Talk:Nokdim

message: editor George Al-Shami insists on making a claim that Nokdim is illegal with reference to a BBC article that does not mention Nokdim. This is called :WP:OR. Mention of Nokdim being zionist is also blatant OR. --Shuki (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nokdim IS illegal under international law, this IS NOT my point of view, it is international law. If the BBC article is not good enough, then I will try to find this UN resoultion on the UN website. If anybody could find it on the UN website, then please add the reference to this entry.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to find a specific reference to Nokdim being illegal. It is not enough to blanketly deem all settlements illegal (by the terms in the resolution). Many are built on land bought privately from Arabs, and hence a fair real estate purchase with binding deed. This subject is better discussed over at the Israeli settlement article. --Shuki (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: George Al-Shami: discuss controversial changes here first, then make them. It seems to me that you waited a bit more than a week after this conversation died down, and then went ahead and made your edit, without even addressing Shuki's legitimate point. Therefore, I have undone your edit. Please discuss here first. After we come to consensus, we will make one edit (if necessary) to the article that reflects consensus. -ReuvenkT C 11:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reuvenk, I am ok with consensus, you can make your case here but to remove ANY reference to Nokdim as being situated in occupied territory is very POV. The West Bank was taken by Israel at gunpoint, hence any deals between Palestinians and Jewish settlers took place under Israeli occupation; this is not in any way a "fair deal", more like political blackmail. You ask for consenus but you forget that INTERNATIONAL LAW IS INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS, what more can you ask for. International law IS not controversial because if it was, then it WOULD NOT be international law. Now, Shuki objected to the term "Zionist", if you want to swtich that to "jewish settler" fine, but to remove any reference to international law is very POV.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: George, once again, you have gone ahead and changed the article before reaching consensus here. I have not made any comments regarding what's POV or not. All I've said is that you need to discuss the edit here, which you have failed to do. So, once again, I am going ahead and reverting it. Please, please discuss first!Now, regarding the edit itself. What you have written is by definition POV. First, you write "The Zionist settlement of Nokdim is considered illegal under international law." This is presented as a fact. Then you write "However Zionists dispute this." Well, if you say something is a fact but someone else doesn't consider it a fact, haven't you assumed the point of view of the people who do consider it a fact? -ReuvenkT C 08:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no 'Palestinian side' of the barrier. There is Area A and Area B and Nokdim is not in either.--Shuki (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nokdim illegal? 

message: The ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 should be PS 
Padres Hana (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: as coordinates point to the proper location; template issue, not a coordinates issue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, the template hardcodes "| coordinates_region = IL". It probably shouldn't be doing that given that it's being used for locations outside of the green line. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error