Talk:Blueprint Negev

Notability

Is this topic notable enough for its own article? Of the listed references, only one actually refers to 'blueprint Negev'. This is probably worth mentioning as a section in Negev, but I don't think we need an article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be incorporated into 'Negev,' that;s a possibility. But on the other hand, the Blueprint Negev is one of many plans implemented in the Negev - then we'd have to add in Negev 2015 and a bunch of others as well. At the same time, the Blueprint Negev looks like it might become a big issue, with a lot of discussion arising in coming years. I am of the opinion that it should stand on its own - people will add to it over time. Whatever happens, maybe someone will incorporate it into 'Negev' but the info shouldn;t be entirely deleted.69.112.173.76 (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

User:Refcahman, thnak you for your contributions to this article. I think most of your recent edits are fine, and have retained the bulk of your work unchanged, but there are a few sections which appear to be original research, and thus inappropriate. Specifically, the paragraph that reads

"The Blueprint Negev's approach to addressing the disproportionate lack of services and infrastructure extended to Bedouin citizens residing in the desert appears to be 'trickle-down' in that the plan focuses explicitly on Jewish development; no explicit plans to address the conditions in which Bedouin citizens live have been advertised. For example, the only social project listed among its projects is Aleh Negev, a rehabilitation center for disabled children in the Jewish town of Ofakim; although Bedouin endure the highest infant mortality rate in Israel and one of the highest in the developed world, [4] and suffer high rates of congenital birth defects[5], no reference is made to disabled Bedouin children.[6]"

" is not sourced to any reference that makes that claim. It may be true that the plan's approach is 'trickle-down' - but the plan does not say this, and there are no crtical sources that say this (at least, not the ones currently quoted in the article). We can't conduct our own research, looking for explicit mention of services for Bedouins, and critique the plan on that basis when we don't find any. If any of the NGO's critical of the plan make that claim - feel free to quote them, but as it stand now, it is unsourced origianl reserahc, which I am removing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand. This too comes from a Bustan source, however I can't find it at present. Will check on that. By the way, thanks for some of the re-formatting of footnotes. I am having problems with some characters on my keyboard and also am unable to use the formatting bar above. Sorry about the awkward citation format. Refcahman (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Refcahman, that's quite alright regarding the formatting. I just wanted to make sure that you're aware of the citation issues. I'm sorry that you're having technical issues, and I can help pitch in to make things look nice. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Creating a separate article for critiques

Is this done? Does an article on critiques of the plan really stand on its own? It really seems to me that it belongs here. If the rest of the article seems low on info in comparison trhen why not beef it up? Just seems a bit strange. Feedback?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is done when it is taking up most of the article and is being given WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Even if the article was beefed up, yes the critiques section could be exapanded, but I doubt to the length of the split one. If it can't stand on its own (and there are lots of split articles on criticisms), then you have kind of answered your own question about it being here for most of the page. But to fix that, to quote from WP:CFORK, “'Criticism of ... ' articles should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.” Epson291 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I will point out, that with the article's current size, I think more criticisms can be put into this article then I left it with, I had just taken the headings. Epson291 (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it can stand on its own. Perhaps I just made a mistake by adding headings to distinguish between different types of critiques. It appeared much shorter before.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Critiques section

As you can see, the background section has been beefed up so I re-inserted the critiques section. I agree it should be condensed. I welcome help doing so. Rather than deleting big swathes, I think it could just be better consolidated.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Below I have inserted the discussion Re: the "Criticism of the Blueprint Negev" article, separate from the full article:LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking over this article, the article is completely lacking responses for all the criticisms, as well, there is a complete lack of independent WP:RS, all of the criticisms come from advocacy groups, there needs to be some indpendent reliable views on this if these controversies are said to be prominent. As I wrote on the other page, quoting from WP:CFORK, “'Criticism of ... ' articles should contain rebuttals if available." A a result, I added the tags {{npov}}, {cherrypicked}}, and {{unbalanced}}. Epson291 (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Even the section "JNF responses to critiques" unfortunately does not contain even a single actual response to any of the 'critiques'. Epson291 (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the Blueprint is brand new, the JNF is engaged in more fundraising than action, and everything we know about it currently is pretty much all PR, there are only two main types of sources we are going to get for this criticism article and the one on the plan:

1. JNF website PR

2. Advocacy groups' concerns.

There have not yet been any media articles about this. This does not mean it is not an important issue. Billions (probably not millions) are at stake, in addition to the last open spaces in Israel. But the JNF does not yet appear so interested in advertising the Blueprint to the media - it is advertising mainly to donors at this stage in the game.

Thus, I'd have to say that advocacy groups' concerns are as legitimate as any JNF PR, and definitely stand on their own. What they are saying is: We want these questions answered. So far, the JNF has not answered them publically. Once it does, we will have more info to put into the JNF response section. I wish there was more to put in that section, but that's not due to any kind of deliberate ommission of known facts - it's due to the JNF's lack of detailed public info on the plan. What the JNF has to say at present is really all puff and fluff, and lacks a certain amount of transparency, in my opinion.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to add, Epson291, I never thought this data/these perspectives should have been extracted and isolated like this to begin with, but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. However based on the heavy array of tags you added (don't you think 3 tags saying the same basic thing is a bit aggressive?) I'm getting the sense here that the move was step 1, so as to correct undue weight, and step 2, to argue for deletion. If that's the direction you're moving, I will re-insert much of the info that's here, in the old article, condensed but with the messages themselves intact. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed two of the three tags per what you addressed, as well as your concerns about the 3 tags. I don't have an ulterior motive when it comes to the future of the articles and I stand by my reasoning. I think it could be condensed in the original article but I didn't and don't really favour deleting material just to balence it out, so I split it. Epson291 (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And I will point out, I wrote on the main page that with that articles current size the criticisms could be expanded.Epson291 (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it. Will do what I can to re-integrate/condense into the other entry in coming days. Best,LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to stay away. What I did was add a lot more to the background, inserting infomation about the JNF and this project in the larger context. Then the article started to seem extensive enough to justify re-insertion of the critiques section, which I re-formatted so that it doesn't take as much space. If it still seems like too much, I will reformat again by taking out the headings altogther, which give an illusion of largeosity.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just worked hard to reduce the critiques section. It's a little bit more concise and clear, with each organization stating its position in a sentence in each section rather than several build-up sentences. Don't think I can make it more concise at present.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jewish residents

Canadian Monkey says it's original research to say that the Blueprint Negev seeks to bring in 250,000 Jewish immigrants to the Negev. The fact that they seek to bring in Jews, not any other population, is the essence of the plan. Ronald Lauder does say so inexplicitly: "Blueprint Negev answers the need for Jews in the Diaspora looking to make aliyah the pioneering way." Who makes aliyah? Only Jews, only Jews can 'go up' from the galut. For all others, becoming a citizen is just immigration.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The plan is not just about immigration or Aliyah, but about population redistribution, from the more densely populated north of Israel, to the South. In fact, the article already describes an existing database of some 10,000 names of current Israeli citizens who've expressed interest in such relocation as part of the plan. I don't know the religion of those 10,00, and neither do you, and in the absence of a reliable source that says the aim of the plan is to bring Jews, specifically, you can't add such original research. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Bedouin Displacement

I've removed the following section from the article, becuase the cited source does not support it:

Bedouin displacement: Ohalah and other rabbinal organizations expressed concern that through the Blueprint Negev the JNF-US may try to fund demolition of Bedouin homes or facilitate removal of Bedouin communities, and have asked that the "JNF-US inform potential donors about the distinctions between giving to Blueprint Negev and giving to KKL (JNF-Israel), and about the fact that Blueprint Negev is the JNF-US name for the development projects in the Negev run by different organizations."

The relevant passage from the cited source reads "Urge that JNF-US, KKL and its associate bodies throughout the world advocate for a change in Israeli law to ensure the social and political rights of the Bedouin population and the status of unrecognized villages and recognize the moral responsibility to others dwelling amongst us demanded by our tradition, e.g. to refrain from destroying Bedouin communities to make room for new Jewish towns."

No that's point 3, the quote is from point 2.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that the quote is from point 2 - and the point is focused on naming issues, and does not mention anything at all about Bedouin communities. I was looking very carefully at the source, and the closest it came to saying something remotely related to demolition of Bedouin homes wa sin point 3, which I quoted - and niether point 2 nor point 3 says what is claimed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in that passage to suggest that Neohasid are concerned that "through the Blueprint Negev the JNF-US may try to fund demolition of Bedouin homes or facilitate removal of Bedouin communities" - it only expresses a wish that JNF-US, KKL would proactively do more to protect Bedouin communities, which is not at all the same thing.

The cited source is not Neohasid, please read carefully, although Neohasid is worried about Bedouin removal as well, as the rest of the website shows. It is a critique by Ohalah.

The only reference given for that section is the Neohasid declaration. The sentence which is attributed to Ohala is not sourced - if you want to add it, please provide a reference. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are eager to delete, but you did not read the 6 sentences on the page closely enough to see that in fact Point 2 says exactly this: "JNF-US inform potential donors about the distinctions between giving to Blueprint Negev and giving to KKL (JNF-Israel), and about the fact that Blueprint Negev is the JNF-US name for the development projects in the Negev run by different organizations" without a single typo or alteration. Point 4 says: "Urge that JNF-US refrain from publicizing, promoting, or funding any project which involves the demolition of any Bedouin home or community", i.e. obviously they are concerned "that through the Blueprint Negev the JNF-US may try to fund demolition of Bedouin homes or facilitate removal of Bedouin communities." Argue with that and you're simply nitpicking.

when you say "obviously they are X" you are conducting original research, which is not allowed, everything you put here must be sourced, explicitly, to reliable sources that say exactly what you are claiming. If Neohasid does not name BN in point 4- you may not claim that that is what they are "obviously" referring to, becuase plainly, it iis not obvious. ~

The criticism section is already very long, and quite possibly violates WP:UNDUE. There's no need to tack on every remotely related criticism of JNF/KKL actions or lack thereof, as they relate to the Bedouins. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand: Nothing has been added to the criticism section - in fact everything that was done to the criticism section today involved deletion. I spent three hours today deleting from the section as the above discussion on this page shows. Furthermore, nothing more will need to be added to criticism, at least for a year or so I imagine, while the rest of the entry will get beefed up as we get more info from the JNF about the projects over coming years. I understand concern over WP:UNDUE but this is a huge plan that will change the face of the country permanently and so it's not surprising that the criticism would come from several angles, environmental, social, economic.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When I finished a major rewrite of this article, on may 7th [1], which involved removing many similar unsourced passages of original research, the criticism section was 3 concise paragraphs. Since then, it has grown to nearly double in size, with editors restoring unsourced material that I removed and discussed the reason for the removal over a month ago - without addressing any of the concerns I raised.

Nothing has been added in the past month.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This particular paragraph that we are arguing about is, at best, a general critique of JNF policies which does not mention anything specific about Blueprint Negev, other than the request that naming distinctions be made. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You explained your deletion of the sentence saying that the cited source did not say anything of the sort. Now you're basically saying you just don't think it's important. That's a big jump.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, however, I do understand your critique of the critiques section. I don't think just deleting sections is the right response. But I do think it needs more work, more consolidation, as I've said above many times. Easier said than done, however.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know when the material was added, and that's not the point. I'm not accusing you, specifically of adding that material. But you were active on the talk page saying you agree the critique is long, but don't know how the material could be cut down further- I'm suggesting you take a look at the May 7thg version, and see if all the new material is really needed.

Back to this current paragraph, I think you misunderstood my objection to it. It's not that it is not important - it is that the claim made in the paragraph (that some groups are concerned that "through the Blueprint Negev the JNF-US may try to fund demolition of Bedouin homes or facilitate removal of Bedouin communities") is not supported by the given ref. What is supported is some quibble about naming distinctions, which is unimportant, and some general critique of the JNF/KKL which is not specifically related to Blueprint Negev. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's true I don't really understand (though I don't think I misunderstood you:). Did you see what I wrote above, and check the link again? the page starts "Ohala declaration" and point 2 explicitly refers to the Blueprint Negev: "JNF-US inform potential donors about the distinctions between giving to BLUEPRINT NEGEV and giving to KKL (JNF-Israel), and about the fact that BLUEPRINT NEGEV is the JNF-US name for the development projects in the Negev run by different organizations"

Rather than boring anyone else here with our back-and-forth, let's ask first and delete later and clear up any future confusion on each other's talk-pages, sound good?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me ask directly: where in the cited source does it say that Ohala is concerned that through the Blueprint Negev the JNF-US may try to fund demolition of Bedouin homes? Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The resolution is itself entitled: OHALAH RESOLUTION ON BLUEPRINT NEGEV. The resolution is exclusively and explicitly on the BN, thus all points within the resolution refer explicitly and directly to the BN. Point 4 reads: "Urge that JNF-US refrain from publicizing, promoting, or funding any project which involves the demolition of any Bedouin home or community."LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Problems

There is quite a bit of soapboxing in this article against the JNF which has nothing to do with the Blueprint Negev plans. The criticism is still too big for a project with as little media attention as this and when none of this criticism has been picked up by a WP:RS. Therefore, it must it must be reduced. Right away, I'm removing the bit about Palestinian property and weasel words words that is in the rest of the article. Epson291 (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I cut out most of the crud in the "background" and "details" section and merged them together. You can plainly see the criticism is still too big, for something you have admitted has recieved no outside media coverage. Since you don't want it split, I'm going to go about reducing the section to just the major points of it (while still keeping its message). Epson291 (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So far your edits look fine to me. Hope you don't go too much further though! I just want to clarify that the end conclusion of the above back-and-forth between Candian monkey and me was not that the quote was unsourced. If you take a look yourself, you'll see it's there, and wonder, like me, why there was so much confusion.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking how I can reduce it in a consise way while keeping all the major points. I'll come up with something to show you. Epson291 (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat a suggestion I've made earleir: When I finished a major rewrite of this article, on may 7th [2] the criticism section was 3 concise paragraphs. Have a look at that version, and tell me if it's missing any major point that is currently made in a section twice its size. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, I really did get burned out on this one and got attached to its structure and the arguments of the critics, but change is good.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I completly forgot about this article. I replaced it with Canadian Monkey's version since he suggested it, it seemes to have all the major points in a concise way, considering that these criticsms haven't been picked up by the media at all, and how overall little media attention this project has gotten. Epson291 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

To the anonymous editor who made deletions today. You need to explain why you are making deletions; thus I reverted you edit until you explain your reason for deletion. If you don't have a reason other than editing for conciseness, please try to reduce the wording without deleting. Also, note that you deleted half a citation (to Orenstein's article) when you edited. Please be more careful in the future as this can create a great deal of work for future editors over time. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blueprint Negev. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr009=nw2lxhs612.app26a&pagename=negev_articles_update
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927040727/http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=advertorial to http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=advertorial
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr009=9ncjlab5z1.app24a&pagename=PR_JNFRespondsAgain
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=PR_Newhomes_GazaEvac_2006
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr009=nw2lxhs612.app26a&pagename=negev_articles_update

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)