Talk:Barkan Industrial Park

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


Unnamed Section[edit]

Hi!

I came to this page looking for "information" .. and I see that this place is considered by Wikipedia to be in Israel! That's funny... I realise that it would be futile to edit the page to correct that, but I would just say that it discredits all of Wikipedia to let stand such glaring politically-motivated inaccuracies. I wonder if anyone cares?

62.203.66.180 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look on the Judea and Sameria pages along with the pages on Ariel (city) and most of the articles describing settlements, these discussions have and are being had. There are WP naming conventions for places including places that are in disputed territories. The fact that the political situation is murky, I find only strengthens the WP community. Joe407 (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Nomo's request[edit]

The Haaretz source states "Thousands of workers - half Israelis and half Palestinians - work in dozens of factories in Barkan Industrial Park in the West Bank." That seems to be support for our article's rephrase of that fact as "At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in many of the factories in coexistence". Accordingly, I am removing the "failed verification" tag. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's not sufficient support for this text. Nothing there about "side by side" or "in coexistence". I'll re-add the tag, and if there's something real in the source then fine. But I think we're moving towards removal here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to suggest al alternative phrasing, I am not particularly attached to the "coexist' or "side by side: phrasing. But if you remove that entire statement after it has been shown to have support, you can expect to see yourself featured in an AE report for tendentious editing . I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear the deception being practiced here:
In wiki's neutral voice we have Schechter cited for a statement of fact (work together in coexistence, which by the way is terribly inept as English, coexistence being a cold-war term).I.e.,

At Barkan Industrial Park, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in many of the factories in coexistence.[not in citation given] (Actually WP:Synth)

Immediately afterwards, as an endorsement of that putative statement of fact, we have its source, which is not a statement of fact, but a highly partisan attitude expressed by the Shomron Regional Council's leader Gershon Mesika who is quoted as saying:-

"It's amazing how the radical Left fails to understand that the main victims are the Palestinians themselves... Fortunately, so far these boycotts have been nothing but PR maneuvers, and we (settlers) are sure that Jews and Arabs will continue to work together and strengthen our prosperous industry and live in coexistence.'

Thus a settler perspective is transformed into an 'objective' fact.
Thousands of Jews and Palestinians work there, not necessarily side by side. In Royalite factory, piece-meal embroidery work is done by Palestinian women in their own rooms, for example.
Just state the facts. The Barkan Industrial Parks factories employ both Jewish settlers and Palestinians. You need good statistical evidence of the overall situation in 120 factories to say that the workplaces are invariably mixed.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of arguing, why won't you find an RS that dispute this claim. A fight at Barkan or what not. As it stands, the statement is supported not to mention is WP:DUE with the multiple pro-Palestinian side text. Ashtul (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A very selective way of bolding text. I'll take a shot at it -

"It's amazing how the radical Left fails to understand that the main victims are the Palestinians themselves... Fortunately, so far these boycotts have been nothing but PR maneuvers, and we (settlers) are sure that Jews and Arabs will continue to work together and strengthen our prosperous industry and live in coexistence.'

meaning we actually do in the presence.
They work shoulder to shoulder with Israelis, so this is a chance for Israelis and Palestinians to work together, to talk to one another, to trust one another. We’re an industry that manufactures peace products.”
[not in citation given] tag doesn't apply here. It is in the sources! Try to think of a tag that apply since you Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Ashtul (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I have reminded you on every edit, learn the rules of editing, the necessary distinctions between facts and opinions. You made a claim into a fact, and tried to endorse that putative fact by citing a partisan opinion. This is kindergarten level sand-in-the-eyes editing, and we are supposed to use mature adult judgement, in the context of policy guidelines. Blogging around the key issue outlined by other editors is pointless, and not worth answering.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it is quite outrageous that you quote from Palestinian Media Watch (which has been described as a "right-wing propaganda site", funded by the rather eh....."controversial" Michael Cherney), and make it sounds as if it is directly from Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, the Palestinian Authority's official daily. Tag will be added. Huldra (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No! What is outrageous is the fact you didn't look at the sources. Not only I brought a second RS who quoted them, but I even contacted PMW and asked for the original article which is the 3rd source. I looked at WP:RSN before posting it here at the concesnsus seems to be PMW is an RS. Stop this crusade of yours and leave me be. Ashtul (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, you wrote "learn the rules of editing, the necessary distinctions between facts and opinions" but the rule is - include an attribution not a fictitious tag about not being in citation. And as for attribution, I would argue a manager at an industrial zone is an expert about the working relationships there. Regardless, I'm not even the one to take the tag down. It was a third editor so you should have addressed this to him. Ashtul (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ashtul: I certainly did look at the source. The original is in Arabic, which I unfortunately does´t read. Palestinian Media Watch then gives its version based on the Arabic source. The i24news.tv then refers to PMW, i.e., it does not do an independent translation. So, everything here is dependent on the PMW-source. I quick search of WP:RSN finds this, which clearly notes PMW as an "activist" source. Yet you insert it in the article as if it was the neutral truth. Not acceptable. Huldra (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several conversations regarding PMW with the majority concluding it is RS thus I state 'consensus seems to be'. I made an effort and provided the original in Arabic which I don't read either. But unless you find someone who reads it and says they mistranslated it, it will be unjustified to remove it. You are more then welcome to take this to WP:RSN. Ashtul (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I see you made a research on PMW and you came up with their guy being 'incompetent expert witness' but nothing that questions the integrity of their translations. Can I assume this is behind us? Ashtul (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

restoring the following to the lead, which I removed for obvious reasons. WP:LEDE advocates concision and synthesis, whereas directions to visitors on how to access an industrial plant's offices are not only trivial for the lead, but read almost like a brochure advertisement for potential visitors or tour guides.

Its offices are located at the northern entrance.

Thirdly, in English you never start a sentence with 'Its'. So, it was (a)trivia (b) promotive (c) ungrammatical. Fourthly, leads summarize the page, and this one does not touch of the main issues covered by the page, and that is its major defect, and what editors should be developing. The reasons for removing it should be obvious to experience editors. Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barkan Industrial Park. 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) 09:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barkan Industrial Park. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barkan_Industrial_Park&oldid=1199529686"