Talk:Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Branches

As you can see in the in Hebrew article, the bank has 165 branches, and not 90 as written. 93.172.144.223 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strike

hello my frieds told me that your bank was strike since thursday in last week ,what happen about it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.48.25.168 (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugely undue addition

Disappointing (but not surprised) to see this reinstated in violation of WP:BRD. However, if consensus isn't reached here that it's a valid addition, I will be removing it.

Most national Israeli companies will operate in the settlements – this should not be a surprise. I'm fine with List of companies operating in West Bank settlements being added in the see also section (although arguably it would be better as a category), but to add a whole section for it (and one that makes up more than half the non-intro text) is ridiculous. Number 57 21:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just revert. I reverted and expanded upon the text in the direction you highlighted by pointing out that the it was not made clear enough why this bank's activities were sufficiently different from any other Israeli company. The expanded text now explains that this is a limited list that calls out just a handful of companies specifically implicated in furthering settlement activity, and I have provided the precise activities set alongside this bank's entry in the list. That this material is longer than the article's original length is immaterial. If the bank is notable, there should be more material. If it is not, then perhaps it should be deleted altogether, although I would argue that its making this list actually contributes to its notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the original Fox News link supporting this article is dead, and the only other link left is to the company website, which is not enough to establish WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. Needs some new sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly undue and disruptive. The sources are not about Mizrahi. Free1Soul (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not clearly anything. This article is supported by a single, dead link, and you want to remove the only sourced material. That's disruptive. You want to rewrite this article top to bottom, go ahead. Start by finding a single, live source and work from there. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this constitutes undue weight. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In deference to the weight of resistance, and with respect to this talk page, the avoidance of edit warring and the need to reach consensus, I have re-included the material only in its most minimalist of potential forms. Thanks to @Inf-in MD for gathering sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is UNDUE, maybe relevant to Kommunal Landspensjonskasse but not so much to this page. Kommunal Landspensjonskasse is one of thousands of investors, and an insignificant one in the Israeli stock market. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree; KLP is large (NOK 280 billion ~28 billion Euros), so that they are boycotting anyone is a pretty significant event. Huldra (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KLP is large, but its investment in the bank was not. Don't restore challenged material without getting consensus here, first. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on the above, I'll draw your attention to the following comments from an administrator dealing with an enforcement request directly related to the editing of this section: "Only if a concrete outcome occurred for the bank (e.g. stock value or equivalent plunged for a prolonged period) would it be WP:DUE to mention the bank's inclusion on a list. In general, don't add "criticism" sections to articles (see WP:CRIT)—if something significant occurred for the bank (a concrete outcome), consider writing a section on that. " Inf-in MD (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The enforcement request is unrelated to the content of this article. It is related to an editing technicality. The concrete outcome idea is sensible, but an active divestment event in direct response to a UN report over a politically controversial matter could be considered a concrete outcome. It is not a random divestment. It is a divestment hinging on a particularly sensitive issue in the given context. Moves by KLP are notably also often a precursor to broader action by the GPFG, the world's largest sovereign fund, as the two funds frequently co-ordinate on their ESG analysis. On the WP:CRIT note, in the latest version of this mention, it was a single sentence that you removed, not a separately headered criticism section, which had already been dropped in response to the WP:DUE complaints of other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The request is certainly not due to a technicality, but to your editing of this article to add the criticism section. I don't think you quite get what the administrators are telling you there. I think I'll add a note to that discussion now. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inf-in MD There is obviously a difference between a full-blown criticism section is WP:DUE, and the question of whether or not a minor mention (as Nishidani is arguing) is WP:DUE. I provided context, where you provided none and no link. Stop twisting and mincing words and argue FOR the content, not AGAINST the people, as HighInBC has urged. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Nishdani here, but I do count 5 editors (User:Number 57, 11Fox11, User:Free1Soul, USer:Shrike and myself) who object to this content as undue - in addition to an administrator saying the same thing in the enforcement request. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, sorry, I meant Huldra. I got confused with another talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally get why you got confused. If it weren't for the different user names, their lockstep edit pattern would suggest they are one person Inf-in MD (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, and off course your, and User:11Fox11, & User:Free1Soul absolutely does not have a lockstep edit pattern? Heh. Heh-heh. Huldra (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, @Inf-in MD, I'm not arguing FOR anything, just providing context. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being belled, I'll comment. Editing shouldn't be a numbers game. Apart from Number 57's view, the comments here look like lockstep voting. I haven't looked at this in detail, but I disagree with Number 57's view, (imvesting in settlements has a huge literature. It is controversial, however 'normal' in Israel) and with the comments at AE that suggest this is undue unless the pension funds in Norway's move had consequences. BDS judgments all over Wikipedia get invariable mention, and rouse much hostility in the press. I think it was quite reasonable for Iskander to think that mention of this merited inclusion. The editor is, like several people here, taking their edit counts at face value, not quite a master of the intricacies of the I&P area but, had I noticed that fact, I would have included it, but unlike Iskander, I would have expected that the addition would be tenaciously rooted out. He or she has to learn to walk more carefully here.Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your canvassed opinion. I refer you to the argument of Johnuniq above, which explains why it is undue. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq is not the arbiter of UNDUE, sorry. nableezy - 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he was, but he has clearly articulated the policy which makes this undo, and I expect he knows what he's talking about, as an administrator active in enforcing requests related to this topic. And them there's the other 5 editors who say and explain why this is undue. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't canvas Nishidani, I accidentally belled him instead of Huldra, as the context of my mention makes clear, and as I quite clearly explained. Again, address the content, not the people. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The content were already discussed there is clear WP:CONSENSUS against your additions and it was thoroughly explained why its WP:UNDUE please keep in mind that the WP:ONUS is on you Shrike (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I, personally, am no longer arguing for anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. Let's move on. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a RfC for this, Huldra (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bank_Mizrahi-Tefahot"