Talk:Psagot

Expansion

One of the benefits of many editors of all POVs visiting an article is that it enjoys an incredible amount of attention and usually great expansion. Rather than leave it an eternal stub, it blossoms into a large article. Which location are we moving to next. I want to go to the library and get prepared. Can we do Beit El? The size of the article does not do justice to the size of the location. --Shuki (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

How about what happens next is you provide the quotes and translations requested. nableezy - 22:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the request, I am asking for quotes from the source and translations of those quotes for the following citations:

• 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 cited to Hoberman, Haggai (2008) (in Hebrew). Keneged Kol HaSikuim [Against All Odds] (1st ed.). Sifriat Netzarim page = 196-7
• and the Supreme Court of Israel confirms. cited to the same source

nableezy - 22:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you really expect me to type out an entire page and then translate it? --Shuki (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I expect you to abide by the policies of this website. Specifically WP:NONENG, part of WP:V. Quoting from that policy: 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. nableezy - 16:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooh but your reply does not match my question. AGF fellow editor. I haven't refused anything, just need to get the book back. --Shuki (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I answered the question, I told you exactly what I would like you to provide, and I made this same request in a comment on 02:06, 31 October 2010. If you are going to oblige great. If not I will be removing the material. nableezy - 16:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's cute how you always need to get in the last word on everything. --Shuki (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I sincerely hope that you have the last word here, those words being the quotations and translations requested. nableezy - 17:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Funy shit right here. But now Nableezy is removing some lines and not others. So yes, Shuki, provide the text of a page. If you feel that it is to much time (totally understand) then think of alternatives. Do you have a scanner at work? If so, shoot it over to me via email. Not sure if I will be any help but I am curious. I tried finding a copy of the book online to nab but got nothing. I can move this up a comment to give Nableezy the last word still. Wait for it... bye ;) Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted material on legality

Gillibrand has removed the following material on legality prior to the protection of the page:

Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Psagot, are widely considered illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this

This follows rather intense discussion here and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues about the text, which was inconclusive on the lead/position, but admitted the material as NPOV and relevant. WP:Synth, of course, comes up because "Psagot" does not appear in the BBC citation included (although that refers unequivocally to all settlements, including Psagot. In any case, the following citations do include Psagot:

• "This is Psagot - what Israelis call a village and the rest of the world calls an illegal settlement." Brian Whitaker, "The summit of Middle East tension," Guardian, 3 September 2001.
• "The settlements, viewed as illegal by much of the international community and a threat to the country's long-term survival by critics inside Israel, have become one of the major issues of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." In the following article on the Psagot and other wineries: Dina Kraft, "With wineries and tourism, settlers try to rebrand settlements for Israeli public," Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 21, 2010 .

Now, a great deal of effort has been put into making this sentence NPOV and well-documented, relying foremost on the BBC article. I'll present an even better version shortly, but there is absolutely no remaining reason to remove it. Gillibrand?--Carwil (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new text:

Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Psagot,[1,2] are considered illegal by the international community; the Israeli government has strenuously challenged this argument.[3,4]

Citations:

1. Guardian citation above
2. JTA citation above
3. BBC citation above
4. Wedgwood, R. (2005). "The ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Israeli Security Fence and the limits of self-defense". American Journal of International Law. 99 (1): 52–61. ISSN 0002-9300.

Comments?--Carwil (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Was Gillibrand the only objector to this? BrewCrewer? Agada? anyone care to confirm they're okay with it? We need affirmative responses since the page is now protected.--Carwil (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the sentence could be improved upon, but generally support its inclusion. ← George ^talk 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

remove the word "strenuously" and i see no problem with this addition to the legality section. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe - and Carwil can correct me if I'm mistaken - the question is whether or not to add it to the lead. ← George ^talk 22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For now, the text has been removed from the body by Gillibrand, who was reported to administrators on other grounds and seems to have disappeared. The page is protected, so reinserting it in the body requires discussion here.

As far as the lead, WoookieInHeat and I deadlocked on the issue above (WIH argued it isn't significant to the topic of Psagot), and I decided to await the discussion on WP:IPCOLL before starting in on an RfC or other dispute resolution. You're free to add to the discussion above if you wish, though I already quoted you on the notability of international legality.--Carwil (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I support the sentence in the lead (without the word "strenuously"), its about the illegal/legal aspect of the settlement so its very notable information, and its both the world and Israeli pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I missed the legality dispute deletion, it was disruptive. I personally have no problem either inclusion way, this is relatively minor issue of this article, though pretty big issue as international law goes. However Carwil is right: the centralized discussion on edit waring and legality is concluding, maybe people would like to contribute. As this article goes we should clearly link Israeli Settlement and See also International law and Israeli settlements that would be factually exact and neutral. Discussing proper wording per each settlement, looks silly to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the neutrality tag on the assumption it was referring to ilegality, which has now been sorted out at WP:IPCOLL. If it was referring to something else please direct it to the section where that's discussed.--Misarxist 08:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Winery

It is news to me that Ruth Eglash is a man, or a settler born and raised in Ofra. Perhaps the editors with trigger happy fingers on the revert button should take more care to read what they are reverting. They might also want to think long and hard about this criteria, unless they want it to be used whenever a Palestinian or Arab journalist's work is used. Several policy reasons for removing the lengthy quote from Levy were given, including WP:COPYVIO and WP:PROMOTION. If you want another one, it is that you do not have consensus to add this disputed content, and must seek it here. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The "Ruth Eglash" issue is a result of your inserting a ref without any commentary into the middle of a commentary related to a different ref. I moved the inserted ref to the end of the commentary as an additional ref or it could go in separately with its own commentary if you prefer.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors with trigger happy fingers on the revert button should take more care to read what they are reverting

De te fabula narratur, i.e. that is what you did, confusing Akiva Novick with Ruth Eglash. There are no problems I can see with citing just over 5% of an article for a quotation. If you disliked the format -a citation- paraphrase was available, and in paraphrase the policy caviling objections -. WP:PROMOTION is egregiously silly since most of our sources are promoting Psagot wine -are dissolved. Why didn't you paraphrase? Since no one can dispute that the record states Palestinians affirm documented title to that land, and ownership is crucial to any description of a property, that information goes back in, in one form or another. Lastly, consensus does not mean persuading one editor when three are present on a page. The minority view requires talk page consensus to revert it out.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I restored Levy and Levac, that is not a copyvio, and WP:PROMO prohibits self-promotion. Not liking something is not a valid reason to remove something, and making up arguments when the policies linked do not support, not even a little bit, is tendentious editing. nableezy - 13:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong infobox

The infobox being used at this page is for Israeli villages only. A reverting editor is is arguing that Psagot IS an Israeli village?!] The proper infobox is infobox settlement not infobox Israeli village as is the case in virtually all such settlements in the West Bank. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an Israeli village, like it's also an Israeli settlement; this is not the same as saying it is IN Israel (which the infobox doesn't, instead stating it's in the West Bank). Contrary to the incorrect claim by SelfStudier, this infobox is used on the majority of settlement articles (check out the other moshavim and community settlements on {{Mateh Binyamin Regional Council}}), as most are villages of some kind (community settlements, kibbutzim etc) and in most cases, has been used since they were created over a decade ago. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think there is some kind of POV issue, and the removal of it (which removed virtually all the parameters) was simply disruption to make a point. Number 57 19:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The situation was similar with the template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_21#Template:Infobox_Israel_municipality which has now been deleted; it was used improperly, for example, for Beitar Illit, which now correctly uses infobox settlement as should this article. The contents of the infobox are detail, the principal problem here is the use of the wrong infobox.Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not 'improperly' being used. What information does it display that is wrong? It also uses {{Israel populations}} as that is where the populations of all Israeli municipalities are stored. Are you also going to remove this? I can't believe this is even being argued about. Number 57 19:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Using the wrong infobox is wrong, it's really that simple. Psagot is in the WB not in Israel. If you would like to make an "Israeli settlement" wrapper instead I won't object to that, everyone knows what those are and we can include other pertinent information in the design not permitted by the Israeli village wrapper, which to repeat, is for villages located in Israel. Look at the template it says as clear as a bell "pushpin_map = Israel". Obvious nonsense.Selfstudier (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's not the "wrong infobox"; it's been used on these articles since the 2000s. Please answer the question: What information does it display that is incorrect? Number 57 20:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example of the kind of rubbish that results from using the wrong infobox - Mishor_Adumim See where it says Country = Israel. Not to mention that Judea and Samaria Area is Israeli POV terminology per WP:WESTBANK. Garbage. I suggest you stop flogging a dead horse.Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't ask about other articles (which can be easily corrected, as that one has been now). What information does the infobox on this article display that is incorrect? Number 57 22:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Not the point. It's the WRONG infobox. I'll leave this here awhile see if anyone has anything useful to contribute, if not, we'll take it to an RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll assume that this means the answer is 'nothing' then. As I said earlier, this infobox has been in use on settlement articles for over a decade and I don't recall any complaints previously. Why is it suddenly such an issue? It seems to be only because the infobox name (which doesn't appear in the article) contains the word 'Israel'. But this is an Israeli settlement, it uses other templates with the word 'Israel' in them, so I honestly can't see why this is a problem – it just seems to be some kind of massive overreaction to something unimportant due to having a strong POV. Number 57 22:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Never assume, it will only get you into trouble. Template talk:Infobox Israel village. Selfstudier (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If my assumption is wrong, perhaps you could answer the question then? The claim you made at the template talk page ("There are no Israeli villages in the West Bank") is as untrue as the one above about which infobox is used on settlements: Some Israeli settlements are villages. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Number 57 23:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000 and Nableezy: You have both edited the template in question in the past, as well as numerous articles on settlements. Are you able to explain to Selfstudier why this is a non-issue? Number 57 23:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Should either reply, then it seems sensible to take this as well to Template talk:Infobox Israel village where Jonesey95 independently came up with exact same prescription as I did, use infobox settlement. And I'll thank Number57 to keep his gratuitous commentary to himself.Selfstudier (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The template has been coded so that the display of the infobox does not show Israel as the country, and shows a region as West Bank. It does not matter what the wikicode says, nowhere in the infobox does this say that this is in Israel or even make the implication. Even the alt-code on the map has been made to say in the West Bank. So yes, non-issue. nableezy - 02:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I generally think these places should not be called "Israeli villages" and am in favor of what I think Number57 originally suggested as a solution to a years long back and forth and that we now use almost as standard of "Israeli settlement organized as a whatever". Here it is "organized as a community settlement". I dont really find much of this section to be all the productive to be totally honest. nableezy - 02:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(Clears throat) That was my suggestion. Zero^talk 04:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry Zero. nableezy - 03:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)