Talk:Husan

message: An article with three references, an infobox and a photo is not a stub.--Gilabrand (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A stub is not only measured by the amount of referencing it has or whether or not it includes an infobox (all articles on Palestinian localities have infoboxes and two to three references). Size is not the only factor either, but it certainly is a principle one. The small amount of info in the article is quite basic. This problem could easily be solved if the article gains some slight expansion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

message: :User:Davidbena Firstly, I find it disappointing that you equal the death of a Palestinian child with stone throwing (even if some injuries were reported)
:Secondly, 'Bakitzur' is, AFAIK,  not WP:RS 
:Thirdly, (and most importantly)..you now need consensus to add something to the article.  You added this in February, this year. Therefor you cannot re-add it, if challenged, without consensus. (Which you haven't got)......please self revert, or you might get reported, Huldra (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that before any changes take place in the original (before you edited it and changed the original edit), it will require a consensus to change it. Since I live in the area, perhaps you have not heard that NINE Israelis were injured while driving in their cars near Husan and by having glass shattered in their car windshield. You must realize that throwing stones can bring about death. The one who should be reported is you, Huldra, for disruptive editing to make Israel alone look like the villain.Davidbena (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new ARBPIA rules agree with Huldra here and it is clear that you are in violation.  If you are reported your chance of being blocked is quite high.  However, I'm in the process of petitioning against the current wording of the new rules, so it won't be me that reports you. Also, living in the area doesn't give you greater editing rights; it gives you a potential conflict of interest. Zerotalk 02:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, we are all editors who should seek consensus in this case. I simply restored an earlier edit which Huldra had deleted. The source is a valid, local source, and the incidents were also well-known. Yes, I agree with you that my living in the region doesn't make me an expert, but I said this only to allay any doubts about the accuracy of the events.Davidbena (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , can you please tell me what the new ARBPIA rules state? I would like to know exactly what I may have done wrong. Are you saying that all new edits made since February (or whenever this rule took effect) that we can delete these new edits, and challenge the editors who put them there in the first place, and they cannot restore their edits? If so, Huldra is using the rule in an abusive way, to make Israel alone appear to be the villain in a conflict that has being going on for ages.Davidbena (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   See here (the section "Motion: ARBPIA" near the bottom of the page).  The key part is the sentence underlined in black.  If you find it confusing, you are not alone. Zerotalk 06:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. In accordance with that motion which was apparently approved by 7 supporters, I am self-reverting my last edit, but I am also removing what is contentious in that section and what can be construed as one-sided reporting.Davidbena (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Davidbena, well, the part about the killed boy was inserted long before Dec. 2016. From my understanding: a single person cannot remove it. Please  self-revert, Huldra (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, before I revert, I would like to receive a reply from an administrator whether or not the new guidelines in ARBPIA (ibid.) apply only to reverts made in articles after 26 December 2016 (even in places where a consensus had already been reached), or whether they also apply to reverts made in articles and which reverted edit had actually been there before the new edict of 26 December 2016 took effect. If it does apply to both before and after 26 December 2016, obviously you have abused the new guidelines to advance a one-sided agenda by retaining Israeli offenses and omitting Palestinian Arab offenses, insofar that you deleted the edit that mentions the Arab stone-throwers at passing Israeli motorists.Davidbena (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Davidbena, Indeed I would have, if it applied to edits made before  26 December 2016. But then retroactive laws is not something civilised countries adhere to, and therefor  not something I think WP adhere to. And you still haven't  answered my complaint about your source not being  WP:RS. Huldra (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is a reliable source, published locally here, in Israel. As for the rule applying retroactively, this is Wikipedia and such rules usually apply retroactively. The point is, you were abusing the new guidelines to advance your own agenda.Davidbena (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

text: May I solicit the good advice and help of our friend, User:Zero0000, in this current dispute between us, since he knows best the subject matter involved. Whatever he suggests, I shall be willing to comply, and I will allow him to make the necessary changes in this article, based on his sound judgment of the situation. As for finding reliable sources, what I posted in the first case was sufficient. But you have other sources, as well. You may wish to check this one out. See article here: Stoning Attacks Growing More Serious. Then, you have this article: IDF Protects Israeli Drivers in West Bank. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the  The Jewish Press is definitely more RS, IMO. However, that "only" leaves  WP:UNDUE. I simply do not find  broken glass as important as the  death of a child, (Besides the fact the the people who suffered from the broken glass were travelling between illegal settlements, what right do they have to demand security for their travels?) Huldra (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Bakitzur published a follow-up the next week, indicating that nine Israelis had so far been hurt from broken glass. Of course, we all know the dangers involved in driving when stones are hurled at passing vehicles. As I said, all sources are reliable and some more explicit than others. I'll let our friend User:Zero0000 decide how he wishes to proceed with this edit.Davidbena (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but Im going to reintroduce the dead boy, though. It has been in the article for a long time, but if Zero0000 wants to take it out, I will bow to that Huldra (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

text: The case is also mentioned   in this book, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  From reading around, not always in citable sources, it seems that stone-throwing incidents were responded to by closing roads inside the village, confiscating Palestinian vehicles, preventing village residents from going to work, etc..  In other words, by collective punishments.  It seems to me that the stone-throwing story is worthy of mention, but both sides have to be presented. Where are good sources? Zerotalk 02:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

text: User:Davidbena, well, I am rather disapointed with you, that you did not do as you said, but went ahead and reintroduced the material before Zero0000 had said anything. Also, where are the sources for collective punishment?  Huldra (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What Zero0000 was speaking about when he said "collective punishment" was actually his way of saying that the IDF prevented vehicles owned by local residents of Husan from entering their village from the back entrance, but to drive down the main highway (route 375) just as the Israelis do, and enter their village through the main entrance opposite Betar Ilit, so that the stone throwers at night could not distinguish between Jewish owned vehicles and Arab owned vehicles. This scheme helped reduce the number of incidents. All of this was brought out in the Bakitzur weekly. The other thing that was done by the Israeli government was to temporarily prevent workers from working in nearby Israeli towns until the problem had been resolved, by way of pressure brought to bear by the parents on their children who were - in most cases - those who hurled stones at passing vehicles, which action, of course, quickly brought back order, allowing workers once again to go out and work in the nearby towns.Davidbena (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Husan. 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/20101210081942/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bethlehem.ps/culture/old_core/old_cores7.php
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) 00:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified