Talk:Had Ness
Add topic
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Status sentence
[edit]There has been long discussion at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues about adding the illegality issue in all settlement article: There is now consensus to have the sentence: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." in all relevant articles, but its not clear yet exactly where in the article, so therefor I'm suggesting that the agreed upon sentence be placed at end of this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Undue
[edit]There is no consensus it was void by another RFC ,--Shrike (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well that's not entirely true. If you want to remove it, you have to get consensus at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- No there is not what it said.It said there was no consensus to keep this boilerplate in each article should be decided on individual basis like I said its WP:UNDUE and WP:OR to keep this boilerplate as the source doesn't discuss Had Ness.--Shrike (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary for every individual settlement to be mentioned separately, as the source mentions them collectively. Besides that, the illegality of settlements according to the international community is by far the most notable thing about them so WEIGHT requires it to be mentioned. Zerotalk 11:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- The Had Ness is also is a village.Why we don't include information about villages in general?If someone want to read about legality of settlements he can go the relevant linked article to include this information is classical case of WP:COATRACK.The Had Ness legality is not discussed in the sources that mention it.--Shrike (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Moreover your view was rejected at RFC so your argument is no longer valid.--Shrike (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know of an RFC where this view was rejected. Zerotalk 09:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary for every individual settlement to be mentioned separately, as the source mentions them collectively. Besides that, the illegality of settlements according to the international community is by far the most notable thing about them so WEIGHT requires it to be mentioned. Zerotalk 11:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- No there is not what it said.It said there was no consensus to keep this boilerplate in each article should be decided on individual basis like I said its WP:UNDUE and WP:OR to keep this boilerplate as the source doesn't discuss Had Ness.--Shrike (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)