![]() | 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.
|
![]() | On 6 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Almon, Mateh Binyamin to Almon (Israeli settlement). The result of the discussion was moved. |
Your edit just doesn't make sense, Nableezy. If you think it's specific to the settlement then it should come after the land dispute section. That's how logic works. Placing it above it pushes the legal statement in the readers face because it's out of place. The encyclopedia should be striving for logical flow of content and quality presentation. - MichaelNetzer ( talk) 16:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The claim that the section was not specific to the settlement is demonstrably false. Prior to Brewcrewer's tendentious revert, the first sentence of the section read The international community considers all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, including Almon, to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on the transfer of an occupying power's civilian population into occupied territory.. The reason this should follow the history section is because the illegality of the settlement is a byproduct of its being founded in occupied territory. The land dispute section is not related to its status under international law, it makes no difference under GCIV whether or not the land expropriated for the construction of this colony was privately owned or if it was state land. What matters is that it was built in occupied territory. That is related to the history of the settlement. This game of claiming that anything that makes the Glorious State look anything less than lily white by moving any piece of material that is objected to on tendentious grounds to the end of the article is tiring and has no basis in any policy, especially NPOV. Due weight requires that we provide an appropriate amount of weight to a subject relative to its weight in reliable sources. The single most often noted piece of information about this settlement is that it is illegally built in occupied territory. NPOV dictates that this information be given the appropriate weight, and unfounded claims of it being disruptive to a logical flow of content remain baseless. nableezy - 16:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
And done. nableezy - 16:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody plan on actually answering the questions? Or is an RFC necessary here? nableezy - 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The wiki page of each individual Isreali settlement prominently displays right at the beginning that 'the international community considers settlements illegal but Israel disputes this'. Nowadays, the United States ALSO disputes this. If Wiki is going to make mention of the legality of settlements and by stating that Isreal disputes this it implies that ONLY Isreal disputes this. Which is untrue. Editor Nableezy has gone into my editing history to change every edit I made. Clearly there is an anti-Israel bias with this super editor. This is another example of why people cannot trust Wikipedia. Shachna1979 ( talk) 21:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The single most notable thing about this place is that it was illegally constructed in occupied territory. The idea that we should not include the single most notable thing about this place in the lead strikes me as silly. nableezy - 20:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Susya, Har Hevron which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. nableezy - 05:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | 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.
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 6 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Almon, Mateh Binyamin to Almon (Israeli settlement). The result of the discussion was moved. |
Your edit just doesn't make sense, Nableezy. If you think it's specific to the settlement then it should come after the land dispute section. That's how logic works. Placing it above it pushes the legal statement in the readers face because it's out of place. The encyclopedia should be striving for logical flow of content and quality presentation. - MichaelNetzer ( talk) 16:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The claim that the section was not specific to the settlement is demonstrably false. Prior to Brewcrewer's tendentious revert, the first sentence of the section read The international community considers all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, including Almon, to violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's prohibition on the transfer of an occupying power's civilian population into occupied territory.. The reason this should follow the history section is because the illegality of the settlement is a byproduct of its being founded in occupied territory. The land dispute section is not related to its status under international law, it makes no difference under GCIV whether or not the land expropriated for the construction of this colony was privately owned or if it was state land. What matters is that it was built in occupied territory. That is related to the history of the settlement. This game of claiming that anything that makes the Glorious State look anything less than lily white by moving any piece of material that is objected to on tendentious grounds to the end of the article is tiring and has no basis in any policy, especially NPOV. Due weight requires that we provide an appropriate amount of weight to a subject relative to its weight in reliable sources. The single most often noted piece of information about this settlement is that it is illegally built in occupied territory. NPOV dictates that this information be given the appropriate weight, and unfounded claims of it being disruptive to a logical flow of content remain baseless. nableezy - 16:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
And done. nableezy - 16:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody plan on actually answering the questions? Or is an RFC necessary here? nableezy - 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The wiki page of each individual Isreali settlement prominently displays right at the beginning that 'the international community considers settlements illegal but Israel disputes this'. Nowadays, the United States ALSO disputes this. If Wiki is going to make mention of the legality of settlements and by stating that Isreal disputes this it implies that ONLY Isreal disputes this. Which is untrue. Editor Nableezy has gone into my editing history to change every edit I made. Clearly there is an anti-Israel bias with this super editor. This is another example of why people cannot trust Wikipedia. Shachna1979 ( talk) 21:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The single most notable thing about this place is that it was illegally constructed in occupied territory. The idea that we should not include the single most notable thing about this place in the lead strikes me as silly. nableezy - 20:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Susya, Har Hevron which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. nableezy - 05:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)