Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Shuki (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
11,955 edits
'comment'
Line 202: Line 202:
:::::The third 'reversion' is not a reversion at all, merely a copyedit. And saying that the 2nd 'reversion' is a reversion of my own 'Reversion #1'? Do you even know what 1RR means? I guess not. --[[User:Shuki|Shuki]] ([[User talk:Shuki|talk]]) 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::The third 'reversion' is not a reversion at all, merely a copyedit. And saying that the 2nd 'reversion' is a reversion of my own 'Reversion #1'? Do you even know what 1RR means? I guess not. --[[User:Shuki|Shuki]] ([[User talk:Shuki|talk]]) 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::Final comment? <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:ZScarpia | ZScarpia]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::Final comment? <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User talk:ZScarpia | ZScarpia]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Please tell me about what? Commenting quite civily about the English comprehension of other editors here, you brought to this discussion about including the line about 'no new settlements' many bits of information about Migron and Shvut Rachel that are not relevant to the discussion and I was going to ask you what you are commenting on. And if you asking about something else, than my friendly final comment is that you should take that into consideration that everyone in this section will be sanctioned including you if you keep up with the battleground mentality. --[[User:Shuki|Shuki]] ([[User talk:Shuki|talk]]) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:34, 26 March 2012


Demographics

I haven't found in the resources the data of the just 2300 Jews in East Jerusalem in 1948. According to the data in Demographics of Jerusalem the population in the whole Jerusalem was of 100 000 Jews, 40 000 Muslims and 25 000 Christians in the same year. --Enkiduk (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible for any of the land on the West Bank to be 'Palestinian' owned? The land was annexed, ilegally, by Jordan in 1948 and handed to the PLO sometime after the 1967 War, again, illegally. Palestine has never existed as a separate, legal state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.26.148 (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements as colonies

Thank you, Shrike, for engaging in this discussion and for referring me to the “Due and undue weight” section of the Wikipedia NPOV advice. If you look a little further down on the NPOV page you will find the section on “Good research” which advises “Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles,...” This is what I have done (in line with the suggestion on this talk page on 20 Nov 2011). Any similar investigation would indicate to you that the settlements have quite commonly been characterised as colonies over a significant time period in a wide range of fields, as diverse as architecture, critical theory, cultural studies, geography, planning, peace and conflict studies, politics, social theory, as well as in non-academic discourse. This discussion is an important part of the discussion of Israeli settlements in Palestine and should be addressed.

I am not sure what you meant by “so accessible to me references don't say that settlement= colony.”? However to reassure you I have cited a definition of settlement as colony. (Baltzer, 2007:391)

Wikipedia NPOV also advises that “it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use” and I hope we can do this in a scholarly manner, introducing the idea with a single word in the introduction and expanding it in later section, with an appropriate heading. I have replaced the reference to settlements as colonies and hope this will enable us to begin to properly represent discussion of the use of the word “colony” in the contexts of Israeli settlements.

I hope that you will contribute to this section by providing material which will help improve this article remembering that “Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes.”


We also need to work together to improve this article in both organisation and reliability – there are too many assertions inadequately supported, for example does the definition of settlement as “civilian community” adequately areas such as Barkan near Salfit which is in effect an industrial settlement? This definition of Israeli settlement is not supported by any reference or citation so I think it is unreasonable to exclude the alternative description which is well supported. And most if not all of the settlement/colonies on the West Bank are populated by members of the Israeli military and are more heavily armed than any normal civilian community. Miriel2012 (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it shame that you didn't answered my question on the talk page. So I will ask it here too: “Did you ever edited Wikipedia under different user name?”. Second you was reverted so you instead of engaging in edit war that you currently are you should have used a talk page and only after reaching a consensus you should do any change please read wp:brd and kindly revert yourself.Third most of the sources use term Jewish settlement only minority of sources use term colony so per WP:UNDUE it shouldn't be in the lead. We could make a section how anti-Zionist and New Historian circles term Israeli civilian communities and Judea and Samaria but thier view is a minority view.--Shrike (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Miriel2012, setting aside the question regarding Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which you should answer on your talk page rather than here and the WP:BRD issue (which another user needs reminding of at Talk:State of Palestine, Talk:Palestinian territories and Talk:Gaza Strip), I think you are going about things the wrong way around. If you think the article should discuss the colonization/colony aspect (and I think it should), you should develop the article content first and leave the lead alone for the time being. The lead is both a summary of the article body and it should include significant alternative names per WP:LEAD. Since there is no content in the article body about this and nothing to indicate whether colony is a significant alternative term I don't think the term belongs in the lead right now. The article Settler colonialism may be of interest if you haven't seen it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, I don't think someone like Rassem Khamaisi at the University of Haifa could be described as either an anti-Zionist or a New Historian even though he uses the term colonies. He's an Urban and Regional planner and Geographer. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But as I understand its more political term so WP:RS should be backed by political scientist?--Shrike (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's circular reasoning because it's based on the premise that colony is a political term. It's a bit like arguing that using a word is a sin therefore the sources discussing the word should be religious studies experts. Khamaisi, who I think is clearly a reliable source, isn't using the term in a politically charged way, he's using it as a geographer, but others do as you say. I think the politicization of the word for many is just one aspect of it in this context. This chapter in A companion to postcolonial studies has some useful background on the terminology. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Mirel2012 is not answering and not participating in talk moreover there is no consensus to include this word in the lead until there would be appropriate section in the the article that will solve the problem of WP:UNDUE I will delete this word. --Shrike (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

I see that everything was removed. I have to disagree with "rv per WP:LINKFARM and WP:EL. the onus is on whoever wants to include to explain why all these links are necessary". Editors can't just remove everything from an article section and then put the onus on others to justify restoration. It works both ways. Removals need to be justified too. Some of those links may be okay and so their removal is potentially not okay. I suggest restoring it and working through it to remove the non-compliant links. There's no rush. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to find out which links are OK and restore those. The onus, as is usual practice in wikipedia, is on those who want to add or restore the information. That there "may be" some okay links in there is not a good enough reason to restore the whole linkfarm. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the onus is on those who wish to remove this material. The links will be restored.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:Linkfarm?--Shrike (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or WP:ONUS? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so what you are saying is that each link from any article must have a justification? Where can I find this justification in any article? You are saying that if I go to any article i choose, and do not find a justification I can delete all the links, and the onus is on others to provide a justification as to why the links should be included. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of map

A map showing Israeli settlements was removed here: [1], edit summary "20 year old map" but this is not a valid reason to remove the map. It shows Israeli settlements in the area as of 1992 and I am not aware of any newer map, and its presented as Israeli settlements as of 1992 and im not sure that new settlements has even been created there after 1992. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish civilian communities

I can't understand why we can't just be honest about the nature of the settlement communities. I would be grateful if anyone trying to remove this phrase would explain what the issue is.

This is from the Israeli government website. [2] After the 1967 Six-Day War, the areas of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, as well as the Sinai peninsula, came under Israeli control. In the 1970s, a group called Gush Emunim dedicated itself to the establishment of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the biblical Land of Israel and the places where events recounted in the Bible took place. After a protracted struggle, the government finally permitted settlement in these areas, until then populated solely by Arabs, and by the mid-1990s some 150,000 Jews lived in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Dlv999 (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to use a source that describes what wanted to be done 45 years ago to describe the current status quo?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you put "wanted" in quotation marks to imply that it was included in the source when it obviously is not. The source is dated 2002 and describes "Jewish Settlement in the Land of Israel" up to the 21 century. Dlv999 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not put "wanted" in quotation marks, I italicized the word for emphasis. But you unfortunately missed the point anyway. The source you are trying to utilize describes what the Gush Emunim "dedicated" (that's a quote, BTW) itself to do. You can't use that source to claim as the status quo.. As an analogy, yesterday I said to myself that I won't be editing Wikipedia again. But that does not mean I am not editing Wikipedia today even though I am telling you today what I wanted to do yesterday.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the second half of the quote: After a protracted struggle, the government finally permitted settlement in these areas, until then populated solely by Arabs, and by the mid-1990s some 150,000 Jews lived in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. the title of the piece is "Jewish Settlement in the Land of Israel". Dlv999 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am still waiting for a source that says Israeli settlements are for Jews only. Your implications and historic factoids do not suffice.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone shed any light on the IPs statement "non jews can and do live in settlements" ? Does one of the larger settlements have a Chinatown ? The Canadian IP 174.113.154.168 appears to be on a very important mission from multiple IPs (e.g. 99.237.236.218), and they have already filed a report at ANI as new editors usually do, so they may not have the time to elaborate on the edit summary. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your latter point first, the IP is most likely a sock of a banned editor. On your first point, the burden is on the proponent to prove that the settlements are by law exclusively for Jewish citizens of Israel. Israeli law prohibits this type of --discrimination so I would be surprised this would be the law. In this source describing the racism faced by some Arab citizens that moved into a settlement we can discern that by law they are not disallowed from moving in. Indeed, the source describes how "1,300 of Pisgat Zeev's 42,000 residents [are] Arabs." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your confusing the issue a bit here. To say that settlements are Jewish communities does not necessarily mean that it is the law that makes them Jewish communities, there could be any number of reasons - racism for instance. Also your source says that "Majlaton is a Palestinian" not an Israeli, so if this is the source you are relying on your own proposed solution is inaccurate. Dlv999 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the source is sufficient to show that "a Jewish civilian community" is imprecise in at least one case though so perhaps there is room for improvement in the wording/sourcing. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Jewish civilian community is a defining characteristic. As a thought experiment, let's just say that all the Jews moved out of Pisgat Zeev, would it remain an Israeli settlement, or would it simply be a Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem under Israeli occupation? Also, the source does not use the word "settlement" so it is unclear whether or not the source feels that Pisgat Zeev is a settlement or not. Dlv999 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its a WP:REDFLAG issue so we need a good WP:RS for it--Shrike (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow the most common term is Israeli settlement obviously.--Shrike (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify Shrike, are you suggesting the first sentence of the lead should be an Israeli settlement is an Israeli settlement...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best option would be without any qualifier I am also OK with "Israeli civilian community" --Shrike (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, maybe I can help. If I understood Shrike correctly, the suggestion is the first sentence of the lead should be an Israeli settlement is an Israeli civilian community..., replacing the current word "Jewish" with "Israeli". Aslbsl (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not only my suggestion but of other editors too becouse there are many non Jews that lives in settlements too.--Shrike (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, do you have an RS for this claim? Dlv999 (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike should look for a reference anyway, but is there a RS saying that only Jews live there? Aslbsl (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently looking for RS to support the statement an Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community... so far I have two:-
  1. Kathleen Uradnik, Lori A. Johnson (2009), pg 338 [3] "An Israeli settlement is a Jewish community on land that was captured by Israel during the Six-Day War."
  2. Mark Tessler (2009), pg 469 [4] "The government also began to construct Jewish neighborhoods in former Arab areas, some of which were explicitly designed to give newly acquired sections of the city more Jewish character, and some of which were intended to create a physical barrier between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. Another set of modifications in the postwar territorial situation involved the construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, in addition to those associated with Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.....Settlement activity after the June War was also undertaken by Israelis committed to permanent retention of the West Bank and Gaza. These Israelis referred to the the former territory by Biblical designations of Judea and Samaria, terms employed for the deliberate purpose of asserting that the territorial claims of Jews predate those of Arabs, and also to create subtle but important symbolic distinction between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank...... these Israelis sought to construct civilian communities that would create a Jewish demographic presence in the occupied areas..." Dlv999 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is a school text book so scratch that. The second source does not add anything we don't know already. The intention was to "Judaize" the areas of Judea and Samaria, of course. However the description of a settlement cannot go by what it was intended to be. The fact is (as seen in the newspaper article about Pisgat Zev) settlements are not Jewish civilian communities, but Israeli civilian communities. This elementary fact has been explained a whole bunch of times already. Please review WP:DEADHORSE and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your Pisgat Zev newspaper report does not mention settlements as I have already pointed out. It refers to a "Jerusalem neighborhood of Pisgat Zeev" that was "built for Jews". The question is, does the fact of Palestinian presence in a neighborhood "built for Jews", mean that it is no longer classed as a settlement. It seems the source believes so, because it never calls Pisget Zev a settlement. It is your own synth that this is a settlement with Palestinian inhabitants. Also your source says that Pisgat Zeev has "Palestinian" residents, so it certainly can't be used to justify the "Israeli civilian community" claim. Dlv999 (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I am having a hard time finding any indication that non-Jews live in these settlements. Of course, Messianic Jews are often not considered Jews by Israeli law and are present in the settlements, but I do not think that should really be considered since most non-Jews consider them Jewish to an extent. The only mentions I can find of other groups mention workers or guards with no indication of whether they live there or commute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Pisgat Zeev example was already brought--Shrike (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an East Jerusalem settlement should be considered too meaningful in this case. There are no clear boundaries with the East Jerusalem settlements like there are with the West Bank settlements and the Jewish community reacted with some hostility towards even that small number of Arabs moving there. It should be noted further that these are not Arab settlers from some other part of Israel, but people living nearby.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also it has already been noted that the article does not call Pisgat Zeev a settlement. The RS refers to it as a neighborhood. Claims that this is proof of Palestinians living in settlements are pure synth. Dlv999 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it helps much, but interestingly, if you look at 2.7 Localities and Population, by District, Sub-District, Religion and Population Group from the Statistical Abstract of Israel 2010, there is a demographic breakdown for "Judea and Samaria", total pop=296,700 of which 289,900 are classified as Jews -> 97.7%. I'm curious who the 2.3% are. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe American Christians [5] [6]? Tiamuttalk 17:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This statistic doesn't include East Jerusalem and Golan.Btw my guess it may be a not-Jews that were brought to Israel because the Law of Return--Shrike (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a smattering of sources that discuss the settlements as "Jewish settlements": BBC1, BBC2, The Independent, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Le Figaro, New York Times, Israel Today and Prime Minister Netanyahu, quoted in the Jerusalem Post. The two French sources say "colonies juives" which is "Jewish colonies" to be exact. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking maybe we should preface it with "predominantly" to account for the very small minority who may be non-Jews. That or we could reword it to emphasize that they are intended to be settled by Jews exclusively, I imagine sourcing would not be difficult in that respect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion saying they are "Jewish communities" does not mean there is necessarily 100% Jews. 97.7% Jewish is a Jewish community - there are just occasional non-Jews living in a Jewish community. But more importantly, there are RS that refer to them as "Jewish settlements". Unless someone has a source that directly contradicts the sources using "Jewish settlement" I don't see that there is justification for a change. So far all that has been produced is the Pisgat Zeev article - but it does not call Pisgat Zeev a settlement, it calls it a neighborhood, so it is synth to try to use this as proof of non-jews living in settlements. Dlv999 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@TDA. I support your "predominantly" (or any other similar wording) but am unable to find a specific source in support of such wording despite the fact that it's the truth. If you are aware of any such source please do share. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a source using that exact word. A source that verifies the claim is sufficient. If someone looks at a source that shows a demographic breakdown of the settlements and it clearly demonstrates the validity of the word then WP:V has been satisfied.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nation of citizenship of 100% of the settlers? Hcobb (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DC. I don't see how your sources change anything. Googling the phrase "Jewish settlement" will undoubtedly churn out lots of news articles. However try googling "Israeli settlements" and you'll get plenty more. The latter term is the actual name of the article, is more neutral, and is not in conflict with any sources. Therefore the opening description should remain "Israelis" instead of "Jews." They yellow badging is unnecessary and not as consistent with the sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to me a single source that conflicts with "Jewish civilian communities". We know they are Israeli settlements, that is why the article is called Israeli settlement. Describing the Jewish character of the settlements adds more information per cited sources. I am yet to see a source that contradicts the claim. As pointed out the Pisgat Zeev article does not refers to Pisgat Zeev as a neighborhood, it is your own synth that to use this for claims about settlements. Also it refers to "Palestinian" residents not Arab Israelis. Dlv999 (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Israeli communities in the Judea and Samaria Area are not exclusive of non-Jews. Xians in Ariel. --Shuki (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many followers of Messianic Judaism live in the settlements...I assume that is what the family in the article follow. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The target of the Ariel bombing is a non-Jewish pastor who visits followers in the surrounding Arab villages. I couldn't quickly find much about messianics, and the congregations listed on the net are in the big cities, with only one mailing address in M Adumim. But I know that more info could be found on blogs and other non-RS sites. On top of that, while the two Haredi cities of Modiin and Beitar Illit are virutally Jewish only by nature, as well as the vast majority of the religious villages, the other two non-religious cities of messianic and Maale Adumim have sizable ex-pat Russian and Ukranian immigrants. Though not the majority, there is nonetheless many mixed marriages of Jews and non-Jews. I wouldn't bother to talk about the Jerusalem neighbourhoods in the context of this discussion but you would, and that would definitely contradict the claim that settlements are homogeneous Jewish communities, especially given the somewhat recent trend of middle class Arab Israelis moving into places like French Hill. --Shuki (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to RS, the victims of the Ariel bombing, the Ortiz family are Messianic Jews The Ortizes are Jews who believe that Jesus was the Messiah.. Here is another RS discussing the Ortiz family's messianic Judaism [7]. I would be interested to know if you have any RS that would conflict with the statement that "Israeli settlements are Jewish civilian communities". Also, the Arabs living in places like French Hill are not Israelis, they are Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. Dlv999 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for destroying your credibility. You demand an RS from me and then make a statement that is at best a generalization but most likely completely inaccurate. --Shuki (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the cited RS for the French Hill article you linked in your previous post. e.g. "The trigger for these movements has been the construction of the West Bank security barrier in and around Jerusalem. "One effect of the barrier is the movement of tens of thousands of Palestinians from outside Jerusalem to inside municipal Jerusalem. We know about such cases, especially in Neveh Ya'acov, Pisgat Ze'ev, Armon Hanatziv and East Talpiot," says Haim Ehrlich, coordinator of policy and advocacy at Ir Amim, an NGO that promotes equality among Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem. "Why? It's very simple," says Ehrlich. "Firstly, the Palestinian neighborhoods in east Jerusalem are very overcrowded and are therefore becoming very expensive. Secondly, the quality of life is much better in Jewish neighborhoods. We're speaking about basic facilities like garbage [collection] and public services. For Palestinians who are educated and middle class, it's better for them to pay an extra $50 or $100 a month for a much better standard of living." Ziad Al-Hamouri, head of the Jerusalem Center for Economic and Social Rights, concurs: "All the pressure put on the shoulders of the Palestinians because of the wall is frightening people that their [Israeli] identity cards will be taken away [if they live outside the barrier]. This is what is behind the movements."[8]. Or you could read the Pisgat Zeev article already linked and discussed in this thread [9] Dlv999 (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brewcrewer, would you then propose to say that "Israeli settlements are Israeli settlements"? I think the point here is that the first sentence of the lead should describe the settlements in terms that add a bit of colour to the title of the article. I provided a list of RS that call them "Jewish settlements" and we know also that they were explicitly founded as "Jewish" on order to Judaize the occupied territories (there are RS to this effect too). Therefore it's slightly beside the point if 5% of the inhabitants are in fact non-Jewish. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. More reading material on non-Jews living in Israeli settlements:

The first source there is a Wikipedia article, the second one discusses one non-Jewish person and the third link points to an index. As a related point, I don't see in this thread any arguments as to why a settlement with, say, 95% Jews isn't a "Jewish settlement". "Jewish settlement" isn't the same as "100.0% Jewish settlement". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can resolve both of our problems by simply stating something along the lines that is is "predominantly Jewish." I just can't seem to find the sourcing for that or any similar wording. Regardless, we can't use vaguely written newspaper articles headlines to support the opening sentence of an encyclopedia article when it is factually incorrect, as demonstrated by the abundant sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I don't think we need sources for that wording. It is possible to find primary sources about the demographic make up of each community in Israel. DC, in the past, I had cataloged the religious settlements as such. In essence, these are the 'Jewish settlements' because they are maintained according to the Torah while other non-religious settlements are secular. We might also get into the discussion about whether the Jewish descriptor is suggesting a lifestyle, culture, national description, or demographic religion status. --Shuki (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki AND brewcrewer are cheating the rules. Off course you must have a source for your changes. You IN ADDITION must have consensus. You have no source and no consensus, but you cheat your change in to the article's lede. That is against the rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a good academic source on this :- "The accelerated development of community settlements in the Galilee and the Negev (and later in the West Bank) symbolized the deepening spatial separation, not only between Jews and Arabs but also between different groups within Jewish society. The “gray” areas of law could be exploited to enable the state to prevent Arab citizens from living in community settlements, and communities themselves to select members. The selection process and the relatively high prices made these settlements into Jewish, middle -, and upper-class communities. In addition, many of the projects of community settlements in the Galilee and the Negev came to a large extent at the expense of the Palestinian population, as they were built on land expropriated (or in dispute), were exclusively Jewish and were not matched by Arab new settlements. (Pg 59)
"The war of 1967 opened to Israeli society new spaces for settlement in the occupied territories. The national-religious movement of Gush Emunim was convinced that the 1967 war was an act of God and from the mid-1970s onward made the West Bank the preferred frontier of settlement. National and territorial ideas that characterized Zionism since its inception now combined with messianic ideas to create mechanisms of settlement driven by religious conception, supported by the government, especially after the political revolution of 1977. In less than twenty years Israeli governments established over 130 community settlements in the occupied territories. In fact, the settlements copied the typical “yishuv kehilati” – the Jewish suburb of the Galilee and the Negev." Pg 65 [10]; Text can be viewed at google Books [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlv999 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dlv, I hope you really don't think we are idiots. We brought evidence from RS showing that the settlements are in fact not exclusively Jewish, so there is no point in bringing claims which are in fact false. Brewcrewer suggested a compromise and you are showing that you cannot be a collaborative partner in editing this article. --Shuki (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit when I see someone posting a wikipedia page about Jewish immigration to Israel to "prove" that non-Jews live in settlements I start to wonder. Arutz sheva is not a reliable source and in any case the story is unclear whether the individual legitimately immigrated to Israel through Jewish ancestry or fraudulently immigrated in which case he will presumably face deportation. The final link does not lead to a story. I have already pointed out the holes in the Pisgat Zeev source, which no-one has addressed. 1) the source does not refer to settlements (that is the SYNTH of editors) 2) the source refers to Palestinian residents not Arab Israelis, so cannot be used to support "Israeli civilian communities". Another claimed source turned out to be about a family of messianic Jews. If I have missed any of the claimed sources please point them out - but it seems to me that the paucity of evidence presented shows that you are really scrapping around the bottom of the barrel on this one. I have provided a cast iron academic source and you refuse to even acknowledge it. Dlv999 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. So, er, right. Wikipedia will claim that all settlements are 100% Jewish because you found two very poor sources that don't say it either. Maybe we can assume that most if not all settlements were founded by Jews (please bring source), but reality shows that they are no longer exclusively Jewish (again, you ignored my suggestion asking if 'Jewish' is a religion or a culture). You have not brought any sources claiming that 'Israeli settlements' are exclusively Jewish and therefore your continued reverting of the first line of the article is POV and your OR. --Shuki (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that people are ignoring references that have been provided here that showed non-Jews living in Israeli settlements. People are coming here with their minds made up about what they want to believe, and even when the references prove otherwise, they ignore them. How can you try to build consensus with people being so uncollaborative? The sources have clearly showed that non-Jews live in the settlements, so calling them Jewish settlements is obviously misleading. Any uninformed reader who sees that phrase will conclude that only Jews are allowed to live in the settlements. As the sources have shown, this is false. It's really quite simple. 99.237.3.66 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in different countries use the term "Jewish settlements", so I don't see what the problem is using the term here. Even Netanyahu uses "Jewish settlements". Some of the discussion here sounds like people trying to explain the sources away. That's not what we're supposed to do, rather we should write in articles what sources say. Whether non-Jews live there isn't the point. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can always opt for saying Jewish (97.7% in 2010) or something along those lines. That figure is just for the West Bank, but you get the idea. We could opt for precision. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sean. we need more of your level-headedness here. Brewcrewer already suggested a compromise "predominantly Jewish.". That is fine with me as well. --Shuki (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, no new settlements have been established in the occupied territories.[16]"

The above statement currently appears in the lead with a single unattributed citation to the ADL website [12].

I have done a little digging and there are numerous significant opinions published in RS that contradict the claim:-

  1. In the past few months, Israeli settlement agencies and settler organizations have set up the nuclei of three dozen new settlements, according to two Israeli groups that monitor construction and oppose the program. A Western diplomat estimated the number at 40. The Washington Post, 2002
  2. Gordan, Neve (University of California Press, 2008) pg 193 [13]
  3. Joel Beinin, Rebecca L. Stein (Stanford University Press; 2006) pg 188-189 [14]
  4. Mehran Kamrava (University of California Press, 2011) pg 247 [15]
  5. Since 1993, Israel has established thirty new settlements in the Occupied Territories. Seventeen of these were established just prior to and after the signing of the Wye Memorandum. B'tselem (1999)
  6. The Israeli group Peace Now says Israel has built several new settlements since Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took power. CBC, 2004
  7. Haaretz news report on Israeli government legalisation of illegal settler outposts built since 1993 (2011)

In my opinion at the very least, the claim should be attributed to the ADL and all significant opinions published in RS should also be presented. Dlv999 (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that, rather than having the article say that the ADL says that no new settlements have been built whereas other sources say that is not true, the line should just be deleted. There's no date on the ADL source, so the chances are that the validity of the statement has expired with the passage of time. The only other likelihood is that the ADL is maintaining that any new building has involved expanding existing settlements rather than establishing new ones (or, as Zero has pointed out below, the ADL may be using a restrictive definition of what a settlement is - 13:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)). The Lead is supposed to summarise the detail, yet nowhere in the rest of the article is it claimed that no new settlements have been established since the Oslo accords.     ←   ZScarpia   12:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, deletion of the line is the best option at present. There is a section at the bottom of the article on "new settlement construction". If this issue is to be included in the article it should be introduced to this section in a balanced way, per RS. Dlv999 (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on here is spin regarding the word "settlement". Most of the new settlements are called "illegal outposts" by the Israeli government (which nevertherless supports almost all of them), so people like the ADL can pretend they don't count. Zerotalk 12:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The misunderstanding is the continued vague use of the term 'settlements'. The line should stay in but clarified if you have a better source. It is similar to leaving in all the sources who make claims about the tens of roadblocks that maybe existed during the 2000s but don't anymore, and there are no good sources to confirm that either with the current number. I think actually that the Israeli government has not recognized new settlements since 2001? I cannot recall the actual year, maybe around Ehud Barak's term. There is the issue of the outposts which are not recognized yet, but this is mostly an issue of government bureacracy (in fact, Shilo was only recognized two weeks ago and I think Har Bracha still has no official status). The issue of illegal outposts is not black and white either. The most famous illegal one was the eight homes in Amona, and there have been many outposts destroyed over the recent winter. Migron is in the news now since the court demanded it destroyed, and there is pressure on the government to legalize it (that's what governments can do). --Shuki (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is unacceptable for several reasons. (1) The ADL is not a reliable source for such facts, in fact it does not even claim expertise on things like this. (2) The article in question has been on the ADL website for at least 10 years, so even if we cited it there would need to be a qualifier like "up to 2002" that would make it pretty useless. (3) As noted above, there is widespread source evidence against the ADL claim. (4) The distinction between "settlement" and "outpost" is a sort of game played by the settlers and the government and we are not bound to follow it. Shilo is an example you mention, pretty much every good source calls it a settlement because that's what it is. Zerotalk 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per your logic, I've started to remove other 10+ year non-RS sources with outdated claims. --Shuki (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shuki, you are not following Zero's logic by deleting references. Per WP:RS, each reference should be assessed on it's own merits for the statement that it is being used for. Zero has highlighted a number of reasons why the ADL source is unsuitable for what it was used for. Your own deletions are problematic because 1)The HRW reference was used for a statement attributed to HRW, which is perfectly acceptable (note the issue with the ADL citation, was that it was used for unattributed fact in the Wiki voice) 2) Something that has happened 10 years ago, has still happened today and a source that describes it 10 years ago is still valid (although it may be preferable to add more recent sources). The issue with the ADL source is that it was being used for a statement that claimed something hadn't happened (which after 10 years may or may not still be the case). Dlv999 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should have been attributed to ADL and not deleted.--Shrike (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would address one of the issues with the source, but a number of other issues would still be outstanding. See Zero's last post above. If the sentence is to be included, it should first be introduced to the appropriate section (new settlement construction). It should be noted however, that if it is introduced to this section it will be accompanied by a passage detailing all the sources and organisations that have contradicted the claim (for a feel of the sources see the first post in this thread). Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dlv, I've requested you be officially notified of ARBPIA. There is an issue under discussion now, you reinserted terminology that is not in the source, and all of that by not violating 1RR by six minutes. [16] I would suggest reverting your last edit as a sign of good faith. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to put your request on the Requests talkpage rather than the Requests page itself? Also, are you aware of WP:POINT? Also, it looks to me that, while complaining that Div came close to exceeding the 1RR limit, you have actually exceeded the 1RR limit yourself.     ←   ZScarpia   15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Shuki asked me. The ADL remark is dated 1997. The Oslo Accords were signed Dec 1993 (from memory), so even were it correct, it would refer to 3-4 years of the nearly two decades of settlement activity, and, ipso facto as useless as tits on a bull, outdated. 27 new settlement outposts were approved from the signing of the Wye Plantation agreements(1996), and a further 15 won approval after Sharon took over in March 2001, to note just a few. This is fatuously silly, since any 2 second net search will reveal that the ADF statistic is deceptively outdated.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outposts and settlements are different things, and if anyone is playing semantic games here, it is Zero000, who pretends the Israeli gov't supports them , which is a lie. The outposts are illegal, even under Israeli law, and the Israeli supreme court has ruled they need to be dismantled. All Rows4 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Anti Defamation League, since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 and through 2002, no new settlements were established in the occupied territories.[

  • (a)The sentence you remoulded, from an outdated source, is ungrammatical
  • (b) the linked to the ADL page gives a 1997 copyright. So how your date 2002 fits into a page copyrighted 5 years before is unclear
  • (c) The lead definition runs:

  • 'An Israeli settlement is a Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights.'

  • That construed by any any native speaker of English means what it means: it does not stipulate a difference between legal and illegal settlements. An illegal outpost is still 'a Jewish civilian community built' on Palestinian land.
  • Since the ADL text is severely challenged, its reframing ungrammatical, the facts false,and the reasons given captious hairsplitting without textual basis, I shall revert your edit if only for the encyclopedic end of ensuring that wikipedia does not publish false information. Nishidani (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] The Israeli courts have ruled that outposts should be dismantled; but that doesn't establish that the Israeli government or armed forces have not assisted the outposts, nor that the ADL's statement is reliable.
Take the Migron outpost:
Haaretz, Migron case only reveals tip of Israel's occupation iceberg":
  • "But Migron is just the tip of the iceberg. It is the tip of the iceberg of outposts and settlements built on Palestinian land. It is the tip of the iceberg in terms of how the government turns a blind eye or even cooperates with the unauthorized outposts. It is a tip of the iceberg in terms of ignoring High Court rulings.:
The Guardian, Israeli court rules against illegal settlement:
  • "The state submitted the delay petition this month, seeking to bypass the high court's earlier order to dismantle the Migron outpost by 31 March because it was built on privately held Palestinian land."
  • "On Sunday, the court ruled that accepting the state's agreement would be tantamount to flouting the rule of law."
  • "Some hardline lawmakers said they would promote legislation to skirt around the ruling although previous attempts at legislation have failed."
  • "Settlers claim Arab plaintiffs have not proven ownership of the land and note that government officials helped them to set up their outpost, even though it was not officially sanctioned."
  • "Israel promised the US more than a decade ago to dismantle two dozen outposts built after 2001, including Migron. But violent clashes with settlers over the destruction of isolated structures, combined with political and legal obstacles, discouraged the government from honouring its pledge."
  • "While Israel has given its authorisation to more than 120 settlements, outposts like Migron do not have even that level of legitimacy because their construction was not officially sanctioned. Even so the government has hooked them up to utility grids and has sent soldiers to protect them."
And there is at least one case of an outpost being retroactively authorised. Take the case of Shvut Rachel:
Alternative Information Center, Israel Legalises Settlement Outpost in West Bank:
  • "Shvut Rachel, one of the oldest and largest settler outposts in the West Bank, was recently legalised by Israel"
  • "The founders of Shvut Rachel grabbed Palestinian land without holding appropriate Israeli authorisation, counting instead on “the support of various government ministries, the army and the Civil Administration,” as BT’selem reports."
  • "The funding and support provided from private donors, and from the Israeli government via West Bank regional councils, help to construct infrastructure and eventually to transform the outpost into a permanent settlement."
  • "Peace Now activists are currently pushing for an investigation of this move, which overturns Israeli official policy to not transform outposts into new settlements. Against this charge the Israeli Defence Ministry defended itself, telling AP that 'Shvut Rachel is not an isolated outpost but a neighbourhood of Shilo settlement.'"
  • "The two settlements of Shvut Rachel and Shilo are about half a mile apart and this is part of the clear strategy of settlers, who establish their outposts close to recognised settlements. What the Defence Ministry’s statement highlights is the common Israeli practice of using the outposts to increase settlement activity: the outposts are authorised and merged into existing settlements with the claim that no new settlements have been created. If this subtle policy of settlement expansion is illegal according to the international law, it also clashes both with a 2005 Israeli government-commissioned report that classifies Shvut Rachel as an outpost – and not as a ‘neighbourhood of Shilo’ – and with the promise of then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to dismantle any outpost."
    ←   ZScarpia   17:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


ZScarpia, the requests page is the 'talk' page of the AE. I did not want to take Dlv to AE so I made a request. I also suggest that you and Nishidani analyse my edits on the article, prove I violated 1RR and then when you cannot, respectfully retract your misleading and aggressive accusation that I violated 1RR. False accusations which incite the battleground are grounds for taking you to AE as well. --Shuki (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ←   ZScarpia   18:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The third 'reversion' is not a reversion at all, merely a copyedit. And saying that the 2nd 'reversion' is a reversion of my own 'Reversion #1'? Do you even know what 1RR means? I guess not. --Shuki (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment?     ←   ZScarpia   19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me about what? Commenting quite civily about the English comprehension of other editors here, you brought to this discussion about including the line about 'no new settlements' many bits of information about Migron and Shvut Rachel that are not relevant to the discussion and I was going to ask you what you are commenting on. And if you asking about something else, than my friendly final comment is that you should take that into consideration that everyone in this section will be sanctioned including you if you keep up with the battleground mentality. --Shuki (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_settlement&diff=484078252&oldid=484055126

Leave a Reply