Talk:Efrat (Israeli settlement)

message: This page should be joined with Efrat, as they are both referring to the same place. 129.98.196.159
The conventional reference to this community is "Efrat." Perhaps we can make that the standard internal ereference within the article? Tewfik 16:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm moving this back to Efrat, as that is what its referred to on Hebrew Wikipedia, with the official name of Efrata noted. The former is the name which the municipality identifies itself with on its website (despite the URL, which like the roadsigns, is imposed by the national government). Additionally, there are 882,000 Google hits for Efrat, and only 96,600 for Efrata, not that that is really relevant. 129.98.194.133 21:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Ynhockey, you removed a section in the body and a line in the lead on the illegality of this settlement under international law on the basis that it was "undue". Could you please explain? A consensus was established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements that said, in part, that articles with multiple sections, if they contain a section on the legality in the body, should also contain a sentence in the lead. You removed the section in the body without any basis at all. Keep in mind that similar editing has brought other users extended topic bans. Please self-revert your edit in a timely fashion as it is made against an established consensus. nableezy - 12:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's if they contain a section on the legality in the body. Seeing as how you added the section, which should not be there in the first place, there is no problem to remove it. Moreover, if you continue threatening other editors on Wikipedia with bans, you will be reported. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is if. That if does not entitle you to remove a section so that you can remove the sentence from the lead. What is your justification for completely removing a well-sourced section? You cite WP:UNDUE. What position was not given its due weight in that section. But that aside, how exactly can you claim that such a section should not be included. I am not "threatening" you, but please feel free to report me. I am informing you that similar biased, and baseless, editing by other users has resulted in topic bans. I'll quote a line from the close of the discussion on the inclusion of such material: there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct. Your above comment on such a section not being included pretty clearly puts in you in "the body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted". You are entitled to feel that way, you are not however entitled to edit in such a manner. Absent actual evidence that WP:UNDUE justifies the wholesale removal of a well-sourced section on the illegality of this settlement under international law I will be restoring it. nableezy - 23:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ynhockey regarding the UNDUE nature of the overemphasis on the claimed illegality. Just going around to add the claimed illegal nature of the entities without adding anything else of substantive is the classic sign of a pov-pusher. If this continues it should be brought up to AE.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it isn't a "classic sign of a pov-pusher". AE is for reporting violations of the discretionary sanctions rather than reporting people for implementing policy and an established consensus. I think there are a bunch of articles about settlements in the West Bank in the Religious Israeli settlements category where the legality information hasn't been added yet. Editors should be able to add the information to those without being accused of anything apart from helping to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and established consensus. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "classic sign of a pov-pusher" in a comment that contains the following: "the claimed illegality", "the claimed illegal nature of the entities". That was just funny. nableezy - 12:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I am restoring the section, as nobody has given any indication of showing how it violated UNDUE. If it is removed again, well, we'll see what happens. There is a clear consensus, in the WT link above, for the inclusion of this material. nableezy - 12:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nableezy, the burden of proof is on you why the section belongs, because you wanted to add it (it had not existed before your edits). Please show us why this section should be there, and a simple sentence is not enough. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: P.S. When discussing a controversial edit, it's generally good form to give other editors sufficient time to reply before making the edit. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read WP:BURDEN? The burden for inclusion is having verifiable sources, that is more than met. But I will, strictly to appease you, expand on why such a section should be included. The status of Efrat, indeed all settlements, under international law is one of the most notable aspects. Many sources, when even just mentioning a settlement such as Efrat, will say that settlements are illegal. For example this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Im sure you know I can go on like this for a while. WP:UNDUE says the following: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. The determination of due weight is based on the prominence of views in relation to each other. It means that a section should not include only one view and disregard another prominent one. It does not mean that you can reduce a section on the basis that the topic it covers has too much "weight". And even if it did, it does not allow for the wholesale removal of a reliably sourced section on grounds that there is an "overemphasis on the claimed illegality" of the settlement. WP:UNDUE would allow you, if there where an actual issue here (there is not), to add additional material from the viewpoint of those that dispute that the settlement is illegal, so long as you do not give that viewpoint a disproportionate amount of weight compared to the super-majority view that the settlement is illegal. But that due weight was already there, the sentence in the lead said Israel disputes the judgment and the section in the body gave a more detailed explanation of Israel's objection. Finally, there is an additional reason for the inclusion of the material. A consensus was established that said that this material should be covered in articles. That consensus stipulated that multi-section articles with a section on legality should include the line in the lead. A new game is apparently being played in which to remove the line from the lead the section from the body is also removed. That is not amusing, and very obviously goes against the consensus established in a months-long discussion. If you, or brewcrewer, do not like the fact that such a consensus was established you are free to attempt to establish a new one. However, you are not free to disregard what is the current consensus. Regarding your P.S, this is not a "controversial" edit. This is an edit that has the backing of an explicit consensus. You can also blame your pal's spurious removal of the NPOV tag for the restoration of the section. Yall dont get to violate NPOV and also remove a tag alerting others to the issue. nableezy - 13:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: One last point. The close of the discussion that established the consensus for the inclusion of this material reads as follows: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 articlesThis article is a "multi section article" and thus the single sentence belongs in the lead and it should be expanded upon in the body. The linked to discussion very clearly establishes a consensus for the inclusion of this line in the lead of this article and for the expansion of that material in the body. I await an actual reason as to why either UNDUE prohibits the inclusion of the section in the body or why the very clear close of that discussion does not apply here. nableezy - 19:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status under international law 

message: Both sides of the story should be presented. Add the following at the end of the section:
Nhcohen (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian land claims 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Efrat. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809044734/http://www.efrata.muni.il/?CategoryID=353 to http://www.efrata.muni.il/?CategoryID=353
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Efrat. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927091938/http://www.peacenow.org.il/eng/content/efrata to http://www.peacenow.org.il/eng/content/efrata
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906052852/http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/rabi1.htm to http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/rabi1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: TEXT TO CHANGE:
The second paragraph of the introduction states, "Considered the capital of Gush Etzion,[6] it had a population of 10,088 in 2018. Although geographically located within Gush Etzion, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council, and Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."
CHANGE TO:
"Efrat it had a population of 11,800 in the start of 2020[1] and is geographically located within the Gush Etzion Block. However, it is independent from the Gush Etzion Regional Council and is defined as a Local Authority with its own independent municipal status and jurisdiction.[2] The Palestinians in negotiations do not consider it as part of that block, since..."
[1] "Statistical Data of Efrat" (Hebrew), National Insurance Institute of Israel.
[2] "Table I/2 - Area of Jurisdiction, Municipal Status and Geographic Location in Jerusalem, Cities with Population Greater than 200,000 and Jerusalem's Surrounding Local Authorities, 2008," Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research.
XXXX   REASONING   XXXX
While the current reference stating that Efrat is "considered the capital of Gush Etzion" is an article in the NYT from March, 2015, there is NO ONE in Efrat or Gush Etzion who considers Efrat part of Gush Etzion in any way! The municipalities, local elections, schools, libraries, sports centers, municipal departments etc. are entirely separate! 
Very few people in Israel would even consider Gush Etzion to have a a capital!!
(I say this as a resident of Israel and a resident of Gush Etzion.) Sholhur (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "i live ther and this is my opinion" is not, unfortunately, recognized as a reliable source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 April 2020 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (contribs) 15:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 April 2023