Talk:Zevulun Orlev

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


sundays[edit]

someone should write about his proposal to have days off on sunday just a suggestion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.79.205 (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zevulun Orlev. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Avnery[edit]

I see this has reached a new low in terms of disruptive editing. Uri Avnery, a former Knesset member, newspaper editor, and founder of Gush Shalom is now a random editorial author. This incredibly non-controversial fact that Orlev proposed this bill and it passed its preliminary reading is so easily sourcable that it is demonstrably bad faith editing to remove it. Two seconds of looking for it. It is unreal that people are actively trying to damage our articles, and editing material they have no understanding of. nableezy - 02:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard or XOR'easter, well done in degrading an article. Bravo. nableezy - 02:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so easily source-able, then an opinion column shouldn't be used to source it, regardless of who wrote the column. It's not "degrading an article" to point that out. Your comments here cross the line of WP:NPA. XOR'easter (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uri Avnery was a newspaper editor and regularly cited and quoted in scholarly works, he is a perfectly usable source for whether or not Orlev sponsored a piece of legislation that passed its preliminary reading in the Knesset. And blanket removal of mundane details that are easily sourceable, and are already sourced to a reliable source, is in fact degrading an article. nableezy - 04:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I considered who Uri Avnery was and how the source in question was published, and I concluded that WP:RSOPINION applied, and indeed WP:BLPSPS could reasonably be said to given the uncertainty of the level of editorial oversight involved. So, no, the source couldn't definitively be called reliable for the purpose, and nothing was "degraded" by removing it. XOR'easter (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not an opinion whether or not Orlev sponsored a piece of legislation that passed its preliminary reading. That is a matter of established fact. And yes, a newspaper editor and routinely cited and quoted expert on Israeli politics is reliable for that statement of fact. He was not cited for any opinion whatsoever. You still have not returned the pertinent fact to the article, despite knowing it is a verifiable fact. nableezy - 05:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSOPINION is pretty clear that it was the wrong kind of source to use. And we still have to consider what is WP:DUE (which requires getting a full sense of how RS have generally covered it), and how best to organize that section of the article (chronological? topical?). Wedging in mention of bills that a politician supported without putting in that kind of effort verges into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. The Jerusalem Post story linked above describes it as one of a bundle of loyalty bills, and mentions the involvement of many people while saying nothing about Orlev's role. So, the text in dispute isn't really a good summary of it. In short, there are plenty of humdrum matters of ordinary editing that need to be decided, and peremptory insistence can't make that happen faster. XOR'easter (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I dont really get what youre arguing about here. What viewpoint is given undue weight when discussing Orlev's bill? What viewpoint is not given enough weight? Is there something concrete in what you are arguing here? This is not self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets, making the latter part of RSOPINION not relevant, and this is not relaying the authors opinion about anything. What exactly are you arguing here? That Orlev did not sponsor a bill calling for the imprisonment of anybody who denies Israel is both Jewish and democratic? That this bill did not pass its preliminary reading? You want more sources? [1], [2], [3]. This is probably the most significant thing Orlev did in his Knesset term. nableezy - 05:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sources for you to peruse, pick one, any one. [4], [5]. nableezy - 05:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion columns are bad sources for facts. That's it. If it really was the most significant thing Orlev did in his Knesset term, then the text in dispute completely failed to indicate that (as well as failing to indicate who its other prominent supporters were, what opposition it drew, and other such things that the available sources cover [6] and that someone reading about politics would typically expect to learn). Rushing to restore what was there before is the opposite of taking the time to get it right. XOR'easter (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I restored an obvious fact. That you think the source is poor is an opinion you can hold, but in that case look for a better source. And Ive helped you with that, by bringing several sources, including a peer reviewed journal article and a book published by Cambridge University Press. Do you want to keep pretending that Avnery somehow was not accurately relaying the fact you removed from the article? nableezy - 05:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "pretending" anything, and casting aspersions like that is poor form. I'm saying that, as a matter of policy, there are bad places to point to for good facts. Honestly, every other source listed here appears better than the one removed, but having the whole pile of them just underlines the fact that the disputed text was not very good. A whole paragraph could be drafted on the topic, which would be more helpful to the reader. "In 2009, Orlev sponsored one of a pair of nationalistic bills, both of which drew intense controversy. Orlev's bill would have criminalized the act of..." (Exact phrasing obviously up for discussion.) Give a little context, say more about who supported and opposed it, indicate more clearly how far it got and why, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RSOPINION does not support the idea that an opinion piece by an established expert, and Uri Avnery had been writing about and been cited on Israeli politics for decades up until his death, is not reliable for the facts it presents as fact. Yes, a whole bunch more can be written about this bill. That does not negate that what was written about the bill is factual and completely uncontested. And still not in the article for some reason. I have no intention on edit-warring here. A user removed a source as deprecated, I replaced it with a non-deprecated one. After that same user careless removed it again claiming it was deprecated when it was not, I reverted once. I have no intention of returning this material to the article, one of the people who removed it can do that if they care about the quality of this article. Im done though. nableezy - 07:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gush Shalom site is not suitable for WP:BLP anyhow if it's your only source then its clearly WP:UNDUE --Shrike (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, if you are unable to read this section to think that is the only source then thats a whole different problem. And Gush Shalom is fine for a BLP. This is not a controversial fact in any way whatsoever. nableezy - 14:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is now extra silly. Shrike, there are five freaking sources on this page in this section that you have replied to. Unreal. nableezy - 15:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead add them. The WP:BLP is quite clear we cannot have material sourced to such subpar source Shrike (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TE is prohibited in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. And Gush Shalom is not a subpar source, repeating the same falsehood does not make it magically true. You are removing material you know is accurate. WP:TE to a literal tee. nableezy - 15:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you go ahead and add them, Shrike? Want me to tell you why? Nah, I am not going to waste my breath.Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:TE is using some subpar sources while there are plenty of good ones .And the WP:ONUS are on you to prove that the source from extremist organization is ok for WP:BLP Shrike (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extremist or not, we're talking about a statement by the founder of a group on that group's website. That's basically a self-published source, and so WP:BLPSPS says that it's unsuitable for a biography about someone other than the author. There are actually six other sources, counting the Haaretz story I found, but reading them makes clear just how mediocre a summary of the incident the removed text was. We're not on a deadline here, writing about something that happened over a decade ago, so why not take a deep breath and craft some text that explains the topic properly? XOR'easter (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it basically self-published is not self-published, making BLPSPS irrelevant. Extremist lol, thats just funny. nableezy - 16:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit more to this. Thanks for the motivation Shrike. nableezy - 16:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here is Avnery discussing this in the London Review of Books. Will be adding from that now. nableezy - 19:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zevulun_Orlev&oldid=1204458061"