Jayjg returns to his POV pushing, on I/P topics, of course Options

[Sololol]

I checked back in on ol' Jay just to see what he was up to. He'd always seemed pretty mild-mannered when I'd run into him. If anyone would like to see Jayjg in all his full POV pushing glory go take a gander at his recent activity. After a stint of good behavior he's back at it again.

A particularly uproarious line culled from Jayjg's offensive against including the BBC as a source for "the international community thinks settlements are illegal":
"As is obvious, rock-solid sources also consider the term "international community" itself to be essentially meaningless; I'm sorry that this points out a fundamental flaw in the article's first sentence. You can try to play literary acrobatics as much as you want to, but there are several sources, written in the highest quality publications by experts in the field, that say that the "international community" is an essentially meaningless term."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=449242561

The master is back in his workshop. Keep the lols rolling, Judah.

[Silver seren]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Cla68]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Try adding it to the intro and see what happens. Talk page discussions are one thing, it's the article content, especially the intro which is the only thing a lot of Wikipedia customers read, where the rubber really hits the road.

[Silver seren]

There has yet to be any response to my comment on the Israeli settlements talk page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Try adding it to the intro and see what happens. Talk page discussions are one thing, it's the article content, especially the intro which is the only thing a lot of Wikipedia customers read, where the rubber really hits the road.

It's already in the first line of the article.

Oh, and I found a much better source. The International Court of Justice's (The Hague's) 2004 Advisory Opinion on the "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory".

On page 10, it reads, "The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of
international law." See here.


But I don't want to add a sixth source to that sentence. Which of the sources do you guys think is the weakest and thus can be replaced?

[Milton Roe]

But I don't want to add a sixth source to that sentence. Which of the sources do you guys think is the weakest and thus can be replaced?

I think that sentence should have ten good cite notes. For purity. And for the in-your-face WP:V, WP:RS hell of it.

[Silver seren]

But I don't want to add a sixth source to that sentence. Which of the sources do you guys think is the weakest and thus can be replaced?

I think that sentence should have ten good cite notes. For purity. And for the in-your-face WP:V, WP:RS hell of it.

I'm just amazed at what the actual references look like. No wonder FA references lists are so long if each reference is that bloated.

(And, yes, I got the sarcasm)

[Cla68]

But I don't want to add a sixth source to that sentence. Which of the sources do you guys think is the weakest and thus can be replaced?

I think that sentence should have ten good cite notes. For purity. And for the in-your-face WP:V, WP:RS hell of it.

I'm just amazed at what the actual references look like. No wonder FA references lists are so long if each reference is that bloated.

(And, yes, I got the sarcasm)

You can put all the citations in a single footnote is you want, but if the rest of the article uses separate footnotes for each citation, you might find that doing it that way will screw other editors to the ceiling. Again, if you attribute the statement, it will have a much better chance of remaining.