Talk:Blueprint Negev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)