Talk:Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley

Not neutral and factually incorrect
To claim a cave in the West Bank is "in Israel" is non neutral and factually incorrect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually in both. Chesdovi (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So we change the wording a bit and avoid ridiculous conflict. SupremeDeliciousness, you too can collaborate and ease tensions instead of whining. --Shuki (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question should be removed, "It has been described as "spectacular"" is awkward, and the part about Israel is factually incorrect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the prestigious National Gepographic is "factually incorrect" I suggest you notify them. I notified UNESCO to alert them to their "factually incorrect" designation of Rachel's Tomb as a mosque. I have yet to receive a response. Chesdovi (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The underground quarry is in the WB, not in Israel, if the NG claims its "in Israel" then the NG is wrong as the worldview is that WB is occupied by Israel and not part of Israel. Based on that, why is the cat "Caves in Israel" in this article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ownership
This underground quarry is located in the West bank - land regarded as occupied by the international community, therefore it can not be owned by Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority, or any other Israeli institution. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because the intl community disagrees with the legality of the territory it does not mean that you can deny who holds and operates it. You can always go ask that those parameters be clarified in the infobox.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Who occupies and manages it does not make it its owner. You reverted my edit saying "per talk", but here at the talkpage there is no source showing that Israel is the owner of it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Management
Chesdovi, where is the source that say that the Israel Antiquities Authority manages it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nowhere. I'll change it to "Israel". Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a flag for the country that manages it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Is it common across the project with this infobox? Also, I see no reason to care if the flag is in or not. Any particular reason you do not like it? And this edit is problematic: . MoS, POV, OR.Cptnono (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why there should be a flag for who controls the area, MOS "Inappropriate use - Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" There is no reason to have a flag of the country that occupies it. The sentence I added is a factually correct sentence, its not pov, and I can show you sources that say that WB is not Israel. The sentence is just common sense pointing out the inaccuracy in the previous sentence. See here for example:   "found in West Bank" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand removing the flag if you see it as undue emphasis. Do you mind if I remove the Palestinian flag from other articles in the category based on the same reasoning?
 * That line is still poor. How about reworking the preceding line instead of turning the lead into a debate with itself?Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All flags for "management" should be removed. I'm not the one that added the factually incorrect sentence, so I don't support it, I only added text pointing out its incorrectness. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The flags I am talking about are in the location section of the infobox. Like I said, same reasoning should apply and I have no problem removing all of these.
 * It doesn't matter if you added it or not. You added the line which next to it which I feel is not needed. How about something along the lines of "it is really big" while not using the direct quote. The whole Israel line really isn't even needed. Even though more than 1 RS say it is in Israel we can ignore that.Cptnono (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation overkill and MoS
This is unnecessary since we have the sources in the body and is against MoS with the refs not being in order.Cptnono (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is the only source that got the location accurately. If anyone should be removed, its one of those incorrect ones. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)