Talk:SodaStream/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sodastream ? Soda Club ?

I am not living in the USA, so I don't know how it is over there, but ... I searched for Soda Club (since they use this name in the UK and Germany) and was redirected to Sodastream. But judging by the article, the main company is Soda Club, and Sodastream is just a small part of it, right ? If you go to the Sodaclub/Sodastream HP, after the country selection, you only see the Soda Club Logo. So I think redirecting Soda Club to this Sodastream article is wrong (however: maybe I missed it, but I think there is no Soda Club article) --87.177.252.198 (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kenwood

Why no mention of Kenwood? That was always written on the machines when I was a child, and my parents even referred to the drink as "a Kenwood". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.111.199 (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the one I remember as SodaStream, but with a transparent brown tinted bottle shield. Rather than screwing the bottle into the machine, the big lever on the side pushed the bottle up against a sealing washer. ISTR the carbonator cylinders and syrups were sold through Hallmark stores. The syrups were in plastic bottles with pumps like dish soap. Two problems with those were the plastic bottle caps tended to split and so did the threaded rings on the syrup pumps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

German Duty Issue on goods produced in the West Bank.

When reverting some of the extra links added recently I noticed that a bit had been added in the mean time about a import duty issue related to a Soda-club factory in Maale Adumim in the West Bank. While unsure of whether or not it should be included, I did find at least a usable source on the issue EU Eyes Exports from Israeli Settlements. PaleAqua (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This company is operating in israeli occupied territory

[1] The category is therefor correct and needs to be in the article:[2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Created a sub category specially for "Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories" so we can put all those together for easy navigation. This is a neutral category following the worldview. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Creating a new subcat to a cat up for cfd is not good faith and might be considered sneaky, perhaps proving that this is to make a POINT and POV. --Shuki (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The cat in question is not up for cfd, its a separate cat that works on its own or as a sub cat, you have removed it without explaining why it should be removed. How is it pov when its follows the worldview? According to you anything that follows the worldview is pov and everything that follows the extreme minority Israeli pov is "neutral". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't create a sub-cat "Jordanian Comapnies Operating in israeli occupied territory ", or "Kuwaiti Comapnies Operating in israeli occupied territory "- does the POV-push involved in doing this really have to spelled out for you? Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

As the ECJ case shows, there is a material difference between those cases, that said, I don't at this point have any problem with you creating those cats. Unomi (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

So, you concede the purpose of this cat is politically motivated. Thanks for at least being upfront about it, unlike Supreme D. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, in fact I do not understand what you mean by politically motivated. I am motivated by the material available in RS. The ECJ ruling is one such high quality RS which quite clearly makes a serious distinction. Library of Congress research publishings go further and consider the attempted annexation to be in violation of the Geneva convention and scholars have argued that economic use of land to be a war crime. This is not political, it is verifiable information available in RS and it is unfortunate that our articles evidently do not make it clear enough. Unomi (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories are navigational aids, not a platform for soapboxing , which is what you are doing above, and what SD is attempting to do with his CfD-circumventing category. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes its a navigation so people can easily locate the Israeli companies operation in the occupied territories, what is wrong with that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Run along and create the categories for "Jordanian Comapnies Operating in israeli occupied territory ", and "Kuwaiti Comapnies Operating in israeli occupied territory ", and then maybe I'll take your feigned interest in navigational aids seriously. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The israeli category is special because the Israeli companies are most likely hurting the Palestinians in that they are in Israeli settlements, and you are free to create a Jordain or Kuwaiti category if you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. I take it you have no interest in Navigation aids foir Jordanian compoaniesm, then? No easy way to bash Israel with them, huh? Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No that is not "my opinion", I have several sources showing that those companies I added to the cat are in the Israeli settlements. You are free to create Jordanian or Kuwaiti category's if that's what you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

that would be a 'No', then, on the Jordanian and Kuwaiti companies? No interest in highlighting companies that you think are not hurting the Palestinains? Unomo, this is what is meant by "politically motivated". Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from creating cats about Jordanian/Kuwaiti companies, i know nothing about where they are operating, I do know that the Israeli are in the Israeli settlements which makes its cat notable.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly a WP:SOAP violation to plainly state the facts, I think it has been demonstrated that this is a category which has real navigational value to our readers and does indeed constitute a group which has been identified as deserving interest by scholars, university institutions and courts of law. It may well be that a list article is a better way to start though. Nick, you may want to read WP:UNDUE as you seem to be operating under the impression that the pov held solely by the GOI deserves to be presented as if it constituted a mainstream consensus opinion. Unomi (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that has been demonstrated so far, is that SD's previouis cat, currently at CfD, is more than likely going to be deleted, with multiple editors stating it is POV. Fee free to join the debate there. There is nothign rleated to any posiiotn of the Gov of Israel here, just a couple of editors pushing a poilitically motivated POV Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true, my cat is not up for cfd, that is a separate cat created by someone else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by politically motivated, but I fear that it skirts the edge of a personal attack so I would like to ask you to refrain from using thought terminating cliches such as this seems to be. Unomi (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

<sWhat I mean by "politically motivated" is that when I see an editor with a history of repeatedly removing Hebrew names on multiple articles and edit warring over them, replacing Israeli media sources with Arab government press releases, and in general editing from what has been described by the administrators who placed him on an editing restriction as a nationalist POV, I am not required to play dumb and pretend that this recent found interest in creating navigational aids for companies is motivated by a genuine interest in improving the encycloepdia. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If I have removed a hebrew name from an article, it is because it doesn't belong there, just like if there was for example Icelandic translation name in the "dabke" article, I would remove it. You do realize that it was me that added the Israeli media source? and I have added Israeli sources in many articles. I don't remember the admins who placed me on restriction have called me "nationalist POV", can you provide a diff? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that I have done none of those things and I am unaware of SD's editing history so I can't comment on that, my request that you refrain from characterizing my edits as politically motivated stands. I would also ask you to join the centralized discussion that you have now been linked to on a number of occasions rather than engaging across a number of talkpages regarding what is largely the same issue. Unomi (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edits, while not as egregious as Sds', are also consistently from the same anti-Israeli POV. Or are you claiming that you are editing this article in order to provide a navigational aid that helps people looking for Isreali comopanies, diovorced from the political opinion embodied in the ECJ decision? Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not characterize my actions as anti-Israeli, I consider that a rather disgusting accusation. I am also not at all sure why you consider the ECJ ruling political, they clearly based their decision on international law. Unomi (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why someone would characterize certain editor behaviour/edits as anti-Israel by investigating one's contribution history. It is one thing to be pro-Palestinian and champion that cause by improving those articles and editing 'Israeli' articles as well. But when one's contribution history is filled with hundreds and hundreds of consecutive edits to 'Israeli' pages adding only negative information on them with absolutely nothing positive added to Palestinian articles, then what else does that describe? It is undeniable that I am pro-Israel, but you will not find me obsessed with going to Palestinian articles to add negative info, and in fact I have a nice amount of positive editing and copyediting on them to. We all have POV, the difference is that this is your sole motivation here, not improving the WP project. Creating the cat, and/or adding this cat to the article, and/or creating a sub cat to skirt the Cfd and innocently claim that it is a separate and unrelated cat is another symptom of this problematic behaviour. --Shuki (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, your concern is not impartial in nature either.

First of all, the cat is legitimate. It doesn't matter what the intentions behind creating the cat are.

Is this company in the West Bank? Are there others like it? There is an entire boycott movement against these companies because they operate in Palestinian land, occupied by Israel.

People should be discussing the validity of the cat and not whether so and so is pro or anti- whatever. If that is the case, you might as well revise EVERY SINGLE political topic on Wikipedia.

Even the term 'anti-Israel' is loaded.

Is there any actual opposition to the cat, that pertains to the ACTUAL idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are describing, but it is not me. Unomi (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Operates on Palestinian land, under Israeli occupation

Why isn't there a category for these kinds of companies?

It does not matter whether you are pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel or pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian.

The FACTS are important. Does this company operate in the West Bank or not?

Are there more Israeli companies that operate in the West Bank or not?

Is that not a LEGITIMATE category to make then? There is an entire boycott movement that is targeting companies such as this precisely because they operate in occupied territory.

The only POV in the discussion is from the apparently pro-Israel commentators who do not want to classify Sodastream et al. as operating in the West Bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"not widely thought to be Israeli territory"

This is POV. No one arranges a sentence in this manner. This is a passive-aggressive attempt at inserting a particular pro-Israel POV.

If it is not widely thought to be Israeli territory, then who is the minority that DOES assume it to be Israeli territory and why are we mentioning them in the context of international law and other rulings by international bodies of law?

I changed the sentence to 'the West Bank, which is under Israeli military occupation'. That is a fact. There is no wiggle room, for a pro-Israel POV which was the case of the original line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.83.125 (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The situation is more complex than what your edit suggests. "not widely thought to be Israeli territory" seems neutral enough. Marokwitz (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's complex, sure, but that statement is clearly a watered down POV. The west bank is definitively under israeli military occupation. BenjaminHold (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I know it's a politically loaded debate, but I do think it's important that we mention that the majority of the product is produced in a West Bank settlement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.28.213 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with politics and I have not removed any text. This is a formatting issue. The sources in the article claim that the company has production facilities around the world so your POV claim of 'majority of the product' is OR and obviously misleading. --Shuki (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, that's all i needed to know - thanks for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.28.213 (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, apparently, there is a gentlemen who goes by BioSketch who keeps reverting the edits that we're making! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.15.209 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Soda Stream ad.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Soda Stream ad.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 5 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Soda Stream ad.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A Sodastream is like a soda syphon

Functionally, the Sodastream has much in common with the soda syphon. It would be an oversimplification to say that Sodastream is a brand of syphon, because, in a Sodastream, the water container is separate from the apparatus that opens the carbon-dioxide cartridge and controls the release of its gas. But a reference to this long-familiar device could greatly simplify the lede, which currently has a long and florid description of the widely-understood principle of carbonation. (It talks about letting user "take ordinary tap water and carbonate it to create soda water (or carbonated water) to drink", and says that, when other ingredients are added, the resulting beverages "are similar to the most popular brands of soda and energy drinks".)

A lot of the advertising-speak about "ordinary tap water" should go, and the connection to the soda syphon should be noted. Does anybody disagree? If not, I plan to make that edit, eventually. TypoBoy (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Banned Commercial

"A similar ad was expected to air during Super Bowl XLVII in February 2013 prior to being banned by CBS for jabbing at Coke and Pepsi (two of CBS's largest sponsors)."

I just saw the commercial with the exploding bottles during the Super Bowl. I know that's anecdotal, maybe the add was a little bit changed, but an ad with exploding bottles was on the Super Bowl. Rhollis7 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but their website was down due to the traffic after the commercial aired. They posted a video on their website that shows the original commercial they couldn't air. Rhollis7 (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

i use this and i think we should list the flavors. it might help. Computeruser345 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Daily Kos

I removed the content sourced from the Daily Kos blog. It has been restored. This article is covered by WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. As Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded says "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary." (my bolding) Daily Kos does not meet those requirements as far as I'm concerned and the content should be removed. If this material is notable it will be easy to find it in a reliable source. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

CS Monitor

I have some concerns about the following paragraph:

Some Palestinian employees interviewed by The Christian Science Monitor have supported Johansson's stance and opposed a boycott of Sodastream. They stated that a boycott would only hurt them, according to The Christian Science Monitor their position has underscored Israeli claims that a boycott would be counterproductive and undermine the cooperation and prosperity that could boost peace prospects in the Middle East. However, the same Christian Science Monitor article points out that Palestinians in the West Bank are cut off from work opportunities in Jerusalem by the concrete Israeli separation wall - the Israeli West Bank barrier. One Palestinian employee said he felt ashamed to work for Sodastream and felt like a "slave" working on the assembly line for twelve hours a day.[103] Another Palestinian employee in the West Bank plant recounted that there was a lot of racism at the factory and that, "Most of the managers are Israeli, and West Bank employees feel they can't ask for pay rises or more benefits because they can be fired and easily replaced,

1. I think we should drop the sentence about the fence. It's not directly relevant to Sodastream and it misrepresents the source. It names one factor effecting Palestinian attitudes towards job opportunities while ignoring other factors named in the article, including higher wages in Israel and the inability of the PA to use development aid to generate jobs.
2. Including two quotes from unnamed workers strikes me as undue weight. The CS Monitor interviewed a number of employees and "all but one of those interviewed said they opposed the boycott". Yet we quote that one person and then, for good measure, also quote a second person. This second quote is secondhand, the person was interviewed by Reuters and then the quote was reprinted in the BBC. We get no sense from the BBC article of whether or not that quote was in any way representative of workers' attitudes and the BBC gives us nothing that would substantiate the claims the anonymous worker made.

I'd appreciate your thoughts.GabrielF (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We have to present both sides to keep this balanced. I've added the info about the gap in wages/GDP/unemployment between the West Bank and Israel proper, but removing the info about the work environment would not be appropriate as it distorts the original source by cherry-picking just one side of a two-sided argument. K7L (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, GabrielF. I had many of the same concerns.

1. The edit as you presented it above most certainly gave undue weight to one unnamed source. The Christian Science Monitor surveyed the the employees at SodaStream and from its sample it was able to make the following conclusions: "Palestinian workers back Scarlett Johansson's opposition to SodaStream boycott" (as in the title) or "But those most familiar with the factory – Palestinians who work there – largely side with Ms. Johansson" (as in the article's text). From that it is easy to summarize to something factual like: Palestinian employees have largely supported Johansson's stance and said that a boycott of SodaStream would only hurt them.
2. It makes no sense why one editor chose to cherry-pick quotations about one employee feeling like a "slave." This has nothing to do with the boycott and is—more importantly—quite insignificant. The editor interestingly omitted quotations such as: (1) "As for reports that the company doesn’t honor labor rights, that’s 'propaganda,' [the employee] says. 'Daniel [Birnbaum, the CEO of SodaStream,] is a peacemaker.'" (2) "Mr. Birnbaum ... says he’s committed to his Palestinian employees, and sees the company as providing a haven of coexistence that can boost prosperity and prospects for peace." (3) "'The Palestinian employee base in the last five years has grown from 100 to 500,' Mr. Lloyd [president of SodaStream] says. 'And it will continue to grow.' (4) "'SodaStream is my hope, to enable me to get married, to get everything,' says the former chicken worker..." (5) "'I would love to work for SodaStream. They’re quite privileged. People look up to them,' Mr. Jibarat says. 'It’s not the people who want to boycott, it’s the officials.' That’s a common refrain among the SodaStream workers who show up after Jibarat catches his ride."
3. Indeed, many of those quotations and positions are more important than some of the cherry-picked quotations. This bring us to my next point: The random quotation about there being "a lot of racism" at the factory—stated, again, by one single unnamed source—is unsubstantial and has nothing to do with the boycott controversy. In fact, the quotation itself would probably not be significant enough for an article about labor rights in SodaStream (which this section is not about). Wikipedia is not a news service, but an encyclopedia. --Precision123 (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

<- More sources would help to keep things balanced, but I wouldn't worry about it for now. The topic is in the news so there will be edits that violate WP:NOTADVOCATE, they'll be edits by sockpuppets/IPs of topic banned/blocked users, edit warring, all the usual nonsense that disrupts WP:ARBPIA articles. It will pass and normal service can resume. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Our WP:NPOV policy states that we represent ALL significant views published in RS. That includes minority views, so we are obliged to represent the minority view presented by CSM, not just the majority position. I see no justification for deleting racism comment from the Palestinian employee, it goes against our WP:NPOV policy to delete all well sourced criticisms by the employees and only leave the positive comments reported by one RS (the CSM). The "racism" quote has received wide coverage in RS [3][4][5][6][7]. Our WP:NPOV policy tells us to include all significant views in proportion to their coverage in RS. The "racism" quote has obviously recieved proportionally wide coverage and should be include in the article according to core policy. Dlv999 (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

[This] in depth analysis by Electronic Intifada is cited by the Al-Monitor report. I know there are going to be people that say EI "is not RS", but actually in this case we are looking to include the views of Palestinians, so a news source from the Palestinian perspective would be a good source (for the views of Palestinians). Dlv999 (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Read your own words again: "Our WP:NPOV policy tells us to include all significant views in proportion to their coverage in RS."
2. The article already refers to the position of Palestinians working at the company. Keep in mind that "largely" or "mostly" does not equal "all." In other words, that already indicates there may be a difference in opinion by a minority. --Precision123 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I share some of the concerns outlined above. Some editors have introduced POV WP:COATRACK text not germane to the subject. I also have some concerns about disproportionate blocs of texts dedicated to the clearly minority workers at the plant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Racist treatment by Sodastream has been discussed by multiple RS, I see no reason for it's complete exclusion. Edit warring it out will only get you blocked, please stop edit warring, not only here but on the other articles you edit as well. Sepsis II (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Brewcrewer. Some editors are completely misconstruing the theme of the article to the point where it runs afoul to WP:NPOV. Specifically, it appears that they are attempting to belittle and downplay the main point and conclusion of the article, and are trying to emphasize what are minor editorial (and not encyclopedic) points, which in addition have nothing to do with the boycott controversy.

Furthermore, I note the following new article: At SodaStream, Palestinians hope their bubble won’t burst --Precision123 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As well as this new article: Palestinian workers praise SodaStream - and Scarlett Johansson --Precision123 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering the large number of basic mistakes, bias, and conflicting reports with other sources, that Haaretz source should definitely be ignored. Sepsis II (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to substantiate that claim? It's a one sided article but I don't see much in the Forward article (reprinted by Haaretz) that isn't also in the Christian Science Monitor.GabrielF (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The theme of the article? It's supposed to be about some kitchen appliance, last I heard. Dunno. :) K7L (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. We do not ignore reliable sources because you, I, or any one editor does not like its content. --Precision123 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC) And more sources: 'We need 1,000 SodaStreams around here'; What SodaStream's Palestinian Employees Think About Scarlett Johansson; and SodaStream Boss Admits West Bank Plant Is 'a Pain' — Praises Scarlett Johansson. --Precision123 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain how it's okay to cite the CSM's claim that "all but one [...] of those interview" if no where do they include the number they interviewed. That is horrible journalism/news/reporting and should not make it's way into the wiki article. Unless it's a statistically significant number it is greatly misleading.BenjaminHold (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a question of how much weight we should be giving anonymous sources who were interviewed off the street. If we're going to quote a person asked at random than we also need to say that a number of people were asked the question and this was the only one who held that view. Otherwise we're giving that one anonymous person undue weight.GabrielF (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the only time a number is mentioned is in the CSM article, which notes that only one employee surveyed disagreed with the majority. That said, I point us again to the conclusions of the CSM article: "Palestinian workers back Scarlett Johansson's opposition to SodaStream boycott" (as in the title) or "But those most familiar with the factory – Palestinians who work there – largely side with Ms. Johansson" (as in the article's text). That suggests unequivocally that their sample size was large enough to make a conclusion about the majority (hence their use of the word "largely").

In addition, the following articles by the Daily Telegraph, The Forward, Haaretz, The Times of Israel, CBN News, The New Zealand Herald, and Joshua Mitnick (appearing also on Wall Street Journal Live) state the same conclusions. Last, I remind our editors that WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper; cited parts of articles should have encyclopedic value, not trivial editorial value. --Precision123 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, theses article were recently published by USA Today and the Kansas City Star; they are also on point. --Precision123 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Original Research

WP:OR states that: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"

Dumping material into the article using sources that have no relation to the topic of the article like this is not acceptable. Dlv999 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left the editor a message on their talk page about that material. Sepsis II (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am that editor. I just felt that the paragraph claiming that the local inhabitants had been evicted and had their lands appropriated Palestinian controversy was at least attenuated by the Land ownership and the Peace Now revisions section in Wikipedia's own article on Ma'ale Adumim --Drothenberg (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's usually best not to cite Wikipedia in Wikipedia, especially on a controversial topic where every tiny fact is in endless dispute. Find where the original article got its facts and cite that if the information is specifically relevant to the Sodastream company. K7L (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

He didn't cite wikipedia, he's just pointing to sourced information in another wikipedia article that he tried moving, with proper sourcing, here. Sepsis II (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dumping material and propoganda platform

@Dlv999, please explain your major removal of content[8]. The edit summaries are specific enough to address, especially such as in the case of this [9] or this[10], for which your edit summary seems inadequate. So either you are lazy and disruptive, or POV pushing. Please explain each or revert.

Also speaking of "Dumping material into the article using sources that have no relation to the topic of the article like", the topic of the article is SodaStream, not Israel, not Ma'ale Adumim nor Israeli occupation. So for example when the first paragraph specifies that the factory is located in "Mishor Adumim industrial zone, located inside Ma'ale Adumim". There is no reason to specify it again in the second paragraph.

The controversy should be stated once and those who supported i.e. according to B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch etc the issue of location. While adding assertion in quotes conerning Israel policy such as "Israeli system of unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank" is blunt POV.

Same goes for this[11] the Nytimes BLOG, doesn't mention the benefit or "jobs provided by the factories", it mentions the opponents of settlement trade, like Oxfam, and repeat the exact same thin as in Oxfam statement above, there is no reason to keep it, other than POV pushing in every paragraph in Q&A manner, which this is not.--84.111.101.105 (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, you're the one who seems to be removing content (like this) or changing the text to leave a mess like "In January 2014, Opponents of settlement trade, like Oxfam, asserts that "businesses, such as SodaStream, that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support". If Oxfam said this, say that Oxfam said this. Saying that "opponents of settlement trade" say this is vague and not helpful. Removing content which does not agree with your position *is* POV pushing. K7L (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Um what? Unlike DLV99, I explained everything I removed in summaries and expanded a bit above, not made some vague. If there was some merger confusion between edits that I didn't notice at time, then it can be addressed, however, the reason for very much what I sated here and in my edit summary. Saying that those edits aer POV pushing based on your interpretation of one of them is just meh..

As for those two pargraphs, I removed Scarlett Johansson Oxfam membership, sine it isn't the topic of the article, people who read about SodaStream don't care that Scarlett was a member of Oxfam for 8 years.

Next is the statement by Oxfam that "businesses, such as SodaStream, that operate in settlements further the ongoing poverty and denial of rights of the Palestinian communities that we work to support" which address the exact same thing as the statment made in the BLOG about Oxfam and BSD: "have argued that the small number of jobs provided by the factories in the settlements do not outweigh the devastating effect the Israeli military occupation has had on the Palestinian economy as a whole."

Te diffrence is that the first is phrased from SodaStream pov, while the second with Israel. So if you have a better suggestion how to merge those two into one concerning Soadstream angle please do, otherwise I doubt that blogs entry considered WP:RS.--84.111.101.105 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The basis of writing Wikipedia articles is to represent what has been written in RS on a topic and to represent all significant views that have been published in RS. The material you deleted was supported by RS directly related to the topic of the article. It's inclusion is consistent with the core policies of the encyclopedia. Your own personal opinions on the topic does not trump what has been published in RS. I don't think my edit removed any content, I simply restored the sourced material you deleted. Dlv999 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, this sort of edit is not helpful. If the Reuters piece specifically mentions "racism", say so. Very tempted to revert yet another wholesale deletion of content. K7L (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I too did not see the complete removal of racism claims with the excuse of undue as appropriate. I also did not like how only anti-occupation statements were removed in the attempted shortening of the section. Sepsis II (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know which edit summary you used, but I most certainly haven't intended to removed whole section without mention, I see how fat editing can go wrong, which is why asked you to address each edit separately. So we can improve.--84.111.101.105 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

---

For example this edit #1 and this edit #2 which K7 has reverted without any edit summary[12]. This behavior is disruptive and unless explained will be reported.(Also this edit by Sepsis II [13] is a good start.)--84.111.101.105 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing material and trying to pass it off as something else (such as copyediting) is disruptive, especially if the removals are specifically to one side of a two-sided argument. If you want to run to the noticeboards, go ahead, but all of the edits (including yours) will be examined with a fine-tooth comb once you do so. If the WP:RS reports various points from both sides of a controversy, we should fairly reflect that in order to stay WP:NPOV instead of selectively removing one side of a conflict. K7L (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

SodaStream vs Sodastream

This article was recently moved to SodaStream from Sodastream. The use of both forms of the name occur in the article, and sources. The company websites have the name as "SodaStream", "sodastream", and occasionally "Soda Stream". For reference Google ngram viewer only shows results for Sodastream, not SodaStream or sodastream. We should probably adjust the article to be consistent with the possible of mentioning of the alternate styles in the intro. Based on Wikipedia:Article titles#Standard English and trademarks, I believe the article should be moved back to Sodastream. PaleAqua (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I find that SodaStream is the preferred spelling on both their international and USA websites. --Precision123 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I requested the move after looking at their website. The company uses "SodaStream" consistently (see for instance [14]). I think the confusion is that their logo uses two lowercase s's. However, the logo is stylized, when using plain text the company's style seems to be two upper-case s's.GabrielF (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because the trademark uses capital letters does not mean that wikipedia styles the name the same way, see the policy I linked above. Regardless we should be consistent in what style we use. I've switched the article to use consistently use SodaStream though didn't change quotes, references or links. I checked a couple times, so hopefully I didn't miss any or accidentally get a quote or ref. We might want to clean up the prose a bit further. Several places were the name appears several times in a row where some usages could be replaced with phrases like "The company" or "The brand" to read smoother.PaleAqua (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for standardizing. Per WP:MOSTM: "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable." My preference is to use the company's style when it isn't obnoxious to do so (for instance, all-caps logos like TIME). GabrielF (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, that was my biggest issue anyways. Good point on the CamelCase line. Dropping my objection. PaleAqua (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOAPBOX

Wikipikidea is not a Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. ThiS article is not about Israel, occupation or anything other than SodaStream and the location of its facility and the controversy surrounding its location in Israeli settlement in occupied Westbank. As such this:

"Human Rights Watch has stated that, "It is impossible to ignore the Israeli system of unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, where SodaStream is located".[10] The United Church of Canada launched a campaign to boycott Sodastream's products manufactured in the occupied West Bank. According to church leader Gary Paterson, the objectives were to "live out God’s mission in the world" and "bring peace with justice to the Holy Land".[110]"

Should be reduced to something like that:

"Human Rights Watch has stated that It is impossible to ignore that SodaStream manufacturing facility located in the occupied West Bank.[10] The United Church of Canada launched a campaign to boycott Sodastream's products manufactured in the occupied West Bank. According to church leader Gary Paterson, the objectives were to "live out God’s mission in the world" and "bring peace with justice to the Holy Land".[110]"

and further condensed(and copy edited) with United Church of Canada saying that "Sodastream's products manufactured in the occupied West Bank".--84.111.101.105 (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is based on the premise that an RS placing the subject of an article in the context as they see it is soapboxing. I have been editing in this topic area for years and it is my view that this kind of error is one of the defining characteristics of the nationalist advocate. A very special kind of thinking is needed to think it is okay to manipulate information from RS in this way and it is incompatible with our obligations. We reflect published reliable sources. If editors could stop caring about what they say and this would be easy. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipidea policy clearly state to avoid soapboxing, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. The sole purpose of that qoute is to promote, advertise and showcase the BDS camping concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Making this into a battleground. Your statement is based on the premise that we should adhere to source regardless of what they say ignores countless WP:policies(most commonly used WP:NPOV) In my view that this kind of error, is one of the defining characteristics of the nationalist activists. A very special kind of thinking is needed to think it is okay to manipulate Wiki plicy to use it as a vehicle for propaganda and it is incompatible with our obligations. We reflect published reliable sources inline with all wikipidea policies. If editors could stop caring about what they say and this would be easy. --84.111.101.105 (talk) 07:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

We present both sides and reflect just what's already being reported in WP:RS. To selectively remove information that's in the original sources in order to slant the piece to favour one or the other side violates neutrality. We're not in the reputation management business, whether for Oxfam or for Sodastream. K7L (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As you surely aware the SodaStream controversy is part of the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign against Israel. As such you have a fine line between covering the SodaStream controversy and soapboxing. It is not that hard to reflect all viewpoint in WP:RS concerning the SodaStream controversy and where everyone stand, without using this as a vehicle for propaganda by introducing views concerning the campaign against Israel making it into one sided Palestinian-Israeli POV battleground.--84.111.101.105 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you are probably a young person from the childishness of your response to my comment. Your response demonstrates that you misunderstand policy. Your misunderstanding presents a danger to the integrity of content because you will make bad decisions. Editors should walk away from topics where they are liable to make bad decisions. But I'll try again. Soapboxing is not defined by what is in your mind. You are describing an instance of WP:NPOV compliance as soapboxing. This is simply an error. Our obligations are, as WP:SOAPBOX makes clear, to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. And again, a neutral point of view is not defined by what is in your mind. It is the result of 'representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.' So, you need to think about the statement by HRW quoted in the secondary source, Reuters, in those terms. Is it about the topic ? Yes, HRW are placing the subject of this article in the context as they, not you, not me, as they see it. Is it published in an RS ? Yes, Reuters is an RS and ask yourself whether Reuters are soapboxing or reporting by including that view. Is it a significant view ? Yes, HRW are one of the most significant human rights organizations and a prominent secondary source has decided that their view is significant enough to publish. Has the information been presented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias". The view has been attributed properly rather than presented using the encyclopedia's voice and it faithfully reflects the contents of the source. There is no evidence that editors have altered the information to misrepresent the source or introduce they're own bias by tampering with the information. HRW is a biased source. They have a strong bias towards human rights, obviously, but what you are seeing is a statement by a biased source being presented in a way that complies with policy. If it complies with NPOV it is not soapboxing. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

All I see are childish attempts at ad-homenem and goading. Formalizing your assertions as policy and strawgrasping. Fact stands that this section is about the controversy of SodaStream facility location within Israeli settlement, when you include off-topic views concerning Israel "system of unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement" which can not and should not be addressed here, instead of relevant article which covers all relevant views on Israel practice in the campaign against Israel, or the Palestinian-ISrali conflict articles you violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX as a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing that campaign here. Grasping at straws asserting that you just trying to representing all views in WP:RS or saying what a great source HRW is, doesn't change any of that.--84.111.101.105 (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What is relevant is what has been published in RS on the topic. Not what your own personal opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I'm wasting my time with you. That's okay. I shall keep it short. Do not violate policy here or anywhere else in WP:ARBPIA. If you do, someone, maybe me, will need to use the tools available via Arbitration Enforcement to ensure that content is not damaged and the process of building an encyclopedia is not disrupted. "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" does not apply in this topic area. Break the rules and you are out. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• more recent examples by dlv999, instead of using neutral wording such as this and link to the article which cover the BDS campaign:

The SodaStream controversy is part of the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

Or more complete variant with second sentence:

Sodastream has been criticized as part of part of the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campagin, for operating their primary manufacturing plant in Mishor Adumim industrial park in the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim.

He choose to add this more contentious variant i.e. soapboxing.

The SodaStream controversy is part of the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign, an effort launched by Palestinians in 2005 to pressure Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian Territories, support full rights for Arab citizens of Israel and support the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

--84.111.101.105 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• You added the statement: "The SodaStream controversy is part of Palestinians international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign." to the article with the citation [15]

• I checked the source which states: "The SodaStream controversy is part of the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign, which Palestinians launched in July 2005 as an effort to force Israel to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories, recognize Israeli Arab's full rights, and promote the Palestinian right of return.'"

• It seems to me that although you plagiarised the source, you only copy and pasted the first half of the sentence in the source, which was misleading.

• I amended the text so it more accurately reflects what the cited source says: "The SodaStream controversy is part of Palestinians international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign, an effort launched by Palestinians in 2005 to pressure Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian Territories, support full rights for Arab citizens of Israel and support the right of return for Palestinian refugees" Dlv999 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That still leaves the not-so-minor issue that opposition to specifically the West Bank Israeli settlements is not the same as opposition to all trade with Israel itself. It's the former position (in which just the settlements are geographically positioned as obstacles to a two-state solution) that brought Sodastream onto this odd collision course with Oxfam that's drawn so much WP:RS coverage. K7L (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• In regards to the original IP poster. This is a direct quote, "It is impossible to ignore the Israeli system of unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, where SodaStream is located". The paraphrased version: "Human Rights Watch has stated that it is impossible to ignore the West Bank location of one of SodaStream's factories." WP:CONTEXTMATTERS You have got the what but you have removed the why. This change is not reasonable. They give a why. HRW has stated that it is impossible to ignore the location of Sodastreams (an Israeli company) Primary manufacturing plant because of the unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement of Palestinians on the part of Israelis. The implication is that sodastream is benefiting from the subjugation of Palestinians so there for it is wrong. This article has to remain a Neutral point of view. The sources have to be reliable. You can not misrepresent the sources and maintain a NPOV.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox is a guideline for editors and not sources. This is not advocating Human Rights Watch but mentioning their view.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian Controversy

In terms of due weight, the current section takes up about 1/5 to 1/6 of the article space. Looking at the google news returns for the search term "sodastream" going back to 1998,[16] the majority of the coverage the topic has received in RS relates to the location of the firms production facility in a West Bank settlement and the issues surrounding that. Our WP:NPOV policy states that we should weight articles according to proportional coverage in RS. In light of this it is appropriate that the "Palestinian Controversy" is given significant weight in the article. Going through the section deleting sourced material all from one side of the debate is not legitimate way to trim the section. In any case first a source evidence/policy based case needs to be made that the section needs trimming. Dlv999 (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It is when the sources says the same things and or when you are soapboaxing.--84.111.101.105 (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have any evidence of me misrepresenting sources you should bring it here or the appropriate noticeboards. If you don't have any evidence you should not be making unsupported claims against other editors.Dlv999 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

melodrama

I have started reducing some of the melodrama in the section on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Interested editors are invited to contribute further. Tkuvho (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Details on the mutual allegations in the Arab-Israeli conflict should be detailed in an appropriate page directly dedicated to that conflict, not here. Tkuvho (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that User:Dlv999 is part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias but in this context, his unbalanced edits at this page create a comic effect. Tkuvho (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would support a full revert of all of Tkuvho's edits as POV pushing and misrepresenting sources on multiple occasions. Sepsis II (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I added no new material beyond mentioning the new brand ambassador in the lede. My edits amounted to a more neutral presentation of the sources already cited in the article. User:Sepsis II allegations of misrepresentation are groundless. Incidentally, I support the call by one of the editors above to delete the material on an unnamed factory worker claiming "racism", given that almost all factory workers appear to be satisfied. Tkuvho (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed above he "racism" quote has received extensive coverage in RS [17][18][19][20][21]. Our WP:NPOV policy tells us to include all significant views in proportion to their coverage in RS. The "racism" quote has obviously received proportionally wide coverage and should be include in the article according to core policy. Dlv999 (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as the "racism" quote is concerned, you will notice that I have not deleted it, awaiting reaction from other editors. Tkuvho (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can point to any edit that I made that is not consistent with what has been published in RS on the topic please point it out. Regarding your edits. Our WP:NPOV policy states that we represent all significant views published in RS on a topic. HRW (an internationally recognized human rights organisation) has had their view on the issue published by numerous RS. You changed:

• Human Rights Watch has stated that, "It is impossible to ignore the Israeli system of unlawful discrimination, land confiscation, natural resource theft, and forced displacement of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, where SodaStream is located"

to

• Human Rights Watch has stated that it is impossible to ignore the West Bank location of one of SodaStream's factories.

Which is source misrepresentation. HRW is opposed to the factory in the West Bank because of its considered view of Israel's human rights record in the territories.

The quote is widely reported in RS [22],[23],[24],[25], [26], [27], [28] and per due weight should be included or accurately represented.

You accuse me of bias but all I am doing is trying to accurately reflect what has been written in RS on the topic by sources directly related to the topic. Unfortunately there is a concerted effort by nationalis POV pushers to remove sourced information that does not reflect well on Israel. Dlv999 (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that all editors at this page work together on developing a mutually acceptable version of the page, rather than reproducing the Arab-Israeli conflict in miniature. I reiterate my position namely that issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict can be detailed at pages specifically devoted to that conflict, and need not be duplicated at each and every page even remotely related to that conflict. If User:Dlv999 has specific proposals in this direction I would be happy to hear them. Note that I have retained 'all' of the references in the page, so there is no loss of information as far as the interested reader is concerned.Tkuvho (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay first off would you agree that HRW view which has been published extensively in RS directly related to the topic of this article would count as a "significant view". Our WP:NPOV policy states that we include all significant views published in RS. In this case the quote succinctly explains WHY HRW oppose the factory in the settlement. Your revision totally fails to explain the HRW position (a significant view on the topic) and thus contradicts our WP:NPOV policy. Everything that has been published in RS directly related to this topic is relevant for inclusion on this page. Any sources or content that is not directly supported by RS discussing the topic of this article should be removed. But material supported by relevant RS is appropriate for inclusion even if it is discussed elsewhere. I would like to make a suggestion that editors try to put aside their own feelings and beliefs about the topic and just look at what has been published in RS that is directly related to the topic and try to accurately represent that. Dlv999 (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Changing the title from "Palestinian controversy" to "Arab-Israeli conflict" makes no sense as this has nothing to do with arabs. "The location of one of SodaStream's plants is part of the controversy over West Bank territories." Oh yes, refering to the occupation as a controversy is perfectly fine, on conservapedia, and the term West Bank territories is new to me. " Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Ma'ale Adumim, are regarded as illegal under international law by the international community," becomes "illegal under international law by some governments" - nice try to use weasel words and ignore sources. Whoever fixes this can use . You massacred the intent of HRW's statement. You changed "do not outweigh the devastating effect the Israeli military occupation has had on the Palestinian economy" to "do not outweigh the effect the Israeli presence" when of course it Israel's military occupation which devastes the Palestinian economy. You remove criticism by employees yet keep statements by those who fear for their job. In total, your edits are inappropriate and you should self revert. Sepsis II (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the new title is not the best, but neither is the old one. The title "Palestinian controversy" clearly chooses sides in the conflict. A more neutral title should be chosen. Do you have any suggestions? Tkuvho (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are specific concerns with my edits, they can be discussed in suitable subsections. Note that I find it surprising that you should insist that we need to retain the blanket claim that the settlements are considered illegal by the international community. Surely the edited claim that some in the international community hold this position, is more balanced. Tkuvho (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Balanced if Israel is given weight to the other 99% of the world. Sepsis II (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I will need to do some background checking but I am confident that some governments do not toe the line on this. Do note that your tone suggests that you have already chosen sides in this conflict, indicating that your editing here should be viewed with discretion. Tkuvho (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tkuvho, I think this highlight your problematic approach to this article. If you read the cited source for the statement it says: " West Bank settlements, including Ma’ale Adumim are regarded as illegal by the international community." - Now you have come along and said it is more balanced to misrepresent the source in favour of your own views. If you want to change the wording you need to go and find sources (relevant to this topic) that would support the text you propose. Balance in Wikipedia is about accurately representing sources. Not creating an article that is "balanced" according to the subjective views and opinions of idividual editors. you say my editing is biased, but I am always consistent with the cited sources. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that your own views on the topic are not entirely consistent with how the topic has been covered in RS. Dlv999 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that not all of "international community" adopts this position, and your insistence on reproducing this quote verbatim illustrates your parti pris on this issue, putting into doubt the objectivity of your edits. Tkuvho (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you are very wrong. Writing Wikipedia articles is about accurately reflecting what has been written in RS that are directly related to the topic. Not editors misrepresenting sources based on their own opinions about the topic. Prioritising your own POV over what the published RS says is classic POV pushing. And now my insistence on accurately reflecting the source is evidecne of bias? Dlv999 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Throwing around accusations of POV is not a good way of making progress. If you need a source for other governments holding dissenting opinions on this, the matter can be looked into. I hope other editors will chip in as well. Given the tone of your edits, I am wondering though whether whatever evidence that might come up will be dismissed as insufficient. Let's try to work on this together and avoid browbeating if possible. Tkuvho (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have considered that before you accused me of bias in your opening comment. I hope you can understand why I am upset as I am following policy and accurately representing the sources, while you have admitted that you have edit based on your own views in contradiction of what the source says. Dlv999 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are upset you should take a break from editing so we can continue working on this productively. I do feel that the earlier version was unbalanced. Tkuvho (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that our article on international law and Israeli settlements clearly states that The majority of legal scholars hold the settlements to violate international law, while others have offered dissenting views supporting the Israeli position, with a reference. I respect your right to specific opinions on the issue but please don't try to represent it as the universal consensus. Tkuvho (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I know what is says, I wrote it. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not an RS. RS relevant to this article are only those directly related to this article. My views are totally irrelevant and I will never discuss them on Wikipedia. Writing Wikipedia is about representing sources. You misrepresented the cited RS because of your own beliefs about the topic. You need to self revert that edit. If you want to change the text you need to find relevant RS to support your proposed changes. Dlv999 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Do all of wiki pages have to be revised now because of a single source you found? This verges on the comical. As soon as I find sources (and the page in question does provide sources, so we are not treating wiki as RS), you claim they are insufficient. Tkuvho (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to include any relevant source from the page, but per our core WP:OR policy it must be directly related to the topic of this article (Sodastrea).Dlv999 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And again, my main point is that manufacturing carbonated drinks is not necessarily the right place to recycle all the details of the conflict. These can be found elsewhere on wiki, including a discussion of who thinks the settlements violate international law and who thinks otherwise. Tkuvho (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What is relevant and what is not relevant is decided by what has been published in RS about the topic. If RS discuss issues pertaining to the IP conflict in relation to the topic of this article then they are suitable for inclusion in this article. Your own beliefs on what is relevant do not trump what published, balanced RS have seen as relevant. Anything that is not supported by sources directly related to the topic should be removed. For instance the claim: "but some legal scholars and the Israeli government dispute this" is OR because the sources aren't relate to the topic of this article. But I see that remained while you deleted properly sourced relevant material. Dlv999 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I would like to see what other editors have to say about it. Tkuvho (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

These are our core policies. Dlv999 (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel that my sources are consistent with the guidelines you cited. You wish to include the claim concerning "the" international community; I provided sources that dispute this claim and are therefore relevant as per WP:OR. The guidelines do not say that relevant sources have to speak specifically about SodaStream, contrary to your narrow interpretation. Tkuvho (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Needless to say I agree with our "core policies". I do suggest that you stop quoting regulations and try to cooperate on reaching a balanced version. Tkuvho (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

title for the subsection on the controversy

The old title referred only to the Palestinians and was unbalanced. The new title have been argued not to reflect the contents of the subsection. This issue could be discussed in this entry. Tkuvho (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest "controversy over location of Maale Adumim factory". Tkuvho (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Palestine controversy" would be most neutral as the section is about the factory in Palestine, not about Palestinians who very likely work at many of Sodastream's other factories. Sepsis II (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, not everybody refers to the disputed territories as "Palestine". I respect your right to do so but again your comments indicate a parti pris in the conflict. Tkuvho (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The title was originally just "Controversy". I'd stuck the extra word as "Palestinian Controversy" just because this section seemed to be entirely about the West Bank Israeli settlement and nothing else. K7L (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your calm comment. The current title is precise and to the point: "controversy over location of maale adumim plant". It neither takes sides in the conflict nor is unnecessarily general. Tkuvho (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"West Bank controversy" might work? Not everyone has heard of "Malle Adumim" per se, unless from reading this article. K7L (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The term the "disputed territories" is often used by propagandic sources, never by neutral sources. The section is not exclusive to the location but goes into BDS, Oxfam, racism, etc. Sepsis II (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The "racism" bit is quite remarkable. A single, unnamed, factory employee makes unspecified allegations of racism, and now it turns out that the whole section is about this. That's presumably not "propagandistic sources". The current title for the section does not mention "disputed territories", so I am not sure why you bring this up. Tkuvho (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources for the Racism quote [29][30][31][32][33], BBC, New York Times, Rueters et al are considered reliable in Wikipedia terms. Dlv999 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, you should apologize about your use of obscene language before making any further edits. Your apparent reluctance to do so tells bundles about your professed "objectivity". Tkuvho (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There are legal reasons why employees cannot speak out by name. Palestinian Authority law expressly prohibits its people from working in the Israeli settlements, which (unsurprisingly) it claims to be illegal. Many do so anyway out of economic necessity, but self-identifying as such in a Reuters piece which is in hundreds of newspapers would not be courageous but foolish. It'd also be a quick path to unemployment. The section is about a lot of things, all related to the location on the West Bank admittedly, but not just the one widely-reported quote. K7L (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• The controversy is not over the location of the factory, it is that the factory is part of an illegal settlement on occupied land. See eg [34]: "Alun McDonald, an Oxfam spokesman in Israel and the Occupied West Bank said that the charity does not oppose Israeli-owned factories in the West Bank -- once a peace agreement had been reached. “The problem at the moment is it’s in an illegal settlement on occupied land. If it’s an Israeli factory in a future Palestinian state, paying tax in Palestine and genuinely benefiting the economy, then it could be a good thing. Our opposition is not that it’s an Israeli company -- our position is the same for any company from any country working in settlements,”" Dlv999 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There's little need to title the subsection anything beyond "controversy". The information below the subsection title surely will be enough to explain the Controversy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, "controversy" is good enough and is certainly an improvement on "Palestine controversy". Glad we were able to reach consensus on this one. Tkuvho (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a Palestine Controversy. There's just no reason to title it anything other than controversy. If another controversy arises it can be put in this same section instead of creating another controversy section.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What sources are allowed

An earlier version of the article contained a claim that "the international community" regards settlements as illegal. I have two objections to this:

(1) the article is not primarily about the status of the settlements. These issues have been covered fully elsewhere on wiki and need not be recycled here.

(2) there are in fact sources (mentioned in particular at other wiki pages) mentioning legal scholars that dispute the claim of illegality. Therefore arguably we should not include such blanket statements here.

Then User:Dlv999 pointed out that the sources I mentioned do not deal directly with SodaStream and therefore cannot be used in this page. In other words, he claims that only an RS dealing specifically with SodaStream can be relied upon to challenge the blanket statement that "the" international community (implying a wall-to-wall consensus) subscribes to the illegality view. Such restrictions seem like nitpicking to me but I would like to hear what other editors have to say on this issue. Tkuvho (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a bizarre line of argument. (1)Material supported by sources directly related to the topic of this article (2) OR material based on sources not related to the topic of the article can be used.

Suggestion. Why not just do some work, analyse the sources relevant to the topic of this article. I there are any alternative formulations about the legality of settlements you can use them in the text. If there are not, you will have to accept that there are no sources to support your text and remove it. It's odd you want to delete a lot of well sourced content but at the same time bring material from sources not related to the topic of this article. I'm not nitpicking, you are delting valid content and adding WP:OR material against the core policies of the encyclopaedia. Dlv999 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, you have now stated your position. I would like to hear what other editors have to say about this. Notice that the sources I mentioned are directly relevant to the material you do wish to include in the article. If you feel that the claim about "the" international community is relevant, then sources that dispute such a claim are also relevant. You can't eat your cake and keep it, too. Tkuvho (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

My feelings are irrelevant. Writing wikipedia is about accurately representing what has been written in RS on any given topic. The legality of the settlements can only be discussed to the extent it is discussed in RS directly related to the topic. No more, no less. You can't use sources unrelated to the topic of the article, that is WP:OR. If you are allowed to cite unrelated sources from the rest of the IP conflict everyone else will do the same and the section will be a clusterfuck. Dlv999 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the removal of valid, WP:RS content needs to stop. The material is relevant, cited (or even quoted) to specific organisations (Oxfam, HRW, United Church...) and widely covered in the reliable sources. To remove this valid information and replace it with vague "some opponents don't like Sodastream" claims is damaging the article. We also need to very carefully distinguish between the BDS movement (who want to boycott Israel in its entirety) and the groups (like Oxfam) who oppose just the settlements without opposing Israel in any other respect. Huge gap there. K7L (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:K7L, You are not addressing the subject of this subsection, which is whether the use of sources that go counter to User:Dlv999's opinion constitute WP:OR. There are many issues involved here so please stick to the point. If you have other concerns please express your views in the appropriate section or create a new one. Tkuvho (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As discussed my opinion is irrelevant. The issue is your proposed sources are entirely unrelated to the topic of this article. Dlv999 (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Dlv999, you should first apologize for your obscene language before making any further edits. I won't follow your lead in quoting regulations but this is clearly unacceptable, and in fact is rather comical when compared with your would-be "objective" stance. Tkuvho (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your approach here, however well meaning, is probably a little bit clumsy and misinformed, which is likely to cause more conflict. It's probably a bad idea edit in this topic area and use terminology like 'disputed territories' and then talk about parti pris if you want experienced knowledgeable editors to take you seriously. For example, I'm no nationalist advocate by any means, can't stand nationalism of any kind, but when I see an editor use the language of the Israeli government and pro-Israel advocacy groups like CAMERA and NGO Monitor in the topic area rather than common terms used by secondary sources I see a storm coming. It's also probably not a good idea to talk very much about views on the legality of settlements without looking at a decent sample size of how secondary sources present this information. Including the Israeli government's view disputing the position of the international community is more an act of kindness/nod to neutrality than a representative reflection of how many sources do it. How to capture this information in a neutral way is something that has been discussed at length in the topic area. You may be interested this compilation of sources which is annotated to show whether the source included the Israeli position on legality of settlements. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I recall, the government refers to these territories as "Judea and samaria", but if you don't like "disputed territories" we certainly don't have to use them in the article. I don't recall *ever* reading CAMERA and NGO. Let's stick to the topic of this subsection. Tkuvho (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I just checked the article and the term "disputed" is not used anywhere as far as I could see. Tkuvho (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The term "disputed territories" is not allowed in any wikipedia article due to it being extremely POV. Sepsis II (talk)

Fine, but you still have not responded to the topic of this subsection. Tkuvho (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the term used by User:Dlv999 in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SodaStream&diff=594072913&oldid=594072812 is allowed. Tkuvho (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As long as swear words are not aimed at someone, or used excessively for no reason, they are fine, if appropriate, swear words may even be used in article prose. Sepsis II (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not really, Sepsis, just check this link out for lots of uses of disputed territories in Wikipedia: https://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+%22disputed+territories%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Ubie the guru (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate if editors could respond to the topic of this subsection. User:Dlv999 just deleted a source relevant to the nature of the international position on the settlements on the grounds that it does not mention SodaStream specifically. That's fine but if we are going to treat the tangential issue of the international position on the settlements at all, we should include both sides of the debate. This being a tangential issue I would prefer deleting it completely, but since some users insist on its inclusion, both sides should be included. Selective inclusion tends to border on WP:POV. Can an editor insist on including comments on the international position, and at the same time oppose the inclusion of one of the views in the debate? Tkuvho (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tkuvho, I opened a discussion on the coverage of the legality of the settlements below where I sampled RS directly related to this topic that discuss the issue. If you have any suggestions for a text in line with what the RS say your contribution would be appreciated. As discussed already this issue should only be discussed to the extent it is covered by sources directly related to the topic of this article. Any use of sources unrelated to the topic is OR. Dlv999 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that the current version of the article as edited by User:Dlv999 contains the categorical statement that the settlements "are regarded as illegal under international law". There is no longer a mention of an opposing view, as the latter was deleted by User:Dlv999. Comments? Tkuvho (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are any alternate significant views published in RS related to the topic you are welcome to add them to the article and amend the text. So far I didn't come across them. See below. All I am doing here is sampling the relevant RS and trying to produce a text that is consistent with the RS. That is my understanding of how to write neutral articles in line with the policy and purposes of the encyclopaedia. I would be interested to see an explanation for your approach, because on the one hand you are deleting material that is appropriately sourced to RS directly related to the topic. But on the other hand you are adding material that you haven't been able to source to relevant sources directly related to the topic and are using unrelated sources. Why are you allowed to add material only supported by unrelated sources but other editors can't include material that can be appropriately sourced to multiple directly related RS? Dlv999 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The legality of the settlements is clearly a central part of the controversy. It is cited by Oxfam and pro-Palestinian supporters as the reason for their opposition to the Sodastream factory being located in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

I am going to compile a source summary of how the legality issue is covered by RS directly related to the topic of this article. Please feel free to add sources directly related to the topic that I may have missed:-

• "Settlements by Israelis on the Palestinian West Bank are illegal under international law, and Oxfam and other human rights groups are against any trade with companies based there." - Channel 4 News
• "settlements are deemed illegal under international law" - Reuters
• "West Bank settlements, including Ma’ale Adumim are regarded as illegal by the international community." - Haaretz
• "Israeli settlements are considered illegal under international law" - NBC News
• "Israeli settlements that are built on Palestinian land seized during the Six-Day War of 1967, and viewed by the international community as illegal." AFP
• "settlements have been ruled illegal under international law" - The Scotsman
• "Israeli settlements deemed illegal by the international community" - The Forward
• "Sodastream, whose factory at Mishor Adumim is part of the Maale Adumim Jewish settlement, deemed illegal under international law." - The Telegraph
• "The company's main production site is located within an illegal Israeli settlement in the West Bank, Ma’ale Adumim." - New Statesman
• "Under international law, settlements are considered illegal. Israeli communities built outside the 1967 armistice line (often called the “Green Line”) are considered settlements. Israeli building in the West Bank, defined as occupied territory, is illegal under international law. - Washington Post

Editors need to put aside their own personal beliefs and biases and come up with a text that is consistent with what has been written in RS directly related to the topic. Dlv999 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The article clearly sates that "Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Ma'ale Adumim, are regarded as illegal under international law by a majority of governments" and links to "International law and Israeli settlements"

so the person who need to put their bias aside and stop trying to make this article into "a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing"(soapbox) by pushing contentious phrasing and words into every sentence he can find, is you.--84.111.101.105 (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The current text actually says: " Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including Ma'ale Adumim, are regarded as illegal under international law by a majority of governments,[106] but some legal scholars and the Israeli government dispute this[107][108][109]"

I don't see any mention of "majority of governments" in any of the sources so that seems to be an unsourced claim.

For the statement: " but some legal scholars and the Israeli government dispute this" two of the sources are unrelated to the topic, the third is a Wikipedia article - it is WP:OR. I don't see any support for this statement in the RS directly related to the article topic.

I'm only accurately representing what the sources say. If you find that "contentious" it is because of the conflict between your own views and how the topic is treated in RS. User:Dlv999 |Dlv999]] (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The clause about "majority of governments" has been deleted by User:Dlv999 along with a source representing an opposing position. See previous subsection for more details. Tkuvho (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no support for the clause in any of the sources related to this article that discuss the legality issue. It is unsourced. To include an alternative viewpoint you need to show it is a "significant view" in relation to the topic of this article. You need relevant RS to support it. Using sources unrelated to the topic is OR. Dlv999 (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that the "topic" here is not international law but rather a soda manufacturer. If you insist on discussing international law and on including blanket claims about it, alternative viewpoints should also be included. You can't insist on including a tangential topic and on excluding alternative viewpoints on the specious pretext that the viewpoint has not been expressed in the context of soda manufacturing. The alternative viewpoint has been expressed in the context of discussion of international law which you want to force into this article. Your claim that the "legality of the settlements is clearly a central part of the controversy" is in direct contradiction with your desire to exclude a significant RS on the question of such legality. Tkuvho (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The legality issue is relevant to the controversy because it is cited by Oxfam and others as the reason for their opposition to the Sodastream factory in the settlement. The legality issue can only be discussed to the extent it is discussed by RS directly related to the topic. All significant viewpoints published in RS directly related to the topic should be included. Trying to include views published in sources unrelated to the topic is WP:SYNTH. To stop this article becoming a WP:COATRACK for IP related debates we must be very strict about not allowing WP:SYNTH material that is not supported by sources related to the topic. I'm not forcing anything into the article. I am sampling the RS directly related to the topic and producing a text that is consistent with those sources. Topics can only be discussed to the extent they are covered by RS directly related to the topic. No more. No less. If alternative views regarding the legality of the settlements are "significant" with respect to this topic, they will be easy to find in RS directly related to this topic. I am interested to know if you are willing to consistently apply the approach you are taking here. Can anyone mine unrelated sources for material about the IP conflict and introduce it to this article, or is it just yourself that has that has that privilege? Dlv999 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source to say Soda stream is an Israeli company operating in Ma'ale Adumim you can use a reliable source that says Ma'ale Adumim it is an illegal settlement. These issues are directly related. The thing that you have to be careful about though is misrepresenting what the sources say. With the two examples I shared allow me to go ahead and point out there is no controversy there. If you wanted to mention a controversy with Sodastream you would need a reliable source to actually say there is a controversy. Don't manufacture a point of view.

WP:HUMAN ip's are human to. Ip's can not edit this article but they are allowed to use this talk page to attempt to help better this article. There is nothing wrong with them doing so. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewish American / American Jewish

Jewish American actress Scarlett Johansson in the introduction, then later American Jewish actress Scarlett Johansson in the body. I can not find a source for this ethnic labeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobgoblin Spock (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be Either American Jew or Jewish American. Both refer to Jew's by birth and Jew's by religion. Scarlet Johansson is an American Jew. Here's a source if you want to put it in: http://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tabloid/oxfam-vs-sodastream-the-predicament-of-scarlett-johansson/article1-1180546.aspx

Her mother is from an Ashkenazi Jewish family BTW.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice. The reader would connect the dots, Khazar theory would provide the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobgoblin Spock (talk • contribs) 00:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No one is going to connect any dots with a widely disregarded theory and walk away with context.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does it belong in this article? At the very least it's grossly undue. Why is she mentioned in the lede at all? Let's remember this is an article about a company and we should be writing the article from the perspective of the entire history of the company rather than that of some recent controversy. --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Arguably Johannson being a brand ambassador for the company is a significant aspect of the history of the company, regardless of any controversies. Tkuvho (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Says who? Specifically, identify some sources that say so. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Occupied West Bank

The location of the Sodastream factory is routinely described as being in the "occupied West Bank" by balanced WP:RS that cover the topic. Our text should reflect how the topic is covered in RS. See e.g BBC,the New York Times, Rueters, Haaretz, the Telegraph, The Guardian, Business Week, Al Jazeera, the ForwardChannel4 News, The Hindu, Sky News, the Scotsman, The Age, The National. Dlv999 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva claims against Oxfam

Arutz Sheva, the settler news agency, has published a report insinuating that Oxfam's position is something to do with donations it has received from Coca Cola. This kind of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim against a third party would need "multiple high-quality sources". I don't see any evidence that these claims have been reported by any high-quality sources. If those sources can be produced then the claim can be included, if not it must be removed ASAP. Dlv999 (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It has already been removed. The goal of my edit was to restore the Haaretz reference you inappropriately deleted. I did not notice the Coca Cola paragraph. It was deleted before I had a chance to do so. I agree that multiple sources would be needed here. But the Haaretz source should be restored. Tkuvho (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that the reverting editor has just reverted his revert, so I will implement the edit I was going to perform earlier. Tkuvho (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oxfam/Scarlett Johansen section of the controversy

The recent revision to the text is problematic for the following reasons.

1. Introduces the loaded term "claim" to present the Oxfam position instead of the previously neutral "stated".
2. Gives WP:UNDUE weight to one side of the debate in contrast to how the topic is covered in balanced WP:RS including the cited source for the material. Previous text included two quotes from Scarlett Johansen explaining her position and one quote from Oxfam explaining their position. The recent revision includes two Scarlet Johansen quotes and none explaining the Oxfam position. Perhaps editors could explain why one side of the debate should be extensively explained and the other curtailed (in contrast to the balanced way the topic is covered in RS). The new revision also describes Johansen's resignation twice and fails to describe the Oxfam position accepting the resignation. The previous text was in line with the cited source in that it described both the Oxfam position and Johansen's position. Perhaps editors could explain why we should only explain one side instead of both like the cited source.
3. The new revision introduced an unsourced claim that Johansen's resignation was a "protest". This is not supported by the cited source for the material. Perhaps editors could explain why they are introducing unsourced POV language in favour of the neutral text consistent with the cited source. Dlv999 (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Johannson (please do learn to spell) "severed ties" is better sourced. This was edited accordingly. Tkuvho (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, would you care to respond to the other points I raised. (e.g. neutral "stated" changed to loaded "claimed". Bias in coverage of the two sides of the debate in contrast to RS. Two Johannson quotes while single Oxfam quote removed from the passage.) Dlv999 (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as stating vs claiming is concerned, this page provides RS coverage of the fact that all workers except two oppose the Oxfam position and support Johannson's. There is considerable novelty in asserting that the company that pays their fair salaries is actually causing "empoverishment" thereby. This might conceivably be the case but the assertion contains novelty nonetheless. I understand I am not the only editor who feel that common sense dictates "claims" over "states". By pursuing this line you may be underlining your own credibility no less than by your indecent language for which I appreciate your apology. Tkuvho (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a forum so please stop your soapboxing. Sepsis II (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

An individual editor's WP:OR personal opinions on the topic are not a valid reason for using loaded terms over neutral language. In fact that is exactly why we use neutral terms, so the POVs and biases of individual editors do not contaminate the article text. Dlv999 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that you would support changing "claim" to "state" in Coke is claimed to back Oxfam's attempts to cripple Israeli soda competitor SodaStream ? Tkuvho (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not even your blog makes such a claim! Again, all your edits to this article need to be reverted per NPOV, RS, and CLAIM. Sepsis II (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM it is not enough to post this and have it be your argument. That Manual of Style is very specific. At no point does it say to not use the word claim. It says that care must be taken when using words such as claim. With claim it says it can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Only when the word claim does exactly that has it effected neutrality.The word claim does not do that here.

Did she resign in protest? Let's leave that up to the reliable sources. What we know is she quit Oxfam because she didn't agree with their position. Adding protest does introduce bias.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to use loaded terms then it's going to have to be for both sides of the debate. It is clearly biased to use neutral terms for one side of the debate and loaded terms for the other, based solely on individual editor's POV not the cited sources. The problem I see here is people are not being consistent in their actions. If I went through the text and inserted loaded terms for all the viewpoints supportive of Sodastream editors would say that I was biased. Why do they think it is legitimate to selectively apply loaded terms to the Oxfam position?

Serialjoepsycho, you seem to have it backwards, the text originally used a neutral term "stated", an editor replaced it with a loaded term without explanation. It is for the editor who introduced the loaded term to justify it's use in this situation. Dlv999 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Claimed is a neutral term. The only time that claimed is not a neutral term is when it calls does call someone a things credibility into question. There is no potential contradiction here to emphasize and there is no implication that they disregarded any evidence. Quit adding your systemic bias to the article. It doesn't hurt article but it is rather annoying.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one trying to use neutral terms, you are the one attempting to selectively add loaded terminology to one side of the debate. You need to comment on content, not editors per WP:NPA. I have a legitimate policy based objection to the selective introduction of a loaded term to one side of a debate on a controversial topic. Dlv999 (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added no loaded terms. I'm the one who simplified the controversy section to the title of "Controversy". You the one arbitrarily changing words regardless of whether they have an effect on the neutrality of the piece or not. I'm discussing changes to the content. You don't have a legitimate policy based objection. If you did it would be based off policy and not a an argument that these are load words. Claim can be neutral. It is only when it is not neutral is there an issue. You are arguing for a change because the word claim is used when no policy says not to use the word. That is annoying.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest all the time I have been editing I have never seen anyone kick up a fuss over retaining a loaded term in an article. Seeing as we have words that are agreed by community consensus are nearly always neutral I don't see what benefit there is to using a loaded term over a neutral one. Especially in such a controversial, heated topic. I note the cited source uses the neutral "Oxfam issued a statement saying...." - Perhaps a way round this would be to cleave very closely to what the cited source actually says. Dlv999 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nearly always as opposed to always, to change words that aren't always loaded. For the benefit of neutrality when you you don't actually question or discuss the neutrality of the usage of the terms. Perhaps the best way around this would to attribute changes to neutrality only when the changes actually relate to neutrality with that being the actual issue.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you have any objection to strictly cleaving to what the source says, and coming up with a text that very closely reflects what is written in the source: "Oxfam issued a statement saying...." Dlv999 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the change. I object to the reason for such changes. "Neutral language" especially when the prior language was neutral. You can make the change. There's nothing wrong with the change.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit War

This article is slowly starting to devolve into an edit war. Maybe we can work together to stop that. I think most everyone will say they are actively trying to improve the article. I see no reason to question anyone's sincerity. It seems we all have different approaches. Let's see if perhaps we can use them to better this article. Let's talk about it here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly use of obscene language does not help matters, see the latest pearl by Hoyland. Tkuvho (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is quite common, an editor misrepresenting sources, sourcing to blogs and extremist media, pretending to misunderstand policy on the talk page while making numerous bias edits to the article. Scientology was banned from editing wikipedia for far less than what the pro-Israel cabal has been doing. Sepsis II (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Page protection might be in order. Individuals causing clear problems should be brought up at WP:AE. --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ronz and Sepsis II:Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. While they should be reported, perhaps just not yet. Maybe if we can not accuse anyone of being a part of a Pro-Israel Cabal, Pro-Palestinian Cabal, or anything else we can make some ground. Sepsis there is a means by which anyone who is doing anything other than trying to improve this article can be taken care of. As Ronz pointed WP:AE. There are other ways as well. I ask you sincerely and respectfully to assume good faith just for a moment. Let's just say clean slate. I think it's possible that everyone has the opportunity to offer something positive here. As I asked you here to this talk page Topic Sepsis I have also asked Tkuvho and Dlv999 here. Perhaps we can start from a clean slate. After which we can look into more extreme measures like Page protection or other actions.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I think editors just need to be consistent in their actions. If they would object to the use of loaded terms on one side of the debate, don't try to selectively apply them to the other. If they would object to unsourced claims from one side of the debate, don't try to add them to the other. If they would object selective to deletion of sourced material from one side of the debate, don't selectively delete sourced material from the other. If they would object to the curtailing of significant views from one side of the debate, don't do it to the other.

The recent edits to the section gut the viewpoint of one side of the debate and apply loaded terms to it while leaving the other side in tact. How would editors feel if I came along and gutted the SJ/Sodastream viewpoint and selectively applied loaded terms to it. Would they see that as acceptable? If not why do they do it to the Oxfam position? Dlv999 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dlv999: I again completely disagree with your interpretation of WP:CLAIM. There is no prohibition on using that language. It tells to be careful with that language and it tells you when not to use that language. Besides that it is time to move on from being petty. Can you give these other few a clean slate so they can give you a clean state? Can you you try to work with them to better this article? Can we do this civilly as a group?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but no justification has been given for moving the text from a neutral descriptor to a loaded term. That policy was written for a reason, to avoid introducing bias into articles through the selective use of loaded terms. Selectively changing neutral terms to loaded terms for only one side of the debate introduces bias to the article. My valid policy based concerns are not "petty" and cannot just be dismissed. I have no problem working civilly as a group, but the current text (including the loaded term) first introduced on the 8th February has never had consensus and it is legitimate to restore the previous text until consensus or compromise can be made. If you want to work in a collegial way you need to restrict yourself to commenting on content and not editors per WP:NPADlv999 (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dlv999:They are petty because no policy says no to use the word claim or assert. It tells you how not to use claim or assert. Your argument has not been based on claim being used inappropriately but simply that it was used. There is no legitimate reason to restore the text prior to the 8th then start a fight that leads to an edit war. We should start from where we are now and work to better the article. You can keep your collegial way. I'll stick to encyclopedic or more specifically Wikipedia way. I will speak about the way people edit especially when they falsely attribute changes to neutrality.

Now as a Recommendation, To keep this conversation coherent, Let's work thru this article in order. Let's start with the lede. I'm going to ask that since you have the largest problem with the article to go thru first and propose your change. If you see no issue in the lede go to the next section and please post which section here that you are talking about.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained my objections to the recent reverts to the article in the relevent sections above "Occupied West Bank" and "Oxfam/Scarlett Johansen section of the controversy". Standard practice in the event of WP:NOCONSENSUS over recent changes is to retain the original text. I am not proposing changes I am opposing recent changes. Dlv999 (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going into a policy debate. I'm trying to stop a fight here. If you prefer you can go to a Admin. There's no telling how that will turn out for anyone. As preference I'd prefer that not happen as might effect everyone badly. Even myself whose changes have been minimal and neutral. If however you wish go for the Admin.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the lede: there has been an unreasonable deletion of the brand ambassador (see next subsection). Tkuvho (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

mentioning brand ambassador in lede

This was already mentioned in an earlier subsection here but only incidentally in connection with another issue. Since the inclusion of this in the lede has been challenged, I will note that Johannson becoming brand ambassador for the company is notable regardless of the current controversy. Tkuvho (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This is discussed above in Talk:SodaStream#Jewish_American_.2F_American_Jewish.

What sources demonstrate that her being a brand ambassador warrants inclusion in the lede? It seems like something about the general controversies deserve to be there instead...--Ronz (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That subsection deals with a different aspect of the question, as its title suggests. Could you be more specific about what kind of source you would like to see? Tkuvho (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a story indicating that the new brand ambassador is a key part of the company's strategy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/02/02/sodastream-strikes-out-with-scarlett-johansson-super-bowl-commercial/ Tkuvho (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

So maybe we wait a year or so and see how that strategy plays out? I'm not sure how this fits into the historical context of the company overall, and the source doesn't seem to address the matter in any way. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Tkuvho:I have to Concur with Ronz. While SJ's actions are notable I'd wait to see how it plays out. Ray Charles had a strong cultural impact on Pepsi. I don't believe his in the Pepsi lede. The actual impact of SJ's actions have yet to be seen. It could have a major impact on the company and the world as a whole but as of now it hasn't.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The blog cited does not appear to indicate that the new brand ambassador is a key part of the company's strategy. And in terms of secondary source coverage, it's the controversy rather than the company's brand strategy that receives the coverage, so the statement "becoming brand ambassador for the company is notable regardless of the current controversy" is not the case in terms of what 'notable' means in Wikipedia. Unless someone is going to argue that this news blip over Johannson role in the controversy deserves to be in the lead (not me), I don't think policy supports including Johannson in the lead. It would be a mismatch between our article and source coverage (and WP:LEAD). Sean.hoyland - talk 20:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Repeat posting of off topic comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Sean.hoyland could first apologize for foul language and again here before making any further edits in this page. Tkuvho (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the Majority consensus holds the Lead is fine. I recommend we move on to the next section and see if anyone has any issues there. If anyone still has issues with the lead consider the conversation here if you pursue further debate.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reducing policy compliance

• Diff
• Our article says "The location of one of SodaStream's plants is part of the controversy over West Bank territories".
• The source cited says "The SodaStream controversy is part of the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign, which Palestinians launched in July 2005 as an effort to force Israel to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories, recognize Israeli Arab's full rights, and promote the Palestinian right of return."
• The edit appears to have reduced the degree of consistency between what we say and what the cited source says. It has therefore decreased the degree of WP:V compliance and degraded the article. The source's description is quite a good summary of the controversy and Sodastreams place in it too, far superior to ours in terms of context. Furthermore, the term 'West Bank territories' is a unusual and unsuitable term that should be replaced with a more standard term. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I missed that, now restored. Sepsis II (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that this was an attempt to make the article sound neutral. I'm certainly not saying that was right just that is what it seems to be. I did not see who made this post. To whom ever did. The article needs to have a NPOV. Not the sources. You can't misrepresent what the sources say to get a npov.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's probably true that it was an attempt to make the article sound neutral from the editor's perspective but it's the wrong approach. Editors can't know what neutral means, in Wikipedia's terms, for a given issue until they have looked at enough data about the issue. If we engineer content based on what we personally believe is neutral we will get it wrong because basically nothing more than a guess, based to a large extent on beliefs rather than the RS based evidence we are required to use to build the encyclopedia. The way to make it more neutral is to look for more reliable sources, a representative sample of sources, see how they summarize the controversy and amend our article to reflect the diversity without worrying about what sounds more neutral from a personal perspective. That requires work though. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

User Sean.hoyland could first apologize for foul language and again here before making any further edits in this page. Tkuvho (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is for content discussion only. Off topic discussion is disruptive. You have already been told there is no issue here. Regarding the content, Sean Hoyland is correct. A major problem here is that people are editing based on their own personal views on what a neutral article would look like, instead of following our WP:NPOV policy which basically says that you analyse the relevant sources and accurately reflect what they say. Dlv999 (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your notions of obscenity and foulness are no one's concern but your own. Keep them to yourself, keep them off this page and every page because you will not be able to impose them on others. I am free to use the rich and colorful language of my mother tongue within the constraints imposed by WP:NPA. You could of course apologize for coming to my talk page and making patently false accusations and threats about my edits to this article because that was a very foolish error in an objective sense, but it wouldn't get you anywhere because I'm not interested in building relationships with editors or how editors feel. I am here to help address content matters, bad decisions, the kind of things that degrade articles in WP:ARBPIA and reduce policy compliance. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Referring only to the reason for the original post in this section. I agree that the user was errant in this change. The change dilutes the facts almost to obscurity. However while the users was errant it doesn't seem that they were trying to degrade the article. The issue was fixed. It can be fixed if they make another mistake.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Made the following change to this section now titled "Controversy" in the First sentence: "The SodaStream controversy is part of an effort launched by Palestinians in 2005"

Basically I hot linked Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions to the word effort. See thisSerialjoepsycho (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Pressure inside the gas canister

I came here to get some technical information but there doesn't seem to be much. There is too much talk about politics going on. How much is the pressure inside the gas canister? I could calculate it if I had the measurements for the can. Even the official site doesn't give these info. Vmelkon (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The can which is packaged with most of these is, in the most common size, 14.5 oz (by weight) of CO₂ in a container 6cm in outside diameter and 30cm tall, base to neck. The neck and the non-standard valve (concocted to make these difficult to refill) add another 7cm or so to the height, but are narrow. This is advertised as enough CO₂ to carbonate 60L of water, but certainly YMMV - they are being a bit optimistic.

A standard 12oz paintball can (2.5" outside dia, 8.5" base-to-neck, about a foot tall including neck/valve and a thread adapter (such as the SodaMod or a couple of others, mostly distributed by paintball mail-order houses)) will work and would be the same or similar in pressure as these adapters do not regulate or reduce PSI. K7L (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)