Talk:Sursock Purchases

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

DYK[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Sursock Purchases (red circle)
The Sursock Purchases (red circle)
  • ... that reaction to the sale of al-Fule, one of the Sursock Purchases, was the most significant Anti-Zionist event in Palestine prior to World War I? Source: Emanuel Beska, 2014, Political Opposition to Zionism in Palestine and Greater Syria: 1910–1911 as a Turning Point: "As the debate regarding the crown lands was still under way another, more important event started to develop. The sale of lands of the village of al-Fula to the Jewish National Fund can be considered in this context the most significant event that took place in the period before the outbreak of the First World War. The lands of al-Fula belonged to Ilyas Sursuq, the wealthy Greek Orthodox banker, merchant, and landowner from Beirut, who in 1910 reached a deal on their sale with the Zionists... The peasant inhabitants refused to leave their village and were supported in their resistance by the qa’immaqam (district governor) of Nazareth, Shukri al-‘Asali (1878–1916), who was resolutely opposed to this transaction and became a major protagonist in the affair."

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 01:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • The cited source talks about the importance of the sale, not the reaction to it. Regardless, a claim like "most significant" needs to be attributed unless you can show that it's more than the opinion of one author. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comment. The context of Beška's wider article is clear that this refers to the importance of the reaction. See for example the introduction: "The relatively short period at the turn of the year 1910–1911 was of profound importance for the development of political opposition to Zionism in Palestine and its neighboring Arab regions. During a period of about a year, several important events and incidents occurred; a number of Arab journalists, notables, and officers became involved in anti-Zionist activities and campaigns; and the quantity of articles critical of Zionism published in the Arabic press markedly increased. Based on these and other reasons, we are convinced that the months at the end of 1910 and the first half of 1911 represent the turning point in the attitudes of the educated Arab public toward Jewish land purchases in Palestine, Jewish immigration, and the Zionist movement." Onceinawhile (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: a second source as requested: Rashid Khalidi (1997). Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-10515-6.: "These themes are reiterated during one of the earliest cases of orga­nized opposition to Zionist land purchase in Palestine: the al-Fula (or ‘Afula) incident of 1910-1911. Many newspaper articles written in oppo­sition to this sale stressed the special place of Palestine, for it was one of the biggest purchases up to that point, and one of the earliest to lead to the eviction of large numbers of Palestinian peasants… The twentieth-century incidents in the Tiberias region and at al-Fula, especially the latter, are significant because of the major effect they were to have in the context of Ottoman and Arab nationalist politics and in the coalescence of Palestinian identity… Important as had been the al-Shajara incidents in 1901-4 and their bloody sequel in 1909, which repeated the pattern of the earlier clashes in Petah Tiqva and elsewhere while taking the conflict to a higher level, a far greater impact was created by events in al-Fula… Although the end result for many of the fellahin involved was the same—dispossession and homelessness—the al-Fula purchase marked the beginning of an overt and articulate anti-Zionist campaign… In large part as a result of al-‘Asali’s actions, the al-Fula incident became a cause celebre in bilad al-Sham, with dozens of articles appearing in news­ papers in Damascus, Beirut, Haifa, and elsewhere over a period of over a year... The sharp, continuing controversy sparked off by the al-Fula sale, an otherwise minor incident, underlines the importance of the dispossession and consequent resistance of the Palestinian peasantry in making the issue of Zionism a central one in Arab political discourse before 1914… The coalescence of all these factors made the al-Fula clashes between Arab fellahin and Jewish settlers more significant than the many others that preceded it and that involved a few of the same elements."
Does this address your questions? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the second source appears to say that it is the most significant incident of opposition to Jewish land purchases during that era but the claim in the hook does not follow from that. Anyway, I think a better hook would focus on the purchases themselves as opposed to the reaction to them. It looks like Al-Fula incident is a notable topic that could have its own article. (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I think these sources very clearly support the hook, so perhaps let’s get a third opinion. In the meantime, given you are well read on Israeli-Palestinian history, please could you confirm whether you consider the proposed hook likely to be accurate, or if you are unsure, whether you are aware of any other pre-WWI outbreak of Anti-Zionism in Palestine that could be considered equally or more significant? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full review needed, including an additional opinion on the hook claims. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, it has been over a month since nomination and review, and a QPQ has still not been provided. Onceinawhile, please provide the QPQ within seven days if you wish to continue pursuing this nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @BlueMoonset: now done. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Onceinawhile. With a QPQ supplied, full review is still needed here, including an additional opinion on the hook claims. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, how about:
  • ALT1: ...that the Sursock Purchases represented almost a quarter of all land purchased by Jews in Palestine until 1948?
  • ALT2: ...that the Sursock Purchases were of vital importance in allowing the territorial continuity of Jewish settlement in Palestine?
Both sourced to the quote in footnote 7. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 looks good. factual, neutral.Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1 looks good, but there are close paraphrasing concerns for example:

  • quick purchase, and rapid self-sufficiency by means of general agriculture made the jezreel valley the focus of the Zionist Organization’s land purchasing plans. The Zionist Organization thought the Jezreel Valley to be significantly more desirable, for instance, than even the coastal region where smaller parcels of land were available for purchase.
  • Urgency for large settlements, quick purchase, and rapid self-sufficiency by means of general agriculture made the Jezreel Valley the focus of land purchasing plans. The Zionist Organization thought the Jezreel Valley to be more desirable than even the coastal region where smaller parcels of land were available for purchase.

and

  • Because the villagers paid tithes to the Sursock family in Beirut for the right to work the agricultural lands in the villages, they were deemed tenant farmers by the British Mandate authorities in Palestine, and the right of the Sursock family to sell the land to the JNF was upheld by the authorities.
  • Because the villagers paid tithes to the Sursock family in Beirut for the right to work the agricultural lands in the villages, they were deemed tenant farmers by the British Mandate authorities in Palestine, and the right of the Sursock family to sell the land to the JNF was upheld by the authorities.

We are pretty close to COPYVIO territory here

(While this is outside of the DYK criteria, sursockhouse.com does not look like a RS to me) --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Guerillero: for spotting these. Both these sentences came from the version of Sursock family which this article was originally split from [1]. It looks like they were added there three years ago.[2] I will fix them. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Guerillero: I believe this has now been fixed. Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the text was taken from other wiki articles[3] it should be expanded 5 times in seven days I am sorry but I don't see it correct me if I'm wrong --Shrike (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the rules work like that, particularly since the text here was built independently from scratch, only a very small amount was taken from other articles, and the small amount of incorporated text came from three other articles not just one.
It is academic though as if the rules did apply per your suggestion, the article would qualify under the 5x expanded rule as the 7-day version[4] includes much less than a fifth of the article in text incorporated from other articles.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What percent of the text you have taken from other articles? --Shrike (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 10%. 4 or 5 sentences at most. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some comparison [5],[6],[7]. We should combine all the red parts to understand how much percent was taken from other articles. --Shrike (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Guerillero: are you happy to continue your review? Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Onceinawhile: it is going to take a bit to wade through all of the stuff Shrike posted above. The fact that this article is showing a 70% overlap with some others is worrying when you say that only 10% of the text was moved. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: this is par for the course unfortunately, as Shrike regularly shadows my DYK submissions, for example Template:Did you know nominations/Mausoleum of Abu Huraira, Template:Did you know nominations/Hebraization of Palestinian place names, Template:Did you know nominations/Enclave law, Template:Did you know nominations/First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House, and many others.
A few points to clear up: Shrike's link above has compared the initial draft of the article, not the 7-day version or the current version. It does not say 70% overlap; it says 70% probability of some copying. If the algorithm was perfect it would have said 100%, because I explicitly attributed in the edit summary that some of the content had come from those three articles. In the subsequent drafts of the article, I changed, removed, and sourced most of what was brought across, which was of pretty poor quality.
In terms of assessing Shrike's claim, the accurate way to do it is to look at the actual highlighted sentences in whatever version of the article you consider most relevant to the DYK.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New enough and long enough. I am going to take the splits as de minimus enough to not do the calculations for a 5x expand, but in passing it looks like it passes that bar. The copyvio concerns have been addressed. I am only approving ALT1. Let me know if there are other alts that the promoters would want to use --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A challenge from 12 years ago[edit]

The Sursock Purchase shown on the PEF Survey of Palestine map

Hi @Zero0000 and Huldra:, I have enjoyed reading your collaboration with our erstwhile colleague User:Tiamut from 12 years ago at Talk:List_of_villages_depopulated_during_the_Arab–Israeli_conflict#1880-1946_depopulated_villages. I would like to structure some of those efforts at this article, pulling together all the best information in one place. I have added a wiki-version of Zero's table from the Shaw commission (Great Britain. Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929 (1930). Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of August, 1929. H.M. Stationery Office.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link); the discussion in here contains a lot of good information) and am hoping to build it out further.

Any help here would be appreciated.

Names on the Shaw table which I cannot identify:

  • Tel el Fer  found
  • Sofsafe-Ain-Sheika and Mokbey  found
  • Rob-el-Nasreh
  • Kiskis and Tabon  found

Presumably there were other villages not on the Shaw table which were part of the purchase? Other names at List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict but not on the Shaw table - were they Sursock villages?

  • Shuna  found
  • Malhamiyah  found
  • Presumably there were more?

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict, Malhamiyah became Menahemia, could Shuna be Khirbat al-Shuna? Tell el Ferr, the mound of flight (Sh. 9, Ok), Palmer, 1881, p. 169. Conder & Kitchener II, p.127; just west of Beisan, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, thank you. So neither Malhamiyah (Jordan Valley) nor Shuna (coastal) were in the Jezreel Valley, although it looks like they were also Sursock purchases. The Malhamiyah connection to Sursock is sourced to Said and Shuna's connection is sourced to Stein. And good find re Tell El Ferr; that is annoying for me as I managed to cut it off in my map above (I just have Tell El...) so will need to recreate it once I have found the other three. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ain es Sufsafeh and el Makbiyeh
I have found Sofsafe-Ain-Sheika and Mokbey. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume "Rob-el-Nasreh" has something to do with Nazareth (an-Nasira). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded

Jewish land holdings in the Jezreel Valley in 1925

the map on the left. Do the colors distinguish JNF from PLDC land perhaps? I don't see Rob-el-Nasreh on there but you can see how close the purchases came to Nazareth. Zerotalk 03:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, this is a fantastic addition. Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Stein The Land Question in Palestine, p224, I see "Rubb-en-Nassra" listed. In a google snippet I see "the marsh of Rubb en-Nasra" but that could mean it had a marsh rather than it was a marsh. Zerotalk 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it is Rabb (Arabic: رب); i.e. "Lord of Nazareth". Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A decade ago @Jokkmokks-Goran: located it at "Mazra".[8] Jokkmokks-Goran, any chance you can remember where this information come from? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My source was this: https://nakba-online.tripod.com/villages-before-1948.htm
Village 16: Rob an-Nasra. On its lands was a Jewish settlement established, called מזרע, Mazra or possibly Mizra. There is also a number 1773.2286, which could indicate location. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found it at Mizra; the connection was in the first version[9] by @Number 57: (The kibbutz was established on a tell named Ruba al-Natzra during Hanukkah in 1923). Number 57 do you have any recollection where you got the information from? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just translated the text from the he.wiki version, where it still states "The kibbutz was established on a tell called "Ruba al-Natzra" during the Hanukkah holiday in 1923 by the "Tzrifin group" of immigrants from the Third Aliyah". Although it's unsourced, it is also mentioned in the kibbutz website. There are quite a lot of Google hits for the Hebrew spelling, including this one, which references discussion over purchasing land from the Khoury and Sursock families. Number 57 16:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation and land use[edit]

This source[10] p.56 says that the families received 39 GPB and not 17 usd. Could someone explain the discrepancy --Shrike (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this page 118 of the Shaw Commission report
  • Tessler quotes Sykes p.93. The $17 was Tessler's translation of Sykes' "three pounds ten shillings" per head, which I believe is £3.50 per person. This seems correct as for a long time £1=$5.[11]
  • The Shaw Commission (see right), £30,000 compensation to 1,746 families, which is £17 per family. This covered all the Sursock transactions 1921-25.
  • Stein quotes the CZA (see his table 5, p.60), £27,000 to 688 families. This list includes some Sursock and some non-Sursock lands.
Because the Stein list contains non-Sursock lands they are not comparable. But it does seem that the CZA recorded many less families than Shaw, perhaps because they only recorded families who accepted the compensation vs those who refused? But the $17 is a per person figure, not a per family figure, so different again. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11Fox11 changes[edit]

..I have undone them. 11Fox11 makes it sound as if all Jews were behind this purchases; that is untrue: lots of Jews were against the notion of a "Jewish state" at the time. Also, the Zionist talked/wrote about "colonization": hence I object to 11Fox11's "prettifying" the language (to "Jewish immigration"), Huldra (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fox edits were correct they removed cherry picked WP:PRIMARY source and several WP:UNRELIABLE sources.Those who want to add this back should follow WP:ONUS Shrike (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
???Do you want me to list all the prominent Jews who did not support the concept of a "Jewish state"? And to write that Jewish Colonisation Association did anything but ...colonise, is as far from "cherry picking" as you can get. Huldra (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with using either Zionist or Jews. That some Jews (a distinct minority) opposed the concept of a Jewish State is neither here nor there, but certainly the purchases were made by Zionists. However, the use of the word "colonisation" is probelentic, as that word has taken on a different meaning in modern discourse than it had in the 1890s. As the article about the Jewish Colonisation Association says, "Its aim was to facilitate the mass emigration of Jews from Russia and other Eastern European countries, by settling them in agricultural colonies" - not to "colonize" the land on behalf of some colonial power. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually not sure if it was a "distinct minority" of Jews who opposed the concept of a Jewish State -in 1910s-1920s. I am not even sure it was a minority, does anyone have any numbers here? Huldra (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I worte, I am fine with using 'Zionists' in the article, so the question of how many Jews supported it or opposed it is irrelevant. Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we just need to hear from User:Shrike and User:11Fox11, then, Huldra (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Zionists" is more precise and avoids the issue of how many Jews supported it. (That issue is interesting and should be covered, but not at every mention.) The claims here about "colonize" and "colonies" is not correct. Establishment of foreign ruled territories by nation states is only one of the meanings, both then and now. The relevant meaning, both then and now, is when a group of people from one country establish settlements in another country. It is the word most used by Zionists in the pre-WW1 period, both in English and German (the language of the Zionist congresses). Zerotalk 02:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about 'Zionists', but disagree about 'Colonization'. While that word was commonly used used in the pre-WW1 period to mean simply 'a group of people from one country establish settlements in another country' - that is no longer a common use of that word. It is better to use 'settlement' in the article, as it conveys more accurately the goal of the JCA (per our article), and avoids the modern-day negative association. I think a good solution is to write something like 'the early days of the Jewish Colonisation Association's effort to settle European Jews in ..." - then you both use the terminology of the pre-WWI Zionists (in the organization's name) , but without the modern connotation. Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are re-writing history, then. No other word capture the increase in Jewish population from -I believe it was 3% in ca 1870, to ~70-80% after 1848. It is like changing, say Negro World to "Afro-American world", because "Negro" "is no longer a common use of that word." Huldra (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am just opposed to using words whose meaning has changed. I would similarly be opposed to changing every occurrence of "Black" or African American in this article African Americans to "negro" even though that was the overwhelming term used in the 1930 and 40s. Your example actually make my point. I am not suggesting we change the name of the Jewish Colonisation Association organization, I explicitly suggested that as a solution. But just like Negro World's article text uses the terms "black" or African american - e.g. "through black seamen" or "for publication on the arts and African-American culture" and not "negro seaman" or "Negro culture", because this usage is now seen as offensive, so this article should use "settlement" rather than "colonization". Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence that the various meanings of colonize/colony have changed in the past 100 years. The meaning of establishing settlements is only less used now because the phenomenon is less common now. Proposed settlements on Mars are called colonies all the time, and I'm sure you can think of a very common ME-related example. Zerotalk 00:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have to disagree on that, then. Turkey's actions in Cyprus are not commonly called colonization but rather Turkish settlers in Northern Cyprus. Neither are Morocco's in Sahara (Moroccan settlers) or China's in Tibet. That word, as a description for settlers moving someplace, is not commonplace in modern discourse, and not on other Wikipedia articles. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  1. Using "colonization" is either ridiculously anachronistic or ridiculously POV. It is not used by neutral modern sources.
  2. The Ottomans, as well as the British, blocked (and classified) purchases on the basis of religion and not "Zionism". That not all Jews were Zionists is besides the point, all Jews were subject to restrictions in Palestine regardless of their political beliefs.
  3. Use of primary sources for extensive content is unacceptable.
  4. There is no indication that Dispossessed: the Ordeal of the Palestinians published by Sphere Books is a reliable source.

11Fox11 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There is no such thing as a "neutral modern source". There are "reliable modern sources", where "reliable" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia, and they use "colonize" repeatedly. (2) You are simply wrong about purchase restrictions under the Ottomans. The main criterion was nationality and Ottoman Jews were not treated the same as, say, Russian Jews. There were exceptions made when the Zionists allegedly started to use local Jews as secret middlemen, but in any case this article is proof that the restrictions were mostly ineffective. (3) There is no rule against use of primary sources, but in any case the reports of commissions of inquiry are not primary sources. They are secondary sources. Zerotalk 05:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case WP:AGEMATTERS we need secondary contemporary sources that gives those sources proper context--Shrike (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked very closely at what text is being debated and that's why I haven't edited the article. However, I'll note that WP:AGEMATTERS doesn't do a great job of supporting you here. It is also notable that commissions of inquiry are cited all over Wikipedia, indicating that there is a strong community consensus that they are acceptable. By all means bring a modern source that comments on the inquiry as well, which should be very easy in this case. Zerotalk 06:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of commission of inquiry are obviously primary sources. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiries examine documents, interview witnesses and then they write a summary. That's what historians and journalists do, too. The inputs are primary sources and the outputs are secondary sources. Zerotalk 12:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." This describes the output of the inquiry to a T. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote shows that the reports are secondary sources. The people who conducted the inquiry were not personally involved in the events they investigated. They were intentionally chosen to be outsiders, not insiders. Zerotalk 02:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. They were the administrators of the territory, not outsiders. Their report included numerous findings about their own behavior, and comments on political events. It is exactly like a police report, or a court ruling. Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Walter Shaw (judge) who wrote the Shaw Report, nor any of the other three commissioners Henry Betterton, 1st Baron Rushcliffe, Rhys Hopkin Morris and Harry Snell, 1st Baron Snell, ever held administrative positions in Palestine. John Hope Simpson who wrote the Hope Simpson Report, never did either. Zerotalk 04:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization[edit]

11Fox11 states above that Using "colonization" is either ridiculously anachronistic or ridiculously POV. It is not used by neutral modern sources. We are talking about events from 100 years ago, when colonization was still an active global theme; the Scramble for Africa was happening at the same time. Just because colonization does not happen any more, doesn't mean that we should rename the Colonisation of Africa article. We describe things as they were.

Changing "colonization" to "immigration" as in this edit is forgetting the entire subject of this article. This is not about people turning up at the border and finding a new home. It is about large organizations making purchases of enormous tracts of land. That is not "immigration".

Either way, we follow the sources, and to my knowledge the sources about the topic of this article use the word colonization, for good reason. But perhaps 11Fox11 has read sources which I have not seen.

@11Fox11: please substantiate your claim that "[the word colonization] is not used by neutral modern sources"?

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're asking 11Fox11 to do this, but I've already addressed this and substantiated it, in a section above. see for example Turkish settlers in Northern Cyprus or Moroccan settlers. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These examples both took place in the Postcolonial period. The subject of this article did not. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed,and we are writing this article in the post-colonial period, where the common usage of this word has changed. See my explanation to Huldra, using her own example- when we write abut Negro World today, we describe it as covering "African American" culture, and being distributed by black seamen, not "Negro" culture or "negro seamen", even though it was obviously described using that word when it was published. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are synonyms (with the anachronistic one being offensive today). Colonization is not a synonym for immigration; they are different things. To stick with your Black history theme, we still use the word Colonization is all relevant areas of Black history.
The most important thing here is that we follow the way the sources describe it. 11Fox11’s claim needs to be substantiated with sources that relate to the topic of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it is a synonym for immigration, I said the current terminology for this is "settlement". Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don’t we call it “Settlement of Africa”? Because settlement is about the little people, Colonization is about large organizations. They are different things. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Colonization of Africa was actually something different than the settlement of the Jezreel valley , it was Colonization is the sense described here Colonization - " large-scale population movements where the migrants maintain strong links with their or their ancestors' former country" - it's not just the scale. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is not going to get us anywhere. If no sources can be brought to substantiate 11Fox11's claim, then we move on. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How quickly we change our tune when the shoe's on the other foot, eh? Didn't you just tell me to 'see WP:ONUS. “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” - you created this article less than 3 weeks ago, and your content was immediately challenged. You do not have consensus for inclusion here. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you posted this comment in the wrong thread? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. [12] Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but it bears no relation to what we are discussing here so I assume you meant to post it somewhere else. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you'd remember making the opposite argument to what you are arguing here just a day ago, even if it was on a different page. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite argument to what exactly? I cannot see any connection to the subject of this thread, which is about which specific word is more appropriate to use in the context of this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you deliberately being obtuse? We are not discussing the content (I and others have already explained at length why your word is not appropriate), but your double standards. In the other article when you didn't like certain content and words, you argued the other editor needs to get consensus for his inclusion, or it is out. Here, when another editor doesn't like your content/word, you argue that the other editor needs get consent for excluding yours, or it stays. That is disingenuous and disruptive. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPA. The debate here is whether the word colonization is appropriate in the context of this article. It has nothing to do with "onus" because both sides of this particular debate are in question. It is not a question of "should the content be in there" but "should the content use the word colonization or should it use another word". Onceinawhile (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The debate here is whether the word colonization, which you introduced, is appropriate in the context of this article. Multiple editors think it is not. You were arguing, in another article, that in such cases the onus is on the editor proposing the disputed content to get consensus for it. Here you are arguing the opposite, and that is disruptive behavior. I came to your editor page to leave a note about this behavior, and saw that your page is already full of warnings about similar behavior , including one "final warning". Perhaps I should just ask @El C: to take a look at what you are doing here. Kenosha Forever (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS doesn’f apply to situations like this. If I write a paragraph including word A, you are fine with the paragraph but think word A should in fact be word B, and I disagree with word B, then which one of us is trying to “include disputed content”? Both? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, It applies here. If you write word A and I want B, it is you trying to introduce disputed content. It wasn't there before, and you wrote it into the article. If you want A, you need to find consensus for it, not others. B might not have consensus either, in which case another alternative, C, would need to be found. But the (temporary ) absence of C doesn't mean you get to go back to your disputed content . Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This is an interpretation of WP:ONUS I have never seen in almost 11 years here, but it is fine with me. So per ONUS we must remove A and B, as neither have consensus. I am happy for you to do so, please go ahead. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Kenosha Forever is not allowed to (ARBPIA). Zerotalk 13:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we give 11Fox11 a few more days to substantiate the claim that "[the word colonization] is not used by neutral modern sources" that relate to the topic of this article. Then we can revisit. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why was I pinged? To the best of my recollection, I've never edited or applied an admin action for this page (possibly, I'm forgetting...?). El_C 17:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged you, because you had issued a "final warning" to an editor over behavior (on a different article) that i think is very similar to what they are doing here - read my comment, in this section, where I pinged you. Kenosha Forever (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that in your original (ping) comment above now. But that "final warning" was added in as a subsection to problems concerning Palestinian enclaves only (an article which they themselves have created and had already received one logged warning for). I, personally, know of no other issues with their editing and I take a dim view toward weaponizing my warning (unwittingly or otherwise) for unrelated matters. Beyond that, I'm afraid I am unable to spare the time to investigate this dispute further at this time. If you're seeking WP:ACDS action (or even just a warning), WP:AE would be the venue for that. Thank you. El_C 17:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just realized that I mistakenly thought this was an WP:AP2 page (possibly having a user called Kenosha Forever led me astray there). Somehow, סורסוק and Sursock didn't align for me. I see now that this is actually an WP:ARBPIA page. Still, I'd prefer you go the AE route with this, Kenosha Forever. El_C 17:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "AE route"? Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked above: WP:AE. El_C 18:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, thanks, I will take a look Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kenosha Forever: Please note that you are not extended-confirmed and so by the ARBPIA General Sanctions you are not permitted to participate at AE. Zerotalk 03:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for that. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through all the main sources on the topic of this article, and they all use the word colonization in very frequently and freely. It is not a sensitive matter; it is simply how it was sold at the time, with two of the most important organisations encouraging this at the time being the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish Colonisation Association. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahloul[edit]

Mahloul

An excellent description of the situation at Mahloul here, from the Survey of Palestine (Anglo-American Committee). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?[edit]

I am wondering if we shouldn't have a RfC (or two) about this?

  • 1st RfC: "Zionist" vs "Jewish"
  • 2nd RfC: "colonization" vs "immigration"

Thoughts? Huldra (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent RfCs seem to attract a lot of "new" accounts, so I would prefer to stick to a discussion. I have still not seen any sources which prefer modern anachronistic terms over the actual terminology used at the time. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small note:[edit]

The Sursock land was (briefly) mentioned in connection with discussions about Palestine in the British Parliament in 1930; link (search for "Sur-sock"). Fascinating background for the decisions which were made at the time, Huldra (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing?[edit]

Shouldn't Shimron (=Semmouni) be mentioned here, somewhere? See eg this, Huldra (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sursock_Purchases&oldid=1204551183"