![]() | 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.
|
The map coordinates give a street or road named Esh Kodesh, which is southwest of Jersualem. Yet the village is identified in the article as being "near" two other places ( Shvut Rachel and Qusra) that are described as being about 30 miles north of Jerusalem. 108.246.205.134 ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Care to explain so we can discuss whatever you think the problem might be? We can't fix it without a discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 22:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There has been no finding of fact that Esh Kodesh is de facto "illegal". It is, therefore, POV to include it as if it were fact, and beyond the scope of relaying information about Esh Kodesh to the reader. Esh Kodesh is located in the Israeli administrative district of Judea and Samaria. Whether or not a group of quasi-anonymous wikipedia editors reach a "consensus" that Judea and Samaria should be referred to as the "West Bank" does not change the objective fact concerning the location of Esh Kodesh in Judea and Samaria. http://settlementsofisrael.netzah.org/esh-kodesh.php Z554 ( talk) 23:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
<- I have removed the tag. If there are reasons for the tag to be there that don't rely on transparent POV pushing let's hear them. I won't respond to comments that violate the WP:NOTADVOCATE mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Why remove the fact that Esh Kodesh is near Qusra?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this is excellent material. The source says:
One of the outpost's residents (who declined to have his name published) explains that the site is also named for the original Esh Kodesh, and not only for the guard. "Some of us [there are seven families living in the outpost] were familiar with the book even before. We also knew Rabbi Binyamin Herling, a man of Samaria, who was murdered at Mount Ebal, who was also a student of the book. We felt the existence of a tie between the Admor, who died for his Judaism in the Holocaust, and the guard who was named for him and was murdered in Jerusalem."
I think it would be nice to make it clear in the article that the outpost is named for the book as well as for the person named after the book. I'm at 1RR and don't want to mess with it tonight, but I think it'd be a good thing, and will do it later if no one either objects or beats me to it.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This part of a sentence:
where their presence generates hostility
doesn't seem to be supported by the source it's cited to. The source says:
Mishmeret Yesha is a grassroots non-profit organization that helps more than 100 settlements throughout Judea and Samaria train and equip their own "rapid response teams" to meet the security challenges of living in the midst of a hostile Palestinian population.
That is, it says that the Palestinians are hostile. It does not say that the presence of the settlers generates hostility. I think it should be reworded to conform to the source or else another source should be found to support that part of the current version. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This is how the sentence now reads:
In September 2011, the Israel Defense Forces established a base near Esh Kodesh[1] after Israeli security forces were called in to break up a clash between the settlers and a group of 300 villagers from Qusra.[9]
The source that the clash is cited to does not mention the base and therefore says nothing about whether the base was put there after the clash or not. To put it in the same sentence like this seems to me to be synthesis because it creates the impression that the base was put there in reaction to the clash. The more detailed article that the existence of the base doesn't make this connection, and in fact doesn't even say when in September the base was put there, leaving open the possibility that it was not in fact put there after the clash. I think that the clause about the clash must be removed unless it can be adequately sourced with something that explicitly relates the placement of the base to the clash.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Is not a reliable source for factual matters: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Is_FrontPageMag.com_a_reliable_source.3F and other RSN threads as well. I think that everything in here that's sourced to that article ought to be sourced to other stuff.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The sentence now says:
In September 2011, in the wake of the Palestinian Authority's plans to request unilateral recognition at the United Nations leading to expectations of unrest,[9] the Israel Defense Forces established a base near Esh Kodesh[1]
But the source that the part about the wake of the PA's plans doesn't mention the base either. This is all textbook synthesis. The sentence makes it sound as if the expectations of unrest were related to the establishment of the base. The source doesn't mention the base. I think that both those sources must go and the material cited to them must go as well unless there is a source that actually mentions the base that mentions the expectations of unrest or the clash in the following sentence.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Now we have this sentence:
On September 23, 2011, Israeli security forces were called in to break up a clash between the settlers and a group of 300 villagers from Qusra.[10]
The source doesn't mention Esh Kodesh at all. How is this even relevant? I think it should be removed unless a source which relates it to Esh Kodesh can be found.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Note as well that the reference for this is now a dead link. http://times247.com/articles/arab-mob-assaults-village-shouts-kill-the-jews It redirects to an error at washingtontimes.com This should be removed until a source can be found Dicesd ( talk) 22:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The naming convention WP:WESTBANK says that
Therefore, we should say "northern West Bank" and not "Samaria", regardless of wordings used in specific sources. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 13:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
And this article's chance of quality is gone. There have been hundreds of violent incidents around the place done by both sides. We're going to end up listing them all, one at a time, because 1RR lets us add crap but makes it hard to remove. We have so far:
All added in a tit-for-tat process with no concern for chronology, relevance, or even coherent prose. I see about thirty more of these in various sources. None of them help the reader, none of them are useful. They're not good editing. But I have the feeling that they're just going to grow, back and forth depending on who's the perpetrator, until the article is 50K and says nothing useful anymore. Can everyone slow down and discuss some of the actual issues that have been raised on the talk page?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk)
![]() | 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The map coordinates give a street or road named Esh Kodesh, which is southwest of Jersualem. Yet the village is identified in the article as being "near" two other places ( Shvut Rachel and Qusra) that are described as being about 30 miles north of Jerusalem. 108.246.205.134 ( talk) 16:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Care to explain so we can discuss whatever you think the problem might be? We can't fix it without a discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 22:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There has been no finding of fact that Esh Kodesh is de facto "illegal". It is, therefore, POV to include it as if it were fact, and beyond the scope of relaying information about Esh Kodesh to the reader. Esh Kodesh is located in the Israeli administrative district of Judea and Samaria. Whether or not a group of quasi-anonymous wikipedia editors reach a "consensus" that Judea and Samaria should be referred to as the "West Bank" does not change the objective fact concerning the location of Esh Kodesh in Judea and Samaria. http://settlementsofisrael.netzah.org/esh-kodesh.php Z554 ( talk) 23:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
<- I have removed the tag. If there are reasons for the tag to be there that don't rely on transparent POV pushing let's hear them. I won't respond to comments that violate the WP:NOTADVOCATE mandatory policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Why remove the fact that Esh Kodesh is near Qusra?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this is excellent material. The source says:
One of the outpost's residents (who declined to have his name published) explains that the site is also named for the original Esh Kodesh, and not only for the guard. "Some of us [there are seven families living in the outpost] were familiar with the book even before. We also knew Rabbi Binyamin Herling, a man of Samaria, who was murdered at Mount Ebal, who was also a student of the book. We felt the existence of a tie between the Admor, who died for his Judaism in the Holocaust, and the guard who was named for him and was murdered in Jerusalem."
I think it would be nice to make it clear in the article that the outpost is named for the book as well as for the person named after the book. I'm at 1RR and don't want to mess with it tonight, but I think it'd be a good thing, and will do it later if no one either objects or beats me to it.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This part of a sentence:
where their presence generates hostility
doesn't seem to be supported by the source it's cited to. The source says:
Mishmeret Yesha is a grassroots non-profit organization that helps more than 100 settlements throughout Judea and Samaria train and equip their own "rapid response teams" to meet the security challenges of living in the midst of a hostile Palestinian population.
That is, it says that the Palestinians are hostile. It does not say that the presence of the settlers generates hostility. I think it should be reworded to conform to the source or else another source should be found to support that part of the current version. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This is how the sentence now reads:
In September 2011, the Israel Defense Forces established a base near Esh Kodesh[1] after Israeli security forces were called in to break up a clash between the settlers and a group of 300 villagers from Qusra.[9]
The source that the clash is cited to does not mention the base and therefore says nothing about whether the base was put there after the clash or not. To put it in the same sentence like this seems to me to be synthesis because it creates the impression that the base was put there in reaction to the clash. The more detailed article that the existence of the base doesn't make this connection, and in fact doesn't even say when in September the base was put there, leaving open the possibility that it was not in fact put there after the clash. I think that the clause about the clash must be removed unless it can be adequately sourced with something that explicitly relates the placement of the base to the clash.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Is not a reliable source for factual matters: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Is_FrontPageMag.com_a_reliable_source.3F and other RSN threads as well. I think that everything in here that's sourced to that article ought to be sourced to other stuff.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 05:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The sentence now says:
In September 2011, in the wake of the Palestinian Authority's plans to request unilateral recognition at the United Nations leading to expectations of unrest,[9] the Israel Defense Forces established a base near Esh Kodesh[1]
But the source that the part about the wake of the PA's plans doesn't mention the base either. This is all textbook synthesis. The sentence makes it sound as if the expectations of unrest were related to the establishment of the base. The source doesn't mention the base. I think that both those sources must go and the material cited to them must go as well unless there is a source that actually mentions the base that mentions the expectations of unrest or the clash in the following sentence.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Now we have this sentence:
On September 23, 2011, Israeli security forces were called in to break up a clash between the settlers and a group of 300 villagers from Qusra.[10]
The source doesn't mention Esh Kodesh at all. How is this even relevant? I think it should be removed unless a source which relates it to Esh Kodesh can be found.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 06:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Note as well that the reference for this is now a dead link. http://times247.com/articles/arab-mob-assaults-village-shouts-kill-the-jews It redirects to an error at washingtontimes.com This should be removed until a source can be found Dicesd ( talk) 22:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The naming convention WP:WESTBANK says that
Therefore, we should say "northern West Bank" and not "Samaria", regardless of wordings used in specific sources. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 13:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
And this article's chance of quality is gone. There have been hundreds of violent incidents around the place done by both sides. We're going to end up listing them all, one at a time, because 1RR lets us add crap but makes it hard to remove. We have so far:
All added in a tit-for-tat process with no concern for chronology, relevance, or even coherent prose. I see about thirty more of these in various sources. None of them help the reader, none of them are useful. They're not good editing. But I have the feeling that they're just going to grow, back and forth depending on who's the perpetrator, until the article is 50K and says nothing useful anymore. Can everyone slow down and discuss some of the actual issues that have been raised on the talk page?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk)