Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Occupied vs. Disputed

The article keeps reffering to Judea and Samaria as occupied territories, without substeniating this claim. From whome were these areas occupied? The previous owner of the area was the Kingdom of Jordan, which was an illeagal occupier of the area after their conquest of the area in 1948. Prior to that, the area was part of the League of Nations British mandate of Palestine, as the area promissed as the National Home for the Jews in the 1920 San Remo conference. The area was to be assigned to the Arabs in the Partition plans of the United Nations (29.11.1947) which the Arabs rejected. So, the only lowful owners of the areas in Judea and Samaria are the Jews, namely - Israel. So, at most, these areas may be called disputed: there's no basis to calling them occupied. Ronbarak (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. There is a fairly large, diverse and representative set of sampled reliable sources at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues/Archive._Legality_of_Israeli_settlements#Compilation_of_sources. You can see that the language we use is consistent with the language used by reliable sources. Please confirm that you are able to see the language we use is consistent with the language used by reliable sources so that you don't need to post a message like this in Wikipedia again on any page. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Sean Hoyland is being intellectually dishonest and follows sources that agree with his political ideology. He is a member of a group known for using Wikipedia to advance racist anti-Jewish propaganda. 75.168.51.81 (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This was extremely funny. Wikipedia should not make us laugh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.23.163.232 (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Levy Report

Report of committee headed by former Israel high court justice Edmond Levy disagrees with the legal conclusions present here. The Levy report is mentioned in a footnote but not discussed in the article. why?(talk) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)AFarber

Orphaned references in Israeli settlement

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Israeli settlement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sharon":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yiagal Allon was never a prime minister

"Yigal Allon became Levi Eshkol's successor as Prime Minister in 1969" - not true. The successor was Golda Meir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.139.101 (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Israeli Settlement, not Jewish Settlement

I reverted inclusion of a Google book source, which is not authoritative. All the sources, UN, EU, etc, just say a settlement is a settlement built on land captured by Israel, etc. http://thecepr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115:illegal-israeli-settlements&catid=6:memos&Itemid=34 "A settlement is any residential area built across the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line between the newly established state of Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors." It would be racist and anti-semitic to say that only Jewish settlements are illegal and we wouldn't want to do that on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What? nableezy - 16:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
What what? Why did you revert without commenting? What part of unverified don't you understand? 1) Since when is any book a valid source to be used? 2) Since when is only Jewish settlements illegal? Are you a racist? Nowhere else is it specified that only Jewish settlements are illegal. All the official documents and terminology used is Israeli settlements, not Jewish Israeli settlements. Why is it any different on Wikipedia? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
You must revert since you have made 2 reverts on an ARBPIA page, and you should no better since you have been around since May 2006. You are edit-wearing moreover and your revert reasons are nonsensical.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is it nonsensical? Because you don't agree with it? Saying that a settlement is solely Jewish, is WP:OR. and the sources, reliable sources don't assert that, furthermore, I didn't revert three times, if you look at the history, different sources were snuck in in the guise of reverting. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
If a reliable source states X, esp. if a dozen reliable sources affirm X, it is not WP:OR to enter that fact into an article. Reread the 1R revert rule. If there is an incongruency with some marginal fact, one tweaks one does not expunge. No one 'snuck' anything in. All you needed to have done, is add a clause stating that in East Jerusalem (which Israel treats distinctly from the West Bank, as does International Law) Palestinian also live in Jewish settlements. There is an operative law now that Palestinians may not work in any Jewish West Bank settlement, let alone live there.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Israeli Arabs can live anywhere in Israel, or in Israeli occupied West Bank, should they choose to do so. Any settlement in the West Bank that Israel builds is illegal under International law, not just if a Jew builds it. If the Arabs in Abu Gosh decides to move to the West Bank, would those settlements be illegal? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Articles are source-based. It is an elementary error to (a) argue abstractly without sources (b) use marginal 'if' (technically imaginable) situations to try to invalidate generalizations that hold for both Israel policy and practice.Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

We write articles based on reliable sources, not your imagination. Reliable sources say Israeli settlements are Jewish only enclaves in the occupied territories. nableezy - 18:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

POV

I added the POV template for the blatant anti-Semitic addition. Nowhere in the official documentation are settlements defined as solely Jewish. Settlements are Israeli Settlements built on land taken over by Israel on 1967..... anything else is blatant POV. Using Google Books to bring a book to back up your claim is ludicrous, as I am sure you're aware. I can bring half a dozen books to back up any claim.

  1. http://thecepr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115:illegal-israeli-settlements&catid=6:memos&Itemid=34

A settlement is any residential area built across the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line between the newly established state of Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors.

  1. http://www.btselem.org/topic/settlements
  2. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/07/us-israel-palestinians-settlements-idUSKBN0JL0D620141207
The name of the article is Israeli Settlement. The sources I adduce speak of Israeli settlements as exclusively Jewish, one is by Michael Dumper, a world authority on zoning in that area.
You selectively cited your first source, to make it read the way it was not intended to be read. The full context is:

One of the major barriers to the creation of two contiguous, sovereign states for Palestinians and Israelis is the existence – and continuing growth – of illegal Israeli colonies (widely called "settlements") on land long recognized by the United Nations as part of Palestine . . . A settlement is any residential area built across the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line between the newly established state of Israel and its Palestinian/Arab neighbors.(Council for European Palestinian Relations ).

The first sentence clarifies the second. The rest of your evidence is equally frail. Thirdly, you have repeatedly reverted, and reverted Reliable Sources introduced to clarify what you contested.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
To clarify even more.

_

After the 1967 war . the term “settlement” came to apply to Jewish groups establishing communities beyond the 1967 boundaries within East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, both considered by Israel as legally annexed, and the West Bank, where they now control 40% of the land. Malcolm Russell The Middle East and South Asia 2015-2016, Rowman & Littlefield, 2015 p.103

I still don't see the word "Jewish" in that source. I don't doubt that Israeli settlements are indeed Israeli, but even your clarification of my source doesn't say they are solely Jewish. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Your one useful sources notes that in some neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, there is a certain degree of Palestinian residence, based on laws of the market and the rights that come with residence permits (something not operative broadly in West Bank settlements which are the overwhelming majority). In that sense all one needs is a tweak or a note. If a note, then

East Jerusalem,note:

The housing market in East Jerusalem settlements has allowed some Palestinians with Israeli residency permits to purchase housing in a number of Jewish neighbourhoods.[1]

  • What point is there then in the statement that a settlement is exclusively Jewish? a) it's not True, and once you start tweaking, what is wrong with the way it was? "Israeli settlements are Israeli civilian communities built on lands occupied by Israel since the 1967...." anything else kind of reeks of trying to push a dirty pov that just doesn't smell right. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that explicitly say Israeli settlements are exclusively Jewish. A reliable source that does not say that is not contradicting that, you need reliable sources that explicitly dispute the statement. Finally, you make one more asinine accusation of anti-semitism and I am going to AE, Im sick of this bullshit. nableezy - 18:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Do non Jews live in the West Bank or East Jerusalem? Yes. Therefore it's not Exclusively Jewish. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Do they live in Israeli settlements is the question. Arab villages in the West Bank are not Israeli settlements. nableezy - 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
They live in East Jerusalem, for one. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This is playing 'silly buggers'. The foundation document of Israel states, ' HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL,'. This argufying was still-born, and can be dropped as utterly pointless, with an edge of challenging by innuendo the bona fides of other editors.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And the United Kingdom is a Protestant country, not allowing Catholics to live? Same with most other countries that have a state religion? The lead says that settlements are solely Jewish. East Jerusalem is a settlement, East Jerusalem has Muslims, so therefore that itself means the lead is not true. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Um East Jerusalem is not a settlement. And I am no longer entertaining this nonsense. Bring sources that support what you want to change, and support it directly, or stop babbling. nableezy - 20:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
And I added a note on East Jerusalem. You done now? nableezy - 21:01, 27 November 2015

(UTC)

No, so what exactly was the point in adding in the word Jew then? Right now it says a Settlement is exclusively Jewish except when it's not. So why not just leave it the way it was before? We don't need the lead to be weasly and pointy. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Sheesh!. 'Israelis' means both Jews and Arabs. The word 'Jewish' as per sources is obligatory to clarify that Israeli settlements are not created to allow Israeli Palestinians to set up communities in the West Bank and elsewhere, but to home Israeli Jews, in line with the criterion that Israel is to be understood as a Jewish state, for the Jewish people, and the ideological thrust of the settler movement itself, which is to Judaize the land. That is the end of the conversation, which was pointless because it flies in the face of the obvious.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There are reliable sources supporting the settlements being established for Jewish Israelis, sources omitting "Jewish" is not a contradiction. Non-Jews do live in West Bank including East Jerusalem but not in the Israeli settlements and the whole of the West Bank is not a settlement. Israeli sovereignty does not extend to West Back and the establishment of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories occupied by Israel is considered illegal under international law by the international community. You'll need sources stating that the Israeli settlements are also for Arab or Druze citizens or other ethnic groups to move into, which you're unlikely to find because it's not true as they're exclusively created for Israeli Jews.
Also, the allegation of anti-Semitism is clearly unfounded, misplaced and unhelpful. As there's clear sources justifying the change the POV tag appears to be unnecessary too. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Your sources to use the word Jew is POV, they are unreliable. They are two books. The government sources do not use the word Jew. I even brought in the European Palestinian source and nowhere does it mention Jew. Then the lead says "it's exclusively Jewish, except where it's not." So you tell me why the recent change to demonize. It wasn't like this a few weeks ago, so there is no need to change it. A lead is not supposed to be like this. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually a lot of the people living in WB settlements are not Israelis. That's why the regulations giving them favored treatment over the local Palestinians usually refer to "persons eligible to become citizens of Israel under the Law of Return". The fact that the WB settlements are established for Jews—and not just Israeli Jews—to live in is such a fundamental fact about them that omitting it would be a severe distortion. Zerotalk 00:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I support Zero, Nishidani & co here. If many sources say Jewish, predominantly Jewish or exclusively Jewish and some sources don't mention Jewish, then Jewish is well sourced. We can't set the standard for material to be included in the project to a level where every source has to say the same thing, as the project would under that standard be empty. --Dailycare (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
That's nice. But that amount of weasel wording just to get the word Jewish in the lead is astounding. You can't say exclusively Jewish and then have exceptions, so then it's not exclusive. So why not leave it the way it was, the way the UN, and all others have it? A settlement is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.... just to get the word Jewish in there you bend over backwords? That is NPOV at its extreme. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dan Williams, 'Leave or let live? Arabs move in to Jewish settlements,' Reuters 7 December 2014.

I removed two sentences and I messed up the reasons part.

"Since Israeli civil law does not apply to the West Bank, Israeli settlers in the area are theoretically subject to martial law.[citation needed] In practice, they are generally judged in civil courts in Israel within the Green Line and Palestinians are subject to a separate legal system."

These were the two sentences I removed. The link sourced says nothing about Israeli settlers being tried in civilian courts within the green line. Also, the "theoretically" part is unnecessary since there is no substantive evidence that this isn't true. Jewnited (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That is false. I personally know of three Jews who were arrested under the military authority and not the civilian courts. Granted they didn't make international headlines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.147.148 (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Those sentences were not good, but the absence of the point is not good either. Neither Israeli citizens nor Jewish settlers who aren't Israeli are tried in military courts, even though the Commander of the IDF in the WB has authority over them. It is an important fact about the settlements. Zerotalk 01:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

The line, "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[109] has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." is not easy to understand and could create confusion. Since the settlements have not been proven as illegal, Rostow would therefore be unable to argue against there illegality if they were indeed legal. A better phrasing of this sentence would be something like this: "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow however,[109] has argued that settlements are not illegal under international law." Again, the statement is accurate, but the information is not presented in a way that is easily understood. ISR 48 (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The consensus on the illegality of Israeli settlements is about the same as on climate change; besides a few very vocal people (most of whom have a conflict of interest) who disagree, there is an extremely strong consensus. Sepsis II (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2016

adding claims about palestinians staging cutting of olive trees in the violence section-There are at least two cases where palestinians were documented cutting down their own trees: one in 2010, and another one in 2012. please add it to the article (under violence)-unfortunately, I can't edit it. You can see more claims (like the burned sheeps) in the "israeli settler violence" article.

BTW-it's interesting there's not much to say about palestinian violence as much as israeli settlers violence. I would have tried to balance it, but the free encyclopedia is locked for me...Hummingbird (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of text in regards to Palestinian violence towards Israeli settlements and it's quite sensationalized. This article would lose focus if we were to include all information related to settlements so as you say, the settler's claims are written about at the more focused "Israeli settler violence" article. Sepsis II (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

At the section about the murder of a Palestine teen by three Israelis, it should be changed from "and even the IDF" to just "the IDF". When you say "Even the IDF", it implies that the IDF would usually support this. Regardless of the IDFs stand, it should be neutral, according to the rules of Wikipedia.

Jcat9 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Done 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 14:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Under #Legality arguments, it reads: "A UN conference held in Rome in 1998, where Israel was one of seven countries to vote against the Rome Statute to establish the International Criminal Court." I believe this should read: "A UN conference was held in Rome in 1998, where Israel was one of seven countries to vote against the Rome Statute to establish the International Criminal Court." Woodcutterty (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

I just would like to fix a broken link: Egypt–Israel peace agreement => Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty in the introduction .

Jop2~enwiki (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

- change all references to ww1.cbs.org.il to www.cbs.org.il as the CBS no longer uses ww1.cbs.org.il subdomain Davidbgeek (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Simplexity22 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Settlements 'illegal'?

The article offers this: 'The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal..'

Now, of course, the U.S. recently allowed a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank to pass. On December 23, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 2334, re-affirming the illegality of Israeli settlements. And I'm not saying that there is no such thing as international law. But is it a case of 'look just at what U.N. resolutions say'? I note that apparently, the international community can afford to ignore Israel's settlement frenzy. Past experience has shown that these statements are ineffective and have never deterred Israel, right? I think if one were to count the list of arguments for legality, it would not be zero, or one, or two, or three, or four. I guess there is certainly a notion, that the ‘1967 borders’ have any legal or historical significance. Sure. Then I merely offer a quibble, just a quibble, that I'm not sure what is the incontrovertible backing to Palestinian claims to ownership of the West Bank and east Jerusalem. According to wiki, 'The international community is a phrase used in geopolitics and international relations to refer to a broad group of people and governments of the world.' And Wiki offers this: 'The term is commonly used to imply legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue..'

I won't insist on the last word.

DanLanglois (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Illegal" in this context of course means that lawyers and scholars well-versed in international law believes that Israel's settlement project violates this law. No court has actually decided on the issue yet. ImTheIP (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The ICJ has in fact decided this at least in the wall case. --Dailycare (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2017

Change: The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal,[11] and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[12][13]

To: The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal,[11] and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.[12][13] However, the Israeli Government experts on International Law view the settlements as totally legal entities. [13.5][13.6][13.7][13.8]

Add: Note 13.5 [or whatever it would be numbered under a renumbering scheme]: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-israeli-settlements-are-not-a-violation-of-international-law/ Note 13.6: http://www.timesofisrael.com/west-bank-settlements-are-legal-foreign-ministry-asserts/ Note 13.7: https://www.quora.com/How-do-Israel-justify-their-settlement-plan Note 13.8: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-illegal-settlements-myth/

[THE ABOVE IS ONLY A SMALL SAMPLE OF ARTICLES SUPPORTING THE LEGALITY OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE DISPUTED TERRITORIES. Wikipedia should include this alteration, and bring more sources which I was not able to find quickly when I noticed the lack of presentation of the other side of the legal dispute, to present fairly the two sides of the discussion about these DISPUTED territories, which are not even considered "occupied" according to many legal opinons] Catriellev (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I don't see these sources as reliable enough to fit the bill here. For articles like this, we look for sources like BBC, The Independent, or The New York Times. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

--It is, I think, not disputed, that these resolutions make a bold and stark statement about the legality of the 'settlements'. Also, it is not disputed that Israel's practice and policy have long represented the view that the occupied Palestinian territory is neither occupied nor Palestinian. The question here is about objective legal analysis of the subject by .. I dunno, by world experts on international law, or such? Off the cuff, if it's relevant, I remember the remarks of Julie Bishop, foreign minister of Australia, made on January 21, 2014. She asserted that the international community should refrain from calling Israeli settlements illegal under international law while their status is not yet determined. I'm not insisting that this is wise advice, maybe not, but Australia’s vote on several recurring UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changed following the Coalition’s election in September 2013, with the Abbott Government shifting its vote on two key resolutions from ‘in favour’ to ‘abstain’. In November 2013, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the change ‘reflected the government’s concern that Middle East resolutions should be balanced … The government will not support resolutions which are one-sided and which pre-judge the outcome of final status negotiations between the two sides’. This link is to the Parliment of Australia:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2017/February/The_Coalition_Labor_and_the_Israeli_Palestinian_conflict_since_2013

Also, I note that the argument here is that the PA is under Israeli occupation. Well, the PA has joined the ICC, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which currently has a preliminary examination underway that is looking into Israeli actions, including settlements, in the occupied territories since Jun 13, 2014. The examination, which is meant to determine whether there is enough evidence to begin an official investigation, was launched on January 16, 2015. Of course, Israel is not a member, and also, investigating this issue is liable to endanger the court’s own legitimacy, both vis-à-vis signatories and non-signatories to the Rome Statute. Anyways, *if* a decision is made to start an investigation subsequent to the preliminary examination, then I guess we can expect to see Israel make tremendous effort, including legal effort, to handle the difficulties posed by institutions such as the court. There are legal tools available to block the court’s intervention. Now, I think it may be, that a balanced view of the events under investigation by the honorable international bodies will emerge. If Wiki is not the place to present the Israeli stance then okay. That's sarcasm. This link is to the ICC:

https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine

I also want to give the policy of the U.S. government. A letter that President George W. Bush issued in 2004 stated that Israel could expect to keep large settlement blocks in any peace deal:

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040414-3.html

Now, don't get me wrong. I talk about 'quibbling', and that's where I am coming from, here. I want to respect Wiki's policies about objectivity here. I might condemn Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria (commonly termed the West Bank), and I might even agree that, so to speak, more or less, the international community hasn’t missed an opportunity to condemn it. My question is what makes it illegal? Another question I have, is whether the Trump Administration has taken a position on Israeli settlements. According to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, “the American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years,” and “We don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace,” Spicer stated definitively. I infer that if it's not a barrier to peace, then it's not viewed or deemed to be illegal, which could have been most succinctly encapsulated if that had been the position. He could have said something like that the illegality of Israeli settlements is an open-and-shut case under international law. Here is a link to the White House:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/02/statement-press-secretary

Looking at that, I'd say that it is not 'laying down the law'. Even if it is taking issue with the construction of new settlements, it's using the conditional 'may not be helpful'. So okay, expansion of settlements (which are not an obstacle to peace) might not be a good idea. I don't think I can see this as a formal demand to cease that activity. Maybe a mild suggestion. There may yet be some differences on settlements..I mean, he could have mentioned the clear denouncements leveled by international human rights organistaions, for whatever that is worth, but he didn't. I think it's pretty clear just from this, and also it is anyways pretty clear, that the United States does not expect Israel to evacuate all the settlements in the West Bank.

What about the European Union? Well, Federica Mogherini, the bloc's foreign policy chief, released a strongly worded statement decrying continued settlement expansion, which she noted is "illegal under international law". So okay, all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Here is a link to the EU:

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/23938/Statement%20by%20Federica%20Mogherini%20on%20the%20latest%20decisions%20by%20the%20Israeli%20government%20regarding%20the%20settlements

So okay, there is what the EU diplomats say. Yet, one previously strongly pro-Palestinian EU member, Greece, is said to have shifted its position, seeking better economic and diplomatic relations with Israel. Recall that Greece’s rapprochement with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority reached its zenith in the 1980s. It was only the right-wing government of Konstantinos Mitsotakis that eventually came forward and established full diplomatic relations with Israel, in 1990. Netanyahu became the first sitting Israeli prime minister to visit Greece, more than 60 years after the creation of the state of Israel. His high-profile 2-day visit was protested in Greece by the far-left parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Greece

I talk about 'far-left' and 'right-wing', and these labels are somewhat political, and not legal. I think many statements about these issues strike me as well, as being political and not legal..Now, I have allowed that my own interest is in quibbling, and I want to emphasize that the outcome of this debate isn't going to be up to me, but we are debating whether the Jewish state can be labeled as an international outlaw. I wouldn't want this to be based on illegitimate and specious arguments -- the dispute is not about policy. And I think everybody agrees, at least, that at no point in history has Jerusalem or the West Bank been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty in any sense of the term. We can say that there are settlement opponents, and that they cite the Fourth Geneva Convention, and charge that the settlements violate Article 49(6), which states: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.” But I think that the application of this sentence is not beyond dispute, is it? Nor is its meaning transparent.

Here is a link to the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. The AICE Executive Director is foreign policy analyst Mitchell G. Bard, a former editor of the Near East Report, a newsletter published by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the author of many books. I quote Wiki, that 'AICE has been cited by major news networks, including CNN, Yahoo news, Haaretz, and others.'

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-settlements-under-international-law

This is about Mitchell G. Bard at Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Bard

Now, here is a quote from the article: 'The consensus view[103] in the international community is that the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is in violation of international law.'

And, that link [103] is to a 'Guardian' article about what the UN Security Council says, concerning Israel potentially facing a case at the international criminal court. Well, okay, but what does 'consensus' mean? I note that the US has boycotted a United Nations Human Rights Council session focusing on Israel’s human rights violations against the Palestinians due to the inter-governmental body’s "bias" against Israel. US State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement: "As an expression of our deeply held conviction that this bias must be addressed in order for the council to realize its legitimate purpose, the United States decided not to attend the council's Item Seven General Debate session."

Here is a link to the U.S. Department of State about it: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/03/268525.htm

Of course, on the other hand, there was that resolution, United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted on 23 December 2016. And of course, the resolution states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity". And maybe we welcome the text. And maybe we are part of the international community. Yet, the resolution did not include any sanction or coercive measure and was adopted under the non-binding Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter. Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. Furthermore, the United States House of Representatives voted 342-80 to condemn the UN Resolution on January 5, 2017. Here is a link to the US Congress about it:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/11/text

DanLanglois (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The question is not whether there are sources that say the settlements are legal, but what is the balance of opinion in the best reliable sources. That is clearly, that there is a consensus the settlements are illegal. There are many sources that say the world is flat, however, that doesn't change the fact there is a clear consensus the world is in fact round. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Stick your neck out, why don't you, to argue that the world is in fact round. This perhaps, for you, is a matter of 'the balance of opinion in the best reliable sources', but that's pathetic. Can't you see for yourself whether the world is round?

If the request is for references, then okay, I've given references, to the Department of State, to the White House, to the United States House of Representatives, and etc., and you want to say that these are not reliable sources. I'm willing to stipulate that, as being your attitude. I'm willing to settle for clarifying here, what is your attitude. Therefore, I think I will range farther afield. Here is a wiki link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_national_liberation

I quote: 'International law generally holds that a people with a legal right to self-determination are entitled to wage wars of national liberation.'

Okay, what does 'entitled' even mean, here? Noting, if it is relevant, that from a different point of view, these wars are called insurgencies, rebellions, or wars of independence, and that these were primarily in the third world against Western powers and their economic influence and were a major aspect of the Cold War. I say that maybe the term 'wars of national liberation' is biased or pejorative. This is the kind of point I'm here to make. I'm not arguing that the world is flat, I'm a perfectly reasonable guy, is what I am, arguing that a bunch of tendentious and informally spitballed abstract blather is exactly that. I think the point rather obvious..

I note that in January 1961 Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev pledged support for "wars of national liberation" throughout the world. That's fine, if you are a communist. I guess I have a notion that wikipedia is striving for 'centrist' politics, but perhaps it is only me who is striving for such. Let's see if we can agree, then, that the Communist concept of "imperialism" that was used to underline Soviet and Chinese involvement in these struggles and its relations to colonies had been theorized in Vladimir Lenin's 1916 book, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. I have no problem with that, but I would have a problem with attributing it to what 'International law generally holds'. I'm ranging farther afield. I think this isn't supposed to turn into a big debate and scintillating discussion, and I'm serious about 'serving the cause of wiki', here, so okay, hooray for your round world, though I wonder which one you are on. I suppose it's just like me to notice that actually, you didn't say. And if we are hoping to be representing different political stances in relation to one another, then loose terms come with pitfalls. I'll give this wiki link which I think is quite edifying and relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language

DanLanglois (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Israeli settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Chose a more relevant quote from the source and it was reverted as "whitewashing"?

The section is entitled "Proposal of dual nationality" and the first paragraph was about granting Palestinian citizenship/residency permits to settlers. The second paragraph quote I replaced was less relevant to the subject as it talked of the Israeli minister's concerns of whether Jews would remain in Palestine at all. I found a quote from the same cited article where he insisted that Israeli nationals should be able to retain Israeli citizenship while remaining in Palestinian territories. This seems to more fully express his concrete intentions and desires as an official within the Israeli government. And it also more directly concerns proposals of dual nationalities, as the quote that יניב הורון reverted it to was more of a general and pointed charge against Palestinians, accusing them of "ethnic cleansing". What are other people's thoughts on this matter and how WP guidelines apply? Blueaster (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Per source, Ya'alon clearly said "If we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews?... just as Arabs live in Israel, so, too, should Jews be able to live in a future Palestinian entity." His main point of criticism was that it's unfair for the Palestinian leaders to reject the possibility of a Jewish minority living in their country with equal rights and demand a judenrein Palestine (i.e. ethnic cleansing), while there are one million and a half Arabs in Israel living as citizens with equal rights. In other words, he was suggesting that the Palestinians welcome Jewish settlers as dual (Israeli-Palestinian) citizens or residents of a new Palestinian state instead of asking for their expulsion. Any failure to address this point is dishonest and doesn't represent the source properly.--יניב הורון (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It couldn't have been his main point of criticism in 2010 if such a concern was already addressed in 2009 by the PA negotiator saying that settlers can stay and become Palestinian citizens, as per source 310 in the previous paragraph ("PA: Settlers Can Become Palestinian Citizens" which it looks like I should update with the current live link as I've done with the source we're debating over.) The quote you favor says nothing about obtaining status under the Palestinian government, either. Blueaster (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Umm - no. This is a recurring issue in these negotiations - a blurb in 2009 did not address this.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
As presented it is misleading as it makes it seem like Ya'alon in 2010 is replying to something Abbas said in 2013. The Palestinian positions (which varied over time) and the Israeli positions (likewise) should be presented via official positions of each side. Interposing a crude charge made by one person without context in the middle of the description is not encyclopedic but propagandistic. Zerotalk 08:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, thank you for not bothering to address the very precise objection I raised here. And I'm amazed that you think blatant racism (Arabs=Nazis) on the part of Israeli politicians is all the more reason to quote them. Zerotalk 12:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
He did addressed your concern in his edit summary. Do you need him to copy-past the text over here?--יניב הורון (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Do you need me to repeat my concern? Ok: As presented it is misleading as it makes it seem like Ya'alon in 2010 is replying to something Abbas said in 2013. Not addressed. And that doesn't start with the obvious NPOV violation this represents. Zerotalk 12:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Your concern is not valid or supported by Wikipedia policy. If your problem is chronology, change the order. Stop removing sourced content.--יניב הורון (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
As an administrator for 14 years, I'm not interested in your poor understanding of policy. If content, sourced or not, violates a key policy like NPOV we are obliged to remove it or fix it. Simple. Besides that, at the moment it looks stupid and it destroys the meaning of the following sentence "The idea has been expressed..." (which idea? Not Ya'alon's, but that is how it now reads). It isn't my job to balance it, rearrange it, or put it into context; it's the job of whoever wants this rubbish in the article. Zerotalk 13:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The German analogy (for an area ethnically cleansed of Jews) - has been raised widely in Israeli discourse and covered in RS. If we have a problem in chronology - then lets fix that (and part of fixing this is noting that this is not a new demand by Abbas in 2013 - but a very long standing one). I'm not sure if the analogy to the German policy is racist - this isn't directed at Arabs at large, but to a particular political leadership - however the analogy (which we do not mention in the article at the moment) is certainly less troublesome than the demand to evict people on the basis on their ethnicity, including those who were naturally born in the area - which we do mention. If a racist notion is significant, we cover it - we do not excise it (Antisemitism isn't up for AfD any time soon). We could replace Ya'alon with Bibi - WaPo in 2016, though I personally am averse at turning Wikipedia into Bibipedia (or Trumpedia) - though Bibi might have garnered more coverage (it seems he did not used "Judenfrei", but "no Jews", however WaPo of their own volition went to say that "no Jews" evokes "Judenfrei" - which shows this is an established phrase in this regard).Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article "Israeli Settlement" is biased and should be redrafted

The Wikipedia article "Israeli Settlement" is biased and should be redrafted. It uses some sources which are neither reliable nor impartial.

For instance the UN Human Rights Council quoted in the article includes states which want to direct public attention away from their own brutal behaviour. Saudi Arabia is currently bombing and starving Yemeni civilians, as well as murdering a journalist in its Turkish embassy. The Council has been criticised by two Secretaries-General of the UN. (see Wikipedia article on the UNHRC).

The article states that Ariel University is not a recognised University. In fact it is. This is fully documented in the Wikipedia article about the University (Quote: The Ariel University Center is a member of the International Association of Universities).

So how reliable are the other sources? Clearly the article should be removed until their impartiality can be verified. This is not to say that all the claims are wrong, but if they are from unreliable sources they blemish the reputation of Wikipedia, and lead to the propagation of misinformation.

Furthermore the article contains some biased phrases (e.g. "one of the techniques used by Israel to expropriate Palestinian land") which should be removed. 

Bias spotter (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The sentence about "one of the techniques" contains a correct statement of a very common expropriation technique. Far from being biased to include it, it is biased to cite it as the opinion of a left-leaning journalist rather than as the fact that it is. Zerotalk 06:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The long passage on Ariel University should be reduced to one or two sentences that include the 2018 legislative changes. Incidentally it is funny to see IAU membership proposed as a recognition criterion, given that only two Israeli universities belong to it compared to 25 Iranian universities. Zerotalk 06:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"predominant" as a pretext to blanket revert

Icewhiz, could you explain to the class what the difference between predominantly and most of them is as that appears to be the only justification for your blanket revert as I see no instance of changing Syrians to Palestinians or you reversing that in your revert. nableezy - 10:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The undiscussed POV changes to the lede are not OK. Predominantly is also factually dubious. The phrasing you introduced is less readable, overlinks, and is confusing regarding the Golan - Syrian territory in the Golan beyond being POVish is ambigous vs. territory Syria actually holds on the other side of the border on the Golan.Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, you made it say mostly in the Palestinian West Bank instead of predominantly in the West Bank. What is the difference there? And the nonsense about the Golan, please, you know full well that it is an established fact that the Golan Heights are Syrian territory occupied by Israel. You can check Golan Heights for that. nableezy - 10:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The Golan is contested as you full now - annexed by Israel - and we should be specific on which part. You restored the amazingly bad - Such settlements within the Palestinian territories currently exist in the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, and within Syrian territory in the Golan Heights. - which can read as if the Golan is Palestinian. The sentence also duplicates the previous one - something that was rectified in the edit you rushed to revert. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead, hope you find it acceptable. I moved some things that were too specific for the overview in to the body as well. nableezy - 22:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, far from neutral, and not an improvement. Linking to irrelevant articles, unorganized text, and an attempt to label and criticize in every paragraph in the lede. Criticism has its place in the lede, in a small paragraph, but we should stick to a factual description.Icewhiz (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
The only things I removed from the lead was criticism. Which irrelevant articles? What unorganized text? What label? What criticism was added? I actually included a factual description now, whereas there had been none before. If you think you are going to be able to expunge a link to Israeli occupation to the West Bank from the lead here, well Im sorry to tell you that I very much doubt you will find success in that endeavor. But you should probably read the diff of the lead sections before saying the things youve said. Or at least provide specific examples of what exactly you are referring to, because as far as I can tell you are just making things up. nableezy - 15:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I will remove the nationalistic labelling via editing the lede myself.Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
lol, fine you want the "stable" version? Sure thing pal. But removing well sourced material on it being almost exclusively Jewish, on the Golan being Syrian territory, on the international community pressuring Israel to desist expanding is "far from neutral" and "not an improvement". You also straight up distorted both the facts and the source with the bit on Israel having enacted domestic Israeli legislation declaring territorial annexation to Israel, which appears nowhere in the source and is in fact a straight up lie. Israel's legislation for both EJ and the Golan explicitly did not declare any territorial annexation. And guess what, the cited source says not one word about any annexation. Distorting sources is a serious offense, one might even say ban worthy. nableezy - 00:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Criticism was retained - in an expanded 3rd paragraph. I did not introduce text on annexation - I moved existing text (though - this being interpreted as an annexation can be easily sourced) - to reduce duplication in the lede (EJ and Golan settlements being covered in a number of paragraphs interspaced with criticism - I condensed the facts (locations of current settlements) into one paragraph). We do not nationalistically label things when it isn't necessary. In reverting - you misrepresented Reuters in "A number of Palestinian non-Israeli citizens (as opposed to Arab citizens of Israel) also reside in Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem" when Reuters talks of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Icewhiz (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
What nationalistic labelling? Calling Syrian territory Syrian? Sorry, I dont see that as "nationalistic". What Reuters says: Palestinians living in the settlements are mostly from East Jerusalem, which Israeli forces seized in the 1967 Middle East war. As Israel regards all of the city as its unified capital, they hold Israeli residency permits although they are not citizens. It does also say But in one such settlement, around Mount Scopus where the Hebrew University is based and many Palestinians study, about 16 percent of residents are either Arab citizens of Israel or Palestinians, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. Ill adjust that bit. nableezy - 00:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no need to label territory which is clearly contested. There definitely isn't a need to stick "Palestinian" or "Syrian" in front of every mention of a territorial unit - it's simply unreadable, and in the Golan's case - confusing given the existence of the Syrian Golan - the portion of the Golan that is actually held and administered by Syria (when Syria itself is functioning and not in civil war). Icewhiz (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no real dispute among reliable sources that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. And for the Reuters bit, you are misreading our article. It says Palestinians live in some Israeli settlements in EJ. The as opposed to Arab citizens of Israel is to distinguish between that and the next line when it includes Arab citizens of Israel in the Israeli citizens living in those settlements. Anyway, you wanted the stable version, now you got it and you are still upset? nableezy - 00:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I read the text as it was written - while it might be possible to divine the intent of whomever phrased this that way at some point in the past - it does not come across in a manner that reflects the source. As for the rest of your comments - please do not misrepresent others, nor make observation on the emotions of others. You've reverted work adding references as well as increasing coherence of the lede. Along the way, a source got misrepresented as well. "as opposed" make the sentence read as if Israeli Arabs are not present. The [1] parenthetical comment on the next clause is separate from this one. Icewhiz (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The text as written says: A number of Palestinian non-Israeli citizens (as opposed to Arab citizens of Israel) also reside in Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem,[34] however, over 300,000 Israeli citizens (both Jewish citizens of Israel and Arab citizens of Israel) lived in settlements in East Jerusalem. Where in that does it say that Arab citizens of Israel are not in EJ settlements? Because it pretty clearly says both Jewish citizens of Israel and Arab citizens of Israel in the 300k number. Reuters is not misrepresented. And you got some nerve on complaining about reverted work adding references as well as increasing coherence of the lede when that is exactly what you did. nableezy - 01:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

See also suggestion:

Irish bill

@Selfstudier: - please do point out the discussion related to your revert. It seems to be entirely absent from the talk page. This is a recent bill, in a small country, that has not come into force nor has it been covered much. If you are unable to point out a discussion - please revert per WP:BRD this newish material.Icewhiz (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: We have already discussed this on my talk page, do you want to repeat it here?Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Copying material from my talk page so as to avoid discussing everything twice:
@Icewhiz:My bad, I happened to be looking at the BDS page about this at the same time and confused myself. The reverted material is the exact same material that I edited into that article and the long discussion I mentioned is on the BDS talk page. I can copy it all over to the israeli settlement talk page if you like and we can go from there (ie my revert stands even if I gave the wrong reasons, I don't accept its undue and the fact that a money message might (or might not) be applied is irrelevant)Selfstudier (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It may be DUE on the BDS page (as BDS is fairly new and has not accomplished much - a bill passing some legislation stages is perhaps noteworthy). DUEness on the settlement page is a quite few notches higher.Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz:I self reverted and rereverted in order to apply a correct reason. So I'll go ahead and set up a new sec, copy over the BDS talk material and we can argue it there? No point in arguing it here.Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
No, this is a separate discussion. DUEness here has nothing to do with another much less notable article. Furthermore you should revert per WP:BRD until you do reach a consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: I have set up the revert correctly as you requested initially. You took the info out of the article to begin with and I reverted because I don't think your reasons for removing that material stack up and I am willing to have that discussion on the talk page there.Selfstudier (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD - your addition was challenged, you need to step back and discuss.Icewhiz (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)-
@Icewhiz: I assume you are trying to argue that your original removal of material is BOLD. Well, I don't agree that removing material is BOLD. If we were discussing a reversion of material that you had ADDED, then BRD MIGHT be applicable. You can't just go around deleting stuff you don't like and then argue that doing so is BOLD. As for discussing it, I am already doing that.Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
A draft bill, not passed, in a small country, and with scant coverage since January is clearly not DUE. Furthermore, MEMO is not a reliable source. Draft bills are dime a dozen. If and when Ireland actually takes a position - it might barely bear mentioning. Irish politicians talking in parliament doea not amount to much..Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
1. "A draft bill"/"Draft bills are dime a dozen." - This is not a draft bill, it has been passed by both legislative branches in Ireland and has only technical/formal stages remaining before it becomes law.
2. "MEMO"/Current position..when did MEMO become an unreliable source? (others can easily be added as it has been widely reported). As I explained to you on my talk page, this exact material was debated at length on the BDS article talk page, no-one complained about MEMO then (and they are a fussy lot over there). You can update yourself on the position of the legislation here https://www.francesblack.ie/single-post/OTBillJuly2019 (the bill sponsor). As, I explained, this is notable for the simple reason that it is the first occasion that Israeli settlements have been singled out for legislative sanctions by a European state. The legislation was also discussed at the UN in April at a Panel, "Viable and practical steps for the international community to stem annexation".

Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact we have to resort to the bill sponsor to understand the current status - which is stuck in committee[2] - indicates that this stuck proposal in a small and insignifcant country is UNDUE. WP:ONUS on you to justify inclusion, per WP:BRD - please don't reinstate this until you achieved consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
If you think the article would benefit from being updated (and it is neither a draft bill nor is it stuck), please go ahead and add to the article, no-one is preventing useful additions. Onus is not on me to justify inclusion (the material has been in the article since the end of June), onus is on you to explain why you removed it for insufficient/invalid reasons (which is why your removal was reverted). Your opinion as to Ireland's size or importance is not at all relevant here (or anywhere else for that matter).Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
In regards to your latest argument that I am in breach of BRD (I am not), see above where I have copied our discussion from my talk page here so as to avoid having different discussions about the same thing in two places at once.Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope. You added the material. WP:ONUS on you to explain why this rather obscure bill (who status is unclear - stuck in some committee per the sponsor - and little to no coverage in RSes following the PR in January) - should be on this article. ONUS is very clear - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe I have already dealt with your objections, which you are now merely repeating. According to your latest argument, I can go around deleting material all over Wikipedia and when people complain, I can just say, sorry onus is on you to explain why I can't delete it. That's rubbish. I suggest we wait and see if anyone else has an opinion on this.Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC
You have again deleted properly sourced and relevant material without proper justification. I am quite happy to take this to administrators for a judgement. Or you can start an RFC and see whether other editors agree with your deletion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Besides MEMO not being a mainstream source - please read WP:UNDUE, which this is, and WP:ONUS and WP:BRD which you are failing to follow.Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: I have filed dispute resolution at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Israeli_settlement#Irish_bill

Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree the bill is WP:UNDUE here it was not passed all steps of legalization as far as I understand --Shrike (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
@Shrike: Please indicate the relevant section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view on which you are relying. Also, this matter was referred to dispute resolution, is your intervention part of, or independent of that?Selfstudier (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Copying material from dispute resolution to here for ease of referral:

COPIED

Statements by uninvolved editor

Banana Republic (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

ENDCOPY

RFC on Bill in Republic of Ireland

This well-designed RfC concerns whether to mention, in an article about Israeli settlements, a bill in the Republic of Ireland that has not yet become law. One aspect of the conflict between Israel and Palestine is a war of words, and Wikipedia articles can become contested territory, so this whole topic area is a fraught and difficult one. I should begin by disclosing previous involvement in the topic area. I have never edited any article concerning Israel or Palestine as a regular editor. As an RfC closer, I have closed two previous RfCs, in September 2014 (here) and November 2015 (here). I believe that I am sufficiently uninvolved to close this RfC.

During the course of this discussion, one editor accused another of canvassing. It is true that the editor concerned pinged five other editors, three of whom participated in the debate and all of whom !voted in the same way as the editor who originally pinged them. I note that the editor who made this accusation was blocked by Arbcom during the course of this debate. These facts do not affect my close.

This debate includes a number of "notes to the closer". People who are trying to work collaboratively with other editors do not need "notes to the closer". Only editors who treat RfC as an adversarial process ever use them. In the course of closing a hundred-odd RfCs on this site, I've never seen a "note to the closer" that wasn't about winning and losing. They're best avoided, ladies and gentlemen; procedural points will rarely trump reasoned debate on Wikipedia.

I am confident that the consensus is not to include the disputed sentence for the time being. When and if the bill becomes law, then a similar sentence may be included in the article without a further RfC.

I hope this helps. If anyone would like to comment on, or dispute, this close, then please bring this to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 23:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following paragraph be included in the article: In Ireland, the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill cleared the Upper house on 5 December 2018 and has progressed to Third StageCommittee in the Lower house following a Second Stage vote of 78 to 45 on 24 January 2019.RefRef. Although debate has focused on the Palestinian territories the bill prohibits the purchase of goods and services from any occupied territory.Ref

(References are shown as links, the suggested section is where the current version of this material is presently located).

Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be in Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes I don't see any UNDUE here. Seems related, notable etc. There is also the Canadian court decision which is not to label products made in the Israeli settlements as "Made in Israel".[3] I think this should also be included in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No WP:UNDUE to go into a bill in a different country that may or may not become law. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No It's a proposed law that may or may not happen and that may or may not be reversed. There are probably thousands of proposed laws currently being proposed on many topics that are important, but that doesn't warrant inclusion in an Encyclopedia until it passes and has an effect on the subject, just passing one House is meaningless. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No. WP:UNDUE. This is a draft bill targeting all occupations (not just Israel), that even if passed would have a small impact on the subject of the article (trade between Israel and Ireland is low (60 million Euro). Trade between Israeli settlements and Ireland is much lower - around 1.2 million Euro a year). The draft bill is currently stuck (or perhaps dead/dying) in committee - and even if it were to pass the committee - it would require a couple more votes in the legislature to pass. Most importantly for Wikipedia - coverage shows that this is UNDUE. This draft bill had a small burst of coverage in January 2019 - it has since disappeared from secondary RSes (as draft bills often do - being stuck doesn't even make the news....) - to determine the status of the bill we had to resort to looking at the homepage of the promoter of the bill and the website of the Irish legislature - as evident in the proposed passage which is sourced to PRIMARY sources such as www.gov.ie, www.oireachtas.ie, data.oireachtas.ie, as well as an op-ed in www.thejournal.ie. In short - what we are lacking here is sufficient secondary coverage in RSes - for a topic (Israeli settlements) that is heavily covered in secondary sources. Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Clearly relevant per multiple sources and definitely WP:DUE some space in this article in section Export to EU. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - until there is actually a law this is premature. We do not need to include things that end up having no impact. nableezy - 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes the argument that because it's only a bill, and not yet a law, makes inclusion of the paragraph WP:UNDUE is absolutely mind boggling. The claims of lack of WP:SECONDARY coverage is bogus given the coverage in Middle East Monitor and The Irish Post. Although one can debate whether the two references meet WP:RS criteria, WP:PRIMARY references can certainly be used for the purpose of WP:Verifiability. Banana Republic (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No Not until it actually becomes a law. It should be included if passed though. Number 57 19:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No until/unless it becomes law. The bill has already had significant impact—on Ireland's image. It hasn't had any impact on Israeli settlers. Zerach (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes That the bill is not yet final in law does not make the information any less notable and the legislation is directly relevant to the subject of this article.Selfstudier (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No If it will become a law we can return to this discussion right now its WP:UNDUE and have no impact whatsoever--Shrike (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The bill is significant as it is the first in a 'Western' country which would 'criminalise' trading with illegal settlements. Current EU measures merely involve labelling and the exclusion of products from the Occupied Territories from being traded under the terms of trade agreements with Israel. I agree with Banana Republic that the argument about exclusion on the grounds that the bill has not yet been passed into law has no basis in WP policy: it may be "undue" but it is not "WP:UNDUE". Contrary to what is being claimed above, the bill has been passed by both houses of the Irish parliament and is currently in the committee stage, the third step in a five step process bills pass through before being passed. If the bill was insignificant or had as yet, as claimed, no impact, it's unlikely that the Americans and Israelis would have applied such heavy pressure on the Irish government to block it. I think that there are more than enough sources to justify creating a dedicated article on the bill. It's very striking that the article doesn't deal with BDS to any significant extent.     ←   ZScarpia   16:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The only fact that a few sentences in a large article are creating such an extensive discussion is an indication that the paragraph should be included in the article. Also, there are many factual inaccuracies in what many of the “No” commenters have written. For example, the bill did pass both houses. The reason it is still not implemented is because of the pressure applied by the USA and Israel on the Irish government. It seems like the same pressure is applied here in Wikipedia by biased editors who are trying to engage in censorship. Clearly, the added material is not undue. The material is not excessively lengthy as compared to the size of the article. A text that passed both houses in an EU country is significant. Also, the international pressure around the text makes it even more notable. Tradediatalk 03:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. That bill is notable and quite unprecedented so should be mentioned even if it doesn't pass. Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. If the article on the Bill is going to remain on Wiki, then the suggested paragraph here clarifies what it is about and the current state of passage. Without this paragraph, the fact that the proposed legislation would be aimed at all illegal occupations, and not just the Israel / Palestine situation, is not clear. Thank you for suggesting it and for being so cautious as to do an RfC. Felixkrater (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No Not as is. Even a small paragraph is a bit much. Slim it up. You are talking about a law that was crafted but never passed and the weight here seems abit heavier than its actual proportionality. Until this law passes it's barely even a blip on the radar.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for passing it and making it as law. Even after that, it deserves small and medium size paragraph. — Harshil want to talk? 02:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

  • Note to closer - please see diff, which appears to selectively ping some five different editors to this RfC. Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
As an editor who has commented on the Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill elsewhere on Wikipedia (here and here}, I was quite grateful for being pinged about the current dsicussion, though it probably would have have been better if the list had been here rather than on a user's own talkpage. Perhaps, Icewhiz could list other editors who've shown a similar interest who should also be notified?     ←   ZScarpia   21:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I was pinged because i commented on the "Dispute resolution noticeboard" section related to this issue and would like to also comment on this RfC. Tradediatalk 03:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
My user talk page is public, nor do I see any difficulty in asking editors to participate in an rfc, that's the whole idea, is it not?; for the sake of clarity, I copy here what I wrote there (minus the pinging):
COPY{{|Banana_Republic}}{{|Tradedia}}{{|ZScarpia}}{{|Onceinawhile}}{|Zero0000}}There is an RFC running [here];if you have time, I would be grateful for comments.Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)END COPY
  • I would rephrase the last sentence from Although debate has focused on the Palestinian territories the bill prohibits the purchase of goods and services from any occupied territory → The bill prohibits the purchase of goods and services from any occupied territory, but the majority of the debate has been about purchase of goods and services from Israeli settlements. This is an article about Israeli settlements, so I think the word Israeli settlements would be preferable. Banana Republic (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
If I've understood correctly, the only other places which the international community currently considers to be illegal settlements are Moroccan ones in the Western Sahara. Good luck digging out information on those, though. I've tried, with limited success.     ←   ZScarpia   22:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For information, Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 page established 17 September by editor זָרַח.
    • I would recommend adding a link to this new article. Banana Republic (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I would like to note that the article Control of Economic Activity (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018 has now been up for over 4 days, and nobody has nominated the article for deletion. If the article is noteworthy, I cannot see why there is opposition to mentioning the article here and linking to it from here. Banana Republic (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I have "selectively ping"ed the page creator and invited comments here.Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to remind everyone that the instructions for this RFC read "Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in the Survey."Selfstudier (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • All of the relevant objectors rely essentially on the same point, that the bill is not yet law. Yet NPOV (UNDUE being a subset of that and usually referring to WEIGHT) merely requires sourcing, relevance and an appropriate weight; the mere fact that a law is not yet in force is not the issue, there are many articles on WP about things that are in progress, not yet finalized and so on. The real issues are notability and relevance to the article and this is undeniable. The Americans, the Israelis, the EU and the UN are all involved in one way or another and it is the first example of an EU state making a serious attempt at applying sanctions in respect of breaches of international law by occupying powers, which is exactly the position in the Israeli settlements. It is of such interest that another editor not previously involved in any discussions has even seen fit to devote an article just to the subject of this bill. If it warrants an article to itself on Wikipedia (it is also briefly covered in the BDS article, to which it is less directly relevant) then I can see no reason why a couple of sentences in this article would not be due weight.Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    The question of whether it passed into law is indeed not the main issue for WP:UNDUE - what is more relevant is coverage. However, it is likely that if this bill were to be actually passed - that there will be coverage both of it passing and continuing coverage (and such coverage - would make it DUE). On the other hand - if it remains stuck in committee, dying a silent death (as many bills do in committee) or perhaps failing a vote - continuing coverage (in the context of Israeli settlements (as opposed to internal Irish politics)) is much less likely. So - while perhaps those observing that we should wait until and if this actually passes should've coached their language in terms of coverage in reliable sources (or expected coverage - though WP:BALL is an issue) - their expectation is certainly reasonable. Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    So if the fact that the bill has not passed is not the basis for the WP:UNDUE, and the basis is coverage, then it has been shown that the bill has been covered in secondary sources. Therefore, there is justification for including it here. Since the proposed coverage is only 2 sentences, I don't see the basis for the WP:UNDUE argument. Two sentences is not undue. Banana Republic (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Apart from the "not yet law" argument, one editor claims "coverage" as making the proposed material NPOV/UNDUE; there is no use of this word in the NPOV/UNDUE policy so it must be a reference to available RS. Apart from the plentiful RS identified in the BDS article [here] plus that with the RFC proposal, there is in addition the coverage below (a lot of it being after the claimed dearth of RS in January and as late as May just before the summer recess). One can only assume that what is meant is RS of "recent" date; if a lack of "recent RS" is a criteria for NPOV/UNDUE (which it appears not to be) we may look forward to some mass WP deletions on such grounds.UN 4 April 2019Question to EU about the bill and EU Reply 9 Jan 2019Ref USA involvement March 30, 2019OpEd 22 March 2019OpEd reUN February 15, 2019US Opposition May 17, 2019 Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For anyone dying to do some reading (apologies to those for whom the following aren't new): [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]([14][15][16][17])[18][19][20][21][22][23][24]([25][26][27][28])[29]. More links: here.     ←   ZScarpia   22:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh there is an article about this? How is this not notable? We cant even say it is recent!.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
While being listed in the DYK section of the main page is not necessarily an endorsement either way, the fact that an article about the bill exists (and has so far not been challenged in an AfD) makes the argument that the bill is not notable until it becomes law a little hard to digest. The existence of the article is an indication of notability. Banana Republic (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • To closer: to summarize, there is a WP article (successfully DYK'd as well) about this bill so notability is established, plenty of RS is available. The bill targets Israeli settlements so relevance is also established. That the bill has not been passed into law (which nearly all detractors are citing in support of their no vote) has no policy relevance for NPOV; the material currently in the article is more lengthy than the proposed replacement and has been in the article since June 28, getting on for 4 months now.Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2020

it is not a change rather an addition of a significant quote. In 1969, former Israeli defense minister, Moshe Dayan, openly confirmed that Israel displaces Arabs by stating that "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist; not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either … There is no one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Smobarak (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC) - Moshe Dayan's address to the students at Technion University in Haifa, Israel (March 19, 1969). Smobarak (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It is not clear what you wish to have done with this passage (where in the article to place it, in the context of what original prose, etc.). El_C 19:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Excising a fact on the basis of a personal opinion

here. Nishidani (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I a fact, which is not in dispute. It was elided, one of several SJ reverts of my contributions to Wikipedia over the last few weeks. The fact added was:

The transfer by an occupying power of its civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime

This is the precise wording of a fact of international law, which is the basis for all of the positions assumed by international bodies mentioned in the lead. Without the fact given, the positions taken seem to be opinions. They may be, but the fact is not opinionable.

His edit summary states

  • undue for lead.
Why is it undue? Not explained (the fact has existed and has a huge literature for 71 years and is summed up in 19 words. Trump's recent plan, promised, never carried out, was dead in the water and yet gets 29 words in the lead. If (a) is undue (b) is even more undue.
  • 2. disputed.
Where is the source that states that the fact mentioned is disputed? Israel is a signatory to one of the two conventions where that fact is established, the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel's High Court accepts that law, because it is a fact in international law. I cited the precise text in international law. No one disputes the law or its wording. They may dispute its interpretation (only Israel in reality does), but the fact that population transfer is a war crime is not disputed. Ergo, ignorance of the topic by the eraser.
  • 3. Israel isn't "transferring" its population into the WB as a form of population transfer, with regards to what the term means. Building settlements, just like the Palestinians do in Ramallah or Bethlehem, etc. isn't population transfer.
This is SJ's opinion, but what we think is not permitted to interfere with the summary statement of the issues and the relevant facts. Apart from the absurdity of comparing incoming immigrants from all over the world taking up residence in a settlement in occupied territory to Palestinians born and bred there building their homes on land that they have not militarily occupied.

Since the reasons given are utterly irrelevant or spurious or unexplained, I have restored the text.Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nishidani, firstly, you need to stop personalizing everything. If you can't edit without that, then maybe take a break. And the fact that you wrote, "Apart from the absurdity of comparing incoming immigrants from all over the world taking up residence in a settlement in occupied territory to Palestinians born and bred there building their homes on land that they have not militarily occupied." proves that there is no "transfer" of population from Israel to the West Bank if you think about it from a logical standpoint in what "population transfer" means with regards to the Geneva Convention. Also, Israel never ratified the statute and declared it has no intention of doing so, so that is disputed, so when Nishidani says that the reasons given are "utterly irrelevant or spurious or unexplained" that's just him being his usual self. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention on 6 July 1951 and does not deny being a party to it. What Israel denies (against its own legal advice) is that 4GC applies to the occupied territories. Zerotalk 06:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is the same nonsense about not being occupied and instead being disputed. The settlements themselves (as structures) may or may not be legal but the transfer of Israeli citizens into them (howsoever that occurs) certainly is not legal. Israel of course , disputes this (as usual).Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Nothing personal. It is a fact that you systematically revert me, with spurious edit summaries that have naught to do with policy or good practice. The one fact you try to mention above is wrong: you confuse the Rome Statute, which Israel did not sign, with the Geneva Convention IV, which it underwrote (see Zero, constrained to remind you of the obvious, above). You ignore the fact that the Allon Plan specifically slated areas of the West Bank for settlement, i.e. transfer, in the face of the conclusion, in a top secret memorandum to the Eshkol government in September 1967 by Israel's foremost expert on international law, Theodor Meron, responding to the Prime Minister's request for clarification of the issue. His conclusion ('Legal Counsel to the Foreign Ministry') ran: any such project was a violation of the Geneva Convention and therefore criminal.

'Theodor Meron's note and attached legal opinion, preserved in Levi Eshkol's office files, testify to two things. The first: As of mid-September 1967, Eshkol knew that settling civilians in occupied land, including the West Bank, violated international law. The second: By early September, after nearly three months of weighing the West Bank's future, Eshkol was actively exploring settlement in the region.' Gershom Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, Henry Holt & Co, 2006 pp.99-100.

One can huff and puff, blather, throw sand in the eyes, whinge, grizzle, object in a million volumes of talk, but the fact remains there, and no amount of opinionizing about it alters its status as a fact. Stating that is more important than registering what the UN, previous US gfovernments, Israeli politicians etc., opine, for the fact is what all opinions must wrestle with, and the reader has a right to know what the facts, not the spin, are.
We strive to get facts here. Opinions about facts exist, and in this regard, the opinions are dealt with in the body of the text, amply. The dead-in-the-water-on-birth opinions of Julius Stone are plunked down all over I/P articles, same format, same sourcing, every time this issue arises, and it is a fringe opinion in legal theory. The error of this article was to cite Israel's practice and reasons, and then state that the consensus of the world is that Israel is doing something illegal. Two opinions, international consensus and Israeli (and of course the US under President Chump). What was lacking was the objective fact, not disputed by anyone. which all of the opinions refer to. That was a glaring oversight, and I fixed it. Less politicized opinion (as yours is) and the more the factual record is showcased, the closer we approximate to the known aims of this encyclopedia. If anything is undue it is mentioning a fringe legal theory in the lead, as you did. Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I removed the undue and unsourced material. While it is true that Israel disputes this and cites this and that opinion in support, the facts are that this position is a tiny minority of a preponderance of opinion and not really reflective of a balance of sources.Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Again SJ's carelessness created a problem and the fixes make it worse, though the material had to be radically reduced per WP:Fringe. The problem is, I added a fact, -. the fact is a categorical statement in law that admits of no exceptions (as sources say) and the text now states that Israel disputes the fact. Israel does not dispute the fact, least of all the Israeli Supreme Court and the IDF, for it is on the law books. Israel says that the fact is immaterial, since their oolonisation of occupied territory does not consist in population transfer, to which the fact addresses itself. Of course this argument is complete lunacy,-everyone inside and outside the relevant political circles, knows it to be such - but in describing it, one should leave no margin for interpreting the text as implying Israel 'disputes' the fact. It disputes its applicability to Israel's unique circumstances, as a colonizing power that is not colonizing anything.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Nishidani, and which sovereign signatory was in charge of the West Bank before Israel took it over in 1967? And again, I'm not going to tell you again to stop personalizing your edits. If you can't do that, then perhaps editing online isn't for you. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I know the answer, but this is not going to be a rerun of the endless discussions already had. I have edited close to 80,000 times: and have added several thousand academic sources to Wikipedia. How many have you added, rather than, as you admit doing here, lifting information from one article to plunk it down on another? I've never done that, and don't sit on articles, tweaking, reverting, etc. Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, I'm not sure why you removed that it's also disputed by legal scholars, since I got that directly from the page of International Law and Settlements and those scholars are some of the scholars who dispute the charge, it's not just Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Idk why you are not sure, I explained why, which part did you not understand?Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, because it's disputed by scholars, not just Israel. So as I said, not sure why you removed that part. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I addressed that in my remarks, I take it you still haven't read them (reading materials for you below).Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, I don't know if you recall, but my edit inserted, "disputed by Israel, and scholars." Not sure how all of your words changes that. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't try to change it, I removed it as undue and not representing an NPOV position (as well as the bit with no source)Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, it's called balance, Israel is not the only entity disputing it, it's also other legal scholars and you removing that is now implying that it's only Israel and not others who think so. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Balance of sources I think is what you mean. In this case ~it runs at something like 100 to 1, so we should have 100 cites for "our" position and 1 for "yours". The article says Israel disputes it and has two cites which is more than adequate representation of a POV that essentially amounts to legal fiction.Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Zero0000, the transfer of populations is dealt with in the Rome Statues and Israel never ratified it. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: It is named as a war crime in the Rome Statute, but it derives from Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Almost all the legal literature on the settlements, both for and against the Israeli position, focusses on 4GC. That is also what internal Israeli discussions focussed on immediately after the 1967 war, since it was clear that the plans being hatched were in violation of 4GC and an excuse had to be formulated however tendentious. Zerotalk 14:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.justsecurity.org/67343/assessing-the-new-u-s-view-on-the-legality-of-israeli-settlements-in-the-west-bank/ Things to read and why the minority view doesn't really hold water (along with the position of the present US administration).Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
http://opiniojuris.org/2020/02/07/icc-and-palestine-symposium-prosecuting-settlements-as-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity-the-iccs-jurisdiction-over-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/ ICC case depends on the majority view, it fails if the minority view is correct.Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The ICC claims jurisdiction "on the territory of any State Party", even if the perpetrator is not a State Party. The State of Palestine has been in the official list of State Parties since 2015. That's the basis of the current Palestinian bid; how it will turn out is unclear and of course Israel will ignore the outcome regardless. Zerotalk 15:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly so, it will now be a bit difficult to turn around and claim that SoP is not a State Party. What is perhaps more interesting is whether or not the settlement venture is considered a war crime (leaving aside which individuals might then be considered responsible). A recognition of this would at least be a step in the right direction.Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Technically, the official view of Israel is WP:Fringe since (a) it is a political position held by the occupying nation that was advised the law says otherwise and (b) the legal dissent exists among an exiguous number of scholars who are, mostly, openly aligned with Israel for various reasons, and choose to challenge the international consensus. The only reason we give so much space to an extreme minority opinion is that it has been adopted by one state out of 196, and (c) as an NPOV adjustment on the premise that there are only two parties to the dispute, and therefore this fringe view is stated as one half of the legal disagreement between the two parties, though the other party's viewpoint represents the international consensus.The question has never been posed in terms of this ostensible conflict between WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe, but it is a serious problem technically. It's like giving equal time in the Shakespeare Authorship Question to the marginal views of sceptics, and that of 99.9% of the academic consensus. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I reverted this as the lead is supposed to be a short summary and already has "The international community considers the settlements to be [[Israeli settlements and international law|illegal under international law." This summary sentence sums the issue up succinctly, without technical legal minutiae. This summary probably requires an update due to the changed US position. 11Fox11 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying the page about what you did, without a comment beforehand here as to why you think it excessive. The body of the text as close to 1300 words with extremely lengthly pros and cons. And yet you think that 19 words stating the fundamental fact of law, not opinionable, is too much. These 19 words are is not 'technical minutiae'. They constitute perhaps the most lucid summary of the basis of the conflict. If anything the body of the text has far too much technical minutiae to bewilder the reader, if they ever read that far, and this is an encyclopedia, for facts, not for tediously contorted opinions.Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Nota bene, that what required fixing was ignored. I have corrected (a) the false impression Israel disputes the relevant law (b) I have removed Stone et al., because it was, without examination, clipped from another page without verification, and, unlinked and unpaginated, did not allow the reader/editor access, aside from it being issued by a non RS publisher. It does not appear to be remarked on, that Stone's arguments have been comprehensively taken to pieces (most recently by Simon McKenzie, Disputed Territories and International Criminal Law: Israeli Settlements and the International Criminal Court, Routledge, 2019 ISBN 978-1-000-75805-4) and remain a historical fringe curiosity. (c) moved the source clutter to the relevant section which, in any case, required a generalization before details were entered into.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Way too long! Int. community says wrong, Israel (&US?) disputes. Short. These 19 words are added to many other words. Too long for lead! 11Fox11 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
That seems to be entirely personal opinion. nableezy - 20:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
And your assertions on length are not a personal opinion? My personal opinion is backed up by policy: MOS:LEADLENGTH. The material added brings this to five paragraphs, over the four maximum mandated by policy. Policy says the lead should be a "short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic", including legal minutiae fails policy. 11Fox11 (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Were that your concern, stumbling on this page after rapidly scaling the 500/1 month rule, focused, and not the usual shenanigans, you would realize that your objection, were it tenable, would apply to the following in good part reduplicative expansion of the next paragraph. That's where you logic leads, not to the excision of a 19 word fact, while maintaining the next para and even the 29 words used to describe the blip of Trumpian dissent. Your edit defense therefore is completely self-contradictory, preferring expansive treatment in the lead of what you ostensibly dislike as excessive, in the much briefer comment you elided. As it it is, you just expunged a fact, and gave the green light to opinionable bloat.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I am unaware of my having asserted anything. And no, in fact, if anybody even clicks on the link you provide they will see that what you say is mandated by policy is in fact explicitly not mandated by policy. MOS:LEADLENGTH says As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. Would you care to check the definition of mandate and contrast that with but not absolute rule? This is not legal minutiae, it is so mundane that I have no idea why the Defenders of Israel feel the need to excise it. It is a brief explanation of what the controversy over these colonies is. That they violate the prohibition on the transfer of civilians into an occupied territory by an occupying power. nableezy - 14:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

"See also" section

Shouldn't the "See also" section include a link to the article, List of Israeli settlements? NASAPeepo (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It does.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Israeli Settlements

It's not that the Israeli "Settlements" are not in violation of international law, it's that Israel has not proclaimed that they will omit them. That is territory that is explicitly under control of the Oslo Accords. Batsquatch (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading statistic regarding percentage area used my Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

The section on the West Bank claims and provides references to the fact the Israeli buildings only use 1% of the land in the West Bank. Whilst this may be true it has the effect is suggesting the land usage is relatively small and thus less problematic than people may claim.

However, it is comparable to similar building land usages in other countries. For example, in the UK all buildings use 1.4% of total area.

It would be better if this statistic was a percentage of the total building area i.e. Israeli Buildings' area as a percentage of the combined Israeli + Palestinian buildings' area.

It is of particular importance as this is the section that Google search quotes when you search for "Israeli Settlements West Bank" 2A00:23C6:2000:E201:34D0:BEF5:4458:B717 (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There are actually many sources detailing the settlement footprint which is actually significantly larger than the built area. When peace negotiations have discussed "swaps", it isn't 1% is it? Anywhere up to 10% and in between. Draw your own conclusions.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The transfer by an occupying power of its civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime

Come on. By any normal, every day definition a war crime means killing civilians during war. Like the Rwanda or Bosnia or the holocaust. Stealing property may be illegal, but not a "war crime" by any normal definition. The trouble with abusing language like this is that it weakens the words when there really are serious war crimes. A similar situation when "rape" is used for any sexual misdemeanor.

On the Israel situation there will be countless references for any point of view. But this one is nonsense, and it weakens the otherwise strong points made by the article. It makes the article seam like just another POV piece. Tuntable (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Even by "every-day" definitions, a war crime also includes other things like using prohibited (ABC) weapons, mistreatment of prisoners, rape, ... (depending on who you ask). On a different note, no serious person uses the term "rape" for every sexual misdemeanour (that's why the term "sexual harassment" exists).
Wikipedia doesn't use these sorts of "every-day" definitions (whatever that means), it uses the appropriate encyclopedic/dictionary/legal definitions of words. From the article war crime: A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility. This includes Settlement of occupied territory and Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory. See also: War crime § International Criminal Court 2002. TucanHolmes (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The statement "By any normal, every day definition a war crime means killing civilians during war." is factually incorrect. Even a "war" is not necessary for a war crime, an armed conflict will do. WP is itself not a source but it is anyway trivial to look up the definition of a war crime. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml is quite good, note that it says "The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;"Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How did the setlers pay for the land

Did they just steal existing farms? Take over empty or under utilized land? Or buy it from Palestinians? Probably all three in different times and places. That is a critical distinction that is missing. Given the tone of the rest of the article, and the fact that is not mentioned, I presume the second and third were more common. Tuntable (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The answer to this question is quite complicated if you want to entangle yourself in Israeli legal gymnastics. In another sense it is rather irrelevant because it's all considered as illegal in IL. Even buying it (post occupation) is quite doubtful because any price paid would have been artificially deflated by virtue of the occupation and other circumstances.Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Property transaction of private individuals are not considered illegal in IL. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The first port of call is the legal system present at time of occupation which is supposed to be maintained by an occupier. If we say that was Jordan, then the first question becomes whether Jordan permitted foreigners to purchase land and if so, under what conditions. The point I was making is a point made by some lawyers ("legal research") that there is no realistic method of determining market value in an occupation setup and in this case, one that has gone on for long. Normally, it wouldn't be an issue since a normal investor would not typically take the risk in such circumstances. In this case, it is worse because the occupier is facilitating a risk reduction for a buyer represented by the occupier at the same time as deflating the price. I know which side of the argument I would like to be on if I was in court.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

he transfer by an occupying power of its civilian population into the territory it occupies is a war crime,[16][17][18]This is not correct. It is an alleged war crime as stated in the following sentences. 207.216.95.239 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a war crime. Alleged only enters into it if a charge is made and has then to be proven. Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

'Treated equally under Israeli law'

This is not challenged...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylahackman (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The place I see that is where it says settlers are treated the same as Israelis in Israel proper. That is mostly correct, though they do qualify for benefits and subsidies not available to Israelis within Israel (iirc). nableezy - 22:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Israeli Colonies

Calling Israeli settlements a colony is completely ridiculous. One source says that, and the idea that is some universally agreed thing is crazy. If you put that, at least say its debated.

Change:

"Israeli settlements are civilian communities inhabited by Israeli citizens, built on lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli settlements currently exist in the Palestinian-claimed territory of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian-claimed territory of the Golan Heights."

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israels-rights-in-the-west-bank-under-international-law Their is debate to whether it defies international law.

There isn't any debate, they are declared illegal by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, 14-0, US abstaining. Colony is a synonym and they have no official name so not ridiculous, the French even use colonie for settlement.Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
According to the Colony article, the term is used is English "to refer mainly to the many different overseas territories of particularly European states between the 15th and 20th centuries CE." The French is irrelevant here. In regard to Israeli settlements, the term "colony" is used mostly by Pro-Palestinian writers looking to draw comparisons between Israeli policies and colonialism. By using this term here, it is implied that Wikipedia subscribes to that point of view, which is of course a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Tombah (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
What is the source of your claim that the word is used mostly by pro-Palestinian writers.
Even if that were the case, being pro-Palestinian is a mainstream position, as is being pro-Israeli. Only a tiny minority of people are anti-Palestinian or anti-Israeli.
Under international law, these places are colonies in exactly the sense you quote above, are they not? If you are trying to point out a difference vs the 18th and 19th century colonies of Britain and France, please could you explain further? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
The article colony matches the Israeli situation quite well. From the historical point of view, "colony" was the usual word used by Zionists to refer to Jewish settlements in pre-mandate Palestine. But anyway it is sources that matter here. Zerotalk 01:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
If we are playing games with wikilinks (WP is not a source) then Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that seeks to replace the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers.[1] Seems to apply on the face of it.Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a ton of sources attesting to colony being a commonly used name. A Wikipedia editor's personal dislike is of course not relevant. And the very basic misstatement as to what NPOV requires above shows the issue. It is claimed it is a NPOV violation to include views of "Pro-Palestinian writers", but NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant viewpoints. The view that these places are colonies is indeed significant and well sourced. And efforts to suppress that well sourced material are tendentious and violate the discretionary sanctions in place on this article. nableezy - 02:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile, this is not the place to discuss Israeli policies and historical comparisons. The international community use the term settlements, rather than colonies. Tombah (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@Zero, it is correct that the name colony was used by Jews in Mandatory Palestine, but it is no longer the case since 1948. Using anachronistic names might confuse our readers. Tombah (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nableezy The sources used for the term "Colonies" are all written by Arabs. We are not discriminating anyone in here, but in an article dedicated for one of the major issues of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, with the Arabs being a belligerent, its usage makes it strictly one-sided. One of the sources cited even explicitly states that this is a Palestinian term. I still haven't seen one single sources written by either Israelis or the international community in which the term "colonies" is used. I agree that as with every other Wikipedia article, this one should include all significant viewpoints - but not as part of the lead. For more information regarding how to do that, please read Wikipedia:Describing points of view. Until this issue is solved, I'm adding an unbalanced template to this article. Tombah (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
You have repeatedly included terms used by partisans within partisan camps, eg here. We include all significant views, and even if this were only used by Arabs (it is not, see end of this comment for examples), it would still merit inclusion as an alternate name. As far as the claim the sources are all written by Arabs, as though we ethnically mark our sources or dismiss sources saying things like "they are all written by Jews", that is both risible in its implication and just flat out wrong:
  • Pappé, Ilan (2015). "What Is Left of the Israeli Left? (1948–2015)". The Brown Journal of World Affairs. 22 (1). Brown Journal of World Affairs: 351–367. ISSN 1080-0786. JSTOR 24591021. Retrieved 2022-03-14. These facts are clearly irreversible. Israeli colonies have turned into urban sprawls, and the autonomous Palestinian enclaves have shrunk into inviable and unsustainable municipalities.
  • Robinson, Glenn E. (2007). "The Fragmentation of Palestine". Current History. 106 (704). University of California Press: 421–426. ISSN 0011-3530. JSTOR 45318480. Retrieved 2022-03-14. Israeli colonies in the West Bank are central to the fragmentation of Palestinian lands.
  • Dumper, Mick (2019). "The U.S. Embassy Move to Jerusalem: Mixed Messages and Mixed Blessings for Israel?". Review of Middle East Studies. 53 (1). Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA): 34–45. ISSN 2151-3481. JSTOR 26731399. Retrieved 2022-03-14. In the same vein, the U.S. move has deferred the prospect of an agreement on Jerusalem indefinitely since it appears to preempt any recognition of Palestinian counter-claims to the city, in addition to postponing negotiations over other important issues, including the evacuation of Israeli colonies or settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPts), security cooperation, and Israeli recognition of the state of Palestine. Without progress on the Jerusalem question, there can be no agreement on these other issues.
A dozen non-Arab written sources can be added on request. nableezy - 16:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Tombah the usage of colonies though sometime used is not prevalent and certainly shouldn't be appear as alternative name per WP:UNDUE also the removal of the tag was unwarranted. There are clearly WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issue --Shrike (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Supporting the above consensus against removal of a properly sourced altname. Also Unbalanced tag is inapplicable, if you think some other tag is applicable feel free to add one. Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Veracini, Lorenzo (2010). Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview. Cambridge Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies Series (reprint ed.). Basingstoke: Springer. p. 17. ISBN 9780230299191. Retrieved 2019-01-29. In this chapter, I interpret the settler colonial situation as primarily premised on the irruption into a specific locale of a sovereign collective of settlers.
The term "Israeli colonies" is indeed mostly used by Palestinians, as mentioned directly by one of the sources. It should be removed for the lead as it is an obvious WP:UNDUE. Eladkarmel (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The term "Israeli colonies" is mostly limited to certain circles, and neither used by Israel nor the international community. I agree with Tombah, Shrike and Eladkarmel; this is a WP:NPOV issue that must be resolved. Benbaruch (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest a search of the archives since this has been discussed previously as far back as 2012 (Shrike saying exactly the same thing as they are saying now) so it seems there is no real justification for overturning a long standing consensus. There are also plenty of sources that are not Palestinian. Selfstudier (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just claiming something is a NPOV violation does not make it so. It is properly sourced that "Israeli colonies" is used as another term for Israeli settlements. The claim that it is restricted to Palestinians is made without any sourcing and as such is specious. And even if it were true, it would still merit inclusion. Significant alternate names is the criteria. nableezy - 13:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Although not germane due to the ready availability of other sources, a claim was made in another place that the UN did not use the word colonies. UNCTAD's 199th plenary meeting of 2 July 1983, 146 (VI) "Gravely concerned at the ever-increasing number of Israeli colonies in the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza strip," or 1998 https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-179562/ (Habitat) ("1. Decides to use the term 'Israeli colonies in occupied territories' instead of 'Israeli settlements' in all United Nations documentation;") are a straightforward refutation of this claim.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The UN Commission on Human Settlements in 1988 decided that a resolution be put to UNGA requiring that "Israeli colonies" be used in place of "Israeli settlements" in all UN documents. Such a resolution would have passed by a wide margin but was never presented to the UNGA for reasons I didn't determine. UN documents thus usually still use "Israeli settlements". Scattered exceptions can be found, and it is fairly common to find "colonies" in speeches (and not only by Arabs). Zerotalk 07:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
See [30] Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Yep, that's the Habitat/Human Settlements one just above.Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have turned up absolutely no clear points or sources establishing that the article has major problems. Removing tag. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Settlements are not exclusively Jewish

Though most are Jewish, Arabs live in some settlements as well, according to Reuters. The line asserting the contrary should be changed. Peaux (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Now reads "almost exclusively" (+ the 2014 Reuters ref). Given the small number involved, only in East Jerusalem, this should be sufficient. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Peaux (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

short description

The way the short description is written now, it can also describe Tel Aviv, or any other city, town, etc in Israel. How is a "settlement" different? DaringDonna (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@DaringDonna: How about now? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Better, but most of the time these are not "urban" areas. They are usually quite small communities, more like villages or rural areas. DaringDonna (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
How about this? "Israeli communities in internationally disputed territory" DaringDonna (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that works too. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
No, doesn't work, the only one "disputing" it is Israel, it's occupied territory. Selfstudier (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes its occupied. By Israelis. And Palestinians. Occupied means people live there, as opposed to "unoccupied" which means no one lives there. Since Arabs and Jews both live in the West Bank, then I guess the land is "occupied." Same as everywhere else where people live. Also, it doesn't matter if the whole world thinks the land is "occupied" by "colonialists". As long as Israel and the Palestinians fight over it, it is disputed. That is what the word means. Why bring in the rest of the world, exactly? Why do you hate the word "disputed" so much, when it's obvious that is what the land is? Occupied doesn't mean anything. This article REAKS of bias it is almost laughable if lives were not at stake. "Occupied" is what those who take the Palestinian side call the land, implying that the Jews don't belong there. "Colonies" is one step further in that direction, evoking the European colonialists who sent citizens thousands of miles away to live in places everyone recognized, including the people doing the colonization, as not their land. That is unequivocally NOT what is going on with settlements in the West Bank. Even the term West Bank takes a particular point of view in favor of the Palestinians. But I have no idea how to make the world stop using the term West Bank, so I guess we are stuck with it, for now. DaringDonna (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
See West Bank, Israeli occupied territories for explanations of international law and "disputed" terminology, blah blah, explained many times to many people over the years. I'll just ignore all the WP:FORUM unsourced yada yada that I have also heard many times before, usually via the IMoFA. Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Occupied does not refer to whether people live there, it refers to the status of the territory in international law ie occupied (eg per UNSC 2334). (see West Bank "General Assembly resolution 58/292 (17 May 2004) affirmed that the Palestinian people have the right to sovereignty over the area. The International Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of Israel have ruled that the status of the West Bank is that of military occupation." and UNSC 2334 and umpteeen other relevant sources that make this clear. In international law "disputed territory" is territory where sovereignty is disputed, the occupied territory is designated as occupied, not disputed.(Only Israel thinks its disputed). Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, I recant, I didn't realize I was wading into an existing thing - I thought the short description might be causing genuine confusion. Anyway, the fully elaborated version specifying the meaning of 'occupied' in the specific context (in line with the text already in the lead) should leave no room for confusion or ambiguity. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

colonies as an alt name

"Israeli colonies" is used in countless sources to describe the, well, colonies Israel has established outside its sovereign territory. And it is simply untrue that it is only used by Palestinian sources (eg here), and when exactly did we disregard sources by ethnicity? Are Jewish Israeli sources banned here or did I miss a memo? nableezy - 20:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The only question about the use of colonies as a descriptor is the frequency, is it frequently, widely, often, sometimes, rarely used? My instinct is sometimes (perhaps more so academically due to it being a synonym), let's see if we can firm that up. Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

See our French Wikipedia article Colonies israéliennes. That is the common name in French. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure if that matters a lot but Polish main stream media uses term “colonies" ( kolonie, kolonii etc. in Polish) while referring to Israeli settlements. -->[31], [32] including liberal dayly Gazeta Wyborcza --> [33] quote --> Najbardziej jednak palestyńskie oczy kłują położone nieopodal izraelskie kolonie = However, it is the Israeli colonies located nearby that prick the Palestinian eyes the most. GizzyCatBella🍁 20:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

All names in other Wikipedia is pretty much irrelevant we english wikipedia. The term colony in English language is rarely used toward Israeli settlements as we don't use Israeli POV like "communities in Judea and Samaria" the usage of such term is clear violation of NPOV --Shrike (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

When you say 'in English language' (meaning, I guess, 'in English sources) you probably meant to state 'in English-language newspapers'. In English-language academic sources, many written by Israeli scholars, the term 'colony' as in 'colonial-settler' (state) is quite common, in keeping with the fact that historically Zionism conceived of itself as a colonial project (Jewish Colonisation Association etc.etc.etc). The word 'settlement' is an Israeli/US euphemism born of the necessity to camouflage or underplay the fact that the old ideology is still kicking (out Palestinians) for lebensraum. Other languages are not subject to the same pressures as are English mainstream sources, esp.in countries which are still mindful of their own colonial past. Euphemization is not 'neutral'.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Please clarify when you say "lebensraum" what do you mean? Shrike (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I mean what Arnold Toynbee meant by the term when he applied it to Zionism. Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't make it clear you sent me disambiguation page Shrike (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The claim that the term "colony" is rarely used is bogus and based on nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. We have provided numerous sources both using the term, in English, and defining it. Likewise, the claim that including a significant POV "is [a] clear violation of NPOV" fails the most basic reading of NPOV. Finally, we do not use "colony" in our narrative voice, we say that it is a significant alternative name. Take a look at West Bank and see very prominently displayed that Israel refers to it as Judea and Samaria, making that just the latest in completely bogus arguments that fail even the most trivial examination. nableezy - 14:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The article for the West Bank says Israel administers it as "the Judea and Samaria area". It does not say "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria", as here settlements and colonies are put forward as equivalent names. The analogous description would be to note that the settlements are considered by persons/organizations XYZ to be colonies.

Regarding how rarely it is used, this has an objective answer. See the relevant Google Ngram search. Use of "settlement" is ~73x more common than "colony" -- i.e. if one of the two is used, there's a ~99% chance it's "settlement".

For contrast, "West Bank" is only used ~12x more than "Judea and Samaria", and if one of the two is used, the probability that it will be "West Bank" is only 93%. By your logic then, it would be reasonable to rewrite the article for the West Bank to read, "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria". Peaux (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Colony is anyway a synonym. When we write Settler colonialism or Zionism as settler colonialism, the idea of colony is implicit eg Massad, Joseph (2006). "Post Colonial Colony: time, space and bodies in Palestine/Israel". The Persistence of the Palestinian Question. Routledge. ISBN 9780203965351. (notice this example does not say "Israeli colony" as used in your Ngram and nor do two of the 4 cites given in the lead, it is a very specific usage, I would think colony used in the Israel Palestine context in general is more common) That there exist some Arab settlers is exceptional but you have asked below for that to be covered and it has been done. WP:WESTBANK covers usage of Judea and Samaria so that argument is not relevant here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, colony may be used without "Israeli" when context is clear, but the same is true for "settlement". I see no reason to suggest that the ratio of unqualified "colony" to unqualified "settlement" in context is any different from the ratio of "Israeli colony" to "Israeli settlement". I've provided evidence that "settlement" is by far the more common term; you "would think" that it is not, based on no additional evidence.

In Zionism as settler colonialism, it is clear that it is one paradigm of multiple/many, not some sort of general truth. Use of "Israeli colony" as equivalent to "Israeli settlement" in this article unduly elevates the status of this one paradigm. And insofar as this paradigm is primarily associated with a particular partisan/activist camp, it seems a violation of NPOV to be taking it as given. Similarly, in Settler colonialism, it is clear that Israel being settler-colonial is the viewpoint of some academics and activists; it does not claim to be objective truth.

Whether the words are synonyms is irrelevant. (I disagree that they are, but even if they were.) Presumably you wouldn't use that argument to change Ash Wednesday to read "Ash Wednesday, or Ash Hump Day", even though the words are synonymous. The name of the holiday is "Ash Wednesday", so that's how it's referred to on Wikipedia. For a better-in-some-ways-worse-in-others example, Itô's lemma is not referred to as Itô's theorem, even though a lemma is a type of theorem. That's just not what it's called. Or the guy's name -- it would be just as accurate, if not moreso, to call him Itō, using the standard Japanese romanization scheme of today, but we use Itô instead, because that's what he used and what the literature uses.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "two of the 4 cities given in the lead".

Finally, the naming conventions for West Bank seem to support my point, not yours. Usage of unqualified "Judea and Samaria" is rightfully considered a violation of NPOV, as it's only used to refer to the West Bank by partisans. Similarly, the settlements are referred to as colonies only by partisans on the other side. Therefore the end result should be the same, that articles should not be using "Israeli colonies" without qualification to refer to the settlements, as this article does. Peaux (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

  • cites. I have nothing more to add to the discussion above.
Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
"Israeli" is not the only adjective: "Zionist" and "Jewish" are also extant prefixing terms. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I'm not sure what you mean by "cites". If you're asking for citations, I've given Ngrams, which is a more relevant data point than any number of examples of one usage or another -- data not being the plural of anecdote, as the saying goes.

Iskandar, thank you for the comment. Here is a more complete Ngram. In 2019, 6.0% of all references to any of the six bigrams in question used "colony" in, while the other 94% used "settlement". Notably, "Israeli colony" makes up only 0.3% of the total, the least common bigram of all six.

That said, I think it's a mistake to include "Jewish", since it's impossible to differentiate in the data between Jewish settlements/colonies in Palestine and those elsewhere; e.g. Jewish agricultural colonies in New Jersey or Jewish agricultural colonies in the Russian Empire (while neither of those include the particular bigram in question, it's reasonable to think it might turn up in those discussions). As far as I can tell, there seem to be fewer references to Jewish settlements that aren't in reference to Israel (even though I can imagine they might come up in work on history), but to be conservative, I'll exclude those too. Then, the new Ngram. Here, "Israeli settlements" is by far the most common, making up 95.9% of the total. Both "colony" bigrams make up 1.6%, and just "Israeli colony", which in this thread has been put forward as a commonly-used NPOV synonym for "Israeli settlements", makes up only 0.6% of the total.

Even restricting ourselves to "Zionist", which is much more common in partisan usage relative to NPOV speakers, "settlement" is used a large majority of the time, 72% to 28%.

Any way you slice this data, it is much more common to refer to them as settlements than colonies, and the phrase "Israeli colonies" specifically is one of the least common ways to refer to the settlements.

Even the UNRWA, viewed by many to be a party biased towards the Palestinian narrative of the conflict, doesn't refer to the settlements as colonies except, apparently, in a single document, once. HRW also uses "settlements" and not "colonies". The AP, Reuters, BBC, &c. use "settlements", not "colonies". Happy to provide citations for any of those.

Even the UN as a whole, which many allege to be systemically biased against Israel, seems to use "settlements" much more often than "colonies" (in English). I can't share the search link, but using their Official Document System, I get 500(+?) hits for "Israeli settlements" (full-text search, English, "find this phrase") and only 33 for "Israeli colonies" (in the same box with the same settings). That's, at most, 6.2%. For a similar heuristic, see International law and Israeli settlements, where there are no usages of colony/colonial/colonize/&c. outside of quotes/references, and no uses of "colony" or "colonies" at all. Contrast the 204 uses of "settlement(s)" in the same article.

So, all in all, I find no evidence in favor of the claim that "Israeli colonies" is a commonly-used synonym for "Israeli settlements". Even if I accept the argument that it's non-partisan when it is used (which I don't, but it's very difficult to quantify that, at least on mobile and/or in my free time), I see no justification for it to be used as a synonym in the article. With all that plus the NPOV concerns, I maintain it should be struck. Peaux (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, just reread, I see what you meant by "cites". Peaux (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Id just as soon remove "Israeli" and just say also known as colonies. They are commonly referred to as colonies by itself. nableezy - 00:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Not from what is perceived to be a NPOV in the English language, as I have shown. Peaux (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That isnt what ALTNAMEs are based on, see WP:ALTNAME. We are supposed to include all significant POVs, and the POV of the Palestinians that these are colonies is significant. nableezy - 06:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Then the lede of West Bank should read "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria", in order to include all significant POVs. Instead, it has been (rightly) decided that that was not NPOV, and so it was moved to a later sentence describing that some refer to is as such and such. We're going in circles here. Peaux (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
WB has nothing to do with this discussion, that circle can be closed. Selfstudier (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I bring it up as useful precedent. The cases are similar, so it seems reasonable to adopt the same conclusion -- especially because those guidelines were developed as a result of arbitration. Peaux (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
It isn't a precedent. Selfstudier (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
You have made no argument in favor of that claim, instead simply asserting that
  • "WP:WESTBANK covers usage of Judea and Samaria so that argument is not relevant here",
  • "WB has nothing to do with this discussion", and
  • "It isn't a precedent."
It is a case where one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict refers to something one way, and the other another. It went to arbitration, where it was decided to use the most common term, and to restrict usage of the partisan term "Judea and Samaria" to specific uses. Here, we have another case where one side of the conflict refers to something one way, and the other another. It seems common-sense to adopt the same remedy -- i.e. use the most common term, and restrict usage of the partisan term to specific uses. Peaux (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't need to make an argument, WP:WESTBANK is the argument. Selfstudier (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Then you're saying nothing. I don't understand what you're trying to say, so it is pointless for you to keep bringing the same point up if you refuse to clarify what you mean by it. Peaux (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't need to clarify WP:WESTBANK and I still have no idea why you are bringing it up. Selfstudier (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I have detailed exactly why I am bringing it up, multiple times. You have made no argument as to why you claim it is incorrect to do so. Peaux (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Because I don't need to, WB has nothing to do with Israeli colonies. Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, re Selfstudier's point above about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead"), sure, but we're specifically talking about what the name of these things is -- it doesn't matter what they actually are or what they are considered to be, only what they're called. Maybe "Israeli colonies" is more accurate, but if they aren't referred to by that name, then the article shouldn't claim the contrary. Peaux (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Another data point: 18,300 hits versus 471 on Google Scholar (2.5%). Peaux (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The exact weighting is rather besides the point. Both terms exist and have scholarly usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Then why should we include "Israeli colonies" and exclude "Jewish settlements", "Jewish colonies", "Zionist settlements", and "Zionist colonies", all of which are used more frequently than "Israeli colonies"? Also, I wouldn't consider ~500 papers to be much in the way of "scholarly usage". Peaux (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is missing the point. Of course it is not as commonly used as Israeli settlement, which is why the article is titled Israeli settlement. If it were as commonly used than we would be arguing that the title be changed. ALTNAMEs is about including significant alternate names, not about supposedly neutral ones. nableezy - 06:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
about reference to the settlement project as a colonial one (their "two of the 4 cites given in the lead") that's not what I said, I said that 2 of the 4 cites use "colony" alone although it is clear from the context that they are referring to Israeli settlements. One says "Jewish settlements (colonies)" and the other that they are known (less euphemistically) to Palestinians as colonies. Settler colonialism in an Israeli/Palestinian context is a separate but related point "Many scholars have also conducted monograph length research that expands the spaces studied under the moniker "settler colony" to include Israeli settlements in the West bank". Taken together, I think this results in Israeli colonies (or just colonies) constituting a valid alternative name and I do not support that being removed from the intro. Selfstudier (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. "Jewish settlements (colonies)" is not the same thing as "Jewish colonies". You could describe me as "Peaux (John's son)", but that does not mean that "Peaux Johnson" is a valid alternate name for me -- no one calls me that, because it isn't my name. A descriptor is not the same as a name. You have given plenty of evidence that there is scholarship that considers the settlements to be colonies, the Zionist project to be a settler-colonial one, &c. We already knew that. What is under dispute is whether "Israeli colony" is a commonly-used name for the Israeli settlements. On this point you have provided no evidence, and I have provided plenty against. Of course, the fact that they are considered as such should be mentioned in the article, but not as an alternate name. Peaux (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I suggest we wait and see what other editors might want to say, at the moment you have not consensus for your view. Selfstudier (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Are there going to be any other editors? It seems to just be the four of us who care about this. Peaux (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
It's a well watched article, people may chip in. If they do not, one might assume they are content with the status quo. Selfstudier (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
If you lived in a society where that was still the naming convention, then yes, you absolutely would be 'Peaux Johnson', just like how if you were in Russia you would be Peaux Ivanovich. But more importantly, you seems to be getting confused between proper names and descriptions. Here, everything is descriptive, i.e.: both "Jewish settlements" and "Jewish colonies" in your example. Neither of these terms are proper names; both are in the same category of descriptive phrase. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
And if this were French Wikipedia, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, as they would be uncontroversially referred to as colonies. But we're on English Wikipedia, and I don't live in a society that uses patronymics. Regarding "names" versus descriptions, I see nothing in MOS:ALTNAME that suggests this is the case: "These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." This seems to fit none of those cases, nor does it seems similar. In WP:POVNAMING: "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." As I have shown in this discussion, this alternate name is not widely used in English sources. It continues, "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue"; the use of "Israeli colonies" clearly suggests a particular viewpoint. It takes the view that they are colonies as given, rather than as a subject of debate (in violation of WP:IMPARTIAL). Hence my proposed remedy of describing the claim as in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV rather than putting it forward as NPOV, which it is not. Peaux (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
But it is widely used, objectively, i.e.: in hundreds of scholarly sources. So yes: "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." You said it yourself. The text you are quoting points out that just because a term may be 'biased', or in your opinion POV, does not rule against it. NPOV requires that we reflect all reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hundreds is not "widely" when the sample space is tens of thousands. There are 28 million Christians in India -- by any measure, a lot -- and yet it would be wholly inaccurate to refer to India as a largely Christian country, just because there are a lot of them. They are a very small proportion of the population.
You are using "objectively" and "subjectively" incorrectly. Both absolute and proportional metrics are objective measures. Neither are subjective.
So yes, if "Israeli colonies" were the most common name for the settlements, even if some believed it to be biased or partisan, then that policy says we should use it. But it isn't widely used, so the "even though" clause is irrelevant. Peaux (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Of course you may edit as you see fit but I would be interested to know why it is that you have such an interest in this issue? About a fifth of your total 94 edits are now here. (btw, canvassing other editors as you did here is not the done thing.) Selfstudier (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't. It just appears that way because this is the first issue I've had with an article that I haven't been able to fix myself, so I had to step into the talk page to join what is now clearly, let's say, a spirited discussion.
And yeah, I wasn't sure about that. It felt like there were only the same few voices here, so I wasn't sure if anyone else would see this (as I mentioned earlier). What is the done thing here, if no new editors step into the discussion? I see various options, but I don't know in what situations exactly those are used. Peaux (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
What is the done thing here, if no new editors step into the discussion? As I said, given that this is a well watched page (378 page watchers), it is reasonable to assume they are not that interested or at any rate, not interested enough to want to participate.
You could post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration but tbh, I think your time might be better spent racking up the necessary 500 edits that would allow you to participate constructively in this topic area. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are simply juggling dubious analogies and shifting goalposts at this point. No one is claiming it is the most common name, not have they done. It is an alternative name, this is all. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
You're right, I wrote incorrectly. I'll restate.
Yes, if "Israeli colonies" were a common name for the settlements, even if some believed it to be biased or partisan, then that policy suggests we should use it. But it isn't widely used, so the "even though" clause is irrelevant.
Regarding your comment that "NPOV requires that we reflect all reliable sources": I have no problem noting that such and such people/organizations/movements/whatever believe that the settlement project should be considered a colonial one, or that the settlements should be called colonies, or however you want to put it. That is an accurate reflection of reality. Using "Israeli colonies" as an alternate name is not. Peaux (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Tombah: You very much did not participate in this discussion, let alone achieve any consensus for this removal - what exactly do you think you are up to? You need to look (at talk) before you leap, and an outcome here was not concluded. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Risible edit, though I modified it to just also known as colonies per the cited sources. The sources are clear they are almost exclusively Jewish, and the pretending that oh Israel is a state of all its citizens and all of them can live in the villages of Judea and Samaria is just that. So is the change on recognition of the Golan on being Syrian territory. nableezy - 16:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

place Template:lead too long at top. Mach61 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli settlements map should be updated

under the 37th governments of Israel there has been a dramatic increase in settlements and legalization of outposts https://peacenow.org.il/en/%D9%8Dsettlements-map-2023 Monochromemelo1 (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

An article was recently published with significant new arguments relevant to this topic. I suggest changing the following sentence: "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[135] has disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." to read "The scholar and jurist Eugene Rostow[135] and others[136] have disputed the illegality of authorized settlements." The reference that I have labeled [136] is to the following article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/israeli-settlements-are-not-illegal Israelgale (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline. An opinion piece in Tablet (such a neutral source) is presenting new arguments? There are no new arguments, just endlessly recycled old arguments (by Kontorovich, among others). Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2023

Change (update) the 2020 OCHA West Bank settlements map (the first image visible on the page) to the 2023 version.

It is available here: https://www.ochaopt.org/content/west-bank-access-restrictions-may-2023 Jefeljefe (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Melmann 08:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Boilerplate "illegal" comment on every settlement article in Wikipedia

After reviewing some recent protection requests, I noticed that every settlement article in Wikipedia appears to use the same boilerplate paragraph in the lede with regards to the international community's views on settlements and Israel's stance. Certainly this topic should be covered in this article, but it seems a bit heavy handed to stamp it on every individual settlement article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

That came as a result of WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. As far as heavy handed, its often the most noteworthy thing about any of these settlements, and sources such as the BBC have a policy of including such a statement every time a settlement is even mentioned. nableezy - 19:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
To support Nab on this, it is only one sentence and without this convention many articles on settlements would have a much larger section on the illegality. The illegality is a notable feature of every settlement so to have some mention in every such article is reasonable. Our convention actually reduces the total. Zerotalk 00:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_settlement/Archive_13&oldid=1219380833"