Talk:Afik

message: is not a reliable source. Please find a better source for material sourced to it. nableezy - 07:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a consensus view.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Res ipsa loquitur.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. nableezy - 22:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  wnd 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Banned 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  rv 

message: 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 as the fourth sentence in this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Status sentence