan (Katzrin, Afik, etc...) do not use that designation. Isarig 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Come on, you know very well this will not do. What you are given is an Israeli POV, which is not accepted internationally. We've been over this many times. Anyway, no matter what legal status they have -- Israeli settlements are communities that were established by Israel in the territories she occupied in 1967, and Keshet is one of them, so I see no reason why not to refer to Keshet as an Israeli settlement. This is consistent with the Golan Heights and Israeli settlement articles.--Doron 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- If this is an Israeli POV, then by definition, the international position is a different POV. Why should WP use one side's POV? Isarig 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, forget about POV, why is Keshet not a settlement? Or is it not Israeli? It fits the definition of Israeli settlement perfectly, and it is widely referred to as such (not specifically Keshet, but all of the Golan Heights settlement), so why the omission? This definition includes all Israeli communities established on territories Israel has captured in 1967, which are administered by Israeli civilian authorities and whose legal status is disputed. Keshet fits this definition perfectly. Is there any dispute about where and when Keshet was established? Is there a dispute that it is administered by Israel? Do you deny that Keshet's legal status is disputed?--Doron 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't deny that it's status is disputed - it is precisely becuase it is disputed that I don't see a reason to include a characterization which you concede is POV. I wonder why you did not quote the full description from Israeli settlement, which reads "Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank" - not in the Golan. Isarig 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, I'm sure the Golan Heights settlements were also included in the past. I'll start with the Israeli settlement article and see if I can get consensus on this before proceeding to the individual Golan Heights settlement articles.--Doron 06:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't deny that it's status is disputed - it is precisely becuase it is disputed that I don't see a reason to include a characterization which you concede is POV. I wonder why you did not quote the full description from Israeli settlement, which reads "Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank" - not in the Golan. Isarig 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Come on, you know very well this will not do. What you are given is an Israeli POV, which is not accepted internationally. We've been over this many times. Anyway, no matter what legal status they have -- Israeli settlements are communities that were established by Israel in the territories she occupied in 1967, and Keshet is one of them, so I see no reason why not to refer to Keshet as an Israeli settlement. This is consistent with the Golan Heights and Israeli settlement articles.--Doron 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
destroyed vs abandoned
editRe: this edit, the source p145 says at Quneitra was razed to the ground. That is closer to destroyed that abandoned. If it was abandoned it would be intact. It isn't. Statements should comply with WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- True, it should say destroyed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. It destroy so must say destroy. Ani medjool (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- So if it says razed to the ground, why exactly do we see a need to rephrase? I'll go ahead and edit the article to reflect the source accurately, with no paraphrasing. PS: there is no prerequisite of being "intact" to qualify as abandoned. Breein1007 (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. It destroy so must say destroy. Ani medjool (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Status sentence
editThere has been long discussion at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues about adding the illegality issue in all settlement article:[1] There is now consensus to have the sentence: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." in all relevant articles, but its not clear yet exactly where in the article, I have tried to open up a discussion at IPCCAI: [2][3] but I haven't gotten any replies to my latest posts. So now I'm just adding the sentence as I had explained at the IPCCAI discussion. If someone disagrees with the placement then we can discuss this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)