Talk:Susya

Materials

Relevant sources for this article:

• http://www.jpost.com/Sci-Tech/Article.aspx?id=222103

Expropriated

Sources (UN/Amnesty/B'tselem, plus RS books and articles) give 'confiscated/expropriated'. One can vary the term according to taste. Whatever, these matters are not 'allegations'. The land was under Palestinian management until the government and the IDF seized it, and then turned it over to settlement, as documented. I will provide greater details and complete refs presently. Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

None of these sources are in the article - the cite I removed was to a claim by an activist (Shulman), and the new cite added is to a partisan group. Perhaps there are court rulings that establish that the land was owned by Palestinians- please provide those. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shulman is an academic, with a major work on the area, and in saying he an activist and nothing else, you are reducing his credentials to those of a peacenik, or partisan. Academics are peer-reviewed. He doesn't 'allege', he states the area's history. With this method, everythiong quoted from an academic source you dislike becomes an 'allegation'. Put 'according to D Shulman, if you like. As for the Jerusalem Research Group, it is financed by the European Economic Community among others, and doesn't make allegations. It is a notable and sophisticated research group. I'm building the article. Wait for me to finish and then challenge it. Your edit just wiped out, in an edit conflict, a full paragraph of work on the ancient history I had written. You couldn't know that, but give me the courtesy of a break and a breather until I can establish some shape to the page. In the meantime, study the area, its history and sources. It is not Shulman claiming this. See here, and then click through and read the sources cited.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Shulman's academic expertise is in Dravidian languages, and has no bearing whatsoever on his claims regarding Susya, which were made in a partisan rag (a self-described "muckracking newsletter"), in his capacity as a pro-Palestinian activist. Needless to say, those claims were not peer-reviewed, not academic, and are nothing more than allegations by several activists. The ARIJ is indeed financed by the EEC, which takes care to make it very explicit that "The views expressed herein are those of the beneficiary and therefore in no way reflect the official opinion of the Commission." - the views of ARIJ are theirs, and theirs alone, as those of a pro-Palestinian partisan lobbying group. You claimed there are court findings that establish the veracity of these allegations - if so, please produce them. Until then, they are properly labeled as allegations by partisans, especially when the partisan sources themselves admit the opposing view - that the land is "State Land", and that the Israeli Supreme Court has found the dwellers to be squatters.

As a side note, you will find it much easier to work collaboratively with other editors if you stop constantly preaching to them in a condescending manner. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Look. Go to it. Since your curiosity has been attracted to Susya, I'm quite happy to see how you can build up the article without my condescension. I lost about 30 lines on antiquity in that edit clash, 3 hours work. The first thing to do is to check out the details as to why the Government's naming commission decided to call it Susya, with input from Gush Emunim, and Moshe Levinger sidekick Bentzion Heinemann, which founded the settlement. Your last edit, 'containing the remains of ancient Susya' shows that you are editing a page you know nothing about. That this site corresponds to an ancient 'Susya' is an hypothesis, probably a fiction, not a reality. Bye.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again with the condescension? When you stop telling editors they "know nothing about" the articles they are writing, you will get more useful work done. If you can't do this, please find another hobby. I'd be happy to instruct you on how to avoid losing your work due to edit conflicts, but your harassing attitude makes it very difficult. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

'Shulman's academic expertise is in Dravidian languages, and has no bearing whatsoever on his claims regarding Susya,'

There was the signal again, which told me a labour of love in building a full page would turn out into another battle through bad sources (Meyer), contested 'POV', with no serious work being done on the other side but simply the political control on text. Your remark is verbatim, straight from the maestro's remarks, duly memorized, on the Israeli Settlements page. Neither you nor User:Jayjg seem to know that Shulman's first degree and thesis at Hebrew University was in Arabic. He was an Israeli Arabist before becoming a scholar of Indian languages. I'm sick and tired of this nonsense of having to explain simple things endlessly, when wikilawyers start to jump on a sketch of an article, challenge 'confiscate','expropriation', put in 'allegations by peace activists' to gloss scholarly comments, cite books on the Galilee for information on the Southern Hebron hills (3 words in a footnote on the Galilee mentioning Horvat Susya do not constitute a useful source). I've been through this too many times, and I am absolutely sick of it. You've won.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears you are simply incapable of working in a collegial manner, as every single post of yours is condescending, uncivil, and bordering on personal attacks.

Shulman's first degree (in History, incidentally, not Arabic) has no relevance to the land ownership allegations in Susya, and his claims regarding the latter, made in an far-left partisan rag, described by its own editors as a "muckracking newsletter" has no academic credentials - it is a source that should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone for a contentious claim. That you persist in referring to this as "scholarly comments" reflects badly on you, and suggest that you do not understand the concept of a scholarly publication.

Eric Meyers, whose name you could not even get right, a professor of Archaeology at Duke University, the editor of The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, is, according to you a "bad source", because a well-sourced and non-contentious statement about an archaeological finding in Susya came from a compilation of academic papers which he edited, published by an academic publisher specializing ancient Near East and biblical studies, whose main topic was the Galilee. And in the same breath you advocate for inclusion of a contentious statement from a political activist, published in an openly partisan political rag. Perhaps once you get your standards to be a little consistent we will be able to continue this debate. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to make me spend several hours, is it days?, wasting my time by correcting on a talk page your inventions, and stopping me from building an article.

For the record

Shulman's first degree (in History, incidentally, not Arabic)

• Wikilawyering. His first degree was in Islamic History, with a major in Arabic language and literature. Typically you look at 'History' ignore 'Islamic' and 'Arabic' in order to equivocate. You erred on Dravidian, and, when corrected, saved face by saying his BA was in history, and now have to wipe it again, because the BA was in Islamic history, with an Arabic major. Of such fatuous threads of trivial correction are talk pages made. Doing this is, I have long assumed, part of the technique used to waste editors' time.

'land ownership allegations in Susya'

Just a bad faith assertion, evidently you don't even read up on Susya.

• Wikilawyering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Counterpunch is not a 'far left partisan rag'. Were it so, it would not host so many ex-Wall Street economists, ex-Reagan administration undersecretaries, ex-Knesset politicians, ex-CIA operatives, etc., on its pages. Those who know it call it an anarchic-libertarian (libertarian means radical, and rightwing). One of it editors shares many views you would find held by the Cato Institute. Shulman and Neve Gordon and Ehud Krinis are all published Israeli academics. It matters not a whit whether their article is sourced to Counterpunch, since they are prominent Israeli academics with a published academic record in the area of West Bank settlement studies.

• Where did I say Eric Meyers was a 'bad source'?. Again you are misreading for strategic advantage. You put in Meyers' book, Galilee through the Centuries to source the archeology of Susya in the far south, which is well-documented. Well what does Meyers have to say? On page 179 his text dealing with Sepphoris runs:

These objects appear ..on a series of mosaic floors belonging to Jewish (note 4) and Samaritan synagogues.

We go and check note 4 and find 'They include the synagogues of Beth Alpha, Beth Yerah, Gerasa, Hammath Tiberias, Hulda, Isfiya, and Horvat Susya.'

• So, and only pre-college students need to be told this, but your use of Meyers's book for the mosaic pavement at Susya is bad. Since you blundered, I said Meyer's book (Meyer) was a bad source for Susya, and provided the detailed Oxford guide footnote to replace it. Now you equivocate and draw in Meyer's credentials. This is only bad faith, deliberate wikilawyering, or an attempt to waste my time in elucidating things that any high school student should know. You don't quote irrelevant sources that happen to drop a word or name dealing with the subject at hand and get anything less than a -G grading on your paper. It's like quoting Pear's Encyclopedia on quantum theory.

I'm not going to continue this debate. I know what the game is. Make me waste so much time on the talk page, as tonight, that I'll be too exhausted to finish the page. I've a long record on wiki for interest in the Hebron area, and editing on it, so it is natural that I turned my attention to this stub. You show up (I expected someone to show up). Well, as on other occasions, I defer to the drifter-in. If you are seriously interested in, and informed on Susya and the area, you can convert the stub into an article on your own. You surely aren't here just because I am, and therefore you're welcome to take the burden off my shoulders, research it as I did over these last weeks, and write the article. Go ahead. No edit war, no condescension, it should be a breeze.Remember we're here to write articles, not to kibitz on people who write articles. This is my last comment. If you don't go ahead and substantially enrich the article on your own with some thoroughness, arbitrators ort administrators can make their own conclusions as to why you chose to come here in the first place, since you evidently know nothing of Susya.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Until then, they are properly labeled as allegations by partisans, especially when the partisan sources themselves admit the opposing view - that the land is "State Land", and that the Israeli Supreme Court has found the dwellers to be squatters.

Don't forget to add things like the fact that it's not State Land, according to the ICJ opinion 2004, which overrides anything a court in Israel, which is a foreign occupier of the West Bank, may say. And note while editing on the section 'land disputes' things like this, one of many accounts of what the High Court rules, family by family.

'On the dispossession of the Hushiya family’s land between Susya and Mitzpeh Yair from 2000 who were ‘prevented from accessing their lands by army-backed violent attacks of settlers. The ‘ban’ became permanent in 2005. At one point, some of the family members were shot at and one person has never fully recovered. In 2007, a settler from Susya named Moshe Deutsche who is known for cursing RHR staff and volunteers as « Nazis » « Satan, » etc., began to plant hundreds of grape vines across the road from the Susya settlement on part of a 110-dunam plot belonging to the family. He began to plow and otherwise prepare additional lands for cultivation. The family turned to RHR. Law enforcement authorities can force trespassers of the lands they have taken over without going to court- if they do so within ninety days. We, therefore, quickly and urgently appealed to the police and the legal advisor for the Occupied Territories. These officials maintained that they were investigating the situation, but time was passing by and the limit was almost up. RHR appealed to Israel’s High Court to compel the authorities to enforce the law. In what seemed like a miracle, the authorities ruled that all of the land other than the vineyard belonged to the Hushiya family even before the court heard the case. (A separate hearing ruled the vineyard was to be off-limits to all parties until ownership was resolved, except that Deutsch could send in foreign workers to do limited maintenance). Given the history of settler violence, the army issued an order forbidding Israelis to enter. With out prodding,, the army has on several occasions guarded the family when they requested protection, working their lands., thee cultivation of which they had been denied for five years. It was a very emotional moment to see the two ninety-year.old patriarchs of the family returning to their land. Moshe Deutsche did everything he could to prevent the work that day, and every time the family has come to work their land. Unfortunately, this was not the end of the story. Deutsche appealed to the High Court against the State, RHR and the family in November 2007 for having allowe3d the family to access their land, calling on the court to prevent the family from having such access. In the meantime, the Civil Administration ruled that the planted area also belongs to the Hushiya family, and that Deutsch must uproot his grape vines and abandon the land. In February 2008, Deutsch again appealed against the Palestinians and the Civil Administration, arguing that he had been working the land for 12 years and that therefore it was his. This legal move has meanwhile prevented the family from regaining the planted land. We are waiting for the results of both appeals. … Recently, a new battalion commander in the area hasd been closing his eyes as settlers enter the area forbidden to them and attack shepherds tending the family flocks. The army hjas not provided protection and has even arrested international volunteers sent in by us so that we ourselves would not violate the prohibition against Israelis entering the area.

RHR attorney Kamar Misharki-Asad writes : ‘The behaviour of this settler is only one example of a much wider phenomenon spreading through the Werst Bank. Violent settlers use threats and intimidation to prevent Palestinians from accessing their lands, with the direct or indirect backing of the army. After the land has been « cleansed » of its owners who are prevented access every time they attempt to get their lands,. Palestinians have for all practical purposes been forcibly expelled from their lands. Settlers take advantage of this vacuum to trespass and take over Palestinian lands. They begin to plough and plant, or even set up hothouses. Ironically, the settlers argue that the land belongs to them and not to Palestinians because of Turkish laws (also found in the Jewish Tradition-A.A.) granting ownership to those who work the land for a given period of time. This misguided interpretation is given full weight by the police and ignores that the acts of trepassing and violence by the settlers themselves that allow them to work the land while forcing the Palestinians to keep away. In many cases, the police refuse to enforce the law despite their obligations, even when the Palestinians present all of their ownership documents.’ This story is not yet ended, nor is it the only case in the region when we are being sued for a decision made by the State ! However, within the context of Occupation, we must act with the same « irrational « investment of resources as do those who invest a greater amount of time and money to take over the land. If not, we will only be able to watch as the land disappears.’ Rabbis for Human Rights Volume XVIII - September 2008 Pp pp.17-18Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to some well deserved vacation on a nice Caribbean beach, so I don;t have time to respond in detail just now. I will make one comment though: No one is forcing you to spend any time wikilawyering on this talk page, or making personal attacks on it- it is your choice to do so. You could instead spend the time improving the article, by finding those court rulings you have alluded to, which prove the veracity of Shulman's allegations. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I look forward to your edits on the Antilles and the Bahamas. First hand experience of a subject-matter does wonders.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Date of establishment

The UN report is ultra RS. The susya.net. source is not an RS. It is the homepage, in a foreign language, maintained by the settlers, i.e., the word of an interested party. So CM's attempt to elide the former in favour of the latter is dubious in terms of policy. Secondly, putting the Hebrew dating system is inappropriate. Thirdly, the edit summary justifying the elision of the UN RS, is partial. The UN annex reads:-

ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF THE WEST BANK

CM left out the first part, established and selectively gave the second part, italicized, as reason for suppressing the UN document. His edit also ignored that the UN gave a precise date in its annex. May 1983. I have been reasonable not questioning the right of the moshav homepage to its version (apart from the fact I am only at the beginning of editing the history of this section). To suppress the UN version is simply to play, in wikipedia, spokesman and praetorian guard for a self-promoting web page of nondescript value in terms of RS. Don't do it again.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There's really no need to turn every minor detail into an edit war, and there's no real mystery or controversy surrounding the date of establishment of the new community. It is September 1983, according to both Palestinian sources (which, incidentally, you added to the article) as well as to the official site of the community, which is a reliable source for facts about itself, such as the date it was established. The UN source you keep citing as a "differing" source actually does not say otherwise, the May date it gives is for when the settlement was "IN TE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED", ie., not yet established. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The moshav webpage (given its highly ideological character, want RS on this?) is not an RS for historical detail. From the beginning there has been a conflict in sources. The history of the settlement is complex, and I am retaining the two dates because the UN source happens to be of higher RS value than the Palestinian source (which in turn is of higher value than the susiya.net source). The May date given refers to settlements 'established 'or in the process of being established. As an editorial principle, one retains what reliable sources say until the disparity between them is overcome by some tertiary source whose authority decides the question. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Moshav page is no more 'highly ideological' than the UN committee. I again suggest you take it to the WP:RSN noticeboard if you think your argument has merit. The UN source gives a list of "ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" which means we don't know if the date there is for when the Moshav was established, or 'IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED'. Since we have two other sources that are more precise on this question (and which happen to agree on the date, even though they come from completely opposing political POVs), there no need to use the UN source, which is useless for this purpose. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What's your game CM, trying to get me sanctioned for a 3RR violation, because I insist that your repeated editwarring to remove the highest quality RS on the section is a violation of wiki policy. I can see no other motive here. Your editing insists on giving a non-RS source, a virtual webpage blog, higher RS rating than a UN document. I fail to understand your warring persistence in preferring poor to quality sources. These pages are edited over time, not overnight. My record here is clear. Your record, as contributor so far, is near to zilch.Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The only game-playing that is going on here seems to be coming from your end, as you insist on turning every edit I make on this page, including trivial non-contentious issues like the date of the establishment of the modern settlement, into some huge point of contention, apparently due to some personal issue you have with me.

We have two sources, one pro-Palestinian, one pro-Settler, which both agree that the date is September. We have a third source that gives a date of May as the time when the settlement was either "ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" - we don't know which is which. So we could turn this non-contentious issue into a cumbersome sentence that implies some mystery or controversy, and reads something like "According to both Palestinian sources and Israeli sources, it was established in September", but a UN document gives a date of May for when it was 'ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" - or we could edit the article in an encyclopedic manner, and state it was established in September, which is what the sources say, and give one or two reference for it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, this seems like a tiny point to make a fuss about, and CM is correct that the UN document, whatever its provenance, doesn't give a specific date as to when the settlement actually started... and really, who cares? IronDuke 20:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The UN document gives the day 1983 May. I didn't create this absurd havoc, nor make a fuss. I am correcting the POV elision of an RS. Aby Warburg said famously, 'God is in the details'. We are writing an encyclopedia, and if detail is fuss, then we should are here on false pretences.Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

CM is correct in that the UN document doesn't say whether the village was established or in the process of being established, on the given date. Other sources are more precise. According to Immanuel HaReuveni, a prominent Israeli geographer, Susya was started in 1982 and the residents moved in in 1983 (doesn't say what month). Therefore, it can be added that the village's established process started in 1982 and was completed in September 1983, which seems to be as accurate a picture as we get from the various sources. --Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All three of you are wrong, and this is block judgement. I found the UN date in sources. Canadian Monkey first added the susya.net source, giving September. At this state of the play, I had an official document, specifically registerinng West Bank developments, published by the specific UN agency monitoring settler activities on the West Bank, giving May, and the September date.

If you examine Canadian Monkey's monkeying with this, he (a) eliminated the UN source giving may while (b) giving the susya net source, which in anycase is an unreliable source, since it is a self-promoting website by a moshav with some notoriety in the world.

What did I do? I noted the September source from the moshav website was unreliable, but knowing the alternative date does exist, left it there, with the UN source. For in principle strong reliable sources should not be deleted and replaced with poor sources, and, there is no harm in keeping the alternative dates since (c) they may very well refer to different moments in the establishment of the moshav (fencing in, expropriation, first building, caravans, or first settled habitation etc.etc).

CM then read what he calls a 'pro-Palestinian' source which he uses to justify his elimination of the UN document. He's happier having two partisan accounts which appear to balance each other and confluesce in their data, than having a third external source which disagrees with both. Bad practice.

Who really cares, I am asked? I do, and I have worked hardest on the article to get details precisely sourced from the best literature, and if I find a conflict, I don't make a personal judgement according to what I personally prefer, I retain all available information until I or some other editor establishes with indisputable clarity which source gets things right on what details. This, gentlemen, is what editing towards an encyclopedic end. All I see in Canadian Monkey's behaviour is work to ensure the moshav's point of view is secured, even at the cost of contesting what external international bodies say.

One cannot equivocate, as he did, on 'established' as equivalent to 'in the process of establishment'.

I haven't warred on POV. I have warred to retain alternative information that happens to come from the UN authority monitoring the West Bank settlements, while CM has consistently edited to suppress it. That is suppression of a high quality alternative source, and is unconscionable. It is unnecessary because adding 'May' to or 'September' saves the phenomena, while retaining the best available source do date.

Ynhockey is correct about 1982, which I was also familiar with from my files. I have a large file on Susya, and precisely because information from various sources is ragged, I edit point by point to get the whole picture in, not to push some line. Last night's idiocy should not be repeated. Nothing is lost by retaining at the drafting stage all reliable sources. Much may be lost by priviliging partisan sources at their expense. It's a matter of principle.Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The UN date is useless, because it refers to an undefined/unknown event: "ESTABLISHED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" - i.e, we don't know if May is the date when it was 'ESTABLISHED', or if May is the date it was 'IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED' - and we further have no idea what "IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED" means. We have 2 other sources that provide a precise date, September, for when it was actually established - there's no reason not to use that, or to artificially create imprecision where non exists. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is wikilawyering. You don't challenge reliable sources because they don't answer the questions you might think of. The source says MAY 1983. It is reliable, therefore it is added, whatever an editor's private opinion may be.

It is not wikilwayering to note that the source you want to use does not actually say what you claim for it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice game,set match, Canadian Monkey, Ynhockey, IronDuke, and now NoCal. I can accept 3 against one, but no intelligent editing can be done on a page with NoCal100 there. His only function, as far as I have seen, is to push good editors over the top and get them subject to incremental sanctions. Of all of the obscure articles in wikipedia, all of a sudden there is intense fascination about this rare little islet, and I find, having built it, just after I'd done the history of the Jewish synagogue, that it will be 4 against 1, if I try to give the history of the Palestinian Susya. Nice work. I'm checkmated by a numbers game. And nothing in the air at Arbcom will stop this collectivist editing, for they have no remedy for it. I don't believe in coincidences. I do read events contextually. It's decision time at Arbcom, and this nice little collective frustration of my obvious edit has its uses. Will he go overboard, will he make personal attacks, can 'we rush up a referrel to arbitration for some infraction. I suppose this is enough. Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

As Ynhockey notes above, please refrain from making personal attacks against other editors. Thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what is needed at this juncture is an RfC asking which source should be used? Who is willing to open it to break this deadlock? Tiamut^talk 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I made a bold edit here [1] as part the WP:BRD. Feel free to revert. But I suggest that whoever reverts, opens an RfC so as to get wider community input on this issue. Tiamut^talk 14:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable solution, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Let's see... the stuff restored consists of:

1. One deleted image
2. A series of spelling mistakes
3. Removal of a template
4. Restoration of a promotional link only vaguely related to Susya
5. Restoration of a controversial paragraph sourced to a blog
6. Restoration of a paragraph sourced to a page that doesn't support its content

Please state how any of these are appropriate. The original edit by Anon was pure vandalism from all points of view. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please refactor the heading here? I'm sure you are aware of WP:TALK, which frowns upon using your fellow editor's names in talk headings.

I removed the image and restored the template (points 1 and 3). Thanks for pointing that out. I had missed those changes in my revert of your edit.

I assume by "spelling mistakes", you are referring to your changes of "Susya" to "Susia"? Per the MoS, I thought we were supposed to use the spelling used in the article title, which is why I didn't think reverting those changes was a problem. If it is, and you have another rationale for their use, please do elaborate.

The rest of descriptions are very far off base. The material is adequately sourced and where it was not I added other sources. When you want to discuss in more accurate and less polemical terms, I am ready. Tiamut^talk 17:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the talk heading per your request. Thank you for making some of the necessary fixes, and indeed I misread about Susya vs. Susia (thought that the Anon wrote Susia, I guess it was the opposite).

However, there is still a problem with the part about the settlers. You are actually citing this WP:REDFLAG claim to a blog and a book by an Indologist-turned-peace-activist. That doesn't seem like exceptional sourcing, and in fact, it's not even reliable sourcing. Shulman is no more a reliable source on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict than, for example, Moshe Feiglin, who also wrote at least one book on the subject. Moreover, the book source you cited doesn't even support the claim; it merely retells a personal account of an event in 2005, mostly about a specific incident. This is quite far from the libelous claim that "The settlers regularly harass their Palestinian neighbours, uprooting their olive trees, shooting their sheep and threatening the citizens. They are often supported in this by the Israeli army." —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Shall we rephrase and attribute to Shulman then? Tiamut^talk 08:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's significantly trimmed (per WP:UNDUE) and supported by the source, I am fine with that. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

There were a number of changes to the infobox. Some of these are good, such as using the standard settlement infobox instead. Some of these are however not good. Here are the issues with the infobox as it stood before my edit:

1. The pushpin map was the Israel map which has as its alt text Susya is located in Israel. This is plainly incorrect as Susya is not in Israel.
2. The district is named "Judea and Samaria". The WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) stipulate that the "Area" must be included. Also, as a result of those naming conventions and the discussions involved in setting them up, it was determined that when the infobox contains "Judea and Samaria Area" as the district the infobox must also include "West Bank" as the region. Code was inserted in the Israel specific infobox to ensure that happened. Here I just added it as a separate field
3. The coordinates region is given as IL (Israel) when the location is actually in the Palestinian territories.

nableezy - 15:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The village is not in the 'Palestinian Territories' and saying so is misleading. It is Israeli, and not under any Arab control. --Shuki (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a demonstrably false statement. Susya is in the West Bank which is a part of the Palestinian territories. Your warped view as to what the "Palestinian territories" encompasses has no basis in the sources or reality. nableezy - 19:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, the infobox should be changed back. If there's a problem with the map, that can be addressed separately. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? nableezy - 20:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For one, the global format has Hebrew display problems, and is much more complicated for the regular user to understand. Secondly, we should be consistent in infobox use and it's a problem if some localities have one kind of infobox and others have another. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of any language display issues, but that should be easily solved by using the {{rtl-lang}} template for any Hebrew or Arabic script. I agree there should consistency, but I dont see anything in the Israel-specific template, besides the color or the title bar, that can't be duplicated in the standard template. In fact, if we want consistency, we should be standardizing the template as much as we can, for both Israeli localities and for other localities in Palestine or Egypt or Ghana. There are some things, like the depopulated villages infobox, that has things that would be difficult to translate into the standard template, but I dont see how that is the case here. nableezy - 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that you aren't seeing the problem of complication, as a long-time Wikipedian. Imagine what it's like for a new user to learn either template. The global one has a gazillion fields, no one can possibly learn them all by heart and understand their quirks. While you are correct that the technical issues can be fixed, the reverse is true as well—there's nothing in the global template that can't be ported into the Israel-specific one. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont think a new user would be able to figure out either one without reading the documentation. They would have no idea was "js" means in the region, or what "pushpin_map" means. The point is that there should be a consistent infobox across all human settlements so far as is possible. I dont really care though. nableezy - 22:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Women Monastics

The article contained about 5 references to Medieval Women Monastics by Miriam Schmitt (Editor), Linda Kulzer (Editor), Mary Michael Kaliher (Illustrator), published by The Liturgical Press (1 January 1996). This book has no connection at all, whatsoever, with Susya! Someone has used this book falsely to reference otherwise valid information. Benqish (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Subdivision type in the infobox

• | subdivision_type1 = Region
• | subdivision_name1 = West Bank
• | subdivision_type2 = District
• | subdivision_name2 = Judea and Samaria Area
• | leader_title = Council
• | leader_name = Har Hebron

Um. Palestinian Susya does not come under District of Israel, neither does the Judea and Samaria Area. Someone who understands these things must include in this section the Hebron Governorate. while fixing the suggestion this is a distinct of Israel, which by definition it is not.Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For consideration

User:Brewcrewer removed

In so far as they live in Area C, under Israel martial law, Palestinians cannot dig deeper than 3 feet for well-water unless they obtain a permit.Patrick Strickland,'Susiya: Another Casualty of Israeli Occupation?,' at Counterpunch, 19 June, 2012.

On the grounds Strickland isn't RS. He may have a point technically, though what Strickland says happens to be true. Of course, we aren't interested in the truth. But to verify just read (and any one of a dozen books on water policy there), for example, Robert Fisk, who writes:

no Palestinian can dig a hole more than 40cm below the ground.

‘In the West Bank's stony hills, Palestine is slowly dying,’ Independent, 30 January 2010. I guess stuff like that just makes one's day, esp. if you can get it out of sight. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an opinion piece in Ynet by Nasser Nawajeh, the "resident of Susiya and longtime activist" mentioned in the article for interest.(original, +972blog translation) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This diatribe op-ed by someone whose reliability is mocked is not much better. If you were interested in the truth you may want to find a source that says no one, including Jews, can randomly dig holes in a ground full of ancient archeological treasures (which Nablezy removed). I guess stuff like that just makes one's day.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, thats just funny. Palestinians cannot dig a hole in the ground anywhere in Area C without a permit, a permit that is almost never issued, see for example here or here. Military orders require a permit to dig any hole deeper than a defined limit. Settlers are not governed under the military regime, but you already know that. An IP made a completely bogus assertion that this is due to priceless antiquities and that it applies to everybody. That is a straight forward lie. Jews in settlements, hell in outposts, dig to their heart's content. And if you would like to challenge Fisk's reliability, which would be fun to watch, RS/N is thataway nableezy - 16:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think that unlike Arabs, Jews, are allowed to dig as they please in an area replete with archeological sites you are reading too much polemical crap. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that. What I said is that settlers in the West Bank, and Israeli Jews in Israel, do not require a permit to dig a well, as Palestinians in Area C do. What your new friend put in the article was a straight forward lie. To claim that concern for "archaeological sites" is the cause for this requirement is likewise pure nonsense. Please take care not repeat garbage as though it were fact. Thank you. nableezy - 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer. Could you kindly desist from insinuating that a description of an institutional practice by Israel on territory it occupies has something invariably to do with 'Jews'. This has absolutely nothing to do with Jews. It's called poisoning the well.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of sources

Brewcrewer, I'm sure you are already aware of this, but to review. WP:RS says that a source is either reliable because of who published it, or because of the expertise of the authors. Are you going to claim that Neve Gordon, writer of a book on the Israeli occupation published by the University of California Press, or David Dean Shulman, writer of a book which, in part, is about his experience in Susya published by University of Chicago Press and author of reviews published in places such as the New York Review of Books, are not reliable sources? If not, revert this edit. nableezy - 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Review the edit summary. The sentence has two other better sources saying the same thing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the edit summary. You claimed a piece authored by Shulman and Gordon is not reliable source. Why? nableezy - 16:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two other sources cited at the end of the sentence one of which is by the author removed in the third source. If anyone reasonable is of the opinion that the third source is necessary, we'll deal with whether its an RS. Until then the issue is moot save for creating a contentious talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry, but you claimed that a piece authored by Gordon and Shulman is not a reliable source. Do you stand by that claim? If so, why? If not, why did you remove it on the grounds that it is an unreliable source? nableezy - 16:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Attribution to Amira Hass

In this edit Nableezy removed a relatively harmless attribution to Amira Hass. According to her Wikipedia page it appears as if Hass was convicted of defamation in connection with her reporting on Jews living in Judea and Samaria. Taking that into account it would appear that, at the very least, we whould attribute to her any claims she makes about such Jews. Thoughts? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Where, or when, is Judea and Samaria? And no, Amira Hass, writing in Haaretz, is a reliable source. nableezy - 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice strawman. The issue is whether an attribution should be removed not whether its an RS. Please respond to the point raised.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would a reliable source that has no other sources disputing what it reports need attribution? When did that become the practice here? Because there are any number of things, including a large number of things you have written, that need attribution to a specific author if that is the case. Amira Hass, and Haaretz behind her, are reliable sources for fact. This is not a "view" that needs attribution, this is not something that any other reliable source disputes. So no, there is no need for attribution. Now you respond to the below, as you seem to be adding attribution for undisputed facts, though you are only doing so for facts that you would dislike having in an article. nableezy - 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the first half of your comment, you're ordering me to respond to a comment you made 13 minutes ago while personally attacking me? Keep on refreshing your watchlist and wait patiently.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You told me to respond to you. I did. Now I am asking you to respond to me. Thats how a talk page works. If you refuse, then I assume you have no valid reason for that disruptive edit and as such have your consent to remove the unneeded attribution. Thank you for your cooperation. (and where on Earth are you seeing a personal attack???) nableezy - 16:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And now Levy. Please explain this edit, as it has the distinction of attributing to Levy what Shulman also reports (and is cited for) as well as containing an explicit attribution for a piece published by a reliable source (this is not an op-ed). nableezy - 16:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I had zero objections when I wrote singlehandedly the sections on Susya's Jewish heritage. Where were you? Waiting for the Palestinian side to be mentioned so you could get grumpy? I expect reasonable standards, but not this kind of consistent challenging to sources that no one has worried about. Ta'ayush is certainly a respectable source. I could make a mess of roughly 1,000 Israeli pages in a week if I did what you are doing here, Brewcrewer, since most use sources that would never pass an RS test. I don't, and none of us here intrude and fuss, and moan about poor sourcing there because that kind of game, which you play on I/P articles, is pointless, somewhat vicious and anti-encyclopedic. Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Regavim

What is the basis to call Regavim a "settler" NGO instead of an "Israeli" NGO? David Shulman's blog isn't RS for facts, and the German source calls them "Zionist". And they say they are located in Israel http://regavim.org.il/en/about-regavim/. Sean Hoyland, please self-revert.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Regavim is of course a settler organization, "subsidized by the settlers' regional municipalities in the territories" [2]. On the other hand, you are right that the German source doesn't call them that and I'm not sure if the presence or absence of the description in the article makes much difference. Zero^talk 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, because it is not "inaccurate". If you would prefer to change it to "settler association Regavim" from the Haaretz source here, feel free. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Whereas this source [3] has them as Israeli, and this [4] calls Regavim a "nongovernmental group that combats illegal Palestinian construction". I don't think the latter is preferable, is it? I agree with Zero0000 that no description would be better. The place to hash this out would be on the (non-existent) Regavim article page.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Since there is no Regavim article, a description of some kind is necessary. Which of the various descriptions or combined descriptions is the most precise and informative for the reader ? Israeli is imprecise. [Israeli] [pro]-settler association/NGO is more precise and informative. Including "that combats illegal Palestinian construction" is fine by me as long as it's clear whose law is being referred to. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think "Israeli pro-settler association" is sufficient for here. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just comment. Euphemisms are part of the game. We mention the Civil Administration and are supposed to image a 'civil' Israeli authority acting in defence of some statuary laws applicable to Israel. In fact, it is an orwellianism coined by Ariel Sharon to camouflage the fact that the 'Civil Administration' is an arm of the Defence Ministry and is an organ that supervises the occupation and usurpation of indigenous land rights. I think editors should start to examine whether a defining epithet is required there as well, to clarify that it is, despite the name, not 'civil' but 'military'. So too with Regavim. 'pro-settler' and NGO are euphemisms. The actual documented function of the organization is one of using the Israeli court system to expel Palestinians from their land. They do not work on behalf of settlers ('pro-sttler'), except in weighing it to stop demolition of outposts,: they assist settlers incidentally, by presenting writs and suits in order to undermine Palestinian territorial claims. It is not therefore 'pro-settler' but 'anti-Palestinian'. Their head Rabbi Yehuda Eliyahu is a settler, so is its main snooper, its director Ovad Arad, the whole thing is run by settlers. Its funding reportedly comes from Hakeren Le'atzmaut Yisrael, privately run by a Psagot settler, Nachman Eyal, and local West Bank settlement councils who refunnel them with money they obtain from the Israeli government for settlement exigencies, a kind of activist tax. It has clearly defined political links with rightwing political parties. When I'll get back I'll write the Regavim article, but I suggest that these issues be determined by neutral source-based usage, with great care taken not, as with civil administration, to adopt a euphemism that tacitly embodies a POV, nothing else. What distinguishes it is not that it is 'Israeli' but that it is a settler-run and funded private organization whose leaders and operatives work out of the West Bank. 'Israeli' thus points the readers' eyes outside the actual locus where it operates. Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

material restored

A large amount of well-sourced material was removed, without discussion, as either POV or not sourced to a RS. The claim that the material is not NPOV is made without any basis, and David Dean Shulman writing in the New York Review of Books blog is a fine source, both because he has been published by high quality academic presses and because the NYR is by itself a reliable source. I've restored the material, though I kept some of the changes. nableezy - 16:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian Susya??? WP:IRRELEVANT

This article is about the Jewish settlement, Susya. Palestinian Susya is WP:IRRELEVANT and thus, the whole last section as well as big parts of previous section should be either deleted or moved to Palestinian Susya. Ashtul (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should therefore be called Jewish Susya? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, Nishidani and whoever else, do you have any opposition to spliting this article into 3. Susya, Har Hebron, Susya, Hebron and Susya, Archaeological Site? Ashtul (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course. Not sensible in the slightest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul. No one has ever thought of this as 'problematical' till you came up with the objection, which is fanciful and not policy-based. The proposal looks like futile forking, whose ostensible purpose would be to make all articles where conflicts are part of the history, Araberrein / Judenrein just so everyone could see history laundered of the uncomfortable. Neither history nor Wikipedia, as its rather woeful scribe (palsied hand or with attention-deficit disorder) works that way. P.s. stop following me around. I already have to cope with many redinked nuisance editors without extra duties on my plate. Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The only reason this came into my mind is the Carmel, Har Hebron article which became the host of Umm al-Kheir information. I can see here it was developed with both town on the page but still, this isn't forking. Each one is totally independent from the other. Not that you would care, but in hebrew there are 3 separete articles. Ashtul (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is a joke. It is 3 different sites compiled in one. The info of the archaeological site is clear but no useful info can be found on either Israeli or Palestinian Susya. Ashtul (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Blind removalism

Averysoda I have told you before that reliability is always in context. This blind removalism of Mondoweiss everywhere you see it, without checking what the sources say is becoming irritating. Furthermore, you have watered down the language of "The master plan for Susiya was denied by the Israeli Civil Administration", to "No master plan exists" without any justification. A moment's Google search would have turned up these totally WP:RS links, link1, link2 stating precisely what was written: the village did submit master plan, but it was denied by the Israeli civil administration. This sort of careless editing is unacceptable. I have now added these sources to the article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is an activists' group blog, and not reliable for facts. Period. This is Wikipedia policy on self-published sources. There is nothing irritating about its removal, on the contrary, the is something very irritating about editors who seek to introduce this unreliable , marginal , extremist source when they have at their disposable higher quality mainstream sources for the same facts. All Rows4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

All newspapers are 'activist' in the same sense, i.e., they carry numerous articles by people with very strong views, which influence even their 'factual' reportage. Mondoweiss, to repeat, in the last run-ins at RS/N has had outside input from just two people, both of whom said it may be used according to context. A e-journal with numerous journalists writing for it is not a 'blog'. Many of the articles are field reports, with accompanying videos. Take it to RS/N, because there is no clear cut verdict supporting your repeated suggestion it cannot be used.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a clear policy that differentiates mainstream newspapers form activists' self-published blogs. Don't like it? Work to change policy. until then, either edit according to policy, or go edit somewhere else. All Rows4 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)