User talk:Shamir1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Shamir1/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Contents

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Spi frontpage cropped 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Hudson

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rock Hudson, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant categories are permissible in Wikipedia articles. You cannot assume that other editors know your reasons for deletions if you don't explain in the edit summary. Ward3001 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT Categories

Hi, Shamir1! I notice you've been adding Category:LGBT fashion designers to some articles, many with URLs in your edit summary. I have a request: Can you do a bit more? To be effective, there should be some statement in the article about the persons' sexuality - the category alone really isn't helpful. And that statement can then have the URL you've found as a reference. For instance, instead of just adding the cat, could you add a statement, the cat + ref? Thanks much! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If I reverted an edit of yours, it's probably because I see way to many "vandalism" edits, like adding Category:LGBT Jews to Jerry Fallwell. Please don't take offense, it wasn't personal :) Happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Weird, but okay, just as long as you know those werent my vandalism edits. --Shamir1 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I have to request - could you add more than just the category if you're adding that someone's gay? For instance, here you say "read the whole advocate article" when you added the LGBT cat. But I have no clue what article you're referring to. The page on Cardin doesn't say he's gay. There's no link to an Advocate article. The only thing on the page is the category. Per BLP, that has to be backed up by a reliable source. Could you add something to that article? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Shamir1, perhaps I'm not being clear. I don't dispute that Cardin is gay. I have no opinion on the matter, and haven't researched it at all.
What I'm asking is for you to put the information you've found in the article. Add the info, add a source. Then add the category. Simply adding the category doesn't provide any information to anyone. I'm sure you're right, and the Advocate article is a great WP:RS. But add it to the article, where it belongs. An edit summary doesn't help your average reader find the source.
Thanks for your hard work! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
ROTFL! You'll add it to my talk page, but not the article!? :) I see how this works! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've now read the entire Advocate article. It only mentions Cardin once:
Mainstream fashion was tantalized by the sexual revolution, if only incidentally by gay and lesbian identities, in such examples as Yves Saint Laurent's sophisticated cross-dressing pseudolesbian chic of the 1970s and the new presence of designers Pierre Cardin, Saint Laurent, and Don Robbie making their mark in menswear.
That doesn't say that he's gay, though it implies it heavily. There's got to be a better ref out there? I'm removing the category again. If you can find a good ref, by all means add it to the article along with some info actually *in* the article. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation hot winter

While you continue to make edits to the article, I'd appreciate it if you also discussed on the talk page. I've left a message for you.Bless sins (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits to 2006 Lebanon War's Allegations of war crimes section

Where did you get the quotes you added to this section from? They sound likely accurate to me, but I can't find them in the cited page or the HRW report. Thanks. ← George [talk] 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) I would suggest trying to find quotes from the HRW report itself though, or this sentence may be rewritten to something like: Human Rights Watch condemned both sides for failing to distinguish between civilians and combatants. Peter Bouckaert, a senior emergencies researcher for HRW, stated that "Hezbollah is directly targeting civilians, and... their aim is to kill Israeli civilians" and that HRW accused Israel of "not taking the necessary precautions to distinguish between civilian and military targets." I mean, when the quotes you're adding are from an individual from HRW, they should be identified as such, and when statements are coming from publications made by the group (with multiple authors, editors, etc.), they can be stated more vaguely. Cheers. ← George [talk] 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You can probably leave it for now. I'm out of town for a few days, but will try to take a look again later and see if it's really necessary. With these highly contentious topics, we have to be very careful with our wordings, lest an editor war erupt. :) ← George [talk] 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad al-Durrah

I have no idea; I have not been to that article recently. -- Avi (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIPAC Discussion

Hey Shamir. I would ask you to weigh in on the discussion topic of "Weasel Words" on the AIPAC discussion page. A user keeps inserting the word "controversial" in the opening paragraph, providing no sources that describe AIPAC as "controversial," only fringe sources that criticize AIPAC. I would appreciate your input when you get a chance. Many thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to move article Cinema of Palestine incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Cinema of Palestine to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

  1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
  2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
  3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIPAC

Hi. I am just advising you that Scythian1 is back to his bad habits on the AIPAC page--reverting consensus edits and adding POV and OR to the article. Please be on the lookout with me. Thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 2006 Lebanon War

Hi Shamir1. Reviewed your edits - some I agreed with; some I didn't:

  • I agree with some of your shortening of the wording regarding HRW. I'll try to clarify it a bit further, finding something between the two.
  • I disagree with your moving the quote from Bouckaert above the HRW report. I prefer the more broad sentence first, then the details to follow, in the same way that an article has a summary introduction, then all the details below.
  • I agree with your expansion of the quotation. I left it out because it seemed redundant and/or obvious to me, but if you disagree that's totally fine.
  • Where do you find the source for the statement you added that "A large number of the private homes and civilian institutions struck in Lebanon were affiliated with or run by Hezbollah"? That's a highly contentious statement, so I'm removing it outright until I'm convinced that it's properly sourced.
  • I feel that the topic of who felt that specific targets were or were not valid is already covered in significant detail (IDF position, UN position, Lebanese position), and the statement "it is not agreed upon whether such places were legitimate targets" belongs as an introduction to that section.
  • Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are NGOs, something very different from a special interest group. Not sure how you can confuse the two.

Thanks. ← George [talk] 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Boukaert quote is based on the study and explains their apparent position better. I dont see why two would be needed or what idea is lost with this new edit"
  • The problem is that it isn't self evident that he speaks for all of HRW, or if he's stating his opinion on their report. If someone in the US government, for instance, stated a specific viewpoint on a given topic, they may or may not speak for all of the US government.
"Human Rights Watch research shows that the IDF struck a large number of private homes of civilian Hezbollah members during the war, as well as various civilian Hezbollah-run institutions such as schools, welfare agencies, banks, shops and political offices."
  • This is a completely different statement than the one that was inserted into the article, "A large number of the private homes and civilian institutions struck in Lebanon were affiliated with or run by Hezbollah". I wouldn't say that 'Hezbollah struck a large number of private homes affiliated with or run by the IDF' just because many Israeli civilians serve in the IDF at some point in their life.
P.S. I think you accidently did a full revert. If it was intentional, then we may disagree more than I thought, and have to escalate the dispute resolution. ← George [talk] 00:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like it wasn't an accidently full revert. I'm currently blocked by 3RR, but I'll take up the issue and likely re-revert these changes tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it of course. I'll also move it up the dispute resolution chain, though I'm not sure how many disputes we have exactly. Three or four I think. ← George [talk] 00:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The biggest difference is that the HRW quote is talking about civilian Hezbollah members and civilian Hezbollah-run institutions. The wording you chose noticeably lacks the word civilian when describing the homes, and implies that the houses were "being run". Hezbollah is both a milita and a political party, so your statement implies that members of the political party were using their houses for military purposes, which is the IDF position, but not the position held by HRW, whom you are quoting. Here, try this: "A large number of the private homes ... were affiliated with or run by the (group)". What exactly does it mean for a private home to be "affiliated with or run by" a group? ← George [talk] 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In preparation, I wanted to outline the specific points upon which we disagree.

  1. You feel that the quote from Bouckaert should be above the HRW view, while I feel that the HRW view should be stated first, followed by Bouckaert's quote to support it.
  2. You feel that your source states that the Israeli civilians fled or took to bomb shelters "when the war broke out", while I feel that your source implies that this was throughout the war.
  3. You feel that the Gabriel Al-Amin section should stay, while I feel (based on the previous consensus) that I should be removed.
  4. You feel that your wording of "A large number of the private homes and civilian institutions struck in Lebanon were affiliated with or run by Hezbollah" matches with the sources cited, while I feel that it misrepresents them.

Is that about right? ← George [talk] 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about using the exact wording HRW used: HRW found that "the IDF struck a large number of private homes of civilian Hezbollah members during the war, as well as various civilian Hezbollah-run institutions such as schools, welfare agencies, banks, shops and political offices." I would approve of their original language. ← George [talk] 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Better, but I see no reason to twist the quotation instead of just using the direct quote from the source. ← George [talk] 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The Gabriel Al-Amin bit was added by another editor, who has been adding the section over and over for the last week, and quickly getting reverted. That's why I wasn't sure if you had mistakenly done a full revert.
I can understand misremembering the "when the war broke out" bit, and your concern, but it's just inaccurate, and should be removed. I don't oppose at all the inclusion of the material regarding the Israeli citizens having to flee and use shelters, only the inclusion of it incorrectly.
So maybe there's only two points we disagree on then: the ordering issue, and the statement about the IDF hitting Hezbollah's civilian members & civilian infrastructure. ← George [talk] 01:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramot Edits

G'day, I just took a look at your edits to the page on Ramot. You first seemed to have removed the sources from the lead - which is fair enough, i just put them there because so many people insist there is no sources for it - when in fact there are obviously plenty. Your next edit though, seems to have completely removed the information (ie: that its a settlement) which those sources were put there to verify, on the basis that there are no sources for it. You're the one who removed them though! Would you mind explaining this perhaps? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, why would you remove a sentece like 'Because it was built on land annexed by the Jerusalem municipality from the West Bank after the Six-Day War it is widely considered an Israeli settlement, while the legal foundations that make it a neighborhood of Jerusalem are disputed by the International community.' which serves to give contexct, history and fact to the article? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Why did I remove that sentence? Because it is loaded and unsourced. Israel, which governs Jerusalem, treats it as any other neighborhood of the city. (Secondly, if it "widely considered" any Israeli settlement, then why aren't their reputable sources (not from think tanks or that sort) who call it that? The source would have to identify that neighborhood specifically as an Israeli settlement. Without that, it certainly cannot be worded that way and that description certainly does not belong in the introduction. I have just read in the last 24 hours articles from CNN and the New York Times that refer to either this or Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem as just that. I cannot assume anything else. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not unsourced; until you removed the sources from it though. It was hardly any more loaded and unsourced than calling it a 'neighborhood,' it just seems to me that you seem to agree with one particular viewpoint over the other. There are literally thousands of reputable sources that will call it a settlement - from think tanks to academics to the governments of other nations of the world. Further, plenty of reliable sources can be found which dispute it being a neighborhood of Jerusalem. So how come we are allowed to lead with the nationalist viewpoint, that it is a neighborhood of Jerusalem, which is disputed and unrecognised by the rest of the world, and not so much as mention the rest of the worlds viewpoint in the same sentence? The introduction according to wiki policy should summarise the rest of the article, which is heavily sourced to the viewpoint of the international community. Why do you believe that the view of Israel is more relevant and important to the readers of Wikipedia than the viewpoint of the rest of the world? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"...from think tanks to academics to the governments of other nations of the world." This is the most mistaken idea. The views and opinions of think tanks and academics (who are not obligated to uphold journalistic objectivity) does NOT belong in the introduction. The New York Times and other mainstream, reputable sources do and as an encyclopedia we refer to it as what they do. IF another notable source carries a different view, then that view has a chance of being stated, citing the source explicitly in text. But, that controversy does not belong in the introduction, which meant to introduce the subject. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And who are you to decide which journalistic outlets should have a place in the introduction? As I have mentioned, plenty of sources call it a settlement, and plenty more contend that it is not a neighborhood. Lots of news outlets call it a settlement - from the BBC to plenty of others. So why, given there are reputable sources which give BOTH viewpoints, are we only allowed to lead with one, nationalist viewpoint according to you? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me. And remember that saying something along the lines of "some view it as an Israeli settlement" is not the same. Introducing Gilo as "a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem" for instance refers to it as that--it does not say that "some view" it as that. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Except here is the problem - we have two viewpoints, one of the Israeli government - which is disputed by the rest of the world, and one of the rest of the world - which is disputed by the Israeli government. My problem is exactly that you are creating facts, in that you are unequivocally referring to it as a neighborhood - without noting the dispute over this, or the viewpoint of the rest of the world. If we wanted to take a NPOV with this article we would mention both viewpoints in context. Which is why it should be introduced as: "Gilo is, according to the Israeli government is a neighborhood of Jerusalem" and of course, explain the view also that it is a settlement. Saying it is simply a neighborhood of Jerusalem, like it is fact, is incredibly misleading when it is so heavily disputed by the rest of the world, The United Nations and the International Community and is such a contentious issue and viewpoint. You really want me to show you? Just do a google news search: Pisgat Zeev Settlement yields more than 300 results. Pizgat Zeev neighborhood yields 21 results. Heres a few sources thouhg: Including BBC, Xinhua, The Independent, AFP and more. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. I can keep going, if you would like? Can you perhaps find me some 'reputable sources' that call it a neighborhood of Jerusalem and dont serve to put this in context by higlighting the dispute over this move and the unrecognised nature of the Jerusalem Law? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Disregarding all mainstream, reputable news sources in favor of the opinions of think tanks and academics (oh, and a page or two from Al Jazeera -- should that be matched with articles from Yedioth Ahronoth? At least that is based in a country with a level of freedom of the press) is not the way of Wikipedia. There is a clear consensus among news agencies (Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, CNN, FOX News, ABC News, MSNBC) as to what they refer to these areas in specific when they introduce them in their news reports. And please stop accusing editors of pushing a "nationalist" agenda. That's ludicrous considering the loads of mainstream sources that write just that. So lets stick with the mainstream. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about disregarding mainstream news sources - thats why i just provided you with 7 which refer to it as a settlement. Most don't even call them neighborhoods, either. Now, I think this is perhaps not the place for a discussion over Al Jazeera, but I think your comparison of it to Yedioth Ahronoth is incredibly flawed. English Al Jazeera has many highlgy respected international journalists, which left in droves from agencies like the BBC, CNN and others to work for it. Though certainly an 'arabic' news source, your assumption that it is somehow outside of the mainstream media is just ludicrous, especially given that arabs (and their views) make up a large part of mainstream society and are very much a part of the mainstream. Back to the topic at hand though; i have just provided you with seven reputable mainstream news sources which refer to it as a settlement. Most don't even call them neighborhoods of Jerusalem, either - though some note the israeli governments position on this. You have asked me to show you, and I have - yet you cannot seem to recognise that you have been removing valuable information and have effectively attempted to revert a number of pages to lead with what is a nationalist view. You have not attempted to provide me with one reputable source that calls it a neighborhood, either. So I am sorry if it feels that I have been accusing you of pushing a natinoalist agenda, that is not at all my intention. While I think you have made what are essentially nationalist reverts, please show me you do have an ability to see what the reputable sources i have listed do in fact say. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A count of how many results a search yields means absolutely, positively nothing. Try clicking a source. The Xinhua article, CNN article, and Reuters article do not identify any neighborhood in Jerusalem as a "settlement". The Independent aligns itself with the political left. "The National" of the Arab Emirates? Right, okay. The cited IHT article also does not identify any neighborhood as a "settlement" either--on the other hand, it identifies Har Homa and Pisgat Zeev as "Jewish suburbs." All I see is one AFP article, and even they are not exactly consistent.[1] Sorry, there appears to be a clear consensus among the mainstream news world, and I'm not making up facts. (Your accusations are getting to point of ridiculousness and are quite laughable.) That is a news report of a fact, it is no one's view. The view of the UN and such can be added as the view of the UN in the appropriate place. --Shamir1 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

They do however, refer to the settlements in Jerusalem. You know perfectly well what they are referring to. Most news outlets align itself with the political right, or the poltiical left. If you wanted to use that as a basis to disregard a source, then you would have to count out CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and just about every newspaper and news outlet in the world. What is wrong with "The National" of the Arab Emirates? Is it because they're Arab? Because I seriously cannot think what other problem you might have with it as a reputable source. Seriously, what makes it not a reputable source? The Washington post article clearly discusses Pisgat Zeev and others under its 'Settlements' heading. The AFP article also refers to it as a settlement, and is hardly and more inconsistent than the inconsistencies of relative viewpoints. It quite clearly states that 'Israeli authorities announced on Sunday that they are to build 884 houses in the Har Homa and Pisgat Zeev settlements in east Jerusalem.' You tell me there is a consensus among the mainstream news world, but you wont even attempt to show it to me. Surely if there is then you should be able to find plenty of articles? The truth is there is no consensus amongst the mainstream media, unless you manipulate your definition of mainstream, that is. I found some more so-called 'mainstream' sources which call these places settlements, including Newsweek[8], The Washington Times[9] which states, ' The rising prices in Arab neighborhoods are prompting people such as Mr. Kusideh to consider Pisgat Ze'ev, which was developed as a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem'. There is also the Los Angeles Times [10] which states ' Sharon also told Kollek he plans to build a new Jewish neighborhood for at least 3000 near the Pisgat Zeev settlement'. And then theres more Washington Post [11] and Times Online[12] '..who owns a creperie serving the overwhelmingly Jewish residents of the settlement of Pisgat Zeev.'. So where is this mainstream consensus you talk about? Perhaps you can show me. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the news sources I mentioned above came from their articles. Several of them, in fact. Each one had articles that identified these places in Jerusalem specifically as neighborhoods. You want the whole list? Sure, it will take a while to compile since there is so much out there for each, but it can be done. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
PS It makes no difference and is irrelevant if so-and-so from BBC or wherever now works at Al Jazeera. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that i've just found a whole lot of articles on the sources you have mentioned which clearly refer to them as settlements and not neighborhoods or suburbs, and I at least made an effort to show you some sources which contradict this 'consensus' you speak of, I would like to see that list if possible, yes. It would be greatly appreciated.

In that case might you be able to explain to me what it is that makes the BBC a reputable source and Al Jazeera not one? Given that AJ reporters operate with more freedom than those at the BBC, it has a higher investigative journalism budget and does not have a history of being used as 'soft power,' I am really not sure what it could possibly be that qualifies something as a 'mainstream' media source in your eyes. Is it only something white people watch? Colourinthemeaning (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, its 2 AM where I am and I am tired. I am not going to compile the reports from the sources that I just went through online and I just stated in our discussion, but I will soon after a good nights rest. I am curious as to why you are not citing many of these sources directly. In addition, I cant find some of those statements at all. In regards to my knowing "exactly" what those articles mean. They would have to, as with any Wikipedia article, identify that neighborhood specifically as a settlement. Those sources did no such thing. As to your pushing idea that they talk about settlements in Jerusalem, Wikipedia WP:NOR states: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Pushing those sources to introduce the places in Wikipedia articles as settlements would be conclusion C and a blatant violation of WP:NOR. --Shamir1 (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are just a few:

--Shamir1 (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about original research, but rather refering to the obvious nature of many of these articles calling them settlements, when that is the headline - and the entire article is about the expansion of Pisgat Zeev and other places like it in East Jerusalem, or when the article discusses these places under a 'settlements' heading. Anyway, that aside, I have run through all of the articles you have provided. I have to say right now that most are not a statement of fact, but are a statement by individuals, Israeli ministers and so forth. Given though, that you refuse to accept an article from the independent (or any others like it I might provide) on the basis of it being 'left wing,' do you really expect me to accept any of the articles you have provided from Fox News?

So I'm going to run through your list

  • Associated Press: 2,4 & 5 are all individual peoples statements, not statements of fact. Article 6 is on the legality and the dispute, and highlights the views of the international community and Palestinians. That only leaves 1 & 3. Both from Fox News. Then there is the 7th, which uses the term 'disputed neighborhood,' very different from just neighborhood, i think you will agree. 8, 9, 10 and 11 are statements by individuals or Israeli government agencies, again not statement of facts. The last, number 11 also makes use of the term 'disputed'
  • CNN: CNN issued its statement following pressure from Pro-Israeli groups, that is - in essence - groups pursuing a nationalist agenda. It isn't wiki policy to follow such a move, nor should it be.
  • ABC News: You could have two here, although the first highlights the disputed nature of the neighborhood and I think the second might be an opinion article, as it calls Har Homa 'as much a political statement as it is a neighborhood.' 3 and 4 are both statements by individuals or the city of Jerusalem, not statements of fact.
  • MSNBC: 1 is ok, 2 though is a statement by Israeli Housing Ministers, not a statement of fact.
  • Los Angeles Times: None of these are statements of fact.
  • New York Times: 1 & 2 are not statements of fact. 3 is ok, but 4 mentions the disputed nature by the intl. community in the same paragraph and following sentence.
  • Boston Globe: Not a statement of fact, but statement by Individual(s).
  • Washington Post: 1 & 2, ok. 3 is not a statement of fact though, but a statement by an individual.
  • San Francisco Chronicle: 1 is not a statement of fact, and 2 uses 'seized land' in the same sentence.

So, Given that, I see 4 articles here that provide statements of fact, excluding those from Fox News.

Following is a list of news articles I have found, which provide statements of fact that they are settlements. Some are from the same news agencies which have provided which call them 'neighborhoods' in other articles, so I think you will find there is really no consensus, even amongst the mainstream media.

In my search for these articles, I came across quite a few that refer to these establishments not as neighborhoods, and avoids the use of that word all together, but instead 'suburb,' such as this one [58] from the Sydney Morning Herald, which also highlights the relevant viewpoints. I would suggest that we too avoid the use of the term neighborhood, because of the connotations it carries and because of the noted[59] use of it as a euphemism. If we are to use the term, it should be used with the term 'disputed,' which is also a fact and can be attributed as you know to many other sources. The point remains though, that many reliable news organisations state as fact that these establishments are settlements, while they note the Israeli governments position on this. Why should we not do that on wikipedia?

Lastly there is also this article from the UNWRA - [60]. Granted, not a news agency, but an arm of an incredibly legitimate international organisation. Surely its statement of facts are worth mentioning too. I will be posting more news articles when I have time to search for more. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] tantura

A new agenda pusher has surfaced on Tantura expulsion (formerly massacre), with another clone article entitled Tantura and the Katz controversy to get around the fact that I edited extraneous material out of the article. There are now 3 articles on a small fishing village that has not existed since 1948. Maybe have a look and tell me what you think?--Gilabrand (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)