Talk:Israeli settler violence

Tagged POV

This article is biased, as it discusses "Settler Violence" with no information from the Israel point of view presented. In its current form, it borders on propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.38.1 (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This POV tag has been here since 2009? It's time to remove it. The article is not POV. It is an article about "Settler Violence". I don't even know what the previous post means. What is the "Israeli point of view" regarding settler violence. The Israeli viewpoint towards settler violence seems to be the same as the Palestinian viewpoint. As far as I can see, every Israeli article about settler violence denounces it as violence and/or terrorism committed by fanatics. Can anyone find a reliable source which presents settler violence sympathetically? Poyani (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What about Palestinian violence?

Why is there no mention of Palestinian attacks on settlers? The shootings, the suicide bombings of past, the vandalism, etc.? This is indeed propaganda.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be covered elsewhere (Palestinian political violence would be a starting point to look). In any case, perhaps you've heard how Wikipedia works: if you think something needs changing, change it. Add an appropriate sourced section, for example. Disembrangler (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate call,you shouldn't compare "settler=occupying" violence to "Palestinian = occupied" violence ,simple logic !. Cutedoctor (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Palestinian attacks against settlers? Because this is an article about "Israeli settler violence". Poyani (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

therefore your'e saying yourself that this is a one-sidded article, which is therfore disputed. there should be one article about violence in Yeudia and Sameria (also known as the west bank). the article will covere violnce from all sides and therefore won't be one sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.30.86 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming back to "Settler violence"

This article was originally entitled "Settler violence" and after a nomination for deletion that failed was renamed by User:Rd232, a user I have a great deal of respect for, to its current title.

I admit that the original title was blunt and may be provocative to some users involved in the I-P situation on Wikipedia. However, it was factually accurate as to the content of the page. There are currently articles entitled Palestinian political violence, Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2001 that are deemed acceptable, objective titles despite the fact they are concerned with the victims of only one side of the conflict and the perpetrators of the other side of the conflict. I do not see how "Settler violence" is subjective in any way, since there have been repeated accounts of Israeli settler violence in many mainstream reliable news agencies.

I propose changing the title back OR changing the titles, subject and content of Palestinian political violence, Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2001 to cover victims and perpetrators of BOTH sides. Factsontheground (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the article should be renamed 'Indictment of Israel by pro-Palestinian groups'. That would be a fair description of this one sided article. --Shuki (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? As the original name suggested, this articles focuses on the specific subject of Israeli settler violence against local Palestinians, a notable subject that is a recurrent feature of newspaper articles regarding the region. Factsontheground (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:POV_FORK, and needs a significant overhaul to become a proper unbiased article . Reading this article one would easily reach the conclusion that the majority of settlers are violent, this incorrect, violence is committed by a small number of extremists on both sides. --Marokwitz (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Another title proposal: "Violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinians"

What do people think? Factsontheground (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Both suggestions are misleading because the Israeli 'resistance' (in Arab terminology) is not limited to settlers and many involved are Israelis who live in 'Israel'. It also seems to infer that the conflict is between 'settlers' and Palestinians. --Shuki (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Very misleading title - Israeli settler violence

3/4 of the article needs to be removed since it has little to do with the new title besides the fact that most of the rest is misleading. --Shuki (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's simply untrue, Shuki. Point out the sections that you feel are not relevant. Factsontheground (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel's settlement policy - not directly relevant here.

Differing legal status and treatment of Israeli settlers and Palestinians - what does this have to do with settler violence?

Israeli army mutinies - entirely irrelevant.

The POV article was/is currently some sort of human rights article, but your name change the purpose to one specific aspect of that. Please remove the above sections, or revert the name change. --Shuki (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that all 3 sections are directly relevant to the topic of settler violence. Israel's settlement policy has directly led to skirmishes between settlers and the IDF, for example, when the Gaza withdrawal took place. The differing legal status between Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied territories is relevant because it explains why settler violence may not be punished as severely as Palestinian violence. Israeli army mutinies are also important since there has been much violence between settlers and the IDF.

All 3 sections existed when the article was originally named "Settler violence". I find your claim that they have nothing to do with setttler violence to be perplexing and disingenuous. Factsontheground (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Commnet: There's certainly a very large synthesis problem in this article. I figure Factsontheground (I'd use 'Mushrooms' instead of 'Facts', btw) should give a serious examination to what could really amount to violence and what is fluff that is, possibly, relevant to other articles but not here. Articles about a few religious folk that are unhappy with removing Jews from their homes don't belong here, that's for sure. Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Jaakobou, but I really cannot understand what you are trying to say here. Factsontheground (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Facts, all 3 sections existed? Big deal, WP is meant to be edited. The three sections do not mention violence whatsoever. You are protecting the article with little logic and it is you who refuse to discuss the content itself. How is Israeli army mutiny related exactly? --Shuki (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article states, the Israeli army is relied on as a means of last resort to control the settlers. If members of the IDF refuse to fight the settlers and they are allowed to run rampant, surely you can see that is relevant to the topic? Factsontheground (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And someone with your understanding of the English language can understand that nothing in that section refers to Israeli soldiers refusing to control Jewish violence but rather an entirely different subject of refusing to evict Jews. If you cannot find anything to relate Israeli soldiers to 'settler/civilian violence' then the section is irrelevant to this article and has to be dropped. --Shuki (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the many sentences (as opposed to blanking the whole section) that are not directly relevant to violence and no relation is stated to relate either. The problem with the content is that the article was about human rights and the UN and has since then had a name change which changes the scope of the article. If you want to readd that information, please change the name back to the human rights name. --Shuki (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am similarly curious why an article named Israeli settler violence that "refers both to acts of violence committed by a restricted number of Israeli settlers against Palestinians and Israeli security forces, predominantly in the West Bank" includes Israel's settlement policy and Differing legal status and treatment of Israeli settlers and Palestinians.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Useful article(s)

• UN warns 250,000 Palestinians 'vulnerable' to settler violence.
• Police arrest 10 in raid on West Bank settlement.

Tiamut, you do know that without any discussion, you are violating NOTLINK and TALK by simply posting URLS. --Shuki (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, this is the second time you remove access to these two links [1], by deleting my talk page comments, as you did here the first time [2]:

I am linking these to allow other editors a chance to review them and determine if they are useful to the article's development, and if so, to use them to improve the article. I do not have the time to add them myself directly now. Please do not remove them a third time. Please stop edit-warring and deleting the comments of your fellow editors in violation on WP:TALK. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. WP:NOTLINK applies to Wikipedia articles, and not talk pages. WP:TALK is clear in stating you should not delete the comments of your fellow editors, with few exceptions. Them linking to articles useful to the development of the article is not one of them. Tiamut^talk 19:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I might remove it a third time unless you take the time to develop the issue you want to talk about as opposed to this 'I admit I have no time' 'fire and forget' attitude that is simply not acceptable on WP and you know it would not be tolerated on pages close to your heart. Start the discussion, what you want to include, etc... Tell me what you think if I balance your links with two of my own:

• Rabbis for Human Rights Fabrications: A Critique of The "Olive Tree Campaign"
• Tree-Cutting "Libel" - Once Again, Jews Stand Accused

Is this productive? --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If you remove it a third time WP:AE will be my next stop after reverting you. And you are free to add links that are relevant to the article. nableezy - 21:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to mind your own business? I wonder if I can show your objectiveness by putting such links on an article close to your heart, because obviously here, it is hard for you to judge things objectively. --Shuki (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is my business. And I question the objectivity of anyone who says that the article is "close to [their] heart". Refrain from removing other people's comments. It really is not that complicated. nableezy - 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very weird warning since you yourself have some controversial recent history of removing comments during your topic ban. --Shuki (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned editors comments may be removed by anybody. Tiamut is not a banned editor. Stop being silly. nableezy - 23:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cetainly not banned, just violating NOTLINK and TALK. --Shuki (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing this point with you anymore, adding links relevant to the article that others may not be aware of is not a violation of anything. If you remove them again I will be going to AE. That is not a threat or a warning. It is simply a statement of fact. Do what you want, but be prepared to face the consequences. nableezy - 00:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes sir, Mr WP Policeman!!! You always need to get the last word in, always. Even if it is copy&paste of what you've said four times. --Shuki (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

<- Don't forget these informative OCHA special reports.

• Unprotected: Israeli settler violence against Palestinian civilians and their property from dec2008
• Israeli Settler Violence and the Evacuation of Outposts from nov2009

Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you Sean, Im sure we all can agree that was very helpful. nableezy - 05:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sean and Tiamut, your links are greatly appreciated. Oh, and ignore Shuki, he's quite wrong about this ;) Factsontheground (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Israeli army mutinies

Shuki, can you please stop deleting this section? As I have explained time and time again to you, this section is highly relevant to the topic of this article since the Israeli army is the force responsible for protecting Palestinians against settler violence. Indications that the army is refusing to do its job are highly relevant, since they place Palestinian's at a greater risk of violence.

Secondly, you have a history of operating against consensus on this article. Please participate in the discussion and consider the opinions of everybody else before you continue to edit war on this article. Factsontheground (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As discussed earlier, and yet to be proved otherwise, this section has nothing to do with settler violence. If you are so bent on included it on WP, look for the proper article. Please stop disrupting WP. --Shuki (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, this dispute about the mutiny section has been going on a long, long time and it is getting very tiresome and repetitive. We appear to have reached an impasse, although I have to say I am disappointed with your intransigence since I compromised on most of your other demands. How about we do an RFC and promise to stick to whatever is decided by neutral third parties? Factsontheground (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I thoroughly read the information on neutrality and then signed up for an account after reading this article and talk page. I found several articles discussing actual mutinies and potential ones in the Israeli army, along with quotes from Israeli officials that mutinies could lead to devastating consequences or security in Israel. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1650560,00.html and http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_21250.shtml Simple logic states that if the IDF is responsible for providing security in the areas of settlement, then they protect both Israelis and Palestinians. I believe this satisfies the requirements for inclusion as the security situation is relevant to any violence in any region.

This article is about Israeli settler violence, not Palestinian violence, the Warsaw Pact, or the Eerie Canal. If I wrote an article on the 9/11 attacks would I then be required to offer Al-Qaeda view points, reasoning, history, and facts to avoid seeming pro US?Timmy419 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)timmy419

Welcome to WP. We are not denying the existence of mutinies in Israel, but they do not belong on the page here since they are in reaction to other events. Please look for another article if you insist on including in on WP. On the other hand, inclusion of a similar section would be legitimate if someone would find repeated incidents (one would probably be NN) of soldiers refusing to prevent 'settler violence'. --Shuki (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue of why the mutinies occur seems irrelevant to the fact that mutinies weaken the security situation. Regardless of why the soldiers are refusing their duty, Israeli officials seem to agree that it is damaging to the army's ability to carry out their mission. This in turn certainly weakens the security situation. I support neither Israel or Palestine, I am merely trying to apply the principles of logic as I understand them.Timmy419 (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)timmy419

Thank you, Timmy419, that is a logical point of view. Factsontheground (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Timmy, please comment on this article, not the issue of mutinies. Fog, please stop disrupting. --Shuki (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Funding of illegal settlements ostensibly halted n response to settler violence directed towards Israeli security forces, Israel declared it would no longer fund illegal outposts from November, 2008. Settlers claim the violence was sparked by the beating of a settler child, while border police spokesman Moshe Pinchi said he had no knowledge of the alleged beating and accused the settlers of "cynically" sending minors to attack the police.[43] However there is evidence that support continues unabated for illegal outposts. At one illegal settlement, Hayovel there has been work on a new road that cuts through Palestinian territory.

I believe the above information is incorrect and should be removed as in 2009 Haaretz reported Israel begins new settlement, despite U.S. opposition [link] and again on 26th Feb 2010 Israel plans 600 more settlements in East Jerusalem [link] additional source link Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. Factsontheground (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of removing the section completely I have changed it to:

Funding of illegal settlements briefly halted in 2008

In response to settler violence directed towards Israeli security forces, Israel declared it would no longer fund illegal outposts from November, 2008.[43] However the funding resumed soon unabated for illegal outposts by Israel. At one illegal settlement, HaYovel there has been work on a new road that cuts through Palestinian territories.[44]

I hope that is fine. Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Good choice to leave the section in there too. Factsontheground (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging of Israeli settler violence

Hi, Breein1007, instead of just tagging this article as NPOV can you list the neutrality issues that you see on the talk page so that they can be fixed? Tagging by itself won't solve anything. Please see WP:TAGGING:

When adding a tag, keep in mind that other people who might be interested in fixing the problem (or who might dispute the tag) might not immediately see the same problems you do. Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. Some editors feel this should be mandatory and "drive-by" tagging should be prohibited. Other editors feel that some tags are self-explanatory.

Especially in the case of a tag such as {{npov}}, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed. It may help to refer to applicable content policies, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, though WikiLawyering is discouraged.

Thank you for complying with Wikipedia policy. Factsontheground (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• #Tagged POV
• #What about Palestinian violence? - Response from Palestinians could have a place here. This also might be part of the why and should be discussed if source.
• #Israeli army mutinies - If related, how and why soldiers react could have a place. A complete subsection may not be necessary
• Israel's settlement policy section.
  • Such a reliance on sources that are not objective has created a tone that is not objective. Although these organizations have the moral highground, Wikipedia should not be used to promote their beliefs. Present it and maybe find some a source or two from parties that are in favor of violence to balance it out. Better yet, stick to sources without a goal. I see one newspaper article in there.
  • The fourth paragraph is not related but given weight. This article is about settler violence.
• Causes of violence section
  • Similar to above it points fingers without giving explanation (even though it is the section title). WHy is this happening? Why do the settlers feel justified? A single two sentence paragraph does not seem sufficient. Maybe some quotes from those on the Israeli side (doing it, in favor of it, noncommited, or even against it) could be found.
  • Incorrect use of italics for emphasis. Use some quotations and be done with it.
  • What is up with the outposts? The paragraph makes them sound like a gang of thugs. Maybe some info on the community and again why they feel it is necessary
• Differing legal status and treatment of Israeli settlers and Palestinians and Law enforcement action against settlers sections
  • These might need to be merged. The information (which might belong together) is given extra prominence with not one but two independent headings
  • It reads like an editor was trying to make a point (Look at the double standard isn't the Israeli government bad?") instead of being about settler violence. This is another tone issue that is hard to fix and I am just saying without offering a fix.
  • It is implied that Ze'ev Braude walked due to the double standard. Is that the case? If it is alleged then come out and say it or else implying it creates more of that biased tone.
  • "...it has become customary for some settlers to take the law into their own hands in the wake of terror attacks in the West Bank." Adding more info on this would greatly improve the neutrality. Although it may not be OK to take an eye for an eye, providing details as to why it is going on would be great as mentioned above. This could also be viewed as bias towards Israel and a overall failing of this article since I assume there are numerous attacks of vengeance worthy of mention.
• Settler riots section
  • This needs to be filled out (although there is duplication from the above sections) because this article is about these settlers being violent due to the political situation. Palestinians are not the only victims.
  • "Local Palestinians claimed that once the disputed house was evicted, the IDF and the police were "indifferent" to the violence against the Palestinians" Why is this given prominence with its own paragraph? Is this claim how it is or is there a rebuttal? (I honestly don't know)

(removed)

• Settler extremism
  • Gush Emunim Underground - Potential improper use of terrorist per WP:AVOID. I see from their Wikipeida page that they are in the category but they are called "militant". I don't know anything about them so maybe they are but this jumps out as a potential hotspot. {adjusted)
  • Another section that might be biased towards Israel without expansion. It also needs to be made clear if not everyone is an extremist for bias towards the plight of Palestinians. What are the reactions towards these groups by settlers?
  • Gush Emunim is made to look like terrorists by the other groups plots not involving settlers. Was the planned attack on the Dome of the Rock even related to settlers? An links and differences needs to be clearer since it reads like an allegation.
• Funding of illegal settlements briefly halted in 2008 section - Wrong article. Is this about Israeli policy or settler violence?
• International reactions section
  • called on them to put an end to it: So has Israel tried or are we assuming they have not?
  • colonialism and apartheid - Wrong article. Is this about Israeli policy or settler violence?
• General
  • Again, too many sources that are not expected to be and are not objective or sources discussing those sources without other information provided.
  • Comes across as a coatrack for news reports with so many 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs. Is this a list of violence?
  • Similar to above but more of an MOS concern is the well contamination and attacks on mosques being subsections. It make sit read even more like a coatrack with not enough of a focus on presenting the info in an encyclopedic manner.
  • Not enough why. I am not saying the violence is justified (settlements is one of the things I agree with the Palestinians on) but the settlers feel it is justified. There reasons need much more space here.
  • Numbers if available. This is one of the biggest issues in the article. It reads like all settlers are violent. Some distinction needs to be made if a source can be found. This is another tone thing that is hard to spot while writing but comes across while reading it. Has there been any analysis on this?

Follow-up: Some else agrees it looks like with a recent change. If available, more analysis would still improve the tone.

In closing, stop edit warring Factsontheground. And before I catch in grief about wp:hounding, I just got done chitchatting with one of my buddies about this over a friendly game of Raiden 4 (epic). It sucks trying to kill the majority of baddies when discussing such things. So I'm not here because of you or you or you.Cptnono (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cptnono, are you going to rape this article too?

None of these issues have anything to do with NPOV. I am going to keep removing the tag until you come up with some actual neutrality issues.

Response from Palestinians could have a place here. This also might be part of the why and should be discussed if source.

Palestinian violence doesn't belong here any more than Israeli violence belongs at Palestinian political violence. There are many, many articles about Palestinian violence that focus entirely on one side of the conflict. If this article is changed to add Palestinian violence then those articles need to be changed add Israeli violence. Factsontheground (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You could call it that. If you decide to be uncivil about it I will drag you to the noticboards you love so much. Why the hell are you giving me a hard time about improving the article?23:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a list. Stop edit warring. Just to clarify, all of the above can be summed up:

• Tone - It reads like Palestinians are all victims of settlers without clarification as to how many partake or the perpatrators claimed reasoning
• It continues to drift into allegations against the state and not the settlers. That is a neutrality concern since it turns into an attack page and emphasis the plight of Palestinians see: WP:NOTADVOCATE (neutrality is mentioned there)
• Duplicated section headings and information - Emphasis concerns are part of neutrality WP:PROMINENCE is part of the NPOV page
• And several instances of leading the reader. They are listed.Cptnono (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More reverting by the same people. Considering jumping in but might as well use the talk page like we are supposed to

• "Yesh Din is an Israeli human rights group providing legal assistance to citizens of the Palestinian territories." "organized to oppose the continuing violation of Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."
• "Yesh Din is comprised of volunteers who have organized to oppose the continuing violation of Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."[3]

They look pro-Palestinian to me but that wording could be improved. It should be explained that they are a human rights organization with a focus that impacts their assessment of the subject of this article. Why would we not clarify it anyways? Clarity is a minor issue but not making it clear who the group is raises a neutrality issue in the article. An easy fix might be simply stating "a group focused on human rights in the Palestinian territories". Why revert when it can be fixed with little hassle? Any other suggestions?Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does "pro-Palestinian" mean? What is a "pro-Palestinian human rights organization"? Is it an organization that advocates for human rights for only Palestinians? Is it an organization that advocates for human rights in the Palestinian territories? Is it an organization that advocates for the PNA or Fatah or Hamas or whoever else to be more respectful of human rights? Or is "pro-Palestinian" just a useless modifier meant to poison the well? There are a number of organizations that I could describe as "anti-Palestinian" and pepper that phrase all around Wikipedia. I dont do that. Mostly because it is a well-poisoning POV judgment, but also because we have links to the articles on these anti-Palestinian groups that actually lay out what they do. We have an article on Yesh Din. The only reason we should include "human rights organization" is so people have some idea what that link leads to. Other than that they can use the link to find out more about this supposedly "pro-Palestinain" organization. nableezy - 04:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never really understood why saying things like "Michael Sfard, a lawyer with Yesh Din stated that..." in these situations isn't enough. People can figure what they are by themselves. "The pope, a spokesman for the pro-lentivirus Catholic Church...etc". "NGO Monitor, a pro-Israel.." or is it ? These editor generated soundbites often seem to result in problems. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Did I suggest that we say "pro-Palestinian"? And we don't need to say "human rights group" if we leave out something just as if not more important. Simple wikilink and leave it at that would be an alternative. I would prefer being clearer though.Cptnono (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is undeniable that this group is a human rights organization. What exactly is "just as if not more important" than that? nableezy - 04:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is undeniable that their focus is human rights "in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Just saying human rights group is vague and could be misleading to the reader. Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Human rights organization" is not, and cannot be construed as being, misleading. And if you would like to make it read "a human rights group focusing on violations of Palestinian rights in the occupied Palestinian territories" feel free. nableezy - 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course having a dog in the fight is an important aspect. You should understand that and if not there is little reason to bicker about it. Would you object to "what they call the occupied..." or for brevity's sake and in an effort to make a less controversial change, can we simply say "in the the Palestinian territories"? Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would. nableezy - 04:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You never seem to stop proving my point for me Nableezy. It also looks like I made a mistake, it is what they call "occupied Palestinian territory". "Occupied" is not added to every mention of the the area on Wikipedia, every mention in this article, or even at Yesh Din (for now). Regardless, adding "occupied" is unneeded and you know it will ruffle feathers for multiple reasons I do not need to repeat to you. We could use scare quotes, attribute it, make it simple (my preferred solution), or maybe even just say "watching out for Palestinians" or something to that extent. It is a shame that what could have been a reasonable solution was scuttled by this. I'll just let the wikilink speak for itself. Clearlu using the talk page is wasted in this topic area.Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to help you prove a point when you have yet to make a point. I would object to saying "what they call" because it is more than "what they call" occupied, it is what the world calls it. "Ruffling feathers" is not my concern, making an accurate encyclopedia article is. You should try it sometime. nableezy - 05:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You should use the talk page instead of edit summaries, Harlan wilkerson. Since it is a title the description was not really needed as a translation. And Nableezy, I am surprised you did not pick up my referring to your usual editing style. Anyways: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Israeli settler violenceCptnono (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I made it clear just how much value I put in your opinion of my editing style. nableezy - 06:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a little to snippy and has already veered into comments best left off the article's talk page. If you want to discuss the dispute further there are options laid out at the noticeboard. Maybe some editors with a fresher perspective will have some thoughts on if the line needs improvement.Cptnono (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Description reappeared, changing it to an Israeli human rights group which monitors the violation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, since Yesh Din site says: We work for an immediate and meaningful change in the Israeli authorities' practices by documenting and disseminating accurate and up-to-date information about the systematic violation of human rights in the OPT --Super.zhid (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

settler claims

The source provided says the following: an organization that claims to have documented the incident says. It also says The images allegedly show Palestinians and left-wing activists cutting down Palestinian olive trees using an electric saw. and then says the settlers now claim they were staged by the Palestinians themselves and intended to harm the settlers' image. The first user to insert this reported these claims as fact, saying in the article that Many cases have been documented in film showing Palestinians and left-wing activists intentionally vandalizing trees with saws in order to accuse settlers when the reliable source says that these photos 'allegedly' show Palestinians doing this and that the settlers 'claim' that this was done in order to blame the settlers. It also had a section heading that accepted these claims as truth. The reliable source provided clearly words these accusations of claims of a settler group. As such they can not be worded as fact in the article and where the source says that the group claims or alleges something the article can not say that thing is true. Another user has reverted the corrections made, again including the claims of a settler group as fact. I am reverting to make sure that the claims of settlers are properly recorded as the claims of settlers. nableezy - 13:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

These "settlers cut down olive trees" stories are ALWAYS lies as religious Jews do not cut down the olive trees of the enemy. There is a Torah prohibition in this regard: "Only a tree that you know is not a food-tree it you may destroy and cut down.." (Deut. 20:20); Negative mitzvah # 57 of the Rambam: "Exhortation against cutting down fruit-producing trees.. in order to distress and dishearten the enemy". [4] KantElope (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You do know that there are well documented cases where the IDF destroyed entire groves during the construction of the wall, right? And that there are well documented cases of settlers doing this as well, right? But thanks for sharing. nableezy - 16:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, ooh, a halachic discourse. For the benefit of the public and for defensive purposes, the army has more leeway than individuals. --Shuki (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:WORDS. It was easy to use "say" and still make it clear that it was not fact. MoS and neutrality standards are diferent than in the pres here.Cptnono (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a bullshit revert you made (which oh by the way was your second). You are misrepresenting the source. You again insert a biased section title, saying that there have been "false claims of vandalism". No reliable source says such a thing, the source presented here says that a settler group claims that photos they allege shows Palestinians cutting down trees is proof that the allegations in other "price tag" operations are false. Did you even read the source here? Justify your revert with more than a vague hand wave towards a style guideline. How exactly is it that there is a section titled "false claims of vandalism"? Explain that to me please. The source says that a settler group claims that Palestinians have destroyed their own trees in order to falsify vandalism claims. For some reason that is evidence that there actually are false claims of vandalism, meaning that a what a reliable source calls the claims of a settler group gets accepted as a fact by Wikipedia. What exactly does WP:WORDS say about that? Or is this just yet another example of an editor saying such and such supports him without actually having read what he claims supports him. WP:NPOV is a policy. The section title and content violate WP:NPOV and further blatantly mischaracterizes the cited source. An editor who willfully distorts a source should be banned from editing in the topic area. nableezy - 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, you have had quite a bit of time to respond to the issues with your revert and you have made a number of other edits during that time. Please respond to the issues with your revert. nableezy - 16:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple days have passed and you have refused to address the issues with your revert. I am reverting your edit. nableezy - 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I figured we were done here since it was such an obvious breech of WP:WORDS. I don;t mind the section title being change. makes sense.Cptnono (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There is so much more than the section title. You reverted an edit minutes after it was made yet refused to answer questions on this talk page for days? And you expect me to give you an assumption of good faith? Please address the issues with your misrepresentation of the source cited. nableezy - 18:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting a lecture from you on reverting? Wow. I'll self revert just to foster some better discussion. The group says something. It is verifiable and written in a way that clearly attributes it to them and makes no claim to if it is true or not (although I see no reason not to believe them). "Claim" and drawing out the quote just isn't needed. Hell, my edit was half the size of yours which even gives it less emphasis. WP:WORDS is pretty clear and you have read it I am sure.Cptnono (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary/weasley sentence of clarification in intro

'Although the vast majority of West Bank settlers are law abiding, there is a rise in violent acts by extremist settlers against IDF troops and neighboring Palestinians.'

Firstly, the natural objection to the statement is that the West Bank settlers are inherently violating international law.

But more importantly, and a non-partisan criticism is that the author's makes an encyclopaedia article read more like a press-relase or commercial-media statement.

'some of my best friends are settlers!' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.183.250 (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

1. The number of total 507 criminal suits given in this edit looks unrealistic. For example, according to CBS, in 2007 there were "35000 offenders convicted in court".
2. This links need to be formatted according to WP:EL#External links section.

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• 1)See here. When I last heard she was Associate prof of History at North Texas University, so fits RS. I wondered myself at the time, and suspect she is talking of either criminal versus civil cases in Israel,(in all judicial systems the latter are vastly more common than the former) or referring to the West Bank. It's certainly worth checking further, but the source is good.
• 2) I didn't mean that as an external link. I looked at the article this morning, and wondered why obvious sources weren't being used, of which that is just one. A lot of blahblah, but I like the meat of actual incident statistics. After all, virtually all the reportage on the page comes from one side, and is very abstract. Those sources give editors a chance to see events more closely. But on second thought, I could probably just clip it out until I'm ready to work the article seriously. I have a month by month register of events going back to 2006. What it helps editors do is to get dates/localities of incidents into a search engine where they can then trawl Ynet, Haaretz etc., to find articles and op.eds bearing directly on this kind of issue. But, if you find its provisory character (for a list of incidents section) unsatisfactory, I have no problem in deleting, until I can provide that section with a picture using those sources. Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

1. I've checked the source previously, still looks strange. Please note the crime type distribution chart in CBS brochure.
2. Why not to keep it meanwhile in a format like:

-- External Links --

Settler attacks statistics

2008

Jan

Feb

2009

...

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The CBS brochure speaks of Crimes in Israel, the context of Hilliard's remarks is that of settlers. It just may be the West Bank. I don't know. A large amount of RS, esp. in controversial areas like this, I look at, and say to myself, 'that's poor reportage', 'that's slipshod', 'that has been written by a copy and paste journo', 'that is a POV slant passed off as factual' (the definitions of Price Tag policy as equally undertaken against Palestinian terrorism and the IDF are a demonstrable statistical nonsense. It's a POV-meme you find either in respectable newspapers that like to look balanced in whatever, or a toner-down meme for writing about stuff the newspaper would prefer not to report etc.) but I have never challenged RS that I think are bad for articles. Even if I dislike stuff, I just hew to WP:RS, don't fuss, but, above all, I mark it as something I should keep an eye out for, to see how it stands up under the light of more comprehensive investigation. Certainly, this one must have some source. I'll write to Hilliard and ask.

I'm not a hurrier and worrier in these articles, except when circumstances drive me off real life into wikipedia to relieve situations of stress by distraction, which ain't the case at the moment. So as for the external links, no harm's done in just not rushing the page. I won't anyway. There's a lot of work there, and I don't have that much time. But if you think the stuff is useful, feel free to restore it to an external link section by all means.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Top Picture

Why is the picture labelled "Olive tree in the village of Burin which was allegedly vandalized by settlers from Yitzhar" included if its authenticity is questionable. Why is the ISM Palestine considered a reputable source for this image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Removed.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nassiriya, would you please elaborate on how and about what you disagree? -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Captions for images

The captions on the images in the article appear to unreliably sourced if sourced at all. I will be removing all the images shortly unless someone can present a policy compliant argument in favor of keeping them in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Personal accounts by ISM activists are not reliable sources, and an image displaying hebrew graffiti bears little connection to Israeli settler violence. Images need to be relevant, reliably sourced and appropriately captioned, and representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnkhMorpork (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Images do not need be reliably sourced, if that was true there would be no images anywhere on Wikipedia because reliable sources dont give FREE images, whihc is what Wikipedia wants. You are just whitewashing despicable acts by those you support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am whitewashing despicable acts by those who I support, but alas there is nothing you can do at this instant save for finding some sources. Everything has to be reliably sourced, including what an image is purported to represent.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Captions aside, how is the 2nd image related to the article? What evidence do we have who wrote it? Jeff Song (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Blocked NoCal100 sockpuppet

The source of one image, Christian Peacemaker Teams, attributes the graffiti to the settlers. Is there anything to suggest this is an unreliable source? Nightw 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How about the fact it is signed JDL, which therefore means it cannot be said to represent general Settler violence but rather a core extreme faction. Obvious infringement of WEIGHT. This in addition to RS concerns
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? Which RS concerns? Again, is there something wrong with Christian Peacemaker Teams? Nightw 16:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Questionable sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. WP:SOURCES
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is also used in an article in The Jerusalem Post, which reads: "Anti-Arab graffiti such as this 'gas the Arabs' one scrawled across the doorway of a Palestinian home in Hebron is common." It's also directly attributed to settlers in articles from National Catholic Reporter, Voltaire Network, The Guardian. The fact that the Jewish Defense League is a small extremist faction isn't a reason for removing the image. As one of the most notorious perpetrators of settler violence, their notability to this topic is unquestionable. Nightw 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How is the article in The Jerusalem Post relevant. It does not assert that this is the act of Settler Violence. The JDL is not one of the most notorious perpetrators of settler violence. They are a wholly distinct body who's targets occasionally converge with that of the Settler group. The group was founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City in 1968 and bears no connection with the settler body that consists of Jewish civilians living in community built on land that was captured by Israel. Overlapping common causes does not constitute synonymity. Please avoid using inflammatory terms such as asserting their notablity is "unquestionable" when it is clear that I am questioning it. Such terminology entirely disregards my views.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@AnkhMorpork - "The JDL is not one of the most notorious perpetrators of settler violence. They are a wholly distinct body who's targets occasionally converge with that of the Settler group." I doubt that: Shoah.org French far-right recruits join Israeli settlers in West Bank

The graffiti is clearly notable and reliable sources attribute to the actions of settlers. CPT's photo's of the graffiti are discussed by Antony Loewenstein in My Israel Question. Here is another source. I think this can therefore be treated as a case where the issue is simply deciding which articles could include this or related images, what the caption should say, and which sources to cite to support the caption. Since Israeli settler redirects to Israeli settlement, that article is one option. Hebron is another. This article is another, although I suppose violence and incitement are not the same thing. The article already seems to contain things that are not acts of violence so I guess either the article needs to be renamed or the acts that don't include violence need to be moved elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job trying to support your argument by linking to an anti-Semitic hate site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehud8d (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about www.shoah.org.uk or another source ? Either way, take it up with the editor who posted it and address your comments clearly. Editors don't always sign their comments and the bot doesn't sign them automatically after they have made a certain number of edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoylandCan you address my concerns that this image is not representative of general settler violence but instead an act of violence committed by JDL, which have no connection with the settler body. Why are your sources considered reliable,they appear to be personal accounts.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I will return in a minute return with 10+ links to different but very similar graffiti sprayed all over the occupied territories. Some of them proven top be sprayed by IDF soldiers. This is not a haphazard incident. This unfortunately is commonplace in the area. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 18:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, I would rather not respond to statements like "an act of violence committed by JDL, which have no connection with the settler body" because it's your personal opinion and I see no reason to draw the distinctions you are attempting to draw. What matters is what the sources say about this graffiti and they attribute it to the actions of settlers. If you have concerns about the reliability of any of the sources provided here we can take them to the reliable sources noticeboard to check their reliability for the statements they make over the next day or so. There's no hurry. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies but actions of IDF soldiers cannot be said to be relevant to an article discussing settler violence which relates to the settler body that consists of Jewish civilians living in community built on land that was captured by Israel.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Any notion that this graffiti is just a one-off, should be easily dispelled by this set of links: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]

As for IDF soldiers and proof that settlers spray this kind of graffiti: [18]: "The Israeli daily, Haaretz, reported Friday that an Israeli soldier and two young female settlers were arrested by the Israeli Police for writing anti-Arab, Anti-Islam graffiti in the Al-Lubban Ash-Sharqiyya Palestinian village [...] the soldier is a resident of the Itamar illegal settlement, near Nablus. The soldier and two young female setters were caught on tape by a surveillance camera infiltrating into the Palestinian village last Tuesday at 1:30 A.M. [...] Later on, the three sprayed graffiti including “Death to Arabs”, “Mohammad is a pig”, and “Price Tag” in the village. [...] The District Court in Jerusalem decided to remand the soldier under interrogation until Monday; he admitted to the vandalism act, while the two young women, Orien Nizri, from Jerusalem, and Sarah Goldberg from Tapuach illegal settlement, will remain in detention, until Tuesday, pending further legal action. Price Tag attacks carried out by extremist settlers, including Israeli soldiers who are also settlers, are continuously being carried out against the Palestinians, their property, their orchards and farmlands, and against holy sites;"

_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

1. The introduction states "Israeli settler violence refers both to acts of violence committed by a restricted number of Israeli settlers...".
2. Israeli settlers are defined as members of a "Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community" according to Wiki.
3. The JDL is an organisation whose membership is not based on being "Jewish civilian community built on land that was captured by Israel from Jordan, Egypt or Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered occupied territory by the international community". It has international chapters and its membership is open to anyone including non-Jews according to the JDL website.
4. Ergo, the organisations are different
5. The activities of JDL are not representative of that of Israeli Settlers
6. Please remove the picture of JDL grafitti

Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Settlers do not cease to be settlers if they join the JDL. RolandR (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we so the pic is mentioned in sources as graffiti to denigrate Arabs. Thanks for the research folks. We have now resolved step one and we can move onto step two. Do reliable sources connect this pic with both "settlers" and "violence", per the subject of the article? The lack of source connecting the pic to the subject of the article means out introduction would violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Violence "is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. [2] This definition associates intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces." _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 03:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see the tail end of my comment above, specifically just before my signature. Taking the above definition of violence and using that as the standard for which pictures will or will not be allowed into this article, is actually the classic WP:SYNTH, and of course not in compliance with our polices. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What? It's a dictionary definition of a word. I think you'd better look at WP:IC. Are you arguing that graffiti saying "GAS THE ARABS" does not immediately allude to an act of violence? Nightw 04:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Settlers do not cease to be settlers if they join the JDL. RolandR (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Agreed but acts perpetrated by settlers that belong to an unrelated fringe extreme organisation (and have been performed in that capacity) are not representative of settler violence, like they are not representative of Caucasian or Male or Jewish activity. To assert otherwise is original research. You are attaching undue weight to a viewpoint that is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority. Surely, there are other suitable pictures?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen several good sources that attribute the graffiti to settlers. Some of the graffiti is signed JDL, which good sources then sometimes mention as well, but I've not yet found a good source stating for a fact that any of this racist / death-threat graffiti is left by JDL. I've found several good sources that describe that these kind of racist comments are found in abundance in the area. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 13:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We have no reliable source linking this graffiti with a specific perpetrator. While the attribution to of this racist graffiti to extremist settlers is plausible, we have no way for known that for certain, and therefore the current caption is original research. Marokwitz (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For any picture to be introduced into this article we need a reliable source that provides the picture as an example of "Israeli settler violence." This is not "instruction creep", but basic compliance with WP:OR.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Marokwitz, there are sources that attribute the graffiti to settlers and the graffiti appears to be notable. I think captions should cite and follow an RS so I think the image qualifies for inclusion with a WP:V compliant caption somewhere. But, assuming the image (or a similar one) belongs somewhere, which article do you think that should be ? This article already has a title that seems overly restrictive to me. There are hundreds of thousands of settlers. Of course some will be extremist, and we should describe that, but what about settlers that use other methods, demonstrations etc ? Where does that content go ? The article already includes content that isn't violence strictly speaking so the scope appears to be drifting already. I'm wondering whether the scope and title of the article is the issue that needs to be addressed so that these issues can be described in a broader way. "Israeli settler" redirects to the settlement article and I don't know where other content about settlers is going. Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In an official report to the UN, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, specifically mentioned graffiti in the section of his report on "settler violence". The worst settler violence is to be found in the city of Hebron, where settlers occupy key buildings within the centre of the old city. From these settlements they terrorize the few Palestinians that have not left the old city and assault and traumatize children on the way to school.16 Obscene, racist graffiti (for example, “Gas the Arabs”) adorns the walls of the old city of Hebron. The Israel Defense Forces patrol the city, but make little attempt to protect Palestinians from the settlers and fail to remove racist graffiti. In short, the Israel Defense Forces have made themselves a party to the crimes of the settlers.[19] Dlv999 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to attributing graffiti to settlers. It is the inclusion of a specific image that is undersigned JDL that I disapprove. The picture itself serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members. Other reliable sources attribute it to Israeli settlers. Consequently, the graffiti has been verified as having been perpetrated by Israeli settlers that are JDL members, and as such, it is not representative of Israeli Settler violence.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer is breakign the Wikipedia Rules. The image is its own source. The Wikipedia Rules say that images do not need reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IMAGE#Image_description_pages says "Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken." Brewcrewer is breaking the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 21:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, was there anything wrong with the multitude of sources produced here? Particularly the article from Voltaire Network that shows the exact same graffiti and attributes it to settlers? Nightw 21:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which article? Link please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Above at 17:11, 12 February 2012. Nightw 22:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha you mean this . Thank you. There are two problems:

1. The Voltaire Network is an organization with an agenda. Not a reliable source. See WP:RS.
2. The article you link does not provide this as an example of "Israeli settler violence. See WP:OR.

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nightw Please address, "I have no objection to attributing graffiti to settlers. It is the inclusion of a specific image that is undersigned JDL that I disapprove. The picture itself serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members. Other reliable sources attribute it to Israeli settlers. Consequently, the graffiti has been verified as having been perpetrated by Israeli settlers that are JDL members, and as such, it is not representative of Israeli Settler violence."
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

"The picture itself serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members.": could you please come and plead this at Talk:Jewish Defense League#The "Gas_the_Arabs" pic signed with JDL - revisited? Thanks, _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 00:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The picture serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members, _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) himself argues this point vociferously at Talk:Jewish Defense League#The "Gas_the_Arabs" pic signed with JDL - revisited. An excerpt:

• • 1. The picture is in itself a reliable source
    2. It's not disputed anywhere that this picture (or one of the many other similar pictures of similar graffiti signed JDL) is a true, unaltered depiction of graffiti sprayed in Hebron
    3. There are several pictures available on the web, showing similar expressions, so it's not a one-off
    4. This and similar pictures are regularly described and/or displayed by reliable source and even in official reports (e.g. UN Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, John Dugard, on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, chapter 4)
    5. The graffiti itself is signed JDL, which (until and unless disputed OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA, by reliable sources), means that the perpetrator claims to be part of and/or representing JDL
    6. Any claim here on Wikipedia that the graffiti was (take your pick) not likely, probably not, certainly not, absolutely not sprayed by or on behalf of JDL, without proper sourcing of such statement is original research and thus not a valid argument

As such, it is not an iconic representation of Israeli settler violence. Secondly, offensive graffiti cannot be described as "violence"
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why you have removed it ? Do you have consensus to remove it ? To me it looks like the image was in the article and being discussed. The discussion is clearly still ongoing given that you have just made a comment. Generally speaking, editors in the topic area who make a comment, then assume their comment is right and the final word, and then make an edit to implement their view in the middle of a discussion, don't last very long in the topic area. Just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As a new editor, I am still unknowledgeable of relevant Wikipedia policy and occasionally err. Can you direct me to the policy that discusses long standing contentious material and recommended behaviour. I assumed, possibly inaccurately, that the justification of its inclusion had to be established in line with WP:BRD. Another reason for my edit was that the person responsible for the previous reversion previously claimed above that "I've not yet found a good source stating for a fact that any of this racist / death-threat graffiti is left by JDL" to justify the picture's inclusion. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me claimed elsewhere that "the picture serves as a RS that it was committed by JDL members...the picture is in itself a reliable source... The graffiti itself is signed JDL, which (until and unless disputed OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA, by reliable sources), means that the perpetrator claims to be part of and/or representing JDL...Any claim here on Wikipedia that the graffiti was (take your pick) not likely, probably not, certainly not, absolutely not sprayed by or on behalf of JDL, without proper sourcing of such statement is original research and thus not a valid argument". These contradictory and possibly tendentious edits are surely not binding on further editors.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ank, it seems you have advanced a theory that because the graffiti has a reference to the JDL it cannot be a representative image included in an article on settler violence. I have to say, personally I do not follow the reasoning of this argument, it appears to my mind to be illogical. More to the point you have not provided any supporting evidence for your theory and from what I can tell it has not been accepted by any other editors on Wikipedia. What we do know is that the image of this particular piece of Graffiti has been used by RS as a representative image in articles on settler violence (e.g. see this Jerusalem Post article on Settler Violence[20]). Given we have RS linking the image of this graffiti to settler violence and using it as an example in articles on settler violence, I don't think your own personal opinions and theories (especially when unsupported by evidence or other editors) should carry much weight. Dlv999 (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am unable to view any pictures on the link you have provided. Moreover, the caption cited does not make reference to the perpetrators of that individual photo. You have not addressed my contention that graffiti does not constitute violence. Note that a news article may include indirectly related material and has different editorial standards to that of a Wiki article.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The section of the article that included this image was "attacks on Palestinian agriculture and Property", so attacks on Palestinian property (as shown in the image) is clearly relevant. Also gassing Arabs is a violent act - so graffiti inciting the gassing of Arabs is clearly relevant to the article as a whole. In the cited Jpost article on settler violence the caption states " ANTI-ARAB graffiti such as this 'gas the Arabs' one scrawled across the doorway of a Palestinian home in Hebron is common." - so in a section of the article on "attacks on Palestinian agriculture and property" - this is clearly relevant per RS. I honestly don't know what could be a more clear cut justification for inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename the article

I note that Palestinian political violence is defined as acts of violence undertaken to further the Palestinian cause. Consequently, all information therein is relevant and representative, as it does not assert claims against a particular group of people, but rather describes 'acts'. The title Israeli settler violence refers "to acts of violence committed by a restricted number of Israeli settlers against Palestinians." Although the proviso of "restricted number of Israeli settlers" is included, the title serves as a mass indictment of the settler body. Is there a precedent for this sweeping vilification of a group because of acts committed by extremists within? Why isn't this problem avoided by either, a more precise and reflective title such as Israeli settler extremist violence if it is consensually acknowledged that the violence is committed by a select few, or a definition that explains the title to be referring to specific actions, without mention of ethnic identity.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Is there a precedent for this sweeping vilification of a group because of acts committed by extremists within?" Yes, there is. It's the article Palestinian political violence both the title and the article fail to mention that those acts are committed by a restricted number of extremists within the group of Palestinians. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 00:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian political violence is defined as acts promoting the Palestinian cause and avoids mention of the perpetrators' identity. This is not the case with Israeli settler violence which is defined as "acts of violence committed by a restricted number of Israeli settlers". As such, the title should reflect this.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course Palestinian political violence is also committed by a restricted number of Palestinians. As such both the title and the article should reflect that. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 13:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims of staged vandalism

The source for the allegations about the burned sheep is an opinion piece. As per WP:IRS if this information is relevant for inclusion it should be attributed as the opinion of the author. Dlv999 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only have have you attributed the opinion to its author but you have made additional unexplained changes. [21] I have presented another source.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ank, referenced additions to Wikipedia do not require explanations. I added that the accusations of the farmer were reported by Haaretz and cited the Haaretz report. You have removed the citation of the Haaretz article and the mention of the Haaretz article without explanation. Please explain why you have removed this referenced information to make it appear that the story was only reported by the Ma'an News agency. Secondly I corrected your innaccurate statement. Your edit claims that the Farmers accusations were "supported" by Ma'an news agency. They were not. I have read the Ma'an news report - it simply reports that the farmer made the allegations. Representing a factual news report of the allegation as "support" for the allegation is egregious POV pushing. Also your use of the term "initially" is your own synth. The story was reported differently by different sources. Neither Ma'an nor Haaretz later reported the farmer's alleged admission, nor did any other RS as far as I am aware.

Further the Arutz Sheva story was your original source. It seems you replaced the Arutz Sheva reference with the Jpost Oped when it was reverted by another editor.[22] Arutz Sheva by the way is described as by RS as the "the voice of the Israeli settlement movement." Arutz Sheva is not exactly an impartial source in my opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I shall amend to reflect your concerns
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Dlv99, I have removed your Yesh Din statistics on law enforcement because they are already quoted in the Law Enforcement paragraph (incidentally, where they are actually relevant.) Why do you think they are at all pertinent to staged settler violence? Being printed in the same Haaretz article is not the criteria for relevancy.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The RS, Haaretz included this to balance statements of the Police. The Police comments should be seen in light of their general failure to bring anyone to justice for acts of settler violence. If the police comments are added the balancing evidence must also be added. Otherwise you are just cherrypicking the parts of the report that suit your POV. Dlv999 (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The lack of police prosecution is already mentioned in this article. Please stop repeating information.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please stop making dishonest edit summaries.[23]. Deleting content is very different from moving it. If you feel that content is repetitive and should be removed say so, do not claim you are "moving" it in the edit summary. Also the Haaretz article specifically refers to the main reason for the lack of convictions, "perpetrators not being found", this is mentioned nowhere else in the article. Your last edit removed this referenced piece of information from the article, dishonestly claiming that it had only been "moved". Dlv999 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for misleading summary. I intended to relocate the material to the relevant paragraph but was then surprised to find that you had simply been rehashing already stated material. Since I am a new inexperienced editor, I do not know how to amend my edit summary to reflect this. The law enforcement paragraph states, "According to Yesh Din's study, which was conducted in 2005, more than 90% of complaints against Israelis were closed without indictments, 96% of trespassing cases (including sabotage of trees) against Israelis led to no indictment, 100% of property offenses against Israelis led to no indictment and 5% of complaints against Israelis were lost and never investigated."

You now wish to include, "...human rights group Yesh Din which found that 90-92% of cases involving settler violence were closed without charge, mainly due to perpetrators not being found. In cases of vandalism and destruction of property the figure rose to 100% of cases closed without charge."

Do you not see how this is repetitive? Secondly, what do you mean by, "In relation to the incident...Haaretz reported a study." Are you simply making a frivolous editorial comment that these two stories happen to be mentioned in the same Haaretz article or are you suggesting this case typifies the Israeli police response? Can you make yourself clearer?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

In my view the RS, Haaretz, frames the police statements with the report that found the Police had failed to prosecute 100% of cases of vandalism and destruction of property. In my view it is clear POV to cherrypick the police quotes from the report without the context of general police failure to respond to settler violence. Secondly the Haaretz report introduces a new piece of information not already covered in the stats section; namely that the main reason for the police's failure to prosecute is "due to perpetrators not being found". Dlv999 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"In my view"- precisely. Your linking of the two by "In relation to the incident...Haaretz reported a study.", is classic original research as you have admitted. The source makes no such connection between the two. Why is the fact that the "Haaretz report introduces a new piece of information not already covered in the stats section" justification for a repetition of the entirety of the same information. Why is it not in law enforcement? Stop giving evasive fatuous explanations.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion your edits selectively quote the source to push your own POV. I am giving you my view on how to accurately and fairly represent the source. You may disagree with me, but it is not OR for me to give my opinion on how to accurately represent the RS. Dlv999 (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You have failed to address the issue that the law enforcement paragraph states, "According to Yesh Din's study, which was conducted in 2005, more than 90% of complaints against Israelis were closed without indictments, 96% of trespassing cases (including sabotage of trees) against Israelis led to no indictment, 100% of property offenses against Israelis led to no indictment and 5% of complaints against Israelis were lost and never investigated." You now wish to include in a separate paragraph, "...human rights group Yesh Din which found that 90-92% of cases involving settler violence were closed without charge, mainly due to perpetrators not being found. In cases of vandalism and destruction of property the figure rose to 100% of cases closed without charge." Why is the fact that the "Haaretz report introduces a new piece of information not already covered in the stats section" justification for a repetition of the entirety of the same information. Why is it not placed in law enforcement?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ank, you have made some valid points here. I am happy for you to suggest or make a revision to address your concerns. The issue with your previous edit was that you claimed to move the material, but in fact deleted it. There was in fact a sourced piece of information that you removed that is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. As long as you can fit that information into the article somewhere I shall not quibble. Dlv999 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I have amended in a satisfactory manner and I await your feedback.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent Developments

Two reports detailing the developments in 2011 have recently been covered in RS and probably merit inclusion:-

1. UN survey documenting settler use of "acts of intimidation, threats and violence" to prevent Palestinians accessing water supplies in the West Bank. [24], [25], [26], [27].
2. EU heads of Mission report documenting "massive increase" in settler violence during 2011. Israeli authorities critisised in the report for having "failed to effectively protect the Palestinian population". [28], [29]. Dlv999 (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Further clarity required

The lead states, "In 2007 Israeli prosecutors determined that of 515 criminal suits in that year, 502 related to right wing Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories." This statistic needs further information and contextualisation as it is absurd if it is to be taken on face value.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The passage in the source can be viewed on google books here if anyone wants to take a look. Dlv999 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean that within the Occupied Territories, 502 of the 515 criminal suits that year related to right wing Jewish settlers, or within Israel at large, 502 of the 515 criminal suits that year related to right wing Jewish settlers in the Occupied Territories?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This may help and apparently there is a Nov.2008 Ynet article if anyone can track it down. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Settlers, law abiding?

The vast majority of world opinion is that "all settlement activity is illegal under international law" [30]. The minority Israeli position is that some of the settlements are "official" and thus legal while others are unofficial, and thus illegal. Saying in the lead that the vast majority of the settlers are law abiding even when supported by an Israeli source is a violation of NPOV as it is presenting the minority opinion and ignoring the majority opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This is OR that contradicts what a source states. However, as an explanation, when settlements activity is described as being illegal under international law, this applies to a state or country, not individuals that reside in this annexed land.

RolandR, The BBC source states, "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent", please do not misattribute this to an IDF officer.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The West Bank has not been annexed. It is not part of Israel, even according to Israel's (minority) opinion.Dlv999 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't; I attributed to the Israeli officer the assertion that most (not "the vast majority") are law-abiding. This is a hotly contested assessment, and should certainly not be reported in Wikipedia's neutral voice. RolandR (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You wrote, "According to a senior Israeli army officer, "most West Bank settlers are law abiding" and non-violent citizens..." This implies that the view that they are "non-violent citizens" is the officer's when in fact, the source stated without attributing to IDF personnel that "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There had been a mini edit-war (in which I did not take part) over the phrase "the vast majority... are law-abiding". Eventually, Shrike added a citation, immediately after "law-abiding", in which a senior army officer used the phrase to describe "most" settlers. The citation was thus evidently added in order to verify the use of this phrase. Since it was clearly the view of this officer, and not a neutral statement, we should not have added the term in Wikipedia's neutral language. I decided not to continue the edit-war by reverting this edit; instead, I clarified that this was the view of the officer. The source says nothing at all about non-violence, and does not use the phrase "the vast majority". RolandR (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source also said "Both sides are as stupid as the other," i.e. the side we are discussing here are stupid according to an Israeli commanding office. Let's not include that because cherry picking statements to make some kind of point doesn't improve the content. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case if we are going to quote the Israeli security services in the lead, for balance we need to add that Israel's security policies have been regarded as discriminatory, failing to deal with the problem of settler violence and protecting the Palestinian population. The comments that they believe most of the settlers are law abiding should be seen in the light of them failing to deal with the vast majority of settler violence. Dlv999 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a novel point. The vast majority of settlers are non-violent and this must be stated when discussing settler violence. I am not seeking to include an offhand jocular comment opined by an IDF officer as Sean analogises to, this is a statement of fact asserted by the BBC that recognise the importance of accuracy when indicting large groups of people.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then remove the "law-abiding" bullshit and we can all get back to work. Nightw 11:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with removing an individual's statements of the "law-abiding" nature if it is clearly expressed that "The vast majority of settlers are non-violent", without the misplaced attribution that RolandR has decided to introduce.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not introduced any attribution, misplaced or not. I simply clarified Shrike's citation, which left in Wikipedia's neutral tone the misstatement that "the vast majority of settlers are law-abiding". RolandR (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually think that RolandR edit is good.I have missed that it was the words of the IDF--Shrike (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as attribution is given in the text (BBC). Nightw 11:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is source specification necessary? Shrike - That most settlers are "law-abiding" is the IDF officer's views, that the "vast majority are non-violent" is not; it is stated as fact by the BBC source. RolandR's edit puts these two things together and attributes both of them to the IDF officer.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Because that's how Wikipedia works. If the statement is contentious, it needs to be attributed to the source within the text. See WP:NPOV and WP:WTA. Nightw 09:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it contentious? Do you have a source that contests the view that the "vast majority are non-violent"?Ankh.Morpork 10:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the BBC statement is necessarily contentious but I would be interested to see a source that contests the view that the vast majority of any set of around half a million civilians are non-violent. Do we need to take the possibility of domestic violence into account though given that it's quite common around the world ? A tendentious editor trolling the page could probably carry on raising issues like that making it impossible for you to make progress on this content issue. Just so I can be clear on this point for future reference, can you confirm that here in this article, your argument is that it is "a statement of fact asserted by the BBC [a source that qualifies as an RS in Wikipedia] that recognise[s] the importance of accuracy when indicting large groups of people" and that in your view inclusion is consistent with the requirements of NPOV to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (as opposed to say, something the Palestinian BDS National Committee, CAMERA, Electronic Intifada or NGO Monitor published on their sites about this issue) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that my interlocutors are not the tendentious editors that you describe and will not engage in this petty caviling. Since I am not omniscient and cognisant with "all significant views" on this subject matter, I am unable to asseverate that all standpoints are being fairly represented, and is for this reason that I have requested the provision of further sourcing that challenge the BBC assertions. Ankh.Morpork 14:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

that pic

I {{fact}}-tagged that picture's caption, as it can currently be read as though the article's editorial voice is doing the alledging. If there's an alledging source meeting Wikipedia's standards, it should be cited. If not, the caption should be re-worded ("Graffiti of unknown origin"?), or outright removed. 24.177.125.104 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'm boldly removing the photo. Kindly reconsider the caption when you revert. 24.177.122.56 (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it. You should implement the outcome of the deletion discussion that you were involved with (commons:Deletion_requests/File:05_04_21_Gas_the_Arabs.jpg), including citing the sources that were provided that discuss this graffiti. If there is something preventing you from doing that, I will do it. You asked for sources. They were provided. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The outcome of the deletion discussion had nothing to do with the picture's inclusion in this article. Those sources don't back up the picture's caption. You really shouldn't be removing {{rs}} or {{fv}} inline tags without discussion, either. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I already did. Don't tag things without a legitimate reason. It's disruptive. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is legitimate to suggest that CPT isn't a reliable source. Sorry, but that's fact. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS/N is thataway. nableezy - 19:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Have fun over there. CPT fails WP:RS in all sorts of way; it's on you to show they're reliable for information on any topic other than themselves. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to challenge the reliability of a source, by means other than proof by assertion, RS/N is the place to do it. Otherwise, go troll elsewhere. nableezy - 19:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to continue discussing this (or anything else) with you unless/until your withdraw your repeated ad-hominem attacks, and apologize for them. I continue to hold that CPT is prima facie unreliable on this subject per Wikipolicy. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hold what you like, an assertion made without evidence will be given the consideration it deserves. nableezy - 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This has probably already been discussed here but the first appearance of 'that pic' appears to have been on the International Solidarity Movement website with a date of April 23, 2006 [31], the pic being taken by an Ann Detwiler. The characterization of the graffiti as being done by settlers makes it original appearance there. Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes I just realized that the date of the one pic (with a child) on the CPT website is May 11, 2005 with their first reporting of the pic to be May 2, 2005. The first attribution of a photographer for a similar photo (with no people) is on the ISM website and dated April 2006. Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

there are no RS that say that this pic is what it is. Soosim (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

reliability of ref 47

Per WP:RS/N consensus, CPT is "probably not" reliable for the claim made in the picture's caption. As such, I'm going to {{rs}} tag it. Unless a consensus develops in the next few days over there that CPT is, in fact, a reliable source for this claim, I will be removing the citation entirely. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

in my research now on the internet, i don't see CPT as being reliable for any facts - they are not a news service or editorial board, etc. Soosim (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this reference entirely. Suckily, that changes the number of all the subsequent refs, rendering the following section headers inaccurate. C'est la vie? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that this was not the RSN consensus at all: in fact, the consensus was in favor of using the CPT source backed up by the Loewenstein source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

problems with ref 48

Antony Loewenstein, in My Israel Question describes and quotes the graffiti published by CPT. Two problems:

1. If the facts asserted aren't reliable on their face (see RS/N), why are they more reliable when being quoted with attribution?
2. The source-text asserts the existence of some graffiti, and photographs of that graffiti. Isn't it synthetic to claim that this photograph is an example of such, when the source is text-only?

I'm going to challenge the reference with some inline tag tomorrow, if not convinced otherwise. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

and again, it is based on a CPT report which isn't sourced or reliable. Soosim (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

correctness of ref 49

I think it's wrong, for two reasons:

1. The book is a compendium of photos and essays. The appropriate attribution for this section, which is called New Europe: Eyes Wide Shut, is to Katarzyna Marciniak. The title of the book is, I think, "Streets of Crocodiles: Photography, Media, and Postcolonialist Landscapes in Poland". I don't know who Maeve Connoly is.
2. The book shows a different photograph of what appears to be the same door, at an earlier point in time. The title of the photograph is "West Bank". The text does not make the assertion that this graffiti was sprayed by settlers, nor that the door is located in Hebron.24.177.121.137 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

it is definitely a different photograph and hence, can not be used as is. Soosim (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

also

Regardless of the above, I think we should switch the pic to the one without the boy. The purpose of the image is to illustrate the graffiti, right? 24.177.121.137 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a consensus at the WP:RSN discussion[32] (which you initiated) that the photo in question is reliably sourced. You appear to be flogging a dead horse with this one. Dlv999 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was that CPT is unreliable. Anyway, it's beside the point. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not beside the point at all. You raised the issue of the photo at WP:RSN. A consensus was reached at RSN that the photo is reliably sourced. You have ignored that consensus and sought to misrepresent the comments of RSN contributors to support your position. Dlv999 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you missed it. The sourcing is at issue above. But that aside, the boy serves no purpose, and the image without the boy is more appropriate. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The picture is of a Palestinian home, thus there is nothing inappropriate about a Palestinian standing in the picture. Dlv999 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

do we know where this palestinian home is? and do we know who spray painted it? we really have no RS on it. Soosim (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There was consensus at RSN among uninvolved editors that the sourcing for the photo is appropriate for what it is being used for. Dlv999 (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just misrepresenting what went on. RS/N adjudicates source reliability, not whether a photo is appropriate in-context. The boy distracts from the point of the image: the graffiti. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Title

Since the lead acknowledges that most West Bank settlers are "law abiding" and "non-violent" and that the violence is perpetrated by fringe extremists, surely, a more neutral article title would be Israeli settler extremist violence, which accurately describes this phenomena? Ankh.Morpork 10:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"law abiding" is a quote of an Israeli military commander, it is not something that has been acknowledged in the Wiki voice. In any case "settler violence" is the common name. This is the term used in countless RS e.g. [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Dlv999 (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify:

A) Which term do you think more accurately describes this phenomena?

B) If most sources referred to this as Settler violence, whether you would support such a name change? Ankh.Morpork 10:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

A)I think "Israeli Settler Violence" is the most accurate term to describe the phenomena.

B)"Israeli Settler Violence" is supported by multiple RS. E.g. [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by".

A) Do you have any RS to support your proposed title?

B) Do you have any RS to support your assertion that the current title is non-neutral, or is it just your own personal (unsupported) opinion as an editor? (Personally I find it hard to accept that it is not neutral when it is used by multiple RS across the political spectrum, and is used by Israeli, Palestinian, Arab and Western sources.) Dlv999 (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered the question. Were most sources to refer to this as Settler violence, would you would support such a name change? And please explain why you consider Israeli Settler Violence more accurate than Israeli settler extremist violence Ankh.Morpork 12:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)