Template:Did you know nominations/Mishmar HaEmek


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by feminist (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Mishmar HaEmek

 * ... that at least five former members of the Knesset (Israel's parliament) hail from the kibbutz of Mishmar HaEmek?
 * ALT1:... that the forest and park near the kibbutz of Mishmar HaEmek is listed as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO?
 * ALT2:... that the kibbutz of Mishmar HaEmek is one of the few that are still based on a socialist structure where all assets are communally owned and all residents earn the same amount of money?
 * Reviewed: John Richardson (bishop of Car Nicobar)

Improved to Good Article status by Bolter21 (talk). Self-nominated at 09:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg This is a newly-promoted GA and is long enough and nominated in a timely fashion. The article is neutral. Hooks ALT0 and ALT2 are approved while the source for ALT1 does not help me verify it, but I could accept it AGF. I am concerned about this finding by Earwig's tool which shows that much of the lead section is copied from another source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cwmhiraeth that there is concerning close paraphrasing here, which extends beyond the example given, and suggest a GAR might be in order. For example, much of the Archaeology section is closely paraphrased or directly copied from this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @ I've rewritten the section and greatly diminished it to a more simple and encyclopedic form. I'll also do the same to the lead.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On it. — Llywelyn II   10:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Eh... for a, it seems to have some sourcing issues. Even ignoring the reliability of HuffPo (it's not high), ALT0 is cited to what is essentially a blog post by a former resident. He can be counted as a source for local lore but doesn't even bother to list the five Knesset members. Surely, they can be found on some database kept by the Israeli government. Similarly, UNESCO status should properly be sourced to a UNESCO database, not the Jerusalem Post, nice as they are. ALT2 is the most interesting by far but not supported at all even by its HuffPo blogpost, although it is focused on its socialist status; he says it's "in the minority" but that doesn't equate to "few". Kibbutz says there are 270 currently operating; 100 would be a minority, but not "few". That article has some other sources but not much in the way of hard numbers. It suggests at least 70 could still be socialist. It'd be nice to see the sourcing tightened up but, if that seems too much of a hassle, you could just rephrase ALT2 a little more carefully.

After that, you still seem to have some things to rephrase to avoid copyvio issues. Just rephrase them or at least change the order of the lists you're copying.

It's neither here nor there for the DYKN but I'm also curious why the alternate spellings like Ha'emek are completely unmentioned by the article, despite being used by your sources. Is there a policy on that? or shouldn't they at least be mentioned in a footnote somewhere? — Llywelyn II   11:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ATL0 is actually a quite known fact about the kibbutz in Israel, something I presonally knew before I started working on the article. The "notable residents" section includes the names of all five Knesset members from Mishmar HaEmek. There are other sources for this fact mainly in Hebrew, but I found one in English from an article by ex-politician Yossi Sarid in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: Israel's First Kibbutz-free Knesset - 25 December 2012. I'll add it to the article.
 * As for ATL1, I don't see a reason to doubt the Jerusalem Post on such a general statement. Here is the page in UNESCO's website: Megiddo (the name of the BR was changed in 2017 to Megiddo, as written in that page).
 * As for ATL2, the 2015-2016 yearbook of the Kibbutz Movement states only 18% of the kibbutzim are still cooperative. The yearbook is available only in Hebrew שנתון התנועה הקיבוצית - נתוני 2015/16 - מספר 14. A source for this is available in English. A summery of a study by Yad Tabenkin in the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research shows that in 2007 only 25% of the kibbutzim were cooperative at that year. I'll list both sources for English readers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg G2G with ALT2 as the most interesting, given that we have sources that it's gotten below 20%. Thank you for indulging my desire to tighten up that sourcing even though, as we both noted, the Jerusalem Post is a fine organization. There are still a few prepositional phrases that could be reworded, but the worst of the repeated phrasing is all gone and (imo) there's nothing left worth holding up the nomination over, given the good work and long delay already. — Llywelyn II   04:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Can't say I agree with you on that one - IMO there is still quite a bit of too-close paraphrasing that could be reworked. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg That's interesting, but you're wrong. There isn't "quite a bit" and it's gotten to the order of individual phrases like "...of the Hashomer Hatzair movement...." far below the threshold of copyright violation and that, to "correct", would involve using awkward or infelicitous phrasing like "...of the movement of the Hashomer Hatzair", "...of the movement known as the Hashomer Hatzair", &c. There are some easily done bits ("constructed"→"built", e.g.) but the parts left are so fragmentary that it amounts to needless makework. The guy created a for us (thank you btw), already cleaned up the legitimate copying, and already tightened up his sourcing for the hooks to their proper place. Let it go, or at least wait for the promoter's opinion on the matter. —  Llywelyn II   23:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm guessing based on your comment that you're relying solely on Earwig's tool to make that determination? It's a good start for catching instances of exact copying; that's not what I'm concerned about at this point. While "Tama is one of the biggest players in the worldwide market for this product and works with equipment makers such as John Deere. It has factories in three countries with a total number of 900 workers" is not identical to "Tama is by the far the biggest player in the worldwide market for this product, and that is serious business. The company, which works together with equipment makers such as John Deere, has factories in three countries and about 900 workers.", it is still an example of close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg It'd be nice to have a third opinion on here from outside observers, as mentioned on the DYK talk page, so we can stop going back and forth like this. On the other hand, if that's the best example of a remaining issue that is left, the editor above just needs to reread WP:Close paraphrasing. It solely deals with borderline plagiarism owing to lack of attribution. This article has already been 'ed; is fully cited; and, as above, doesn't have any copyvio worth holding up the nomination over. The only issue with the example given is that the number of workers seems to slightly disagree with the source, which should be corrected, but again isn't worth holding up the nomination over. — Llywelyn II   18:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not an accurate summary, but it appears there may be additional issues regarding incorrect/missing attribution: for example, the paragraph beginning "In the 1980s the kibbutz suffered from the bank stock crisis..." does not appear to be supported by the content of the cited source. A GAR for this article may be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I was surprised to see the tick, since I did respond at WT:DYK as requested, and my opinion was that what Nikkimaria highlighted was indeed close paraphrasing that needed to be fixed. I see the text is unchanged in the article despite the problem having been identified, which under the circumstances is not appropriate. It may be that Llywelyn II is the one who needs to recalibrate rather than Nikkimaria; as this is supposed to be a Good Article being promoted, it should unambiguously meet the GA standards. (We've had more than our fair share of nominated GAs, since they were allowed at DYK, that turned out to have significant copyvio and/or close paraphrasing, which is unfortunate in one sense, as they were promoted in this condition despite the criteria; in another, at least the problems were ultimately addressed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've had a rough two weeks in the army amid the recent developments in my country, so I couldn't address the issues, and now my computer is not working and I am on my dad's leptop. If you are willing to accept it, I would ask that this DYK nomination will not be closed as long as there is still what to discuss. I've adressed most of the issues I saw and tighten some sources in reponse to one of your concerns. I've also reread the article again and checked the sources but it is a bit difficult for me because of the conditions I work in. If you can find more issues, show them and I will fix them as soon as possible, even with my phone if I can. Some of the issues seems to be technicaly, such as the issue raised by Nikkimaria about the paragraph about the bank stock crisis, whose source did not relate to the actual paragraph, because of bug in Wikipedia's visual editor.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, have the issues been sufficiently addressed here, or at least close to it? If either of these, we could keep this open a while longer. I see that the GAR has basically ground to a standstill (like most community reassessments, unfortunately). Thanks for whatever you can tell me. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like any changes have been made since December. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I checked with Nikkimaria to be sure, and her comment does mean that the December changes were not sufficient to address the issues she raised earlier. This has now been open for over three months, and I think it's time to close it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)