Jump to content

Talk:Ofra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


unauthorized

[edit]

There is one part of Ofra that is disputed as claimed by Talia Sasson. It does not make the whole settlement unauthourized. --Shuki (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read the B'TSelem reference that argues that Ofra is unauthorized?:
According to B'Tselem’s research, Ofra meets only the first of these conditions: in 1979, four years after its establishment, the government declared it an official community. However, no jurisdictional area has ever been defined for Ofra, no detailed outline plan has been approved for the settlement, and no lawful building permits were ever issued for it. Thus, the entire community of Ofra, with its hundreds of residential units, was built unlawfully.

Factsontheground (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btzelem is not an RS, definitely not on articles like this. To them, all settlements are illegal anyway. I suggest you read the Sasson Report if that is your benchmark for your insistence to use the 'unauthorized' term, at least that is presumed 'official' even if the women is a proven anti-settler and the report is written in first person. Frankly, I don't really object to the introduction of this undeniable subject (that some places are called 'unauthourized') it actually seems to make the other ones completely legit in the context of the article. I was surprised that no one tackled this issue since now. I thank you for improving settlement articles. --Shuki (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article lede

[edit]

Response to B'tselem's claims was conspicuously absent from the article until recent edits. Now that it's there, a shortened version of the response should also be in the lede. Here's a suggestion.

  • The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.[2] On the basis of the conditions established in the Sasson Report, Ofra is also unlawful according to Israeli law, as the settlement lacks building permits and a specified area of jurisdiction,[3] and at least 58 percent of the settlement's built-up area is registered in the Land Registry Office under the names of Palestinians, according to the human rights organisation B'Tselem. Ofra residents claimed the land was purchased legally while the Yesha Council accused B'Tselem of sparing no means to harm the settlements.[3] In September 2011, the Israeli government set up plans to legitimise the settlement retroactively.[4]

Otherwise the B'Tzelem claim should be removed from the lede, as the organization is not an RS on the legitimacy of settlements. Presenting their claims without the response in the lede is extreme POV push. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ofra

[edit]

This edit is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Legality of Israeli settlements. I should add that my personal view is that the single statement in the lead is enough but that is not what was agreed. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are line in the lead according to the policy you brought.As I understand what was agreed that this the only line that talks about the international status of the settlements.How the removal of additional paragraph is against the policy.--Shrike (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See point #2 of Wikipedia:Legality of Israeli settlements, According to LHvU's clarification: "I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles. (my bolding). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is WP:OR as the sources don't specifically talk about the subject.Moreover there are already link to the International law and Israeli settlements and I don't think that paragraph I deleted is fair summary of this article.--Shrike (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think what is discussed here matters. Removing the information is inconsistent with the admin approved consensus. I don't agree with the wording of the consensus statement for the lead but I still put into the lead of a large number of settlement articles and revert its removal. If you want to argue that information based on a transitive relation is original research and it's okay to disregard point #2 of the legality consensus I think you will need to do it at WP:IPCOLL and try to find a new consensus. I'm not going to revert you but someone might. Bear in mind that multiple AE reports have been filed over this issue to enforce the outcome of that discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here was an IP adding unsourced info, so I slightly rewrote the content and cited a ref. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the section and elaborated Israeli position though I still think its WP:OR.--Shrike (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like as I said this section is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isnt. nableezy - 13:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shrike to the extent that none of the sources utilized in the article actually discuss Ofra.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a policy based response for you improper revert.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting for a second the tendentiousness in making us carry on arguing this multiple times at multiple articles, instead of contributing to the attempt to put a formal RFC together on the topic, sources in the article specifically mention Ofra as being illegal under international law. That should allay Brewcrewer's concerns. My revert was not improper. Your edit was. nableezy - 07:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claim that sources that I deleted mentioned Ofra please show me where?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt claim anything. I said that there are source in the article that specifically mention Ofra. nableezy - 07:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Keep the "Status under international law"-section but remove all but the first sentence ("Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, Ofra is considered illegal under international law, though Israeli disputes this."). Add a link to the article Israeli settlements and international law. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this already included in the lead--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LEAD. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

Sean Hoyland and Nableezy,

Ofra's legal status is discussed in detail in the heading, even though it is also discussed in detail later in the article. This is redundant. Why not just have the lead say "Ofra's legal status is disputed"? This is my main issue, not wording such as "terrorist" vs. "militant" (though the source clearly uses the word "terrorist" to describe the killers). I do not believe I have removed sources, and if I did it was unintentional, though you have in the part naming incidents in which Ofra residents were killed during the Second Intifada. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, what is discussed in the body should be discussed in the lead, see WP:LEAD. And Ofra's status isnt "disputed", it is nearly universally regarded as illegally established in occupied territory. Second, Wikipedia isnt a memorial site, and there is no reason to include the names of each person killed there. Could you imagine how long an article like, say Jenin or Gaza would be if we named each victim? Finally, sources arent required to observer WP:NPOV, our articles however are. nableezy - 00:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should mention what is discussed later in the article. However, a long analysis is not necessary. "Illegally established in occupied territory". That is your opinion. There are those who do not agree with you. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt my opinion, that is the view of nearly every country on the planet, the UN, the ICRC, the ICJ, the EU, and the majority of scholars in international law. nableezy - 04:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict, many people are fixed on their own opinions and will not be swayed to another side, especially not on the Talk section of a Wikipedia article. I don't want to argue about which side is in the right and which is in the wrong. Please address the main point: why there is a lengthy analysis in the heading when the exact same thing is discussed later in the article? That is unnecessary. Several other articles on Israeli settlements simply say something like "the UN considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im not talking about my own opinions, I wrote that it is a super-majority view that the settlements are illegal. The phrase on other pages is the international community considers Israeli settlements in [the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights] illegal, though Israel disputes this. The difference here is that Ofra isnt just a settlement, it is an outpost established on private Palestinian property in violation of Israeli law as well as being established in violation of international humanitarian law. So a bit more than the line on the general illegality of settlements is needed. Sure, some of it may be too detailed for the lead, but that doesnt mean none of it belongs. nableezy - 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"An outpost established on private Palestinian property in violation of Israeli law". That is according to B'tselem. According to Ofra residents and the Yesha counsil, they purchased all of the land legally. "Sure, some of it may be too detailed for the lead, but that doesnt mean none of it belongs." I never said none of it belonged in the article, just that there didn't need to be that much in the lead. Why not just move some of the text to the section on legal status later in the article? --68.6.227.26 (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, see here. As far as I never said none of it belonged in the article, just that there didn't need to be that much in the lead. You may never have said it, but your edits certainly demonstrated it. nableezy - 15:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove any text that was not already stated in the legal status section. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats rather besides the point. The point is that such material belongs in the lead as well. The lead is meant to summarize the article. nableezy - 02:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lead should mention what is discussed in the rest of the article. I have said that already. However, it does not need to be so detailed. I have said repeatedly that I think the lead's text should be condensed, not removed completely. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done, satisfied? nableezy - 04:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thank you for taking the time to discuss this. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

recent changes

[edit]

To begin with, WP:WESTBANK disallows saying something is in a "Samaria" region in the present tense. I'm going to run through the rest of my revert line by line:

  1. Originally established after the on the site of a former Jordanian military base, Israeli civilians moved into surrounding areas formerly inhabited by Palestinians and built permanent and temporary structures there, creating the settlement of Ofra.

    Moved to history, needs citation

  2. While the Israeli military base is not contested land

    What does that mean? The Israeli military base is not considered an illegal settlement, but it most certainly is "contested" and "occupied" territory.

  3. Legal status, kept considered, removed widely. It is more than widely, it is nearly universally.
  4. given that the territory is not occupied, and its population settle in it voluntarily

    Wikipedia's narrative voice is used here to state as a fact an extreme minority view, that the territory is not occupied. Reworded the israeli position below

  5. According to Haaretz

    Haaretz is a reliable source, and this isnt an especially contentious claim, so I dont know why we would need to explicitly attribute this to them.

nableezy - 19:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ofra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ofra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ofra&oldid=1205800291"