Misplaced Pages

Talk:Barkan Industrial Park: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:30, 27 February 2015 editHuldra (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers83,894 edits →Nomo's request← Previous edit Revision as of 22:46, 27 February 2015 edit undoAshtul (talk | contribs)1,008 edits →Nomo's requestNext edit →
Line 40: Line 40:
:::::::::Nishidani, you wrote "''learn the rules of editing, the necessary distinctions between facts and opinions''" but the rule is - include an attribution not a fictitious tag about not being in citation. And as for attribution, I would argue a manager at an industrial zone is an expert about the working relationships there. Regardless, I'm not even the one to take the tag down. It was a third editor so you should have addressed this to him. ] (]) 10:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC) :::::::::Nishidani, you wrote "''learn the rules of editing, the necessary distinctions between facts and opinions''" but the rule is - include an attribution not a fictitious tag about not being in citation. And as for attribution, I would argue a manager at an industrial zone is an expert about the working relationships there. Regardless, I'm not even the one to take the tag down. It was a third editor so you should have addressed this to him. ] (]) 10:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::]: I certainly did look at the source. The original is in Arabic, which I unfortunately does´t read. ] then gives its version based on the Arabic source. The i24news.tv then refers to PMW, i.e., it does not do an independent translation. So, everything here is dependent on the PMW-source. I quick search of ] finds , which clearly notes PMW as an "activist" source. Yet you insert it in the article as if it was the neutral truth. Not acceptable. ] (]) 21:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC) ::::::::]: I certainly did look at the source. The original is in Arabic, which I unfortunately does´t read. ] then gives its version based on the Arabic source. The i24news.tv then refers to PMW, i.e., it does not do an independent translation. So, everything here is dependent on the PMW-source. I quick search of ] finds , which clearly notes PMW as an "activist" source. Yet you insert it in the article as if it was the neutral truth. Not acceptable. ] (]) 21:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There are several conversations regarding PMW with the majority concluding it is RS thus I state 'consensus seems to be'. I made an effort and provided the original in Arabic which I don't read either. But unless you find someone who reads it and says they mistranslated it, it will be unjustified to remove it. You are more then welcome to take this to ]. ] (]) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:46, 27 February 2015

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:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
WikiProject iconPalestine Stub‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:


Unnamed Section

Hi!

I came to this page looking for "information" .. and I see that this place is considered by Misplaced Pages to be in Israel! That's funny... I realise that it would be futile to edit the page to correct that, but I would just say that it discredits all of Misplaced Pages to let stand such glaring politically-motivated inaccuracies. I wonder if anyone cares?

62.203.66.180 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look on the Judea and Sameria pages along with the pages on Ariel (city) and most of the articles describing settlements, these discussions have and are being had. There are WP naming conventions for places including places that are in disputed territories. The fact that the political situation is murky, I find only strengthens the WP community. Joe407 (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


Nomo's request

The Haaretz source states "Thousands of workers - half Israelis and half Palestinians - work in dozens of factories in Barkan Industrial Park in the West Bank." That seems to be support for our article's rephrase of that fact as "At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in many of the factories in coexistence". Accordingly, I am removing the "failed verification" tag. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course that's not sufficient support for this text. Nothing there about "side by side" or "in coexistence". I'll re-add the tag, and if there's something real in the source then fine. But I think we're moving towards removal here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You are free to suggest al alternative phrasing, I am not particularly attached to the "coexist' or "side by side: phrasing. But if you remove that entire statement after it has been shown to have support, you can expect to see yourself featured in an AE report for tendentious editing . I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's very clear the deception being practiced here:
In wiki's neutral voice we have Schechter cited for a statement of fact (work together in coexistence, which by the way is terribly inept as English, coexistence being a cold-war term).I.e.,

At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in many of the factories in coexistence. (Actually WP:Synth)

Immediately afterwards, as an endorsement of that putative statement of fact, we have its source, which is not a statement of fact, but a highly partisan attitude expressed by the Shomron Regional Council's leader Gershon Mesika who is quoted as saying:-

"It's amazing how the radical Left fails to understand that the main victims are the Palestinians themselves... Fortunately, so far these boycotts have been nothing but PR maneuvers, and we (settlers) are sure that Jews and Arabs will continue to work together and strengthen our prosperous industry and live in coexistence.'

Thus a settler perspective is transformed into an 'objective' fact.
Thousands of Jews and Palestinians work there, not necessarily side by side. In Royalite factory, piece-meal embroidery work is done by Palestinian women in their own rooms, for example.
Just state the facts. The Barkan Industrial Parks factories employ both Jewish settlers and Palestinians. You need good statistical evidence of the overall situation in 120 factories to say that the workplaces are invariably mixed.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Instead of arguing, why won't you find an RS that dispute this claim. A fight at Barkan or what not. As it stands, the statement is supported not to mention is WP:DUE with the multiple pro-Palestinian side text. Ashtul (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
A very selective way of bolding text. I'll take a shot at it -

"It's amazing how the radical Left fails to understand that the main victims are the Palestinians themselves... Fortunately, so far these boycotts have been nothing but PR maneuvers, and we (settlers) are sure that Jews and Arabs will continue to work together and strengthen our prosperous industry and live in coexistence.'

meaning we actually do in the presence.
They work shoulder to shoulder with Israelis, so this is a chance for Israelis and Palestinians to work together, to talk to one another, to trust one another. We’re an industry that manufactures peace products.”
tag doesn't apply here. It is in the sources! Try to think of a tag that apply since you Misplaced Pages:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Ashtul (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As I have reminded you on every edit, learn the rules of editing, the necessary distinctions between facts and opinions. You made a claim into a fact, and tried to endorse that putative fact by citing a partisan opinion. This is kindergarten level sand-in-the-eyes editing, and we are supposed to use mature adult judgement, in the context of policy guidelines. Blogging around the key issue outlined by other editors is pointless, and not worth answering.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
And it is quite outrageous that you quote from Palestinian Media Watch (which has been described as a "right-wing propaganda site", funded by the rather eh....."controversial" Michael Cherney), and make it sounds as if it is directly from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, the Palestinian Authority's official daily. Tag will be added. Huldra (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No! What is outrageous is the fact you didn't look at the sources. Not only I brought a second RS who quoted them, but I even contacted PMW and asked for the original article which is the 3rd source. I looked at WP:RSN before posting it here at the concesnsus seems to be PMW is an RS. Stop this crusade of yours and leave me be. Ashtul (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, you wrote "learn the rules of editing, the necessary distinctions between facts and opinions" but the rule is - include an attribution not a fictitious tag about not being in citation. And as for attribution, I would argue a manager at an industrial zone is an expert about the working relationships there. Regardless, I'm not even the one to take the tag down. It was a third editor so you should have addressed this to him. Ashtul (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Ashtul: I certainly did look at the source. The original is in Arabic, which I unfortunately does´t read. Palestinian Media Watch then gives its version based on the Arabic source. The i24news.tv then refers to PMW, i.e., it does not do an independent translation. So, everything here is dependent on the PMW-source. I quick search of WP:RSN finds this, which clearly notes PMW as an "activist" source. Yet you insert it in the article as if it was the neutral truth. Not acceptable. Huldra (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several conversations regarding PMW with the majority concluding it is RS thus I state 'consensus seems to be'. I made an effort and provided the original in Arabic which I don't read either. But unless you find someone who reads it and says they mistranslated it, it will be unjustified to remove it. You are more then welcome to take this to WP:RSN. Ashtul (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Barkan Industrial Park: Difference between revisions Add topic