Palestine Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Israel Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Categorization : Diffuse articles from Category:Companies of Israel. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority

How does one remove the "Israel" tag from the municipality bar? Not even Israel considers this settlement to be inside its borders.--Dailycare (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of trying to do that, why not focus on stopping inserting unsourced POV into the article. I have reverted you again. To answer your question though, you simply don't. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ynhockey, why don't you read the Wikipedia policy on POV, and while you're at it look up "unsourced" as well. Since neither POV nor unsourced are true concerning the sentence in question, what's your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailycare (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV is very simple. If you write something that represents only one point of view, it's POV. The assertion that settlements are illegal in international law is the Palestinian/left-wing position, therefore POV.
2. Your statements are still unsourced. The first source, the UN resolution, does not equal international law (not legally binding), and even if it was, it was written over 10 years before Modi'in Illit was founded. Moreover, the UN is not a NPOV body and not a reliable secondary source (please read WP:RS). The second source is an Advisory Opinion, not a court ruling, and also it doesn't say any of the things you claim it says. It's actually talking about the construction of settlements especially in border areas in the 70s, not referring to Modi'in Illit anywhere. Moreover ICJ is also not a reliable secondary source for facts. The other sources are simply fringe unreliable sources. Please introduce reliable sources.
3. Finally, the statement of legality in the lead is not relevant when talking about settlements in general. There are dozens of settlements, of which Modi'in Illit is one. If you find a reliable source specific to Modi'in Illit, feel free to post it.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The illegality of the settlements is overwhelmingly accepted. See for example this recent BBC article: "All settlements are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8169857.stm and also Israeli_settlement#The_international_consensus_on_the_legality_of_Israeli_settlements. Therefore denying the illegality, or not mentioning the illegality, is POV. Claiming that the UN or ICJ would be unreliable sources doesn't help your case, and similarly the advisory nature of the ICJ ruling (or debatable Ch. VI nature of a UNSC resolution) doesn't affect the pertinence of the legal analysis contained therein.

Summa summarum, we have sourcing for the fact that all the settlements are illegal (as background), and we have sourcing also stating that Modi'in Illit in particular is illegal. There are other claims in the article with much less sourcing, why not challenge them? --Dailycare (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC, please bring reliable references specifically mentioning how Modiin Illit is illegal, not some general claim or fleeting mention. For the general discussion, WP is using the Israel settlement page which Modiin Illit is labelled and linked to. --Shuki (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added yet another source to the sentence in question. Maybe now we should turn our attention to the claim in the sidebar that this settlement would be in Israel? Since this is an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary proof. So far I don't see that. --Dailycare (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source which confirmed the city status change. As for the Country 'Israel' issue, you should take this to Israel settlement where it might get more attention. The locality is undoubtedly Israeli, and under full Israeli sovereignty. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, thank you very much for rewording the POV claim. What remains is to move it out of the lead section, where it doesn't belong because it does not summarize any part of the article. I suggest renaming the "terrorist attack" section to a general I–P section which would include details about the beef that B'Tselem has with Shamni's decision. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's undoubtedly in Israel, then you should have no problems finding good sources to back that up. By the way, you incorrectly re-worded the statement, since the appeal and illegality of the settlement itself are quite separate issues. I agree with Ynhockey that the appeal probably doesn't belong in the lead section. I'll re-insert the statement on illegality with slightly revised sources. --Dailycare (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dailycare, please stop adding things against consensus. You have not addressed any of the concerns raised above about your sources and what they do and should say. Please do this before re-inserting the controversial statements. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of your concerns did I not, in your opinion, address in my comment timestamped 14:48, 30 July 2009? The comment is not controversial or POV, sources are (at least now) there, and there are many things about the settlements that occur on each settlement page, for example the "in Israel" issue. --Dailycare (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, that none of your sources discuss Modi'in Illit, and the only reasonably credible one (ICJ) is from long before the settlement was even founded.

Second, that the legal status of settlements in general is irrelevant to this article.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the B'tselem document, NY Times article, Guardian article and Canadian document all describe Modi'in Illit in particular as illegal, and the ICJ ruling is from 2004, which is after the founding of the settlement. Secondly, the legal status of this particular settlement is very relevant to this particular page. --Dailycare (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are misinterpreting sources, or using unreliable ones. B'Tselem's opinion should not be stated as fact, and the NY Times article clearly states that "opponents" question the legality of the settlement. The only source that actually claims what you do is The Guardian, which is one source out of many and contradicts the NY Times article, which strongly reinforces that notion that such information does not belong in the lead. If you want to include such information, make a new section and include all viewpoints (see WP:NPOV). The lead section isn't a platform for B'Tselem's opinions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can show here, that all the sources and the sentence I wrote are in agreement:

Sentence in question: "is considered to be illegal". Meeting this wording doesn't require that everyone considers it illegal, however if this wasn't the consensus view saying only so would be undue weight.

B'Tselem: "The settlements that Israel established in the West Bank are illegal because they breach the Fourth Geneva Convention (...) The vast majority of jurists in Israel and abroad hold the opinion that the Fourth Geneva Convention (...) prohibits the establishment of settlements. (...) It is important to note that the breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention in building the settlements is an ongoing breach. (...) one of the primary potential effects of the change in status of Modi'in Illit to a municipality is that its population will increase; for this reason, changing the status is illegal."

NYT: "opponents say the settlements violate international law" The "opponents" are obviously the "vast majority of jurists" Since NYT is a US publication and specifically NYT, one expects them to word their article in a slightly more "blue-white" way.

Guardian: "(...) Jewish settlements, including the vast, ultra-Orthodox settlement of Modiin Illit, even though all settlements on occupied land are illegal". The Canadian document has similar language.

As can be seen, all the sources support the text "is considered to be illegal". If we find reliable sources specifically stating that Modi'in Illit is not illegal, then we can of course add a short mention of them, taking into account the balance between "vast majority" and those other views. --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you're wrong. The word "considered to be" does mean that it is fairly universally accepted, especially in this context. Moreover, your take on the NYTimes article is not relevant. What it says is that opponents say that the settlement is illegal. B'Tselem is of course irrelevant because it's not a reliable source, although you can qualify its opinion if you wish. Again, only The Guardian supports your statement, and this is not good enough to state it as fact if even the NYTimes contradicts it. I already started a section on the legal dispute, so feel free to add to it, according to Wikipedia policies. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact "fairly universally accepted" is exactly what the sources say ("vast majority", "overwhelming view"). My comment on NYT is as relevant as your take on B'Tselem, and again NYT does not contradict Guardian: if something is illegal, then people opposing it will call it illegal. Here is a further source (BBC) which states it's standard line "The settlements are illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this", and the source mentions Modi'in Illit as one of the illegal settlements in question: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6669545.stm. In fact any one of the 5 sources alone would be sufficient to support the sentence in question, although you could have an argument concerning the editorial level of the Canadian document. If you have sources on legal disputes, you can discuss them in the section you've created, I agree that the municipality-status issue looks like a legal dispute however it's quite distinct from the legal status of the settlement in itself. --Dailycare (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you have no further comments, so I'm adding the wording to the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are mere boilerplate text. 'We all know' that all settlements are illegal, right? I would like you to find us a specific proof that Modiin Illit (or other settlements) is illegally built on someone else's land. Claims about stolen land might be legitimate if referenced to RS, but please stop with the general claims. If you have an issue on this, please take it up at Israel settlement. --Shuki (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong in boilerplate text, if it accurately describes the subject of the article. The text in question is a short, descriptive, multiply attested statement that completes the lead section. That we all know the settlements are illegal only underscores how non-controversial the statement is. In fact that is now the best-supported statement in the article, so I'd be OK if we remove everything else and leave in just "Modi'in Illit is an illegal Israeli settlement built in the occupied West Bank". --Dailycare (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor Tiamut have addressed the simple point that the New York Times contradicts some of your other sources, and clearly states that only opponents consider settlements illegal. Moreover, you have not addressed the fact that some of your sources were created before Modi'in Illit existed. Please address these concerns first. Finally, please address the synthesis that you're making—none of the sources you provided actually state that Modi'in Illit is illegal, except the one The Guardian source you provided earlier. I hope you will stop engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and address these points. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the text to basically address all of the points I raised at least 3 times and no one else addressed. Please don't re-add irrelevant sources without discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article does not say that only opponents call the settlement illegal. I'll slightly modify the wording, hopefully this unnecessarily protracted discussion is now over. --Dailycare (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC, thank you for letting us know your true intentions. At this rate, sooner than I expected, it'll be obvious which user you are sockpuppetting. --Shuki (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like another user beat me to the task of modifying the language broadly along the lines I was intending to. Shuki, frankly you've slightly lost me there, if you have something important to say you'll have to phrase it using simpler language. --Dailycare (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I missed some edit that again wrote something that contradicted the source. Make no mistake: there is no consensus, and likely won't be, to include something that directly contradicts the source provided. It clearly says that opponents make this claim, which is as NPOV as it gets. Also stop adding "like other settlements", which are irrelevant here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DC, The last two edits are problematic. Taking some claim from Btselem and adding it to a sentence previously attributed to the NYT and Guardian is misleading. Each claim should have it's own reference. --Shuki (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, exactly how is it misleading, in other words: which incorrect conclusion does it infer? I'm OK also with keeping the "vast majority" and dropping "opponents" since that's neutral. "Opponents" alone is misleading, since it fails to convey that illegality is the consensus view. --Dailycare (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dailycare, Wikipedia works by reporting what secondary sources say, and not reporting editors' own conclusions. What you are doing is WP:SYNTH; you are taking one source (Guardian) that says that Modi'in Illit is illegal, and another saying that opponents say it's illegal (NYTimes), and merging them to say that Modi'in Illit is illegal. In fact, from these two sources we can learn the opposite—The Guardian contradicts NYTimes, but NYTimes does not contradict The Guardian. In other words, saying "Opponents say that ..." contradicts neither source, while stating this opinion as fact does contradict NYTimes, which specifically says that only opponents claim that the settlement is illegal. Please stop inserting your own conclusions into sources to come out with a highly POV version. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: I have informed another editor, who involved herself in the dispute perhaps involuntarily (on Ma'ale Adumim) of this discussion. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making 5 points there: 1) I'm synthesizing, 2) I'm entering "Modi'in Illit is illegal" in the text, 3) Guardian and NYT aren't in agreement, 4) NYT states that only opponents call the settlements illegal,and finally 5) the text proposed is POV. I'll go through these in order:

1) This doesn't relate to what the text says. Consider this: "Opponents consider X illegal. The vast majority of experts are opponents". This has the same meaning as "Opponents, which comprise the vast majority, consider X illegal". No new meaning or inference is created when combining the two sentences, thus it is not WP:SYNTH.

2) I'm not entering "is illegal", but "is considered to be illegal". See my comment timestamped 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

3) I've addressed this point in my comments timestamped 08:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC) and 19:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

4) I've addressed this point in my comment timestamped 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

5) Entering what the vast majority of jurists say is inherently not POV, it's neutral and honest.

Having said all that, I'm open to your suggestions on how to convey that illegality is the majority view. --Dailycare (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are under some false impression that every source considers Modi'in Illit illegal. So far you have only provided one, which is The Guardian, not exactly the beacon of neutrality. All other sources you provided which supposedly say this are boilerplate, do not mention Modi'in Illit, and are irrelevant. I will respond to all of your points:

1. Who said that any expert, let alone "the majority", said that Modi'in Illit was illegal? Do you have a source?
2. "is illegal" and "is considered to be illegal" is the same thing. I'd appreciate learning the difference, but in your previous comment you simply said something that was blatantly false.
3. Your argument in that comment makes no sense, I am sorry to say. You are basically saying that if something is illegal, then it makes sense for a publication like the NYTimes to say that only opponents say it's illegal. This has to do not with the content dispute, but actually reading comprehension. Obviously the New York Times does say that only opponents say that it's illegal, otherwise it wouldn't use the word opponents.
4. See point #3.
5. Who is the "vast majority of jurists"? So far you have provided zero sources to indicate that even one jurist considers Modi'in Illit illegal. The boilerplate sources that were written before the city was even founded are, again, irrelevant to this article and any other individual settlement article for that matter. You might wish to look at this, which already has all the information on the overall legality of settlements.

The problem with your arguments is that you're making the argument with the basic assumption (i.e. point of view) that all settlements are illegal (judging by all your posts above), and arguing as if this is a given fact. This is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV, which I invite you to review. We do not make assumptions that aren't clear from the sources provided. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0) As you've seen, I've provided 5 sources, not only one. Sources aren't "irrelevant" just because they denounce war crimes.

1) For example the B'Tselem document says "vast majority", is relevant and mentions specifically Modi'in Illit.

2) "Is illegal" is categorical. "Is considered to be illegal" isn't, since it leaves open who considers, and if the view is correct or no. Which comment are you referring to by "blatantly false"?

3&4) This is indeed about reading comprehension. NYT states that opponents say it's illegal. This leaves open that at least some supporters may also consider it illegal, but not say it aloud. To meet "considered to be illegal" it's in fact sufficient that opponents consider it illegal. NYT is a pro-Israel publication, so they want to convey any criticism softly.

5) See 1): B'Tselem states that the vast majority of jurists is of the opinion that all settlements are illegal, and the B'Tselem document then makes the connection that Modi'in Illit is one of these settlements.

Again, I'm inviting you to provide a suggestion on how to include an indication of the majority view. One way would be to say simply that "Modi'in illit is a settlement in the occupied West Bank. The vast majority of jurists considers such settlements to be illegal", although this is clumsier than the wording I last entered. --Dailycare (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dailycare, as a new editor, you may not be familiar with our policy on reliable sources. B'Tselem is not a reliable source. The New York Times is. Nobody cares if some people believe that a certain publication is "pro-Israel". I can point to you thousands of people who believe that both The Guardian and BBC are anti-Israel. That's irrelevant. You may also wish to review a very important guideline called Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, which includes "considered to be". It should be stated specifically who considers this, and the New York Times did—opponents. Please drop your personal assumptions and soapboxing about the legality of settlements, and concentrate on procuring reliable sources that support your assertions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, I invite you to give a suggestion on how to include an indication of the majority view. You didn't give me your opinion on this wording: "Modi'in illit is a settlement in the occupied West Bank. The vast majority of jurists considers such settlements to be illegal". B'Tselem is a respected NGO along the lines of Amnesty or HRW, in other words RS. As another point, we have 5 sources of which you concentrate on the one which paints the settlement in the least negative light, which is an indication of bias. We should include in the article what the balance of opinion is, not solely the most extreme view. "Opponents call it illegal" (NYT) is as well sourced as "the settlement is illegal" (Guardian). What I'm proposing is from the middle, i.e. neutral along the B'Tselem doc: the vast majority of jurists considers the settlement illegal. --Dailycare (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that B'Tselem is an RS is completely misunderstanding WP:RS, which I encourage you to read. I also encourage you, for the upteenth time, to provide even a single reliable source saying that the majority view is that Modi'in Illit (not "settlements") is illegal under international law. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read WP:RS just now, and it states that sources must be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." B'Tselem is a respected (like the "R" in "RS") human-rights organization specializing in the Occupied Territories, and is already used as a source in several Wikipedia articles.

As a sidenote, we're now having this discussion on the basis that the source would have to say that Modi'in Illit is considered to be illegal (which is OK, since that's what the sources say). However for example the text I've now twice asked your opinion on doesn't need that sourcing, since it makes two statements: Modi'in Illit is in the WB, and settlements in the WB are considered (by the vast majority/"overwhelming view") to be illegal. I'm sure you agree with me that both of these statements have ample support and juxtaposing them is not WP:SYNTH since no new conclusion or inference is made.

As a second sidenote, you failed to address my point on choosing the incorrect one of five sources.

Summing up, I'm OK with any of the following wordings: "is illegal", "is considered to be illegal", "is considered by the international community to be illegal", "is considered by the vast majority of jurists to be illegal", "opponents, comprising the vast majority of jurists, consider it to be illegal" and "Modi'in illit is a settlement in the occupied West Bank. The vast majority of jurists considers such settlements to be illegal". (The "international community" version is sourced from Peace Now, http://peacenow.org/entries/archive6313) --Dailycare (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B'Tselem is not a reliable source in any way. It's a primary self-published source, and its work was never taken as fact by any reliable third-party secondary source. Even The Guardian qualifies B'Tselem's opinions as those of B'Tselem. It is also not an expert on the subject—expertise has a very clear academic definition, and I didn't see B'Tselem get academic credentials for its work.

About your other point: it is indeed WP:SYNTH. You are basically merging separate claims: that all settlements are illegal (not even a clear RS for this, the closest that comes is ICJ, which offered and advisory opinion which you provided) and that Modi'in Illit is a settlement, therefore Modi'in Illit is illegal. There are several flaws in that. Basically the political and legal situation changes constantly, and is very different between 1980, 1994 and 2009. Moreover, the legality of settlements has a lot to do with what land they were built on (state land or private land), so they must be examined on a case by case basis. Boilerplate assumptions are not only against WP:SYNTH, but also against WP:NPOV. It's called poisoning the well.

Anyway, this argument is pointless unless you provide new materials which support your point of view. I have already gone out of my way to make a compromise, by including the "Legality dispute" section, which, given the questionable sources currently used, shouldn't even be there. On the other hand, all of your proposals are clear policy violations. I'm also thinking about actually improving this article, and fully expect you to try to do the same. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is indeed pointless, but only because Ynhockey seems to find a reason to sidestep what the sources actually say. It is not SYNTH to say that "Modi'in Illit is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank" and that "West Bank settlements are generally considered to be illegal". Both these statements are true. Juxtaposing them against one another is how we write articles.

Anyway, this article also discusses the problem of illegal construction in Moddin Illit specifically with regard to Israeli domestic laws. Daily Care, you might find it to be of some use in improving the article. Good luck. Tiamut^talk 12:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B'Tselem is not non-respectable on the say-so of Ynhockey, and Guardian as a good newspaper attributes its sources and would do the same when using Amnesty International. Concerning the legal situation (4th Geneva Convention), it is not unclear at all, has not changed at all since 1967, and does not depend on what kind of land settlements are built on (that's only relevant for Israel's own laws, although by proper construction also the 4GC is Israeli law). As this addresses the "flaws" he brings up, I'll modify the article along the lines I and Tiamut suggested once I get back to my desk. This article appears to have other issues as well, which I'll also work on to improve. --Dailycare (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut: I guess you don't write articles in the same way I do. But you make false assumptions just like Dailycare about the legality of settlements. About the article you provided: interesting. Do you have a link to the original? We can't use APJP as a source in the article, and the article isn't even theirs. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to making the edit we've been discussing, it's worded closely after the BBC source and I've included an UNGA vote to quantify just how widely the opinion of illegality is held. I stress once more that I'm not making assumptions but using sources: "widely accepted", "overwhelming view" and "171-6" are from the cited docs and they're pretty clear to a mind willing to understand. Cheers and good night, --Dailycare (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dailycare! I again ask to please refrain changing the article (except non-controversial improvements) without attaining consensus here first. Same goes for the related Ma'ale Adumim article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored that it's regarded as illegal. [1] This issue shouldn't be re-fought on every talk page. It was decided years ago that WP must reflect the preponderance of reliable sources that certain parts of the area are "occupied," not "disputed," and that the settlements are widely regarded as illegal. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]