Talk:Israeli settlement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 111: Line 111:


===Threaded Discussion===
===Threaded Discussion===
* '''Note to closer''' - please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Selfstudier&diff=916532983&oldid=913009291 diff], which appears to '''selectively ping''' some five different editors to this RfC. [[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 13:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:25, 19 September 2019


Haaretz article: "Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie."

Haaretz - Yotam Berger - Secret 1970 document confirms first West Bank settlements built on a lie, 28 July 2016.

"predominant" as a pretext to blanket revert

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

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

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

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

See also suggestion:

Irish bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COPIED

Statements by uninvolved editor

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

ENDCOPY

RFC on Bill in Republic of Ireland

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

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

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

Survey

  • Yes I don't see any UNDUE here. Seems related, notable etc. There is also the Canadian court decision which is not to label products made in the Israeli settlements as "Made in Israel".[3] I think this should also be included in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No WP:UNDUE to go into a bill in a different country that may or may not become law. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It's a proposed law that may or may not happen and that may or may not be reversed. There are probably thousands of proposed laws currently being proposed on many topics that are important, but that doesn't warrant inclusion in an Encyclopedia until it passes and has an effect on the subject, just passing one House is meaningless. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. WP:UNDUE. This is a draft bill targeting all occupations (not just Israel), that even if passed would have a small impact on the subject of the article (trade between Israel and Ireland is low (60 million Euro). Trade between Israeli settlements and Ireland is much lower - around 1.2 million Euro a year). The draft bill is currently stuck (or perhaps dead/dying) in committee - and even if it were to pass the committee - it would require a couple more votes in the legislature to pass. Most importantly for Wikipedia - coverage shows that this is UNDUE. This draft bill had a small burst of coverage in January 2019 - it has since disappeared from secondary RSes (as draft bills often do - being stuck doesn't even make the news....) - to determine the status of the bill we had to resort to looking at the homepage of the promoter of the bill and the website of the Irish legislature - as evident in the proposed passage which is sourced to PRIMARY sources such as www.gov.ie, www.oireachtas.ie, data.oireachtas.ie, as well as an op-ed in www.thejournal.ie. In short - what we are lacking here is sufficient secondary coverage in RSes - for a topic (Israeli settlements) that is heavily covered in secondary sources. Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Clearly relevant per multiple sources and definitely WP:DUE some space in this article in section Export to EU. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - until there is actually a law this is premature. We do not need to include things that end up having no impact. nableezy - 13:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

  • Note to closer - please see diff, which appears to selectively ping some five different editors to this RfC. Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_settlement&oldid=916554127"