Talk:Tal Menashe

message: Shrike thinks it is undue to mention that the international community regards this place as illegal.  Contrary to Shrike, it is never undue to mention the most notable aspect of a location. Zerotalk 22:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there already a consensus on that? By the way the article seems to be out of track, Tal Menashe is part of Hananit, but this is also not shown.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Restored, thats nonsense, a cursory look at any of the other articles on settlements will certainly show the lie in that revert by Shrike. nableezy - 03:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:OR policy is quite clear on that "published sources that are directly related " .The article doesn't even mention Tel-Menashe and hence inappropriate.--Shrike (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus can change, however this was added in 2011 under the consensus established here, and has been unchallenged since. You'd need a new consensus to remove that. nableezy - 06:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but this consensus no longer exist .--Shrike (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you need consensus for your change. Do you have one? I think pretty clearly not based on the discussion here. nableezy - 17:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  A source that says all the settlements are illegal according to the international community does directly relate to this place. Zerotalk 08:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All villages have streets why don't we include any information about streets properties the answer because its irrelevant as no one discuss tel menashe and its streets and most of the sources don't discuss its legal status.--Shrike (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that English?  You are attempting to exclude information that you know to be true, that you know to be highly relevant, and that you know to be confirmed of many reliable sources.  For that reason I have no sympathy for your position. If we have a source that says "the governors of every state attended the meeting", we can write in the article of Governor SoAndSo that he attended the meeting. Trying to exclude that verifiable information because Governor SoAndSo is not mentioned by name would be wikilawyering.  Zerotalk 11:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue? 

message: Haaretz in 2007 said it was an illegal outpost. Whats the source for the state lands bit? I aint finding anything about any legalization of it either. Somebody with some Hebrew knowledge thats watching, there better sourcing that contradicts that this is an outpost? nableezy - 03:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why you didn't add the source?And you probably gave a wrong link?--Shrike (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Youre right, missed the last character. I updated the link above. You aware of any sourcing that says it isnt an illegal outpost? nableezy - 05:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Bt'Selem (http://www.btselem.org/settlements/statistics) and Peace Now! describes Tal Menashe as an outpost so that is likely what it is. ImTheIP (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  outpost or settlement