Talk:Egged (company)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hebrew and Russian external links[edit]

I have removed these from the article. These links would be entirely appropriate in a Hebrew or Russian wikipedia article on the Egged Bus Cooperative, but are inappropriate in the english language wikipedia article. To help any future translators, I reproduce the links here:

-- Chris j wood 11:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name[edit]

What is the name history, please? Egg reads like vandalism, or an onboard delicatessen | diner.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Hayyim Nahman Bialik offers this name http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Hayyim_Nahman_Bialik --79.176.69.57 (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mehadrin Bus line POV[edit]

The content in this section of the article is extremely one sided, It makes no mention that the Mehadrin busses are voluntary and that there are other Non-mehadrin buses. They are presented in a completely negative light counter to the opinion of the residents that use those lines. These lines are created at the request of the residents, and egged complies because a majority of their customers in those area will go to another company if egged does not provide them with the ability to practice their religion as they see fit. yisraeldov 18:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section notes that the lines were started by popular request of the residents. You are not denying the accuracy of the description or the reliability of the sources. I'm sorry you dislike that Mehadrin lines are controversial, but they are. Italiavivi 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said that the description is extremely one sided, if there is a controversy then both sides should be presented equally.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

Yes, the article is very one-sided because it does not give in any way the reason for the separation, but only calling it "segregation", which term is emotionally loaded.FlaviaR (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to return the POV tag, please do not remove it with out discussing here first.The POV tag notes that the neutrality of the section is questionable, we are not dealing with the accuracy of the sources, only providing a balanced description. Users who see the tag are directed to the talk page where they can see and participate in the discussion. Equating the voluntarily gender segregated buses in israel, to racial segregation in the US, is not a fair comparison at all. There is only mention of critics of the Mehadrin buses. I do not disagree that they maybe controversial, but controversy has 2 sides and only one is presented here. ( al gav, I'm not a 'sock-puppet' for any one please remove that from my talk page )yisraeldov 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. The controversy is both real and widespread (WP:N), and the comparisons have been made. Wikipedia must note controversy where it exists. That aside? Gender segregation is not "voluntary" if women are beaten and assaulted for sitting at the front of the bus. Italiavivi 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italivivi we don't know that that's what happened. It's being investigated and it certainly doesn't mean that it generaly happens. The fact that this case is being investigated as to whether she was assaulted is known to you and you still did not want to include that. You have been always pushing a POV on this and I have never said that it did happen or did not. Yisraelasper

Note: User:Yisraelasper is the suspected sockpuppeteer of User:Yisraeldov. I've no intention of participating in good faith with a user who has vandalized this page multiple times and may be using sockpuppets. Italiavivi 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a suspected sock puppet. You gave false evidence and on that basis I was cleared. Isn't it strange how you claimed one sockpuppet as a possibility and now you charge possibly more. I wasn't aware of this article until you brought it up with your lies. I now thanks to your vindictiveness am aware of this article. You caused me then to contribute to it in the only way I would have. This was my my first contribution to this article and you deleted it. You are a vandal as you acknowledged that the part of her claim I say is under investigation,is and yet you deleted this information. You are constantly deleting information and getting vindictive and lying and getting banned.

You claimed that Yisraeldov came after I ceased contributing to any article. He did not. He was at the same time and his first contribution was before the Miriam Shear incident even happened. You claimed I was a one issue account. I am not. You therefore based your claim of sockpuppetry on lies both as to when contributions were made by me and Yisraeldov and on what contributions I made.

You failed to mention that I was in 2005 before the Miriam Shear 2006 incident contributing and that my last contribution was on a previous topic of mine. You deleted information from the Miriam Shear article just like here, information saying what part of her claim is still being investigated. The only time I deleted supposed information from it was when you removed that piece of information so I thought that an unverified claim shouldn't appear in an article. Stop being a vindictive liar. You scare away contributions with your vindictiveness. Which is what you try to do. Yisraelasper

Italiavivi You gave a title to your deletion saying I'm Haredi. I'm not Haredi. If you don't know enough about Judaism and Jews perhaps you should not make comments and show off your ignorance. Yisraelasper

I see Italiavivi that you made a now removed by me suspected sockpuppet warning for User:71.206.196.185 a user that wasn't a user. I removed your sign. It was me forgetting to log in responding to you but since I was editing myself and yet with the first contribution at least putting in a new paragraph and putting my user name with that one too Yisraelasper so of course I was letting all know it's me! Yisraelasper

It happened today that I forgot to log in so for this article you find a contribution by 71.199.123.246. Maybe I should accuse you Italiavivi of sockpuppetry if ever you don't log in and so an IP shows up that seems like it's from you. Maybe I should check to see if it ever happened. I only found out about your IP accusations because I was checking your record. Yisraelasper

I put the POV tag back, It looks like the discussion died because of the Sock Puppet accusations, Please discuss here and come to an agreement before removing yisraeldov (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whjat I found amazing is that the article only mentions one incident whereas assaults on women sitting in the wrong place on the bus are far more widespread (). Also completely missing is any mention of the court battle and rulings against segregation. Rafistern —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Gender-segregated routes[edit]

They are mostly hasidic... mitnagidim and sephardim have no problem with mixed buses as it isn't a halachic issue. Chacham Yosef would sit next to women on buses. I don't think he pays too much attention anyway. There is that famous story about how his wife sat next to him and he never realized…

Who told you it isn't a Halachic issue ? There is a small book from Nissim Karelitz ( Not chasidish ) called Chut Shani , on Tzinus. You will find many sources there, that show that it is an issue yisraeldov (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
R' Moshe clearly states that there is no issue.

Should also mention most mehadrin buses are those doubles buses and women normally use the middle entreance and pay themselves. 124.170.180.75 06:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. See | Shocking numbers regarding mehadrin bus lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafistern (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

npov[edit]

I added the npov tag because only one viewpoint mostly amoung the hasidic world is represented as a view of all Haredim. Many Haredim do not support segregated buses and believe anyway spending time trying to get them segregated is wasting their time that should be rather spent studying Torah which is far more important. In this view wasting such time is a violation of multiple negative commandments, including chillul hashem. Of this opinion is Chacham Yosef. 124.170.180.75 07:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for an NPOV template. The section explains a disagreement, it does not take sides in it. --Shuki 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is it? It just talks about the chiloni part of the controversy. With no mention of the controversy amoungst Haredim themselves. 124.170.76.169 03:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for your claim ? Most of the charadi papers are always mehadrin lines. yisraeldov (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privatization?[edit]

This sentence was confusing:

Despite some privatization attempts made by Benjamin Netanyahu, Egged is still Israel's largest bus company, is subsidized by the government, and still controls most of the inter-city bus lines in Israel.

There is no suggestion elsewhere in the article that the company is owned by the state and not its members. I think the original writer meant "deregulation" so I changed it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cat[edit]

This cat was crated for Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories, not any other reason [1] and this company is a part of it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you can tell us what the difference is between 'companies operating in ...' and 'Israeli companies operating in ...' ? Please enlighten us. --Shuki (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli companies are most likely in the settlements exploiting otehr peoples land, while for example Arab companies are most likely in the Palestinian towns and villages. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category is in the process of being deleted, as an identical category with two words rearranged was deleted recently and this one was created in the middle of that process simply as a way to avoid the result. Rather than causing drama, leave this article alone and enjoy your category during the little time it has left. Breein1007 (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be there reason base in policy why this category not exist? It seem relevant. It state where company operate, which be not "Israel" but area it occupy by force. Ani medjool (talk)
Yes. Refer to the very recent deletion discussion of the same category. Breein1007 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this be different category, not same, so not relevant for old category Ani medjool (talk)

I'm not discussing this with you any further. The category is about to be deleted. :) Breein1007 (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to think editor be in good faith when them refuse discuss their opinion, but if you believe such to keep you opinion silent, then will respect that. Ani medjool (talk)

Materials[edit]

Relevant articles which I haven't had time to go over:

—Ynhockey (Talk) 22:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'mehadrin' lines, after court ruling[edit]

Hello. I have shortened the 'mehadrin-bus'-section, as there is a main article now. The paragraph should IMO be shortened even more, it is still far too long in relation to the rest of the article. Ajnem (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajnem (talk · contribs), I track your edit history from time to time. The article (and also this one) uses the term "gender segregation" to describe the separate seating of men and women on the buses. The only source that seems to refer to the situation as segregation is Haaretz. New York Times and Jerusalem Post don't use that word. Therefore, "segregation" shouldn't appear so prominently in the article; per WP:UNDUE, it shouldn't be the name of a section. We don't refer to separate bathrooms as segregated restrooms, after all, and at religious weddings the invitations will say "separate dancing," etc.—Biosketch (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Light Rail[edit]

A lot of information has been deleted without giving a good reason. It is relevant for readers to know that the sale of the Jerusalem Light Rail from Veolia to Egged has stalled. Also that Egged is inheriting a boycott situation if the purchase of the light rail goes through. I appreciate that this page is not about Veolia; it is about Egged and Egged has agreed to buy the light rail with all its legacy. Nescio vos (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to 'Egged' title[edit]

I believe Egged is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so this article should be titled Egged and the current Egged page should become a disambiguation. If you disagree, [[WP:BRD\\ applies. Chutznik (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There's no consensus that this or any of the options is the primary topic. The dab page has already been restored to Egged. Cúchullain t/c 14:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Egged (company) → Egged – Egged the bus company is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Chutznik (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Egged is also an English word [2], and this word can be reasonably expected to be the first thing that most English speakers think off when they see it. Imc (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Chutznik. What English word are you thinking of? The term "egged on"? I can assure you no one will be looking for that on Wikipedia. --Geewhiz (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 'Egged on' might be a dictionary entry, but will not get a separate WP entry. I was looking to see how it is handled at Oracle and Amazon, but the company name is not just the English word. --Shuki (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose "egged" is primarily about egging -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment egged (disambiguation) should be restored to egged, where it was before this move request was filed. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; if anything Egging should be the primary topic. In the absence of a primary topic, the disambiguation page should be moved back. Powers T 13:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Egging has received nearly three times as many views as the article on the company over a 90 day period. As Egged is the past tense form of Egging, it's assumed a considerable amount of traffic from Egged disambig is directed to "egging". YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "egged" (the bus company) has 50% more hits on google than does "egging". why is this even an issue? Soosim (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the company was called "Egging" then there would be a reasonable fight for the primary topic, but the past-tense/adjectival "Egged" seems sufficiently oblique. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC test isn't what a user would think of if somebody said the word "egged" to them with no context, it's what they would expect to find if searching for that exact word. --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The primary topic for "egging" is likely the topic covered at Egged. Note that primary topics can be covered at articles with different titles. USA, Rap, Runner, Mechanoid, etc., etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No standout primary topic. Most people know egging as being pelted with eggs. WWGB (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary issue: the first listing at Egged (disambiguation)[edit]

JHunterJ and I disagree about the first word to be listed at Egged (disambiguation) (assuming that this move request doesn't have the votes to pass, even though I still believe that the bus company is the primary topic). It's bad enough that a bus company that is actually named Egged -- that is exactly the name, letter for letter -- should not get its own article under its own name out of concern for confusion over Egging. But to put egging ahead of Egged the bus company on the disambiguation page? I find that deeply offensive, close minded, anti Israel and irrational. We desperately need a consensus saying that Egged (company) is more likely what readers are looking for than "egging". It really is obvious to me, but apparently JHunterJ (and others here) just don't get it. I'm prepared to get into a revert war over this, but I would much prefer if people can just agree that I'm right because, after all, I'm right. Chutznik (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you truly this anxious to be blocked again? In any event, please discuss the content of the disambiguation page at Talk:Egged (disambiguation), not here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting or even implying that anyone is anti-Israel based on the comments made above in the proposal is extremely offensive to the people who opposed it based on policy rather than religious and ethnic views. YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Egged (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egged_(company)&oldid=1196541040"