Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 29 June 2009

Archives

/Archive 1

Sources

Wikifan, please stop using blogs and other websites, such as this and this, in Israel-Palestine articles. These are very contentious articles, and for that reason we have to use only the best sources. Not only academic historians, but historians who specialize in whatever area is under discussion, or well-informed primary sources. Anyone could find any opinion on a website and if they were all added, we'd have chaos. If you keep using that kind of source, all it will do is trigger edit-warring. SlimVirgin 06:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Digital Journal is highly reputed and notable blog and is commonly referenced in the Israel/Palestine arena. Apologies if it is not considered reliable, but I figured with the Jpost article it would give a higher sense of notoriety. I've seen The Huffington Post be used as references in the past. I am not sure what the jfjp ref is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The second ref is one you used yourself. Look, if you continue to use bad sources, I'll take this to WP:AE, because all you are doing is causing edit wars. Please, just use academic sources and all will be well. SlimVirgin 08:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing reference

I would like to assume good faith, but I don't see how removing this reference is supposed to improve the Israeli settlement article Halfacanyon (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The reference was simply a duplicate which is why I removed it. There is a way to re-direct the same source to multiple footnotes but you will probably have to ask someone more experienced like Nableezy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference was NOT a duplicate. Please don't lie, Wikifan12345, it makes it impossible to work with you. Halfacanyon (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop POV-pushing at Israeli settlement

You keep removing sourced material, inserting unsourced material and, as already noted, outright removing references.

Also, you added "According to a 2008 annual report by Kav LaOved" when in fact the material is supported by references from both KavLaoved AND B'Tselem. Halfacanyon (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not removing sourced material. I am in fact ADDING sourced material from the BBC article which you inaccurate paraphrased and copy/pasted. The section needs to reflect the objectivity of the source, you just took out the most extreme pointers and ignored everthing else. Second, it was an annual report by Kav LaOved. The B'Tselem is something else, check the reference again. I encourage you to assume good faith and relax, accusing others of POV pushing is unacceptable. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain this edit then. There's no point working with you if you're going to lie Halfacanyon (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

What do you mean when you say "The B'Tselem is something else"? It supports the facts that you have tried to misrepresent as the opinions of Kav LaOved. Halfacanyon (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not lying. First, you cite the same source twice in 2 paragraphs. You don't need to do that, just put the source at the end of both paragraphs. The Btselem source you claimed collaborated with the Kav LaOved report is false. Check the source. It is a dateless expose on the hardships of Palestinian workers in the West Bank but has nothing to do with Kav LaOved. I removed the paragraph because I condensed into the previous one. I removed the biased language and did some more paraphrasing. Please stop accusing me of things I am not doing or I will have to get an admin. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You DIDN'T condense that paragraph into the previous one, you just deleted it wholesale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfacanyon (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to "get an admin" whatever that means. Looking through your editing history it seems you have a history of being disruptive and difficult to work with while pursuing your pro-Israel agenda by edit warring. You should probably stop editing in this topic area if you are incapable of taking a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).

The B'Tselem article specifically collaborates the fact that Palestinian workers have few legal rights. Anyway, you can't just say a source is false and then delete it.

I am still waiting for an explanation from you of why you keep deleting the Haaretz source about pollution. Halfacanyon (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not delete it wholesale. I condensed the legal action into the same paragraph. Here is my version: 1. Here is yours. I did not delete any information outside of redundant disputes. I did not delete the Haaretz source, I may have moved it or removed it for being a duplicate. My version still retains the Haaretz link. You really need to stop accusing me of POV-pushing. Your edits do not reflect neutrality standards, picking and choosing information while charging words is extremely bad taste in these sorts of articles. The B'tselem affirms Palestinians are experiencing hardships but has nothing to do with the 2008 annual report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't "condense" the following information you removed it: However, very little action occurred after that ruling and only a minority of Palestinian workers have achieved the same rights as Israeli workers. The Israeli authorities that enforce labour law (the Civil Administration and the Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labor) have undertaken little action at the settlements to enforce a minimum wage and other benefits. According to Kav LaOved, the bodies have released a statement "according to which they have no plans of enforcing the High Court of Justice ruling whatsoever". Also, employers of Palestinians fake pay slips, report false hours and work days to make it seem that the employee is being paid the minimum wage.

Secondly, you did delete the Haaretz source about sewage pollution and you keep doing so. , .

If you can't keep track of whether you have deleted something or not, then you probably should take a break from editing on Misplaced Pages. Halfacanyon (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

First, you did not respond to my B'tselem explanation. I'm going to assume you agree. You also did not respond to my explanation for the BBC duplicate removal, so I am going to assume you accept that. Second, no I did not delete the Haaretz link. My version has here. Source #166. and yes, I did condense the discrimination section. In spite of the ruling, Kav LaOved believes the law will not be enforced as only a few workers have gained rights that they are legally entitled to. The ruling has however allowed Palestinian workers to file lawsuits in Israeli courts which has led to an average settlement of "100,000 shekels. - Mine .

However, very little action occurred after that ruling and only a minority of Palestinian workers have achieved the same rights as Israeli workers. The Israeli authorities that enforce labour law (the Civil Administration and the Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labor) have undertaken little action at the settlements to enforce a minimum wage and other benefits...etc...etc...etc..yours . Your versing was exceedingly bloated and was practically copy and paste. You also include no mention of the legal settlements and overstate the situation. I also corrected the MoS style, you continue to write in British English. I condensed an entire paragraph into 2 sentences, that is perfectly okay. I would hope you strike your accusation that I am continuing to delete cited information because I am not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not accept your dismissal of B'Tselem as a source. As I have repeatedly said, the B'Tselem article supports the assertians about Palestinian working conditions in the West Bank and should not be removed. Also, you should not misrepresent _facts_ as _opinions_.

As I stated before, you didn't condense or summarize the following sourced information, you removed it: However, very little action occurred after that ruling and only a minority of Palestinian workers have achieved the same rights as Israeli workers. The Israeli authorities that enforce labour law (the Civil Administration and the Ministry of Industry, Trade & Labor) have undertaken little action at the settlements to enforce a minimum wage and other benefits. According to Kav LaOved, the bodies have released a statement "according to which they have no plans of enforcing the High Court of Justice ruling whatsoever". Also, employers of Palestinians fake pay slips, report false hours and work days to make it seem that the employee is being paid the minimum wage.

There are 2 Haaretz references, one regarding sewage and one regarding the waste dump. You have confused the two. You keep deleting the Haaretz article about sewage: , .

Again, if you can't keep track of whether you have deleted something or not, then you should take a break from editing on Misplaced Pages. Halfacanyon (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not dismissing B'Tselem as a source. I use it all the time, and I did not remove it. It did not collaborate with the 2008 report and was not active in the other organizations successful legal fight in the Israeli courts. Let me be more blunt. I rewrote your copy and paste. there, I felt condense was a little bit more nice but since you seem to think your edits are so neutral perhaps I should be more honest. If I removed a second Haaretz link I am sorry. Can you please post them? You really need to relax because I am just trying to improve the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank God you finally admitted that you removed the Haaretz reference! It seems that you don't even know what you're doing. You should probably stop editing this article.

Secondly, I did not copy/paste anything. I reused some phrases but that is perfectly acceptable and unavoidable.

Thirdly, the reason that B'Tselem is useful as a source is that it provides a second reference to facts that you have tried to misrepresent as the opinions of Kav LaOved Halfacanyon (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am not saying I removed the Haaretz source, you duplicated the BBC several times. I might have removed the Haaretz link under the same notion. You cannot post the same source twice without re-directing it, it gives the false impression that the article/section has more unique sources. Second, yes you did practically copy and paste. I rewrote your extremely unbalanced fact-selection with more neutral language. I did NOT misrepresent the facts as Kav LaOved. I have been very specific in my responses to your outrageous and inflammatory claims. I even compared the different versions to show you how wrong you are. It is you who I believe needs to take a break and perhaps read up on neutrality rules. You have reverted every single one of my edits back to your original version. That is ridiculous, either my edits were OR or uncited. Neither is the case. Please respond to the talk page or we'll have to go through a dispute resolution. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "duplicate" the BBC source, I used the same footnote in multiple paragraphs. This is perfectly legitimate.

And you DID remove the Haaretz source, you just admitted it and the links prove it.

And the accusation of plagiarism is extremely serious and easy to verify.

Either prove it or retract your claim. Halfacanyon (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

you used the same footnote but the source came out as two. I.,e 167...168. Check the version. See how my responses are very lenghty, you continue to jump to accusation after accusation and immediately started editing with bad faith. You need to take a break, your edits are bordering ownership. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

is my original edit. I don't see any duplications.

And I don't hear you retracting or proving your claim. Halfacanyon (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk page

Hi Wikifan! I am assuming you are talking about the table of contents. It will return automatically when you have enough headings, but in case it does not, you can use _TOC_ to place it anywhere you want on the page. Cheers, Ynhockey 16:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)