Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Germany's stance

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Thursday that progress on the freezing of Israeli settlement building was of crucial importance for the resumption of the Middle East peace process and that time was pressing. "We must make progress in the peace process...and a stopping of the settlement (building) is very important," Merkel said at a joint news conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the German capital Berlin." Merkel: Settlement freeze crucial to resumption of Mideast peace talks. Haaretz. 27 August 2009

The article says that Angela emphisized her point several times during the news conference. If anyone thinks it is appropriate then this piece of info can be placed into article's section on Israeli_settlement#Diplomatic_reactions.2C_proposals.2C_and_criticisms --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The section doesn't appear to have information on the German (or EU) positions, so mention may be in order, avoiding if possible over-concentration on recent events. --Dailycare (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the following to be included --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In 2009 German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that progress on the freezing of Israeli settlement building is of crucial importance for the resumption of the Middle East peace process. Merkel: Settlement freeze crucial to resumption of Mideast peace talks. Haaretz. 27 August 2009

I'm OK with that, a Wikilink to Middle East peace process could improve it further. --Dailycare (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Boldishness

I moved everything from the 'Legal background' into new article 'International law and Israeli settlements'. It's a copy/paste apart from a couple of named ref fixes. I added a temporary lead without attempting to comply with WP:LEAD and copied it into this article for the time being. If anyone would like to write a proper lead for the new article and copy it over here please go ahead. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

..and having re-read what I put in the lead for the split off article and copied over here, apparently I don't think that the Golan Heights exists. This is why I shouldn't write leads. Someone might like to fix that. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New Section needed

I propose to add a new section called "International reaction to settlement" As of now there is lott of data indicating several countries take on the Israeli settlment. USA - U.S. slams Israel over new settlement activities link China - China criticizes new Israeli move on settlements link Britian - Britain: Israeli settlements are 'illegal' and 'obstacle' to peace link Egypt - Egypt criticizes Israel's settlement expansion link Brazil - Brazil leader urges freeze on Israeli settlements link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr!mson K!ng (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Total population of Settlements

Not sure what the correct total population of Israeli settlements is, but currently the article gives it as 400,000 in the West Bank and 280,000 in East Jerusalem (so a total of 680,000), but the BBC article footnoted as the source for this statement talks about a total of 500,000 so I think the figure needs looking at again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.14.16 (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Settler as a pejorative

The way this article is framed is arguable slanted. example. It misrepresents the reality as the "settler" status is clearly disputed. In other words, biased language is not help towards NPOV.

The "Palestinian violence against Israeli settlers" should be rewritten and allow a more comprehensive, fact-based section. "Background" contains incorrect casualty stats.

The "settler violence against Palestinians" is disproportionate and needs more RS.

Statements such as this are quite libelous: "Olive farming is a major industry and employer in the Palestinian West Bank and olive trees are a common target of settler violence."

There are over 400,000 Jewish residents of the West Bank. No doubt violence has occurred but I cannot find any documents proving olive trees are a "common target" of settler violence. It gives the false impression that olive trees are under attack.

MORE NPOV:

The Israelis built a system of bypass roads that allowed settlers to travel between Israel and the different settlements in relative safety, avoiding ambushes by Palestinians. These roads often encroached upon inhabited Palestinian areas, and areas under cultivation. Many dunam of olive trees, the means of livelihood of Palestinians were destroyed to build the roads. to allow expansion of settlements in populated areas, by settler vandalism, and in some cases, because the olive trees had served as cover for Palestinian terrorists.

The overwhelming majority of violence between the Jewish residents and Arab residents of the WB is sourced from the Palestinian camp, not the settlements. ~50 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli settlers over the past 10 years, and this was in the context of the 2nd intifada where palestinian attacks were quite frequent.

http://www.mideastweb.org/map_israel_settlements.htm

Also, is it just me or is this article really, really huge? Wikifan12345 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It would make it easier to answer your questions if you split your issues with this article up, perhaps even in to separate sections, instead of having one large block of text to reply to. Factsontheground (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed "Legal Background" section title to "Illegality"

Hello all. The new section title more accurately reflects the content of the section.EightNineEditorMan (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That it does. Good point. Factsontheground (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal background is far more neutral and illegality is not simply loaded but awkward.

Legal background is a weasely title. This issue here is the illegality of the settlements and the section title should reflect this, it's not a general legal background. Factsontheground (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some question the "legality" which is why "Legal background" or perhaps "Legal dispute" is more appropriate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest "legal status". Zero^talk 04:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good compromise. Factsontheground (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New content by FoG

FoG, you do not own the page. You made many problematic edits on. Please discuss these here and gain consensus before adding them. thanks

(cur) (prev) 22:18, 15 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (94,720 bytes) (→Historical timeline) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 22:15, 15 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (94,718 bytes) (→Historical timeline) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 22:14, 15 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (94,718 bytes) (→Historical timeline: Graph is a useful image *(cur) (prev) 12:20, 14 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (93,587 bytes) (Removed part lacking citation for size concerns, for now the material is still in Israeli settlement timeline article) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 07:31, 13 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (94,196 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:15, 12 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) m (94,076 bytes) (→Historical timeline) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 15:00, 12 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (94,039 bytes) (→Settler violence) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 09:32, 12 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (94,016 bytes) (→Sewage and water) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 09:29, 12 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (91,852 bytes) (→Settlement types and locations) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 09:17, 12 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (88,273 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:56, 12 March 2010 Factsontheground (talk | contribs) (88,161 bytes) (→Diplomatic reactions, proposals, and criticisms) (undo)

--Shuki (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Israeli settlements, Palestinians, and human rights

The Israeli settlements, Palestinians, and human rights page is a blatant POV fork and seems more like a sandbox of non-neutral POV by Factsontheground. Until recently, it was a legitimate redirect, by the editor removed that and recreated the duplicate material and to add more POV. --Shuki (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the information in that article is simply a regurgitation of content from this article. Israel articles are bloated enough as it is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Shuki, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of what a so-called "POV fork" is. One of the main features of a POV fork is that they are "deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines". Israeli settlements, Palestinians, and human rights is simply a summary style article created as an extension of the eponymous section in this, the parent article.

WP:POVFORK describes it as an example of what is not a POV fork:

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article; Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.

The reason Israeli settlements, Palestinians, and human rights was created was to have a place to add extra material now that this article has reached ~90kb in size. It was NOT an exercise in POV-forking. Factsontheground (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether it was deliberate or not is irrelevant. Most of the information of the article could be easily merged into this one and they argument to keep it is clearly very weak. There already is too Israel articles and I can't see the justification for an essay-based topic. "Israel, the settlements, and the Palestinians" is not a straight definition like "Israeli settlements." It is vulnerable to user bias. Similar to Israel, the Palestinians, and the United Nations. Personally I think that article should go as well. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging is not an option, since as you yourself noted above, this article is already too big. Factsontheground (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

FoG, thanks for pointing out the problem with the 'human rights' article. It was "deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines". The article is one sided non-neutral POV fork. --Shuki (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a neutrality problem in the article (I haven't checked), fix it. There should be a neutral article about the human rights aspects of Israeli settlements (perhaps with a better title) since it is a notable subject with a lot of information and this article is already too big. The lead of that article should be the master of the material included in this Israeli settlement article and replace the existing humans rights related info that seems to be in 2 or more places in this article. I think it's more pragmatic to keep I-P conflict related articles as small and as focused as possible partly to contain and constrain the disagreements and discussions. For example, discussions about the human rights aspects should take place in the main article not here. The information in this article should simply be slaved from the lead in the master. There should be no need to discuss it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This article could easily be cut down by a 3rd. A lot of the information is redundant and many paragraphs continue to remain uncited after months of posting.

Don't forget to sign your posts. You may be right apart from the 'easily' part. Articles should be around 32Kb. The gigantic size of almost all I-P related articles isn't helping at all. We should be splitting not merging in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not true. This is a well sourced article and I can't see any redundancy whatsoever. It's funny how Shuki is complaining at the same time that this article is too big and that the spin-off articles should be deleted. The reason that this article is so big is that it needs more spin-off articles. Deleting the ones that we have will only make the situation in this article worse.

Anyway, I've just created a spinoff Israeli settlement timeline article so much of the timeline section in this article can be removed. The same goes fo the human rights section if necessary. Factsontheground (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sean, I don't know about you but I try to budget my time here. It's a nice hobby and interesting sociological experiment, and it's everyone's prerogative to choose which articles they want to edit, so no one can should expect others go correct someone else's problems. I've learnt on WP that sometimes, it's best to let bad articles stay bad articles. Most people can tell when the POV is blatant, but a red line is also quality here. So if FoG is going to create a POV fork with duplicate material and not moved info, then we all look pathetic. His new 'timeline' article though is a refreshing neutral piece so far, though I would go delete on that since there is no end to what can be on there and it is susceptible to recentism. --Shuki (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, when I said fix it I didn't mean to suggest that you personally stop doing what you want to do and fix it. I've been trying to work on an article about an artist from the Russian Civil War for months now with little success because I keep getting pulled back to the I-P conflict area. I'm sure you have similar issues. However, I'm not convinced that most people who edit in the I-P conflict area can recognise neutrality because most editing is very polarised and consequently Wikipedia already looks like a bi-polar battlefield. My main point wasn't really related to neutrality issues. It was simply that if people are going to spend time on this then it's better to spend the time ensuring that the outcome is a decent split off article with nothing in this article apart from the split off article's lead i.e. we should be splitting in general rather than merging. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though we do not agree politically, at least we have in common the drive to contribute here and I think once that level is reached between editors, then progress can be made even despite disagreements. Thank you for your comment, I certainly can identify with it. --Shuki (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of my changes

Since you want to make improving this article as absolutely painful as possible, Shuki, I guess I have to discuss every last sentence that I change. Factsontheground (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"The latter two areas are governed under Israeli civil law but all three territories are considered to be under military occupation by the international community"

Okay, this is a simple fact supported by the sources. The West Bank, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are considered to be under military occupation by the international community. The number of them is three not two. I really don't know why Shuki reverted this. Factsontheground (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of the illegal outposts section

This is a simple expansion of useful content supported by reliable sources such as the Christian Science Monitor, Financial Times, and the Israeli Government itself. Again, I don't know why Shuki reverted this and he has refused to explain himself. He seems to want to minimize every mention of the Illegal outposts, his other edit removed the section. Factsontheground (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Palestinians are often the victims of violence comitted by Israeli settlers."

This is a NPOV summary taken from the Israeli settler violence article, where the statement is well supported. The section in this article is supposed to be a summary of the spinoff articles. As I describe below the spinoff article must be changed before altering the summary in this article. Factsontheground (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Haaretz has stated "Israeli society has become accustomed to giving lawbreaking settlers special treatment", noting that no other group could similarly attack Israeli law enforcement agencies without being severely punished"

Again, supported material that summarizes the Israeli settler violence article as the eponymous section in this article should per Wikipedia policy on spinoff articles. Factsontheground (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming "Diplomatic reactions, proposals, and criticisms" --> "Settlements and the peace process"

"Diplomatic reactions, proposals, and criticisms" is a ridiculously awkward title and considering that all of the diplomatic reactions, proposals and criticisms occur in the context of the peace process the new title is just plain common sens Factsontheground (talk)

"although, according" --> "According to Rabbi"

The earlier version made Yehoshua Magnes statement in the voice of Wikipedia. This is completely unacceptable per WPOV. Factsontheground (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There, are you happy now, Shuki? I look forward to you justifying your changes to this article. Factsontheground (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert123's changes to the Legal status section

The legal status section has been made into it's own article (International law and Israeli settlements). As such the section must be a summary of that article; anything else is POV forking. See Wikpedia policy on this (Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles):

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article; Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

There are a number of such sections in this article, since it has become so large they are a necessity. I advise everyone editing this article to read that section of policy before attempting to make changes on sections that have their own article; the spinoff article needs to be changed first and if that alters the summary in this article changes can then be made.

I notice that Robert123 has not also made his changes at the International law and Israeli settlements article. The changes need to summarize that artcle and not add new content, which he has done e.g. the mention of Roman times which does not actually seem to be a legal argument but a moral argument.Factsontheground (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Violence

Not sure who put the tag on violence, but I have moved it to cover the whole section (Originally it was just covering Palestinians against settlers). The reason for this is the different sections under violence are in completely different styles and dont seem to balance (ie The Settlers section describes specific deaths and their circumstances whereas the Palestinian section is general without specific examples). As the writing style can evoke emotions (especially where specifics are used), the style should be the same in both sections. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Clovis. I see what you are talking about. I removed a duplicate section on Settler Violence from another part of this article and then copied it over to the section you are talking about since the language seems more neutral and factual.

What do you think? Factsontheground (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Facts. I still think the section would be helped by the section on violence against israelis being broadened a little. Its mostly focused on a few notorious events and I believe would be better if it was written in the more summary style of the Palestinian section. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Clovis, you are absolutely correct about that. The problem is that the people who specialize in writing about Israeli casualties seem to prefer writing emotive descriptions of single incidents in lists rather than neutral, informative summaries of what is actually going on. I would try and correct that section but I know I would just get reverted by the usual suspects who prefer propaganda to prose. Factsontheground (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Looking at the following section, it looks like there's agreement that the balance of that part of the article is off, but I think you're right; that it's too polarised to expect a simple improvement. Lists of 'notorious events' on either side aren't going to inform the reader about the nature or magnitude of the event, but I dont think I have the skills to rewrite the section and keep everyone happy. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have removed the section "activist violence against settlers." The language was full of vague assertions of violence without evidence. The three sources linked to included a) a hebrew-language article about stone throwing at a demonstration directed towards an Israeli soldier, not a settler, b) an Arutz Sheva article (artuz sheva is a non-neutral source that supports the settlement movement) and c) an article about activists being questioned by police on suspicion of uprooting a tree but no mention made of any conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.165.167 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

section: Settlement types and locations

This section is not coherent. I'm going to try and categorize by size and perceived 'purpose'. I'll do the change in one edit so that an easy compare can be made and anyone is invited to comment. The sub-section 'Settlements on sites of former Jewish communities' is an interesting phenomenon by itself and should be elsewhere. --Shuki (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the changes rather than mass revert. The outposts separate paragraph is clearly undue weight given that a) they are not significant in number and in relation to the others. There are also already two separate articles on this subject. There already was mention of this, the new redundant three paragraphs were entirely out of place in this simple bulleted section anyway. --Shuki (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Shuki's changes to Illegal outpost section

See I've made a section for you to discuss your changes, Shuki. Is there anything else I can do for you? You just moved around a alot of content unilaterally. Factsontheground (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? The section I created immediately above you was where you should have commented, but you chose to open two extra sections about this. Please stop being disruptive. --Shuki (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This article contains biased terminology and thus does not present a neutral viewpoint.

This article shows a clear anti-Israeli and antisemitic bias. The fact is the regions of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria were first Israeli territory, then being occupied and and annexed by Egypt and Trans-Jordan after the attempted 1948 invasion of the newly created Israel by forces from the Arab League States Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq.

So to call these territories "Israeli Occupied" and to say they were "captured in 1967" shows clear bias rather than neutrality. The fact is they were liberated in 1967, and then offered in a peace deal that was never honored by the 1948 aggressors.

This article is also biased against Jews who live in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza using the term "settlers" as a perjorative.

At best the facts in this article need to expanded to present a neutral, unbiased article. Terms like "Israeli - Ocuupied", "captured in 1967", and "settlers" are weasel words.Kemosabe77 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Kemosabe77 20 March 2010

Which part of "were first" and "newly created" is the mistake here? How can something be "first" part of something else which had yet to be created? Hcobb (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Common complaint by Israeli supporters. I do agree personally that referring to every Jewish resident in the WB as "settler", especially those who merely returned to areas that were burned down during the revolts of the 30s (such as Gush Eztion), Artuf, etc. I mean, how can a Jewish community living in a city for 2 generations constitute a "settlement" but 20 Arab families living on land they do not own is a "village." Even Jimmy Carter has had issues with the language: Neve Daniel. At this point it will seem rather difficult to try to separate Jews who merely returned to their lands rather than Jews who live on the border of Jordan. It probably be even more difficult to create a section containing popular arguments that dispute the very idea of "settlement" - consider the WB and Gaza were never part of a sovereign Palestine led by the PLO but rather a Jordanian occupier that also never had legal sovereignty. Attempting such an ordeal would most definitely lead to epic edit-warring. : ) If you truly think this article is overtly biased try editing whole sections in a sand-box and post it here for discussion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So isn't the fix to return to a single, unified multi-ethnic state? The settlement issue goes away and the residents of the refugee camps return as citizens. One vote per adult human and all that. Hcobb (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"So isn't the fix to return to a single, unified multi-ethnic state" That is an apt description of Israel. Compare to Gaza and West bank, which are controlled by two different extremely violent terrorist organizations and have no resemblance to legitimate states, much less a unified political entity. Why would anyone want to give these people more power and territory? They mismanage what they already have and squander their resources and lives in a vain and useless pursuit.

Anyway labeling Jews who live in these areas as settlers is wrong. Stating the area was captured in 1967 is incorrect, as it was originally Israeli territory that Jordan and Egypt invaded, captured and annexed in the 1948 war. Keeping this fact in mind calling these areas "Israeli occupied" is clearly a misnomer designed specifically to emphasize a particular ideological point of view. Kemosabe77 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While independent of the article, the Palestinian Authority does not want a "multi-ethnic state" and 60%+ of WB Arab population are already citizens of Jordan. Merging two classes of people with opposite national aspirations would be liking merging India and Pakistan and expecting everything to be honky dory. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Position of Terminology section

I think that the Terminology section is in the wrong place and should be moved to the bottom of the article. But what do others think? Bjmullan (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue of what exactly the settlements are called in Hebrew/Arabic is quite minor and wouldn't be the first thing that readers are interested in reading about -- particularly considering that most probably don't speak either language. Factsontheground (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable text

Wikifan, you know perfectly well that the onus is on editors inserting material to justify its insertion. So here's your chance.

====Violence of activists against the settlers====

International left-wing, anarchists and pro-Palestinian activists frequently demonstrate near settlements. There have been recorded cases of them stone-throwing and physical attacks. Often after the act they would record any response on film in order to publicize it in the media as evidence of settler violence.^[1]^[2]^[3]

^ 3 Palestinians, left-wing activist suspected of uprooting trees at outpost, ynetnews
^ Arabs, Left-Wing Extremists Uproot Jewish Vineyard, arutz sheva
^ stone throwing Naalin protest, ynet

So the issues:

What is the justification for using a news report (#1) that some people were "detained..on suspicion" as a source for a claim that those people did something? (They were not even suspected of violence.)
The lack of reliability of Arutz Sheva has been discussed many times on Wikipedia. It is one of the most extreme of Israeli outlets and always takes the settlers' point of view. This can be seen just by viewing the article you cite. Look at this blatantly racist language: "Arab TV crews certified by various news agencies" (imagine if someone dismissed Israeli or international news agencies on the grounds that they had Jewish camera crews). And where in the article is there even one word from the other side, that a respectable news agency would include?
Nevertheless, I read the Arutz Sheva article carefully it doesn't say anything at all about violence. It only charges vandalism of property.
So then your last citation (#3) to Hebrew ynet. At last we have some mention of violence. But, not against settlers! It says that Palestinians and left-wing activists threw stones at security forces at Ni'lin. Surely you know that the demonstrations at Ni'lin are against the wall. The article does not even mention settlements or settlers.

So let's look at your text again:

=Violence of activists against the settlers= (No mention of violence against settlers appears in any of your sources.) International left-wing, anarchists and pro-Palestinian activists frequently demonstrate near settlements. (This is true but none of your sources support 'frequently'.) There have been recorded cases of them stone-throwing and physical attacks. (No mention of stone-throwing or physical attacks against settlers appears in your sources.) Often after the act they would record any response on film in order to publicize it in the media as evidence of settler violence. (Nothing even remotely like this appears in your sources.)

This is really quite beyond the pale. Zero^talk 08:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This article has become a battlefield for a number of editors who want to eliminate criticism of the settlements from Wikipedia by sabotaging this article and its spinoffs. Shuki in particular is an extremely combative editor, so I'm not surprised that he edit warred to preserve such obviously unacceptable material. Wikifan12345 was topic banned for half a year. I guess he's back to his old ways. Factsontheground (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree with all that Zero's says except I'm not convinced about the unreliability of the sources. "Arab TV crews..." is not racist, as media originating in Arab states is frequently described as "Arab news." ArabNews. It's the equivalent of saying, "Palestinian TV crews." The content of the paragraph is largely sound, if your have an issue with sources I'm sure some users can find more reliable sources. It's not a secret leftist groups frequently attack settlements and promote incitement, and then film responses and showcase it to the world. some solidarity groups have even complicit in acts of violence, and suicide bombings. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a Jewish Telegraphic Agency but describing a television crew as "Jewish" in order to place doubt upon the neutrality of their reporting would still be racist. Factsontheground (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

False comparison. There is such a thing as "Arab News" and saying "Arab News" is not inherently racist. It's like saying Palestinian News. It's an identity, get it? Similar to, "Israeli news." Is that racist? No. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Read the sources. They didn't say "Arab News" they said "Arab TV crews". THat is blatantly racist. Factsontheground (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't racist. Any less than "Palestinian TV crews" is racist. "Arab" is a national identity. Arab TV. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? So where is the Arab nation? Can you point it out for me on a map? And yes, describing TV crews as Palestinian in order to impute their neutrality would be racist, the same as describing TV crews as Jewish would be. Why do you find this so difficult to understand? Factsontheground (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Now you're being silly. One cannot be "racist" against Palestinians independent of Arabs. The statement, "Arab TV crew" is not inherently racist. "Arab" is not being used as pejorative but a description. The Arab nation you refer to does not exist, but there are 23 Arab states, and one could easily see Jordanian t.v crew and Egyptian t.v crew as "Arab T.V crew." Get it? Describing T.V crews as "Jewish" would be prudent since "Jewish" is not ethnically-definitive as "Arab" is. Typically, "Jewish" media would simply be referred to as "Israeli." "Palestinian t.v crew" is not racist in any way. What else should they be called? West Bankian T.V Crew? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"This article has become a battlefield for a number of editors who want to eliminate criticism of the settlements from Wikipedia by sabotaging this article and its spinoffs." Is the purpose of Wikipedia articles to criticize things you are personally against, such a "Israeli settlers" or is to provide unbiased factual information about a subject? The comment I quoted speaks volumes about the purpose these descriptions are meant to serve. Clearly they are unacceptable. Kemosabe77 (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Compare to Gaza and West bank, which are controlled by two different extremely violent terrorist organizations and have no resemblance to legitimate states, much less a unified political entity. Why would anyone want to give these people more power and territory?" Kemosabe 77 can criticize but cannot be criticized. What about the war crimes that Israel is facing and phosphorus rockets launched into Palestine. Is this not a means of terrorism? Both sides deserve criticism. I am disgusted at these attempts to change our view on history to better suit your political beliefs. WorldPeas1969 (talk} 11:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.183.218 (talk)

I don't see how those relate to each other. It doesn't make the settlements any more acceptable if the Gazans fire rockets into Sderot. The settlements are illegal and wrong, and so is terrorism. This article is about the settlements. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights

Why isn't it mentioned in the lead how many Israeli settlers there are in the Golan Heights after the Westbank and East Jerusalem? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point. This should be fixed. Factsontheground (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the problem seems to be getting recent figures for the population size. The most recent statistics I can find are from 2007. I'll add the figure, but alter the wording to reflect the recency of the sources. Factsontheground (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should be added, 2007 numbers is no problem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the 'illegal' outpost section

I still don't understand why Shuki is deleting the section on Israeli outposts. They are an extremely important and notable topic, significant enough to be repeatedly mentioned in the world media.

Surely a topic that has been the subject of so much diplomacy and media attention deserves it's own section in this article and not merely a passing mention? Factsontheground (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, cute innocent qeury now. The outposts section is redundant copy&paste from its own other two pages; its own and in the Sasson Report. Unnecessary UNDUE and suspiciously coming from an editor that has complained numerous times about the length of this article and the need for separate ones. In order to legitimately add that that redundant section, you would need expand sections on the other 'Settlement types and locations' in that section as well. And besides that, the section you added is quite one-sided POV, as usual. --Shuki (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

rfc on settlement terminology

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements nableezy - 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

My suggestion is that all of the "Israeli settlements" should be called "Jewish towns". I do not think the term "settlement" is appropriate for automatically description of any town established by Jews on the 1967 Israeli occupied land after its conquest. Many of these are economically stable towns, not some feeble settlements. Some people think their must be evacuated and other don't. Although their inhabitation violates the will of some UN institutions, these are still towns, maybe unapproved by the UN, but most of the world's towns were called "towns" long before the establishment of the UN and "international law". In the other hand, in some cases, Israel has yet claimed these lands to be part of its homeland. Therefore these are not "Israeli towns" but only "Jewish towns". Megaidler (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to come up with terms. We use the terms from the sources we find. Perhaps you can find some references that call these things encroachments of the zionist entity instead? Hcobb (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Israeli settlement" is by far the most common term used to describe the various localities that Israel has built in the occupied territories. There are as many sources calling these places "colonies" as there are calling them "towns". The terminology used by the overwhelming majority of sources though is "Israeli settlement". nableezy - 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Megaidler, you are mostly right. While these places are no doubt regular locations where people live, work and play, there is that label that most ignorant and/or anti-Israel people use redundantly to make a point. It's easy for ignorant reporters to just use the term - Israel settlement - because they rarely bother to actually research facts except for the few who are based in the area who are then divided into the large group of unsympathetic reporters and a minority of objective ones. The settlements range in size from cities, towns, villages, farms, outposts, and individual homes but some people would want to ensure that that does not matter and we use the term that does not elicit normalcy. Currently, if you do a survey of articles of places located in Judea and Samaria, you'll find that there is a half-half split and a stalemate agreement to keep the status quo (of inconsistency) until a proper discussion can be held. --Shuki (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That you use the words "anti-Israel" to refer to nearly every qualified expert on the topic, who almost without exception calls these places Israeli settlements in occupied territory, and then use language such as "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the occupied West Bank speaks for itself. nableezy - 23:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Israeli Settlements are Jewish Only Housing Subdivisions. It is unfair to say, Israeli Settlements are Civilian communities! A civilian community is established in a country such as USA or Canada or in Germany for example; but Israeli Settlements are built over disputed Land and populated by Jewish only people! There is a fundamental difference to the meaning of the words! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.177.151 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV, but we must leave it on the talk pages. Can you respect that? And I stand by my accusation of anti-Israel edits and edit behaviour to only those editors who show that this is their main focus and interest on WP, like you. In total contrast, there are many pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian editors on WP who I might not agree with on many issues, but I appreciate their collaboration, mature discussion, and respect their rich and productive contributions on non-Israeli articles. So when I see editors who are more interested in attacking Israel on 'Israeli' articles than improving the many stubs and poor English on the Palestinian articles than how else can this be described? --Shuki (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But please let me add that you are getting better and slowly broadening your scope of interest. --Shuki (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I truly do not care if you think I am "better" or "worse". The rest of what you wrote is, well, best left not replied to. nableezy - 01:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious, did all of you forget that the title of the entire article is 'Israeli Settlement'? Would you want to change the title to 'Israeli town', too? If you did that, wouldn't you also have to talk about places like Netanya and Eilat, which is not really what the article is about?

In my opinion, if 'settlement' is good enough for the Jerusalem Post, which is at least a mildly pro-Israel publication (seach 'settlement Jerusalem Post' on Google for a few examples), it should be good enough for Wikipedia.

If you're going to argue, argue about something meaningful, like why the Israeli rationale for establishing the settlements to begin with is given so little space and explained so poorly.Thrice19 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that there true, logical and legal name is colonies, as they are built on a stolen and confiscated land by the occupiers on a land that does not belong to them and these colonies are forbidden to the indigenous residents. so we have to change the term "settlements" to 'colonies" because that is what they are.--213.6.2.136 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove merge tags?

Nothing's happened since march. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep, if you ask me. Let's hope one day someone will just do it. --Super.zhid (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Organizing people to edit Wikipedia

This information ("it was reported in August 2010 that a group associated with Israeli settlers, together with another right-wing Israeli group, was organizing people to edit Wikipedia to put forward a Zionist perspective.", [1]), despite being interesting and important, has nothing to do with the basic description of the subject of the article. It's notability is incomparable with other issues the article is addressing, like occupation, violence, legal issues, etc. There are other, more appropriated places (1, 2). --Super.zhid (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like an odd fit here. For a similar incident with Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America the event was noted in the group's article. It looks like someone's already put it into the Yesha Council article which seems sensible as they are the organizers. Is there an umbrella article for groups trying to put a partisan bias into Wikipedia? Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that its not a very good fit, but I would rather it stays until it can be better incorporated or we find a better place for it, like you suggest. I haven't heard of an article discussing planned, partisan editing of Wiki, but it sounds like there should be one. ValenShephard (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasbara springs to mind as a possible home for this kind of info. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasbara is a good idea. I couldn't find an overarching article other than Criticism of Wikipedia (political operatives section). Perhaps someone could expand it into an article someday. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So no chance of it staying here? There is a rather rude IP editor making sure it isn't. ValenShephard (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it really belongs here. Please don't let yourself get drawn into edit wars. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mess with it. Where has the info been relocated? ValenShephard (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has put it elsewhere yet. So far it's only been 'delegitimized'. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 04:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A similar paragraph is over in Yesha Council. Sol Goldstone (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it fits there, at least Yesha Council isn't overloaded as this article. --Super.zhid (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There was talk on the IPColl talkpage of including it in the Wikipedia article (together with the CAMERA case), as this represents a bid to undermine the encyclopedia. I didn't include it there because I don't have the balls to edit that article. --Dailycare (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to articulate my idea again: this information is too wikipedia-centric, from the general point of view it's a marginal fact. --Super.zhid (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope it will indeed be marginal. If we see results of this meatpuppetry on wikipedia we'll have to take corrective actions. My issue with having the information only on the "Yesha Council" article is that no-one reads that article, whereas this article is probably (I don't have figures) rather frequently accessed so it would make sense to use this article to warn readers. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If and when the meatpuppetry starts, the community will handle it. All the right warnings are given and noted by the right people. Keep up the good work! --Super.zhid (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the information at this point doesn't suit this article that well. u n☯mi 12:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read in the Guardian source on this, this new startup to train editors do represent most or all settlements? If they do, wouldn't it be a appropriate here? ValenShephard (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes more sense in the Council article. They are the ones leading the effort. If this were a massed effort by multiple settlements then it would make more sense here. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Do these groups represent settlers and settlements? If they do, then there is a place for this information in this article. ValenShephard (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a powerless wikidrone and I don't know if it represents settlers as but if there is already a subsection on organized settler efforts like "Operation Pricetag" then sure, why not? Sol Goldstone (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat my argument: this information is too wikipedia-centric, I guess internet activities are not among the top priorities of the settler movement. I assume that the most of the settlers are not even aware of wikipedia existence. Also I can assume there are hundreds of local initiatives, from education to tree planting, we can't and shouldn't cover them all. This article is about settlements, not about editwarring on this article. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wherever you put it, let's make sure there is mutuality in the coverage on the use of the tactic, i.e. The battle for Wikipedia: Palestinians counter Israeli editing group [2] and Palestinians prepare to battle 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia [3] harlan (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a Yesha Council initiative and so far NN on the grand scale of things with regard to the settlement movement. Many Israelis as well as settlements themselves have opened facebook pages about settlements, this is not worthy of even a mention. In any case, if anything at all, I think that the Yesha Council initiative and the counter Arab one, should be limited to one concise line in respective articles. For now, it's just speculative news and no notable impact. WP should avoid reporting about itself. --Shuki (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon?

This section begins with "Israeli settlements are Israeli civilian communities in the Israeli-occupied territories (lands that were captured from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War)." However Lebanon did not participate in the 1967 war and Israel did not conquer any territory from it. There is currently a dispute over whether the Sheba Farms (still controlled by Israel) is originally Lebanese or Syrian. However, regardless of which it is, there are no Israeli settlements in this area. There are not now nor have there ever been Israeli settlements in Lebanese territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.156.234 (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

newest edits

the newest edits to this article are ridiculously pov... can somebody please revert all the changes by that user to the status quo? he didn't discuss anything and they are all radical changes. example: saying israel acquired land through "aggressive wars". 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Super.zhid (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you are aware of the occupied Shebaa Farms in Lebanon! 70.40.177.151 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am. What's your point? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

newest edits

the newest edits to this article are not correct and shall be improved. We cannot fool the public by wrong information like this. I will edit it soon as follows, if there is any objections please discuss with me:

Israeli settlements is a term given to relatively new "housing subdivisions" built by the state of Israel on disputed land. Often settlements are colonies that are created by Israelis who have obtained the real estate properties (the land) through purchase or very often through aggressive wars with others. Israelis occupy the properties and extend out from there to the surrounding areas. This colonization strategy is an ongoing Israeli practice tied to the Homeland for the Jewish people idea. The creation of settlements in the Middle East started as early as 1905 ( Jewish Colonization Association ) in zones of limited areas, however, after the end of the Second World War settlements were established in mass on very large scale in the Middle East (1948 Palestinian exodus). Today, hundreds of these settlements still exist in the Palestinian West Bank Population statistics for Israeli West Bank settlements, in Lebanon ( Shebaa farms ), and in Syria ( the Golan Heights ). Only 18 settlements formerly existed in Egypt in Sinai Peninsula, and more 21 in the Palestinian Gaza Strip were evacuated between 1982 and 2005, respectively.

   * Ilan Pappé (2006). The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld. p. 12

We had to study the basic structure of the Arab village. This means the structure and how best to attack it.. http://books.google.com/books?id=D_oUAQAAIAAJ&dq=Ilan+Pappe&hl=en&ei=SN92TKO2FMH38AazrLzEBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ. (ME202012 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)) Friday August 27, 2010 5:20pm EST

You will need more solid sources than Ilan Pappé works to justify such an edit. I guess too many editors will consider it WP:FRINGE for obvious reasons. Also, I don't see why the current lead is wrong; I find it pretty balanced and informative. --Super.zhid (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill K. (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC) since I am getting yet no response for discussion, I would change only the following and wait for your response:

Israeli settlements are new "housing subdivisions" built by the state of [[Israel] on disputed land.

Please can anyone define the word disputed? I mean above sentence should continue similar to this: .....disputed because the land (real estate, or property) was obtained through wars from others or through forceful evacuation of Palestinians home owners (and citation is then here required from Palestinians West Bank in particular)....but also we should point on the Six Days War and that Israel obtained these strategic pieces of land from other countries after this war and that these have not been returned yet as per United Nations Requests, but Israel, never the less, ignored and built "New Settlements" = Houses for Civilian People, New Subdivisions, for these people!

Please remove this last paragraph because it is not productive, and it will make your edits easy to attack later. Your edits are actually alright, but don't be so forceful. Trying to help. ValenShephard (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill K. (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks

I don't see why the new wording (Israeli settlements are "housing subdivisions" built by the state of Israel on disputed land that is obtained through wars (such as the Six-Day War) or forceful evacuation of people from their homes in Palestinian West Bank) is better then the old one (Israeli settlements are Israeli civilian communities in the Israeli-occupied territories (lands that were captured from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War)). Actually, it's worse for three reasons: 1. Adding wikilink Subdivision_(land), a process typical for US and Canada only, 2. removing wikilink Israeli-occupied territories, 3. adding not sourced "forceful evacuation". Instead of pushing a POV, try to improve the article. Most of the content you want to add is already found in the article (Legal status,Israeli-occupied territories) and is put in a neutral and well-sourced manner. Please try to refrain from edit warring and I highly recommend to read WP:CYCLE. Also, please keep this thread readable by adding incremental number of colons (:, ::, :::, etc.) before each reply. --Super.zhid (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ME202012, you are continuing to edit the article, ignoring this discussion and removing relevant content. Please stop. --Super.zhid (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the user doing? ValenShephard (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Check the history :) --Super.zhid (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Super.zhid, I am editing the article marginally. I apologize if there was time overlapping and you find that as ignoring you. I did not mean that. Please tell me what are the issues here? I only trying to clean the meaning of the definition and adjust to reflect also the Palestinian point of view. This point of view is also acknowledged internationally. [User:ME202012|Bill]] (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you using reliable sources to back up your edits? Because wikipedia, I have been often told, is not about "showing both sides of the argument" but relaying what is available in reliable sources to build up an accurate image of this topic. ValenShephard (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for hint. Yes I am using reliable sources. But yes, I will provide more reliable sources. Again, thank you for hint. In a separate note, I would like to inform Super.zhid that many of the references that are stated by others in this article are wrong! I will provide you with evidence of proof of that they are wrong and not reliable sources which need to be ommited or adjusted.....again, thank you ValenShephard for hint. Bill (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

First, thank you for your response. To make long story short: I'd appreciate if you consider these two things: 1. Changes in the lead (adding subdivisions wikilink, removal Israeli-occupied territories wikilink). 2. Historical timeline - pre-1967 stuff, especially pre-1948 stuff. What jewish colonization association, for example has to do with the settlements? If you feel it's connected, add it to "See also" section. Also, the article is not supposed to reflect any POV, but be as neutral as possible. If you feel it favors any side, please point where. --Super.zhid (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really confused by the current version of the lead. It took an awkward wording with both POVs and made it into an even more awkward lead. housing subdivision has to go, civilian communities or civilian localities is file. While I don't like 'Israeli-occupied', it's better than the misleading 'Palestinian West Bank'. I think the article should be revamped, but at least do it writing responsibly. Publish an outline and work from there. Otherwise, it turns into mere suspect copyediting. --Shuki (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent activity

→ It was my responsibility for adding things like the Subdivision_(land) link. Was trying to clean-up/de-POV/etc. some of ME202012/BillK's edits that I came across doing vandal-patrol but then decided (just barely, at the time) were really basically sound good faith edits. Sorry for any misunderstanding I may have caused with all that.
Please keep in mind "WP:BITE" and "WP:BOLD" here, folks!
BillK, some of your contributions are good and I believe you are making them in good faith. But you have to be able to work constructively with others here.
Let me know if I can be of any help here at any point.
Thanks, Wikiscient (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Occupied land is occupied after occupation

After the recent edits by 213.6.46.197 the lead is saying that "settlements are settlements" and that "the occupied land is occupied after occupation". Funny, isn't it? Any suggestions? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a very inaccurate page that shall be revised. In fact it is deteriorating the quality of knowledge (on Wikipedia). I would go further and say that it is fooling the audience. for example: Settlement do exist not only in the West Bank but also in Golan Heights! Bill (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

However, I don't like calling it "subdivisions", it's adding nothing and it's inaccurate for contradicting the following sentences, where the same places are called "cities", "villages", "farms", etc. "Jewish only" is too inaccurate, Jewish population really prevails, but in many cases the population is mixed. About Golan Heights - good point. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, none of the sources mention "forceful evacuation", probably you are mixing 1948 war stuff into this article. No land was obtained by "forceful evacuation", only by wars. I'd like to change the wording to Israeli settlements are Israeli civilian communities in the Israeli-occupied territories. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The latter two areas are governed under Israeli civil law but all three territories are considered to be under military occupation by the international community, which is saying exactly the same but is shorter and more accurate. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian violence against settlers

I had to cut the section down alot because there are several things wrong with it:

Very POV wording, unencyclopedic style and language (emotive etc)
It contains a list of victims, which is strongly against wiki policy (I learnt this recently from the Chile mining accident article, where there were edit wars over including a list of victims
The list, which should not be there anyway, discusses attacks and murders which are not part of the settlement issue. They are acts of violence generally directed at Israel by some groups. That is totally unacceptable. Most of the incidents listed didn't even taken place on settlements, but are part of the larger picture

I was going to discuss it first, but it seemed so obviously wrong and unacceptable by wiki policy that I was bold and went straight ahead with it. Of course, I support expanding that section (which it sorely needs), and I will do so myself, but we cannot have lists of victims, and especially not mention attacks and incidents that are not to do with settlements. Best wishes, ValenShephard (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I just did a google search of "Palestinian violence against settlers" and the vast majority of pages that come up are to do with settler violence against palestinians. It is difficult to find reliable sources dealing with Palestinian violence against settlers. This is important to note so we can give proper weight to each part of the violence issue. 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So the section on Palestinian violence against Israeli settlers is less than a paragraph long while violence against Palestinians by Israeli settlers gets a totally unique section - even though many, many more Israelis settlers have been killed by Palestinians than vice-versa? It's pretty obvious where the bias lies in this article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The number killed (which is heavily disputed) doesn't actually matter (it seems logical that it would, but it doesn't). What matters is how many reliable sources discuss either issue, and it happens that many more reliable sources talk about settler violence against palestinians than the other way around. It might be less common, but it is much more reported in reliable sources. That is a flaw with media and academia, and we can't change that here. And in my original statement I said that the section needs to be expanded, that is not in disagreement. ValenShephard (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because you say settler violence gets more attention than the other way around does it mean it is entitled to more representation. Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians receives the same amount of attention, some even say more. I don't know why you converted the already weak section to barely paragraph while retaining the truly problematic section. Perhaps you should restore the original section so we can discuss sources? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thats exactly what it means. Wikipedia represents reliable sources in proportion to how common that viewpoint is. If we can find 10x more sources dealing with issue A than issue B, issue A will get a lot more coverage. If you can find the sources then we can talk about it. You cant make a claim that recieves the same attention or more without backing it up. The section will not be put back. Firstly it was a victim list which is against wiki policy and secondly it was a POV mess of a rundown of palestinian violence against israelis generally, mostly not in connection to settlements. That cannot stay. ValenShephard (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Shephard. All view points must be respected and given honest representation. Your reasoning for removing reliably-cited information is dubious - 1. You gutted the article of reliably-cited information because you didn't like it. There is far, far more coverage of Palestinian violence against Israelis in the settlements than vice-versa. Your ridiculous version compared to imperfect, but way more fair. The fact that you removed virtually anything critical of Palestinian violence, even statistics 3 sentences of statistics comparing casualties is quite disturbing. I suggest you restore the original edits temporarily. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding wiki policies, as I once did. Read about undue weight and you start to get it. It is our job to represent sources fairly, including information from within them which is appropriate and informative, thats all. In the article are much more sources dealing with israeli violence over settler violence. If you want to add some reliable sources, go ahead. And so you do not dispute that most of that section was dealing with violence outside of settlements? And again, do not make any accusations over my beliefs when arguing this. You either have reliable sources and an understand of wiki policy or zero argument. We simply cant have lists of victims. ValenShephard (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been on wikipedia far longer than you and have personally experienced what is policy and what is editor POV. Your rationales are totally bogus. Here are your reasonings:

e child's murder, though a disgusting incident, did not take place on a settlement so cannot be in this section. For starters, the baby killed was a "settler" and it happened in the Jewish settlements of Hebron.

ikipedia does not list victims, I could find the appropriate policy if you want. This is very POV, and again, we dont make lists of victims. Wrong, no policy says victims cannot be listed in an article. That is completely absurd.

put these sub sections in order of how reported they are. Settler violence against palestinians is much more well reported, as can be seen by that section having its own article. This is patently false. There is far more coverage of Palestinian violence against Israelis, and this is argued not by pro-Israel groups but pro-Palestinian pressure movements and supporters (Noam Chomsky) who say violence against Palestinians is understated. Did you personally count every article on settler-Palestinian violence or infer this conclusion based on your own research?

Do I really need to go on? I encourage you to read guidelines and go practice in a sandbox before deleting whole sections because it is "POV." Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Have to partly agree with Wikifan12345. It has nothing to do with undue weight: it's not even a POV, but only a verifiable statistics. Also I urge both of you to discuss instead of engaging in edit war. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I Agree with ElComandanteChe. Marokwitz (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Did any of you look at the statistics? They are showing all deaths caused in the whole of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. How are we supposed to know which ones are caused by settlers, or Palestinians resisting settlers? We just can't. This is a non-argument. There should be no issue with not using these statistics. We can't have lists of victims, this is against wiki policy. These attacks and victims you listed were not killed by Palestinians civilians resisting settlements or for the express reason that they are settlers (most of the time). They were killed by militants who have the desire to strike any Israeli. Either give a succint and accurate summary, not bulletpoints of atrocities, then maybe it can stay. If whole sections are flawed, inappropriate, misleading, blatently POV, badly sourced and bias, then they deserve to go. ValenShephard (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are the appropriate links to wiki policy about victims: WP:Victim Lists, WP:Notability (people)#Victims and #People notable only for one event. Just because you couldn't find it, doesn't make it absurd. How did you miss this little policy if you are so much more experienced than me?

It says that victim lists cannot exists, that victims are not even notable enough to be mentioned individualy unless they have some notability outside of the crime such as being famous or well known. I think you can't argue against these policies, have a good read through. Having an article means nothing about the weight something should be given, absolutely nothing. The articles you are linking me to have known POV issues and some were even listed for deletion. ValenShephard (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. First of all, it is a list of violent incidents against settlers, not of individual people, and thus is highly relevant to this article. Second, WP:Victim Lists is an essay, not a policy. Furthermore, you misread the essay, "all listed victims have Wikipedia articles, or a section of an article, of their own". And third, the policy #People notable only for one event is a notability guideline for biographies. It discusses whether people are eligible to their own article, and is irrelevant to the question of whether they can be mentioned in other articles. I am reverting your change; Please refrain from removing cited and verifiable information, without consensus. Marokwitz (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting when there is obviously no consensus here. You have to take into account my views, this isn't a majority democracy this is a consensus agreement. So you ignore all my reasons then? That the statistics given are totally inappropriate and deal with all deaths whether on or off settlements. Its like listing all people who died on the day of 9/11 including natural causes and guessing that they were in the disaster. You need to make a summary based on realible sources, not just give links to atrocities. You need sources talking about those atrocities. This is insane. I've never seen such virulent POV and total desire to ignore all logic. ValenShephard (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The statistics do specifically deal settler related violence, as you can easily confirm from the sources. And all the listed events are notable attacks against settlers which have their own article, and when studying the subjects of violence in an article about Israeli settlements and settlers it would benefit the reader to include this partial list of the most notable incidents related to Israeli settlements and settlers. I see no policy-based reason for their exclusion. The changes you have made caused undue weight to be given to settler violence, which is against Wikipedia policies. It is important to include the number of deaths from both sides as reported by reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A subsection in an article cannot be made up of lists of events. Where else have you seen this? A subsection has to be made up of reliable sources discussing these events. What can't you grasp about this very simple concept? What is needed is a summary of violence with reliable sources discussing those events, not just a bunch of wikilinks with emotional taglines. What would you think if I proposed putting a bulletpointed list of individual Israeli attacks on Palestinians in the subsection above? I have a feeling you would be against it. What is critical is why these people were killed. Were they killed because they were settlers or simply on settlements? Is someone is killed at work does that mean he was killed because he has a job? The victims and atrocities listed here occured on settlements but that is all. This article is about settlements, and that subsection is to do with conflict caused by settlement. Were they killed because they were on disputed land, or by militants with a general desire to kill Israelis? The same for Settler violence against Palestinians, they didnt kill them because they felt like it, they killed them because they were disputing what the settlers were doing. This is critical. Or we can just start listing all murders that happened for whatever reason on or around settlements. But that is unacceptable. ValenShephard (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that the most notable violent incidents by settlers should be added . i.e. incidents notable enough for their own article. They key point is to give due weight to the violence committed by extremists of each side. Marokwitz (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But you cant simply have a list of links with a few bias words to explain them. You need a properly formatted and written parapgraph. That can actually be worked on. And it needs refernces. Articles can't refernce themselves. Someone has chosen to make that list, someone has chosen what is on the list and what isnt, and that is totally flawed. There needs to be a properly worded paragraph with sources discussing each incident. ValenShephard (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that references should be added, and intend to add those in the near future. The text is not supposed to be biased, it is strictly factual information copied from the incident's respective articles. If you feel that the descriptions are biased then by all means feel free to correct them. 11:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what we need are properly formatted and written paragraphs not just a list of loosely connected events. Secondly, to be appropriate for the settlement article, we need to make sure that all the attacks happened due to disputes or because of settlements not just any attack against Israelis that happened on or near settlements. That isnt enough credibility to go here. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis are settlers and many are not injured or attacked because they are settlers, but for other more complex reasons. We arent here to list every attack that happened to Israelis that happened to live in settlements, same for Palestinians.

Significant events that involved Israeli settlement are part of the history of Israeli settlements, and that includes significant attacks against settlements. I don't see why the reasoning behind the attacks is relevant. For all that we care they could have been attacked by Martians. If a notable attack took place, and reliable sources note that the attack is relevant to Israeli settlements, then it is in the scope of a detailed article about Israeli settlements. Marokwitz (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So should we mention every attack against Palestinians that ever happened by a settler? That will mean alot more than are currently listed, because they all deal with violence that broke out due to disputes over settlements. And you still havent considered what I keep saying about the incorrect formatting and style of the subsection as it currently stands. ValenShephard (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I already said before, not any incident is notable enough to be listed, only notable incidents which are notable enough for their own dedicated Wikipedia article. Marokwitz (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen you are beginning to edit-war: This is a rape of the sources. The sources refer to deaths by "israeli civlians" this could be any israeli civilian, not just settlers, this is not appropriate and a total POV massacre of the source). A "rape of sources" is not a sufficient rationale. I don't know why you keep removing cited statistics. Many more Israeli settlers have been killed than Palestinian. In fact, the majority of Palestinians killed by settlers died after attacking Israelis. This needs to be emphasized. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It actually is. Misrepresentation of source material. You are trying to represent very general statistics for a very specific thing. This is not the article in which to list all Israeli and Palestinian deaths. The sources talk about Palestinians killed by various people from civilians to the armed forces, "settlers" is not a catagory. This is a classic case of misrepresenting a source, total POV and most importantly, original research. Nothing needs to be emphasised. We represent reliable sources, not misrepresent some very general statistics dealing with all Israeli and Palestinian deaths in Israel, the west bank and gaza. ValenShephard (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, Valen. Telling the story of violence in the occupied territories is incomplete without the role of security forces, which no one meant to cover in this article. Giving a plain kill counts of palestininas by settlers vs. settlers by palestinians paints an emotionally misleading picture of palestinian suffering. That's why the violence theme have to go to other articles with minimal coverage here. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for having an open mind. This is a very controversial issue, and most of us arrive here with alot of baggage and very strong opinions already formed. Thanks for responding to logic and reason. We need some context, but this isn't really the place to examine that, we just need to understand it. The incidents mentioned here about settler violence is specific to settlements, not the wide picture of israeli-palestinian conflict which is covered in detail elsewhere. That is why I find it odd to include seemingly random atrocities (and they are indeed atrocities) of settlers being killed for much more complex and wideranging reasons than because they are settlers. When you read a title like "violence against settlers" you presume that this is because they are settlers, and this is more appropriate seeing as this is an article dealing with that. Violence on both sides for more complex reasons like terrorism is covered elsewhere in great detail, I think we can and should be more specific here. We should definitely mention that violence against settlers occurs as part of the history of settlements, but we shouldn't make lists and great paragraphs full of descriptions of each event. We should examine the phenomenon of violence on all sides, but not make lists of events. The settler violence against palestinians section is better, it doesn't just talk about events but tries to tie them in with the settlements themselves and the wider issue of the settlements. ValenShephard (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Valen, I'm touched, no kidding. To the business: I'm not expressing any opinion on how to write the violence section, yet ;). Currently, my main concern is constant edit warring in this article. Among other reasons, there is a technical one: the article is overloaded. Taking the violence section out will give us all more space to cover what we think have to be covered. I'd like to see your opinion on split issues. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries buddy. I always thought that there is too much "stick" at wikipedia and not enough "carrot". People aren't nice to eachother enough, partly because its easy to be an asshole on the internet. But still, people respond much better to being treatest with respect and a bit of good old fashioned kindness, it encourages consensus and compromise much more than all being rude. I don't want to edit war about it either, and like you said, there are many issues with this article and we could easily work on that while we reach an agreement on the violence. ValenShephard (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is very explicit and honest - 200+ Israeli settlers were killed by Palestinians, ~50 Palestinians were killed by Israeli settlers or civilians. Your "rape of sources" reasoning is simply bogus Valen. If we are going to enumerate "500" acts of violence, then we need to enumerate real violence like MURDER - not torching a freaking olive tree. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude. That just isn't what the source says. You have also just revealed you have a strong POV on this issue, which was a mistake on your part, you shot yourself in the foot. I can no longer assume good faith when you have made your POV clear as day, and I can't take your argument very seriously anymore. ValenShephard (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh, you are drugging me into a dispute I've been trying to avoid. Well, here we go: there a clear, more than coincidental connection, by the means of time, location and most important - motivation, between the attacks (at least some of them) on settlers and them being settlers. Also, I remember some palestinian militant leaders (Hamas may be?) declaring settlers legitimate military target. Too lazy to google it now, though. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure connections exist, but they are not cited in the article. I would love it if they were, that would be very appropriate and informative. But until then, we can't make original research assumptions about what some statistics talking about the whole of Israel mean. ValenShephard (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Source is more than explicit Valen: 47 Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians (settlers) in the West Bank and Gaza. Here: 203 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in the West Bank, 39 Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Each section even includes a table enumerating specifics - age, name, type of death, perpetrator, etc. Restore the edit please. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking? Since when is it acceptable to add your own analysis to a quote? You can't put settlers in brackets and expect that to be fine! That is your opinion, not the opinion of the source. Are all civilians settlers?? Which ones of those 203 Israeli civilians are settlers? Do you have any idea, or you will guess that its all of them, even though in many areas listed there settlements are not common. This is absurd, absolutely absurd. ValenShephard (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess we can work it out, finding sources would be easy in this case. Please consider these two: Israeli settlers legitimate targets: Hamas, LEGAL STANDARDS (scroll to "Civilian Residents of Illegal Settlements as "Legitimate Targets"). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen, read the source - it explicitly states whether or not the civilian killed was a settler. Looking through the sources it is obvious 99% of all 200+ Israeli "civilians" killed are listed as settler by B'tselem. Any Jew who lives in the West Bank and Gaza is a settler according to the UN. Your criticisms are trivial - even if the source didn't differentiate between civilian and settler the violence is occurring in settlements. That only is enough to include. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the B'tselem source is clear on this. Marokwitz (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the point of this argument. All the categories listed by B'tselem (in its summary tables) should be given in this article. Extracting just some categories and ignoring the others would be a clear case of OR. Zero^talk 11:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not OR. When we cite a source we are not required to bring EVERY fact written in the source into the article. It is not considered original research to use specific facts from a reliable source . Marokwitz (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is considered original research to interpret sources, which is what you are trying to do. In any case, its a primary source, it would be better if we used secondary sources which talk about these stats, not just the stats themselves, which can be interpreted in many ways. You can't look through statistics and pick out which are settlers, this is original research and synthesis of sources. The source either says "x settlers killed by y" or it doesn't. We cant start sifting through the data, the absolute definition of original research and make our own conclusions from that. We dont interpret data, we present it as they present it if it is appropriate, and here, it simply isnt. ValenShephard (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly ok to list the summary statistics of B'tselem using the same descriptions as B'Tselem uses, provided it is presented as "According to B'tselem" or similar. It would be OR to go through the detailed lists and extract new statistics from them. In reply to Marokwitz: you are right in general that we can select data from sources. The problem in this case is that all of the categories (especially violence between the IDF and others) are not objectively irrelevant. I'm sure that most reliable sources would consider them extremely relevant. Remember that this article is about settlements, not settlers. The only neutral option is to report the whole table. Zero^talk 12:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The B'Tselem source talks about all civilian deaths, that is not an appropriate statistic in this article. Some users here are trying to extract new statistics, by trying to tally up how many of those civilians are settlers, and this is not appropriate. It is OR to present someone's interpretation or version of statistics as what B'Tselem has said. ValenShephard (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Valen Shephard. The B'tselem website includes detailed casualty data based on LOCATION. Do I need to link the sources again?! This is the link for Israeli deaths in the WEST BANK. Here is the link for Israeli deaths in GAZA. Here is the link for Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians. The only Israeli civilians that live in the West Bank and Gaza are SETTLER. It is not original research to enumerate individual casualties based on the description B'tselem provides. Link for Israeli casualties inside Israel. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, now we have sources in that section we all, hopefully, can agree upon. However, let's not make it a source festival and cite every unnoticeable militant declaring settlers as legitimate target. Please don't forget we are trying to make like an encyclopedia here :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I created a chart using the information provided by B'tselem. Hamas has said all Israelis are legitimate targets because they eventually serve in the military (not true) and settlers are legitimate targets because they have no right to be there. In the real world, civilians are protected regardless of legal status according to international law. I think it's a little dubious to include the jihadist rationalizations from Hamas without balancing it with opposing sources. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I actually meant Ezzat al-Rashk, added by Hcobb. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

civilian

the illegal residents of these illegal colonies are armed to teeth, therefore they are not civilians.--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

these colonies are built on a stolen, confiscated and occupied land from the indigenous people.--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

do you have any reliable reference that you can refer to. Post it here and I will index it as a reference (if you do not know how)! 70.40.177.151 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

these colonoes are built for jewish immigrants only, and none jews are not allowed to live or even buy a home.--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

these colonies are illegal under the international law and they violate basic human rights--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you could provide sources to these statements then maybe you can contribute to this article. ValenShephard (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

i can provide you with thousands of sources.... u can also read the international law to know that these are illegal armed colonies built on a stolen and occupied land

here is just one single example of these illgale colonies: Boycotts are legitimate http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3948278,00.html--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried this source but the link did not worked...please correct 70.40.177.151 (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

why dont u provide sources?--213.6.46.197 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to help you. I dont need sources because I dont want to add anything to the article. ValenShephard (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting

The article is too long - 19 pages of content and 7 pages of references in print. Splitting it will increase the readability and, hopefully, reduce edit warring. Please advise. --ElComandanteChe (talk)

Support. The article should be rewritten according to policy. The Israeli settlement timeline is unnecessary since an article already exists for that. This can be removed. This can go as well and moved into a List article (List of settlements according to...). Legal status needs to be expanded because that's the only issue people really care about. I don't like how it is wedged at the bottom of the article. Relations with Palestinians could be split into an a separate Economic article. A lot of info exists on the Israeli settlement-West Bank economy. This should be neutralized. Haaretz editorials cannot be attributed as fact. Violence needs to be clarified specifically. It gives the impression that there is a campaign of abuse when in reality most of the abuse and murders are coming from the Palestinian end. The section is very one-sided and does not include 2nd opinions provided in the cited source. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Split: the reference section shall be shorted in particular the Zionism part! does not belong here! 70.40.177.151 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

At least the "violence" section could be split out to make this a shorter article. The main themes covered here could be e.g. what the settlements are, where they are, their legal status, opinions on their effect on the peace process and how much building them has cost. --Dailycare (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think there is an article the "violence" section can be merged into, or it should become a separate article? In the case of separate article, how would you name it? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Article exists for settler violence. I think we could move large areas of information to their own article. Settlements and types of locations could be moved. Terminology is trivial and not relevant to the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't move settler violence out and leave palestinian violence here for obvious reasons. Agree on the rest. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't too complicated a solution, we could split both kinds of violence to Israeli settler violence and move that article to e.g. Violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinians. --Dailycare (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats not a bad idea. ValenShephard (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. . . .did everyone just agree on something?! :P Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And the hard part - now we need a volunteer to do it. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have a settler violence page. The violence is not the biggest issue. What needs to be moved is this and this. Then revise the other problems. I'm not sure what else could be split since most of the sections have already been cut into new, bigger articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we need Terminology section? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, no. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Settlers violence against Palestinians

I suggest the following:
1. to define the term Settlers (for example: Settlers are Jewish Newcomers or Jewish Immigrants to Israel)
2. to make a note or section in the article illustrating the Jewish newcomers or the ongoing Settlers violence against Palestinians!
3. to show the strategy of Zionists colonialism since the establishment of Zionism and how Palestine was colonized piece by piece by Settlers!
70.40.177.151 (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The above points are incorrect. Settlers in terms of this document are not Jewish Immigrants to Israel, many if not most were born in Israel. Settlers violence against Palestinians is already covered in the article. And as for your last point, before adding that to the article I would suggest that you should phrase it in a much more neutral way, and find reliable sources to back your assertion. Marokwitz (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, settlers for our purposes here are simply people who live in Israeli settlements and Israeli settlement is a standard term defined in the opening sentence. As Marokwitz says, they aren't necessarily newcomers. There are all sorts of economic and cultural reasons why people decide to live in the settlements. I added an informative external link-NYT article to the Modi'in Illit article a while ago that you might find interesting. It also touchs on the 'settler' terminology from the perspective of the residents where you can see a mismatch with our (i.e. RS-world) definition. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the definition prescribe that settlers are not only jewish immigrants to israel. Facts are most inhibitants of these areas are Jewish immigrants! And in regards to Settlers Violence covered in the article: Well, yes, but there is no title given to that, on the other side there is a Title given to Palestinian violence on Settlers. 70.40.177.151 (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you are correct. Do you have any sources about the demographics of the settlements ? There are multiple growth factors and they contradict the official government line. About 2/3 of growth is so called 'natural growth', growing families, and 1/3 is from migration across the green line+immigration from abroad i.e. not natural growth. See this for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's a wild to claim that most settlers are immigrants. I think only Ariel has over 50% 'immigrant' population meaning actual immigrants and their children who might have been born in Israel. Maybe there had been a couple of places where many residents were of Yemenite birth, but no where near a majority. As for definition of settler, Sean is definitely more accurate than most RS who tern any Jew over the Green Line a settler even if they are just passing through, studying in an educational institution, visiting for the weekend, or the best 'protesting' of various sorts. During the 'disengagement', there was a massive influx to Gush Katif of supporters who were not settlement residents, but many media outlets who are termed RS here on WP, mostly lumped them all into the 'settler' title, either out of ignorance or simplicity. --Shuki (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Housing Subdivisions

suggestion:
This is misleading: " Israeli settlements are civilian Jewish communities[1] "
This is correct: "The word Settlement is clearly defined in encyclopedias and dictionaries. Israeli settlements is a term given by Israeli Government to indicate civilian housing subdivisions that is newly built over disputed land which is obtained through wars from Palestine and the countries surrounding Israel!" 70.40.177.151 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. Israeli settlement is not a term given or used by the Israeli government. It is not 'disputed land'. It is occupied territory according to the vast majority of reliable sources (and the Supreme Court of Israel in the case of the West Bank). Please read WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, not all the settlements can be defined as housing subdivisions: farms or so called "illegal outposts", for example.

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Just to clarify something. I am very supporting your words. And yes these are occupied territories. But the word occupation is not reflection the reality of the Israeli Settlements. The word occupation is not covering 100% the true meaning of Israeli Settlements. Perhaps, a better wording is illegally usurped land from Palestinians!. See, the word Occupation is not understood clearly by many! Occupied land could be Populated land! occupation means also populating with something. Yes, Israeli Settlements are Israeli Occupied Territories ! in other words, the meaning could be then: Israeli Settlements are territories populate by Israelis!, I am trying to lay down a wording description to the term Israeli Settlement in a clear and unmistakable fashion to minimize misinterpretation! Perhaps I should ask the following question: How can we introduce in the definition of Israeli Settlements the aspect of "Illegal Acquiring" and "Illegal Populating" of Palestinian Huge Real Estates by Israeli military machine?.

I will edit now new again and see how that will work: the new edit will look like that: Israeli settlements are civilian Jewish communities[1] that are built over illegally acquired land from Palestinians and the surrounding countries around Israel. Settlement are Occupied Territories by Israelis. Such settlements currently exist in Palestine in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and in Syria in Golan Heights. 70.40.177.151 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've reverted your edits. Please try to reach consensus here before making changes to the article. If you unhappy with the current content, please explain why and let us discuss it. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ElComandanteChe, How long will this consensus take? and how can we obtain consensus? what is the process? One thing is clear, the defnition as it is displayed now is wrong! and please would you identify yourself, what is your relationship to Wikipedia, position and role? what is your academic title if any, and the relationship to the article (Israeli Settlement)? how knowledgeable are you in the subject matter? I will declare a section for discussing the definition.

ElComandanteChe, Now tell me that you reverted again the following minor changes, because you needed consensus on that !

Such settlements currently exist in the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights —Preceding unsigned comment added by ME202012 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

69.9.70.141 (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You may want to look over the policy pages a bit, Mr. 69, I think that could clear a few things up for you. Although that particular change is technically correct. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ME202012, regarding reaching consensus please see "The five pillars of Wikipedia". Regarding my reverts: your changes were not minor, but mostly inaccurate, not well sourced and not presenting a neutral point of view, while others were redundant. If you feel the article is wrong or misleading, please explain here why. Regarding myself: this kind of questions is welcome on my talk page, not in Israeli settlement talk. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Dismantlement of settlements

At the end of the fourth paragraph there is this sentence: "Following the withdrawal, many of the former synagogues were vandalized by Palestinians, in a clear instance of religiously motivated aggression[citation needed]."

I suggest that the last clause be removed -- it is pure conjecture that this action would be "religiously motivated", it could just as easily be "we hate these guys because they invaded our land and we hope to cause them pain by destroying something the considered important enough to leave standing".

ABR (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable on WP to remove 'citation needed' if it has been up for over a month and hopefully to be considerate that if the template was put up at the end of the month and dated by the date bot, that it night be removed just as the next month starts. --Shuki (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Israeli Settlement

There has been heavy discussion on and off on the term and definition of Israeli Settlement. I suggest to use this definition:

Israeli settlements are Jewish communities that are built over illegally acquired (usurped]) large acres of real estates from Palestine and the surrounding countries to Israel. Israeli settlements are globally titled being militarily occupied and hence the term Occupied Territories. Such Housing areas exist currently in Palestine (in the West Bank and East Jerusalem) and in the Syrian Golan Heights. There are no Israeli settlements built over the Lebanese Shebaa Farms and Kfarchouba Hills which are occupied by Israel since 1967 six-day war. The 18 settlements formerly existed in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and another 21 settlements in Palestinian Gaza Strip were evacuated in 1982 and 2005 respectively. Gaza and Sinai are geographically integrated, therefore the withdrawal process could be seen as very slow!

The current posted definition ( Israeli Settlements are civilian communities in Israeli Occupied Territories! ) is misleading, inaccurate, and is not an accurate reflection of ¨the People¨ and can be interpreted as follows: Israeli Settlements are areas of civilian territories that are occupied by Israeli people! The way this definition is drafted mislead the reader and is not correct. The current definition does not conform with the international understanding about the Occupation of Israel to these territories!

Bill 00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ME202012 (talk • contribs)

In a total, the proposed wording sounds like a script from Al-Manar TV. In particular: 1: "illegally acquired (usurped]" doesn't conform to Manual of Style (words to watch). 2: "Israeli settlements are globally titled..." is covered in "Legal status" section. 3: "...the term Occupied Territories" - no need to explain it here and no sources. 4: "Such Housing..." inaccurate, what about farms, etc.? 5 "...Shebaa Farms..." no settlements, never were, irrelevant. 6: "withdrawal process could be seen as very slow" - POV. The current wording "Israeli settlements are civilian Jewish communities in the Israeli-occupied territories" is saying more or less the same in fewer words, in neutral language and in a clear manner. I don't see how it can be misinterpreted. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we are editing Wikipedia, not Al-Manar. The United Nations agreed with Israel that the Shebaa Farms area is not covered by United Nations Security Council Resolution 425, which governed the withdrawal from Lebanon, inasmuch as the Farms are not Lebanese territory, and certified that Israel withdrawal from lebanon is complete. Furthermore while Shebaa Farms may be considered an occupied Syrian territory, there are no settlements in this area, so this topic is completely irrelevant to the current article. Anyone claiming otherwise is welcome to contribute with proper reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Both ElComandanteChe and Markowitz are not correct on the note "Script of Almanar TV". The wording is clearly matching the REALITY and has nothing to do with Almanar or I have no idea where you guys are attaching this to me. In a separate note, YOUR current definition sounds like a Zionist script taken from Irgun and massaged a bit. To be fair, you cannot simply declare YOUR OWN taste and flavour to become a Standard. The objectivity is lost. Therefore, I will revert the wording in the definition, until we agree on the Military Aspect reflect in the occupation. We should get to a consensus here. In relation to Lebanon and the Withdrawal is complete, that is true for the portion that was occupied. But in total the overall occupation of Lebanese Land is not complete yet. The Shebaa Farms and Kfarchouba Hills are clearly Occupied Lebanese Territories as per United Nations definition. I wonder guys to which extent are you involved in this topic? as for me, I am not revealing my identity here, but I can confirm to you that I am very knowledgeable in this topic. How about you? tell the public your involvement in this topic and how can we confirm your credibility on these edits? Bill 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your and our knowledge on the topic is irrelevant, and so is the "truth". Please read WP:V. Only reliable sources matter, and the current wording of the lead is based directly on such sources. If you want to make any changes to the article, base them on reliable sources, otherwise they are very likely to be reverted. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Marokwitz (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill (ME202012), you clearly have no consensus for the changes you are trying to make. In this case, the way to build a neutral encyclopedic article is providing an explanation backed by reliable sources and reaching consensus, rather than describing your point of view. I believe in your good intension, but I think you need to spend some time in reading policies and guidelines to understand and adhere to the process - that's the only way to effectively contribute to Wikipedia. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with ElComandanteChe here. It's important that you understand the policies especially WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR or else you are just going to get frustrated. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Folks: adding the word Palestinian before the word West Bank, does not require Masters in reading of any Policy. It is obvious that you are not accepting even minor changes. I demand to put the words Palestine, Syria, and Egypt in front of Westbank/East Jerusalem/Gaza, Golan Heights, and Sinai. After you do that, then we can discuss the rest! Bill 01:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ME202012 (talk • contribs)

Another note: the so called reliable source for the definition you used is a Zionist Resource! But based on what you said, means, If I would find a Polish Reliable Resource for example that would completely reverse your Zionist resource definition, then you would accept this?

Bill 01:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, "Political Geography Quarterly" is a peer-reviewed, high quality source, and certainly not a Zionist source. If you want to challenge any of the sources used in the article, please free to do so , but you need to explain on which grounds, based on policy. Marokwitz (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that "Palestinian", "Egyptian" and "Syrian" qualifiers are redundant, no one is going to attribute West Bank to Israel, and if even so, it's linked to the article about West Bank. My concern is about style, not ideology. Bill, please properly sign your comments. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill, one thing at a time. Do you want to discuss 'Israeli Occupied Territories'? Many have attempted in the past to show that the term 'Occupied Territories' exclusively refers to the area also called West Bank, and an article exists called Israeli-occupied territories, so you should bring up that discussion there. I won't add more to the discussion above, just enjoying the lite banter for now. --Shuki (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[1] 3 Palestinians, left-wing activist suspected of uprooting trees at outpost, ynetnews

[2] Arabs, Left-Wing Extremists Uproot Jewish Vineyard, arutz sheva

[3] stone throwing Naalin protest, ynet

[1]

[2]

[3]