This 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
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.
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.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Changes that Shuki is trying to make
Shuki is trying to make many inappropriate changes. For instance add the claim "The report is not a binding document." What does that mean? It is a report regarding information requested by the prime minister. You keep changing "illegal" to "unauthorized". The reprot is very clear that it discusses many illegal operations by government and local officials and other people. The whole stuff starting with "The report states that there are certain aspects in order to establish a community in
Judea and Samaria or its expansion:" is really not well written and not in Wikipedia style.
Mashkin (
talk)
23:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Mashkin and ground, did you even read the
report? The cover page itself states that it is an interim report about unauthorized outposts. There is also absolutely no use of the term illegal in the entire 343 page report. Please stop introducing fictitious terms into wikipedia articles to push your POV on the subject. --
Shuki (
talk)
22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Are you attempting to assume that we have a short memory? since it is (or was) used on articles - You created the dubious cat only last week, it was not used on any articles. And it's not my obligation to find a solution to POV pushing or ignorance of the issues. If you want to bring up the subject of what is the difference between settlement and outpost, I wish you luck because it seems that all anti-settlements editors view all these localities as settlements. While some might try to differentiate between established villages and new outposts, there is no objective standard I am aware of to justify this. Many say that outposts are all the settlements created after a certain year though with no consensus on which year. Frankly, no legal definition exists. There is one undeniable fact on the ground - even the Sasson Report does not use the word 'illegal', only reporters out of ignorance or POV. -
Shuki (
talk)
21:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)reply
The policy if avoiding weasel words is perciely the reason to use the term "illegal" for what the Sasson report describes. It talks a lot about various illegal activities but does not attach the term to the outposts. To clarify that it does not use the term I am using the sentence "illegal (or unauthorized in the report's language)". The stable version has just plain illegal, so if you don't like my version, please revert to plain illegal until the end of the discussion.
Mashkin (
talk)
23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)reply
That is the definition of WEASEL. Read the guideline article. The word illegal in this article about the report is explicitly false and POV. It simply does not belong. You are attempting to insert this word that the government report itself does not use or accuse. That is also your
WP:OR --
Shuki (
talk)
23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)reply