Talk:Afik

Israel Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Categorization : Diffuse articles from Category:Companies of Israel.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.
- Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority

Syria Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria 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.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

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.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

wnd[edit]

is not a reliable source. Please find a better source for material sourced to it. nableezy - 07:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a consensus view.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. See here, here. Current consensus on Wikipedia is that wnd is not a reliable source. nableezy - 17:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are not blanket decisions, they discuss whether WND can be a RS for specific issues. --Shuki (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like we can go again to WP:RS/N, but the consensus there was WND was unreliable source under any circumstance. I dont know if you are familiar with WorldNetDaily but it is not a reliable source under any of the criteria of WP:RS. It is almost laughable that somebody would use that as a source in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the archived discussions of WND at the noticeboard, disagree with you, and agree w/Shuki.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every single person who commented at those discussions said it was unreliable. On what basis do you disagree with me? nableezy - 06:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the discussions, and see lack of consensus. As for the instant disputed point, it strikes me as an odd point for you to argue -- especially since you saw nothing wrong w/a source entitled Electronic Intifada, w/no RS indicia. The instant use of WND seems a quite silly point for you to waste peoples' time on at at RS/N, but if you deem it so significant and important please go ahead, and post here to let us know it is the course you have chosen to pursue.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you see "lack of consensus" when nearly every single person agreed it was not a reliable source? nableezy - 14:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Res ipsa loquitur.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take that response to mean that you have no valid reason to say that you see a "lack of consensus" when any person with even 1 eye can see that there is overwhelming consensus that it is not a reliable source. Thanks for showing the extent of your ability to provide a cogent answer. nableezy - 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, as is the case on this page, I see a lack of consensus for your position in the noticeboard archives.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a lack of consensus to deem WND completely non-RS. There were discussions on the specific issues at hand. I am also willing to say, as you have many times recent past, that if you see an issue with the reference brought here, then take it to the noticeboard. --Shuki (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. nableezy - 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WorldNetDaily --Shuki (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both uninvolved editors who commented at the thread agreed that WND is not a RS for the statement it is used for and further that it is OR to use the Bible to say that this Afik is the Aphek in the Bible. Would one of you care to remove these sentences? nableezy - 01:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the article so that it does not say that Afik is Aphek, but rather that the name comes from the biblical Aphek and that a few events (that are certainly verifiable) happened near that biblical Aphek, until better reliable sources can be found to remove the claim and show it as fact. --Shuki (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that says that this Afik is named after the Aphek in the Bible? I ask because I have next to knowledge of the Bible, but from what I have read there are multiple places that could be the Aphek in the Bible. And you are still using a source that is unreliable in this context as evidenced by the discussion at RS/N. nableezy - 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source posted lists four different locations and attributes one to the area where the kibbutz is now located and I removed the other suggestions. --Shuki (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume the Hebrew source is fine on its own, do you object to removing the wnd source now as it is not even needed? nableezy - 16:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned[edit]

I reverted drorks edits since he is banned and has no right to do any edits at any article and his edits also removes that this Israeli settlements is an Israeli settlement.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I re added Israeli settlement in the lead since that is what it is and no explanation was given for its removal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rv[edit]

I reverted some of drorks edits as he is topic banned and blocked and had no right to make them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:[1] 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 as the fourth sentence in this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you keep it to the centralized discussion instead of copy-pasting over a potential 200+ talk pages. --Shuki (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]