Talk:Israeli settlement

Reference [22] not anymore available

This reference should be removed or a new one found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.137.56 (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Balance in the Lead

The following passage is the 5th paragraph. It should perhaps be in the first or second since it appears to represent the majority of the world.

• A number of international bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law, but other legal scholars, Israel, and the Anti-Defamation League disagree with this assessment.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably the most significant aspect of the settlements, so OK to that. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have moved it to second place.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Has moved back down, somehow - will move it back up.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions

MeteorMaker (talk · contribs) has been banned from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.[1] He is still welcome to make other non-revert changes to the article, and to bring up concerns at the talkpage, to build consensus for desired changes. --Elonka 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be based on a misconception: I did not remove Jayjg's (cherry-picked) cites, I just moved them to the proper place in the article, the part that actually discusses the usage of the name "Samaria". [2] I humbly request that you lift that ban. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you removed the statement that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used, which is exactly what those sources supported. The fact that you didn't actually remove the sources, but merely hid them in an irrelevant citation, is not a defense of your edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those sources say that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used. That appears to be your own conclusion. If you want that statement there (IMO an irrelevant place, as we have a section on the toponyms and their usage already), it shouldn't be misleading — since dozens of sources confirm that the term is used in Israel and the rest of the world calls it the West Bank [3], that is what the article should say. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Samaria is not the same as the West Bank. You are reminded that you are banned from making Samaria related reverts. Go find something else to do. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your original research is still unproven; and, in fact, conclusively disproven. Nevertheless, I have modified the wording to account for your objection to the phrase "sometimes used". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey: That ban was based on what has been confirmed by the admin to be a misunderstanding. She promised to lift it, but forgot to do so before she went on vacation.

Jayjg: Scroll down a little and see that even your painstakingly scraped-together anecdotal evidence for the position that "Samaria" is a modern toponym doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You have still not presented one source that corroborates your claim without large doses of WP:SYNTH, and you need lots to match the colossal amount of sources that expressly say you're wrong. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The ban has not been lifted, and was still in place after what you claim is a "misunderstanding" was discussed on your Talk page, ending with no changes at all to the ban. Elonka did not promise to lift it, she said she is open to reviewing it - and has not done so. You may think it is because she 'forgot to do so before she went on vacation.' but there is no indication that is the case, and it is more likely that based on your repeated attempts to wikilawyer around the restriction she has placed, that she decided to keep it, as is. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of corroboration would make that accusation of wikilawyering look less like a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When someone is banned from removing citations, and claims it is ok to remove the material the citations are used as reference for, so long as he keeps the citations themselves in the article, he is wikilawyering. When someone is banned from reverting the term "Samaria" and changing it into "West bank", following a spate of such edits, and claims it is ok to do it if there isn't a previous version that had the term "west bank' in it, he is wikilawyering. When someone says "Elonka promised to lift the ban", when in fact all she did was agree to review it, he is not wikilawyering, just blatantly misleading. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but all that has been confirmed to be a load of bunk [4]. Now kindly shift your focus to trying to find sources for your clam that "Samaria" is a modern toponym instead. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your claim that the ban was lifted has been "confirmed to be a load of bunk", despite your wikilawyering. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim that I've made such a claim is easy to confirm as the same. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But now it's safe to make. [5] MeteorMaker (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"change wording, per MeteorMaker's objections"?

I wonder, what objections is Jayjg referring to when he made this change, with the edit summary "change wording, per MeteorMaker's objections"? I have certainly not objected that the article should say "or northern Samaria" instead of "also referred to as Samaria". If I have made an objection, it's that it should be made clear that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology. There is no consensus for that highly misleading edit and it should be reverted. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You alleged that None of those sources say that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used. That appears to be your own conclusion. Based on your complaint, I removed the phrase you were complaining about, and any pretext for claiming OR. Speaking of OR, your claim that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology has been conclusively disproved. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Scroll down a little for the demolition of that claim. Instead of resorting to proof by assertion, try and find one source that actually says what you are trying to prove, that "Samaria" is used outside Israel. I remind you that there are scores of reliable sources that prove you wrong here, and thousands more may be added. Also, kindly refrain from blatant misrepresenting of other editors' positions and from making misleading edit summaries in the future. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In this unrelated edit in the same article, I admit I was wrong about the existence of a consensus (though the edit in itself was fine). Now, you might have thought your edit summary correct too, the first time. However, I informed you that your wording was not "per MeteorMaker's objections" and still you didn't correct it. It was reverted two times, and both times you reinserted the false claim, with even more outlandish edit summaries [6][7], totally contrary to WP:AGF. Also, there was never a consensus for your edit, so it would be appropriate if you reverted it yourself. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This bogus edit summary seems to hit a new low for editorial dishonesty, finger-in-the-eye arrogance, and deliberate disruption.

There is currently a case before Arbcom about this entire hoax. I'd suggest not wasting further energy here, or on any article talk page.--G-Dett (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

illegal / unauthourized outposts

I tried looking for this issue in the archives but could not find something directly relevant. I've changed the wording from illegal outposts to unauthourized outposts since this term is disputed / misleading. The Sasson Report deals with the outposts and adds criteria it uses that might make an outpost illegal, but the Sasson Report itself is not binding or the legal policy of the Israeli government. The Israeli government itself does not have specific criteria for what an illegal or legal settlement, except for those locations that the courts have managed to deal with. For instance, Amona is an outpost, but only the houses that were destroyed were deemed illegally built. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many WP:RS that call these settlements illegal settlements, including the WP:RS that you removed from the article.

If you want to rename them in this article, then find a WP:RS that supports this terminology. You are not a WP:RS. Factsontheground (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the Sasson Report? The cover page itself states that it is an interim report about unauthorized outposts. There is also absolutely no use of the term illegal in the entire 343 page report. Please stop introducing fictitious terms into wikipedia articles to push your POV on the subject. This seems to be your alternative way to call settlements illegal - POV that has not succeeded otherwise. --Shuki (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)