Talk:Criticism of Blueprint Negev

This article was once on the Blueprint Negev page, which is where I believe it really belongs. It was split and directed here, since the critiques were more lengthy than the info on the actual plan. Any feedback on this issue?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed at Talk:Blueprint Negev. Epson291 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
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, {cherrypicked}}, and  . 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 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)