Talk:Susya

Date of establishment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medieval Women Monastics

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

Subdivision type in the infobox

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

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

For consideration

User:Brewcrewer removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wholesale removal of sources

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

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

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

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

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

Attribution to Amira Hass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regavim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

material restored

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

Palestinian Susya??? WP:IRRELEVANT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blind removalism

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

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

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

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

Wiki has forums for resolving disputes on policy, which were it clear for all cases, wouldn't require such forums. Use them, as everyone else does, especially when they contradicts your claims.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources is clear. Move on. All Rows4 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And you don't apply it even in the form you construe it as meaning. First of all read WP:RSOPINION. You removed Amira Hass a noted journalist for a centrist newspaper on policy grounds that you then contradict by citing for historical facts (stupid:aerial photographs don't show people who live in the caves there) an unknown quantity Orly Goldklang, deputy editor of the Israeli religious nationalist newspaper Makor Rishon in an op-ed for an online tabloid version of Maariv, and then Arutz Sheva, which by your own asserted criteria cannot be used. Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The material I added was also sourced to The Jewish Press- why did you remove that ? And why are you removing an NRG OpEd, by an established journalist, while advocating for inclusion of a self published activists' blog? I am ok with removing both Hass's OpEd and Goldklang's OpEd, both Arutz 7 and Mondoweiss, but I won't consent to your double standards. All Rows4 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Israeli religious nationalist" @Nishidani: Once again and especially for you: these words - not curses. :) And what about the same claims to Muslim, etc. media, especially in the countries with a state religion?

Any way, you, as usually, try to "sell" your own POV as a fact. There are different opinions (not decision!) regardind A7, but I've not heard about any RS decisions about Makor Rishon at all. Pls confirm your statement. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: I am just discussing the edit in question here. Let's look at the undisputed facts here. The fact for which Mondoweiss was cited, was able to be found with Googling in 2 minutes. And Googling demonstrated exactly what the quote said, which I added. Why was this not done? And, the language was watered down with no justification whatsoever, based on no source at all, and not even mentioned in the edit summary. If one bothered to read the Mondoweiss source, you can find a UN report linked there, which states precisely this. Planning schemes submitted by the residents to the Israeli authorities, which would allow the issuance of building permits on land that they own, have been repeatedly rejected.

Ignoring all this, you engage in legalism over substance. Since I have no wish to argue over trivial matters, I consent to removal of Mondoweiss source here, because it does not add anything substantially new, which is not covered in the other sources.

If one were interested in improving Wikipedia quality, one would check the facts, and add better sources if you didn't find those sources good. Or you can add a tag. There are a hundred different options here.

As to the Hass op-ed, it is not used by itself, it is used together with the Chaim Levison source. Both of them make the exact same point, and it is not disputed by anyone. Reliability is always in context. Hass is a journalist for Haaretz, as well as an opinion writer. However, again avoiding argument over trivial matters, I also consent to removing the Amira Hass source, since there are already 3 other sources for this claim. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing the specific edit, I am arguing the use of inappropriate sources. If there are 3 non OpEd sources for a claim made in an OpEd, which can't be used for facts, why add that opEd? Ditto for Mondoweiss - if there are reliable sources making the same claim, why do we need a non-reliable source which can't be used for facts, for the same claim? All Rows4 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a bartering shop. You flagrantly broke your own rules, and are now negotiating for a poor source that is borderline. Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, 'The Saga of ‘Ancient’ Palestinian Susiya –The Town That Never Was,' Jewishpress.com June 30th, 2013

This article bases its claims on statements by Yigal Dilmoni, deputy director-general of the Yesha Council, an interested party, not an authority on the area, its history or population. He represents a settler council's interests in driving out the local residents, whatever their history. By his own admission he was a friend of Yair Har-Sinai, whom he describes as 'the cold-blooded murder of my friend Yair Har Sinai in 2001. He was shot in dead in the head and the back by terrorists while, unarmed, he was tending his flock of sheep.'

I know that story well also, and it was far more complicated. The idyllic side existed, but the only academic authority I know of for the area David Dean Shulman, has another version, which he incidently relates while mentioning the shepherd's widow:

'With them (settlers) is the notorious Black Widow, the widow of Yair Har-Sinai, who terrorized the Palestinians of South Hebron until he was killed in a brawl some years ago. David Dean Shulman, Dark Hope: Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine, University of Chicago Press 2007 p.89

Shulman's book is a peer-reviewed prize winning history of recent events by a field observer and a major scholar.

Zvi Bar'el notes his criminal participation in the killing of a bound Palestinian (possibly a thief) some years earlier (Zvi Bar'el Citizens in enemy territory Haaretz 17 July 2001

So a Yesha Council functionary, whose buddy was killed in Susya, who supports the eviction of Palestinians from Susya, who has no known expertise in the subject, cannot be used for anything related to the history: he is a deeply interested partisan, whatever the source of his views.

The aerial photograph is patent nonsense for a pastoral people who lived in caves, and who were in Israeli records expelled in 1986. Their lawyers even have affidavits recording what occurred when Israelis started fencing off their land at the time.Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As I see, according to other RS, Zvi Bar'el's version is already distorted, and you only expanded this distortion, writing "Bar'el notes his (Yair Har-Sinai) criminal participation in the killing". --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

?every one of your complaints here has its mirror image in the sources you are using - claims by interested parties, from marginal sources. yet you constantly use them. So we need to be consistent - either all of these marginal sources, OpEds and claims by interested parties are in, or they are all out. But there will NOT be a situation where just one side gets to present its POV from Amira Hass OpEds, Group blogs like MondoWeiss, and claims by interested parties. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If an OpEd by Hass is in, so is an OpEd by GoldKlng. If claims from interested parties like the Palestinians who say they were displaced are presented, then counter-claims by people like Dilmoni will be presented. And if group blogs like Mondoweiss usable in the article, then so is a news outlet like Arutz 7. Double standards will not fly here.. All Rows4 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I gave reasoned arguments. You just made a statement. It means therefore nothing.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

every one of your complaints here has its mirror image in the sources you are using - claims by interested parties, from marginal sources. yet you constantly use them. So we need to be consistent - either all of these marginal sources, OpEds and claims by interested parties are in, or they are all out. But there will NOT be a situation where just one side gets to present its POV from Amira Hass OpEds, Group blogs like MondoWeiss, and claims by interested parties. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If an OpEd by Hass is in, so is an OpEd by GoldKlng. If claims from interested parties like the Palestinians who say they were displaced are presented, then counter-claims by people like Dilmoni will be presented. And if group blogs like Mondoweiss usable in the article, then so is a news outlet like Arutz 7. Double standards will not fly here. All Rows4 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

To repeat, where in RS/N is Mondoweiss said never to be used on Wikipedia, under any circumstances? For the third time.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"To repeat": what about any RS decision about Makor Rishon? ):) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: Your edit is very WP:POINTy and disruptive. In no way can an op-ed from a journalist in the newspaper that she works in, and where she reports on a regular basis, and which is supported by numerous other sources, be compared to the op-ed by a random person, with no corroboration, and in fact, contradicted by the sources already present in the article.

As mentioned many times before: reliability is contextual. You cannot arbitrarily add an op-ed by "one side" and op-ed by the "other side". NPOV does not mean false balance. The correct way to handle the dispute would be to discuss the reliability of the Hass piece, for instance, on WP:RSN or the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? GoldKlang in not "a random person", she is a journalist, and not just a journalist, but deputy editor of the Israeli daily newspaper Makor Rishon, of which NRG is the on-line edition. This situation is an exact parallel to the Hass case which you describe as "an op-ed from a journalist in the newspaper that she works in, and where she reports on a regular basis,". Hass, in case you don't know, was previously found guilty of libel against that same settler community she is riling against in the that OpEd. I'd have a bit more respect for your position if you also advocated that Nishidani restore the Goldklang OpEd (which was supported by multiple other reliable sources, like the Jewish Press) and then discuss the reliability of the piece, for instance, on WP:RSN or the talk page. But as you are not doing that, I must conclude you are not driven by a desire to adhere to Wikipedia policy,mbut simple one-sided POV-pushing. All Rows4 (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You only read half of what I write, don't you? You managed to ignore that my position is that I am happy to remove the Hass source from the article because there are other sources. You totally ignored all my points about corroboration. And you totally ignored my point of not making a WP:POINT. Totally ignored my point of not engaging in false balance, just because there is an "op-ed from one side", add an "op-ed from another side". It's hard to argue sensibly like this. As I said above, since I have no wish to argue over trivial legalistic matters, I am removing the Hass and Mondoweiss sources from the article, because there are already 3 other sources. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I read all your argument, and responded to it. Earlier, I pointed out to you that I am not discussing any edit, in particular , but rather the general sourcing used for this article. My point was, and is, that if reliable sources exist for claims made by non-reliable sources, there no need to feature those non-RS in the article. Nishidani is not of the same opinion, and contrary to Wikipedia policy, keeps adding material sourced to such sources into the article (with no admonition from you). In response to his latest such action, I told him this is unacceptable, and that if the article is going to include OpEds, they can be OpEds of both sides. There is no WP:POINTyness here - the article as it currently stands is seriously unbalanced, presenting the claims of only one side. It needs to present both sides, and will do so, the only question is which sources will be used. I would be happier if no side used OpEds or blogs, but if this position is overridden, then both sides will use OpEds and blogs - and that was my point in my previous response to you - that the Goldklang OpEd in NRG is an exact parallel to the Hass OpEd in Haaretz - I am not adding it as 'tit-for-tat', I am adding it because it presents an under-represented POV, and is a source of the same quality that you (or Nishidani) are apparently happy to have in the artcile when it is form "the other side' All Rows4 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

For the fourth time. Where is it written that Mondoweiss cannot be used? No editor is an oracle on this, and when disputes on policy interpretation arise the normal practice is to ask RS/N, as I have consistently done. (I agree with Kingsindian's compromise, but that does not entail agreeing to the practice of excluding Mondoweiss from article) Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

To clarify to Nishidani and others, I did not mean to set some "precedent" about the use of Mondoweiss or op-eds. I of course meant it as a compromise about a peripheral matter.

To All Rows4, I do not operate on the basis of "one side" or the "other side", though I of course have my own POV. "Both sides" are not of equal validity everywhere. I repeat, the Hass op-ed was used on this matter, because it was corroborated with other sources, and nobody disputes it, and Hass is a journalist for Haaretz as well as an opinion writer. You simply zeroed in on the last point, while ignoring the others. The NRG op-ed you used is not corroborated by anything (I do not accept a report in a newspaper quoting a settler's council representative about historical matters as any sort of corroboration), and was in contradiction to the sources already present in the article. There is no equivalence here. If you wish to add that material, make an argument on its own merits.

More importantly, I am not interested in legalisms. This is not a courthouse, nor a bureaucracy. Rules are useful, in that they help in discussion and consensus, nothing more. I agreed on the compromise on this issue because the article content remains the same, and removes a totally trivial irritant. I will however, not agree on the inclusion of the NRG material, unless I hear better arguments. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your POV is quite obvious. Of course people dispute Hass' account - you just "do not accept" that position , even when it is published in a newspaper article. Unfortunately for you, that's not how Wikipedia works. Goldklang is every bit the the journalist that Hass is , and her account is corroborated by other reliable sources, some of which I will be adding to the article shortly. All Rows4 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

For the 5th time, where at RS/N has Mondoweiss been defined as unusuable. As fo

Goldklang is every bit the the journalist that Hass is

• “Orly Goldklang” 103 google hits
• Google book hits zero
• International Awards (peer recognition) zero

• “Amira Hass” google 316.000 hits
• google book hits 344
• At least 4 awardsNishidani (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(getting tired of seeing this on my watchlist, but the last comment is brazen enough to make me want to intervene): It's a little unfair to do a Google search that's not in the native language of the people you're looking up. If you search in Hebrew, Goldklang has 7,750 hits. I assume the point of repeatedly redlinking her is an attempt to show how non-notable she is, but she has an article on he.wiki (he:אורלי גולדקלנג). This is not a comment on whether her piece is a valid source or not. Number 57 14:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you see nothing wrong in any one else's comments? I actually checked around to look at some of her opinions. A typical example of extremist hysteria-stoking and abuse of the usual analogy:'If Iran is allowed to enrich Uranium, even without making bombs of it, that is as if the world in 1939 allowed Germany to construct the facilities at Auschwitz without as yet placing the Jews inside the gas chambers”.' You cannot keep playing the WP:RS card to remove notable journalists, and then try to dump unknown provincials in. Nishidani (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

In case people have forgotten, the Amira Hass op-ed is no longer cited. The compromise was meant to undercut the basis for precisely this kind of useless discussion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Top of not-NPOV

I've received '500 Internal Server Error' checking the following ref: Applied Research Institute Jerusalem, (ARIJ), 18 September, 1999. So I tried to begin from http://www.poica.org and did reach something as "Monitoring Israeli Colonization (sic! --Igorp_lj (talk)) Activities in the Palestinian Territories":

• About The Project
  • Monitoring Israeli Colonizing (sic! --Igorp_lj (talk)) activities in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza is a joint project between the Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem (ARIJ) and the Land Research Center (LRC).

Can someone explain me why should we regard such sources as RS?

Or such NPOV (?) source as "Ta'ayush, Aggressive Zionist body wins court order to demolish Palestinian village, at Jews for Justice for Palestinians" (Jews for Justice for Palestinians) and other such ones.

I do not remember when & where Nishidani praised himself as Susya author what should prove his NPOV. :(
IMHO, it's opposite: it's example of not-NPOV.

The sad thing is that same editors do their best to exclude from any article almost any Jewish / Israeli source what differs from Hass, etc. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

++

• APPLIED RESEARCH INSTITUTE JERUSALEM (ARIJ), ngo-monitor.org
• TA´AYUSH, ngo-monitor.org

--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Susya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120406175628/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=616 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=616

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

This page is constantly having sourced information removed without any explanation. Al™ 04:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion above about material inserted and deleted. Please be more clear about what sourced information you are referring to and why you think no explanation has been provided. Zero^talk 05:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As min, Applied Research Institute in Jerusalem (ARIJ), Jews for Justice for Palestinians & Ta'ayush mentioned in "Top of not-NPOV" above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is really is no point in attempting to make page related to this conflict neutral. It's impossible due to one party editing everything to fit one agenda.. Al™ 00:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Call for deletion

This entire page is a lie; it should be deleted; we have 19th century records showing that this village did not exist then and pictures from the 1990s of this area also showing there was no village; this article is political propaganda and never should have been written.

https://books.google.com/books?id=MIUKXuBj5pkC&dq=susieh+palestine&source=gbs_navlinks_s

I think it has a little bit more credibility then an active political organization that has no sources (sources used by wikipedia are supposed to be non-partisan right?)

You think the people who edit this page care about truth? How naive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.216.93 (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Mobile page

On my iPhone wiki app, the page has a title that reads, "Palestinian village, occupied by Israelian colonists". This seems very unbalanced but I can't figure out when can I change it. Any idea? Settleman (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the WikiData data. See: www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q248002. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Split?

Brand new user User:Settleman have split this article into 3; I cannot see there was ever a consensus for such a drastic move? I´m removing this, pending further discussion, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I wrote on my talk page, the article is completely unreadable the way it is right now. The archaeological site section is OK but the rest seems like a jungle of events and opinions which makes it very hard to read and understand. In the 'Modern Era' part it goes back and forth between the settlement and the village which isn't comprehensible. It makes complete sense to make 3 articles (the way it is on Hebrew wikipedia) and the way it is done on many other towns like nearby Carmel, Har Hebron, al-Karmil and Carmel (biblical settlement). I think the articles on settlement and archaeological site are readable while the village one require more work maybe creating sections for the different expulsions which will demand much English fluency. Settleman (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

What you did; unilaterally splitting, and then running around on a lot of different articles making links to your new articles: that is extremely disruptive, and will end you at WP:AE in no time. I´m undoing it, while we discuss it, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it was a mistake, but instead of working hard now undoing this and then redoing it again, why won't you explain whether you agree or not, and if not, why? Settleman (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the split is a good idea. I also think threatening someone who has done nothing more than apply WP:BEBOLD with AE is an extremely unhelpful attitude. Number 57 12:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Splits, esp. by people previously banned from I/P editing are not acceptable. One could even put a name to this one. And how do you split an article when the geographical coordinates for the Palestinian village and the khirbet Susiya imbricate perfectly, at least until some years ago. They used part of the khirbet as a mosque until driven off.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Splits are clearly acceptable given the Carmel/Carmel/al-Karmil example cited, and the numerous examples we have of separate articles for depopulated Arab villages and the modern Israeli localities established in their place. Number 57 15:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

To repeat: How do you split an article when the synagogue/mosque site was the hearth of the Susiya Palestinian community for a hundred and fifty years?. Carmel/Carmel/al-Karmil are complete messes because we don't know whether in fact one of those karmels was our Susiya. I didn't agree with the previous split, which was stupidly motivated by Ashtul, and I don't agree with this proposal by a newbie who has an almost identical voice. All one obtained was hiving off into reciprocal invisibility two overlapping continguous realities, so readers are not disturbed by the complexities of an interwoven history. All of those article will remain stubs, because there's nothing to do with them. This at least has the benefit of a historical articles embracing the vicissitudes of one site. lastly, since it has emerged as a strong possibility that all of these Susiyas are on the one ottoman title, any move until this is clarified is premature. We should not be imitating the apartheid practices of the military administration by discursive mirroring.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Ashtul or any other previous editor!!! Whatever grudges someone has with him, keep it for him.

The settlement Susya is in a whole different location and only named after the archaeological site. Mitzpe Yair, an outpost of Susya, has its own article but the main settlement shouldn't?

As for the archaeological site and khirbet, Nishidani wrote "those article will remain stubs" but they will both not considered stub at 19K and 34k, a respectful size! Yes another example of where it is done Katzrin and Katzrin ancient village and synagogue. Settleman (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra. Aren't you the forerunner of creating duplicate articles of Israeli geographic entities using the Arab name of a depopulated village? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pot, kettle, indeed. The difference here is that the history of the three places here seem very intervened, while at Zakariyya it was a clear break. Huldra (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The settlement is as different from the archaeological site as any of the numerous examples above.

For the Palestinian village, I can see the connection though Susya existed for almost 2000 years then possibly used seasonally for 150 years. The fight now is over land that is not the original site (even if nearby). This episode completely take over the article which seems disproportionate and unhelpful. Settleman (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Translate

this source (Havakook>{{cite book|last1=Yaakov|first1=Havakook|title=Live in Caves of Mount Hebron|date=1985|page=26|url=https://books.google.co.il/books/about/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A8_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F.html?id=OaELAAAAIAAJ) has to be verified by translating the relative passage on p.26. The editor who added it should provide the precise Hebrew sentence and an English version to allow third parties to see if it supports the statement made or is, as it appears to be, a WP:OR weaving into the text of that source.Nishidani (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the book but basically translated from Hebrew wikipedia #2 where the source is cited. Havakook is probably the one source for anyone writing about recent history. Obviously B'tselem and RHR prefer to not highlight the seasonality of the place. Settleman (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: Since you are a new editor, I would ask you to keep in mind WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source. I will keep this in for now, because the B'Tselem source does say "seasonally", but this should be verified by someone who has read the book. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't do copying from other Wikipedia articles or other wikipedias blindly. In every page under construction, one must endeavor to verify independently the sources. There is no indication whether the source is RS, for example. The link draws a blank. The information may well be useful, but unless independently examined to verify the quality of the source and the accuracy of the way it is cited, it should be removed. As to seasonality, that is question-begging. Because transhumance pastoralism all over the world involves season transfers from one site (the Arad here) to another (Susya), and stable living in both quarters in the due seasons. It does not imply, nor do the cave dwellings, impermanence. The way the source is harvested suggests that there is something contingent and ephemeral in such pastoral practices, which happens to be contrafactual, esp. if the Susya area farmers actually purchased Ottoman title to it in 1880, which appears to be the case.Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have found a tangential reference to this here (pg 13). The spelling "Havakook" is different, but I think it is the same source. It states: "It should be noted that the state, in giving its reasons, relied on the research of Ya’akov Habakkuk, who found that at least some of the villages of the area are permanent communities". This should be clarified at the very least. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see below. Settleman (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"Seasonally" in the lead

A B'Tselem source is being used to insert the word "seasonally" in the lead. Here is a much better B'Tselem source which discusses the "seasonal" claims in detail. It does not support this, and in fact argues against it (pg 18-20). Consequently, I have removed this from the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The report you qoute state specifically "This report does not deal with the village Suseya, which lies outside the closed area. Israel is also trying to expel its residents, but it is a separate case."

If you understand Hebrew I will recommend watching this recent event at Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. Settleman (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it says, it is not wp:rs. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why it was removed again. B'tselem source say Susya was seasonal and the other B'tselem source says "This report isn't about Susya. I should be this week in Jerusalem and have a chance to go to library. Settleman (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is the specific text stating that Susyans were seasonal since 1832? If the dots are connected, fine. If they are not, it is WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: You are correct in your statement above, my new source is talking generally about cave dwellers in this area. There is lot of confusion here. See for example here - Currently about 250 people live in Khirbet Susiya on a regular basis, and some 100 others live in it for part of the year, as their livelihood is seasonal. This point is quite important so I would like an unambiguous source here. The way I read it, the other B'Tselem source is simply saying that they were living uninterruptedly since 1830s on a seasonal basis. If and when some of them became permanent residents, is not stated. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I have read the book by Yaakov Havakook in the library today. He specify Khirbet Susya as a seasonal location. He lived in the area continuously between 77 and 79 then visited a few more times until 84 and the book was published in 85. I took a photo so I can give an exact translation. There is more evidence to support this and evidence that suggest otherwise is a document by Plia Albeck (though she may have visited during the season) but i'll wait with it until the pages deletion discussion is over so we can write it in an objective way.

The fact the village was (very likely) seasonal doesn't mean that it should be demolished. Some argue it should still be protected under int'l treaties and the land ownership is another issue that need to be addressed in the article. What I'm trying to say is - right now the article doesn't explain any of this. It is a mess of incoherent information on a subject that is both complex and explosive. Settleman (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Israeli reports reflect archaeological, not human interests. We have source bias, plus source inadequacy, and the article simple reflects these inadequacies. That transhumance cultures are 'seasonal' says nothing much other than noting tribes engaged in them had two destinations depending on the period, for sowing crops and grazing flocks. That in Israel and under the occupation seasonality disinvalidates claims to land is a convenient political story to allow people from Brooklyn or Moldavia with no historic connections to the area to seize native rezources under the protection of guns wielded by an occupier power which ignores the obligations of ninternational and humanitarian law, that forms part of the picture, complicated by recent evidence that title to land exists in Susya some 700 acres, dating to Ottoman times. This will be clarified (partially) at the next sittings of the court.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yaakov Havakook book "life in Mount Hebron caves" is about the life of the locals, not archaeology. Half of the book is about his experience with the villagers. His book is used in reports which support the Palestinian position as Kingsindian showed.

The position you present is Rabbies for Human Rights position and is one side of the coin. The other one is the Israel government and its high court ruling. I checked again, and the address of this website is wikipedia.com and it is an encyclopedia. You can keep your comments about "people from Brooklyn or Moldavia with no historic connections to the area" to yourself. Settleman (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The other side of the story is international law governing the law of occupation, which is what the Israeli government, the IDF and Israeli's legal system consistently ignores.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Settleman Can you translate what exactly Havakook says about Khirbet Susiya? By the way, the B'Tselem report I linked to does not cite Havakook, it simply says that the Israeli govt. has cited Havakook to argue this "seasonal" claim in court. Since the B'Tselem source argues against "seasonal" generally, but it is not dealing with Susiya in that report, I am a bit uneasy about using it here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the quote.

The fate and rule (לחם חוקם) for shepherds' they have to migrate with their herds following the grass and water... The large amount of natural caves met the requirements of the shepherds: they provided pretection from the cold, rain, wind and other natural elements... Whoever travel in South Mount Hebron even today, when this book is written, in early 1984, in Khirbats like... Khirbet Susya (landmark 159090) and the alike will discover, the every year, during grazing time, regular fixed families of shepherds visit the caves in these ruins, as every shepherd family returns and live in the same cave in which it lived in the prior season. Grazing season - it is important to clarify - is parallel to the winter season, and usually starts in October-November, with the first rain, and continue until April end and beginning of May. At the end of the winter once again the families abandon the caves which they used during the grazing months, and uproot to the main village or other grazing areas, more promising. Settleman (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That's useful, at last. Probably we need the Hebrew text, and a more precise translation at this point. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I put it in Khirbet Susya a few days ago but two sources has the same name and it didn't appear. Settleman (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You can page 56 here.Settleman (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani Can you direct me to the source that specify 1832. Khirbet Susya does appear in anything I can find prior to Havakook. Non of the british censuses (22,31,45) has it and political NGOs such as B'tselem or RHR are questionable for such facts. RHR for example claim the village is also found on British Mandate maps from 1917 which is obviously bogus because such much could (and mostly likely does) refer to the ruins. Havakook in his book writes that Khirbeh refers to seasonal location while Kariyeh refers to a permanent village. He also writes that the status might change over time and indeed he writes that Khirbet At-Tuwani is permanent village. The book was published in 1985. Settleman (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Written records of the existence of a Palestinian community in its location exist from as far back as 1830, and the village is also found on British Mandate maps from 1917. Susya: A History of Loss, Rabbis for Human Rights 07 November 2013

It's rather remarkable to have to argue that people who have lived for centuries in a locality have a link or title to a land which is being cleansed by foreigners with no link to the land for millennia, if at all, on the assumption that a non-existent God was a real-estate tycoon dispensing favours to non-historical figures like Moses and Joseph whose fairy6 tales have more legal merit than modern bills of sale. It's not the Susiyans who need documents to justify their presence but the gun-touting carpetbaggers and thugs elbowing them out.,.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the source I have just added. RHR claim they have lived there for generations but don't provide any evidence. Meanwhile, 3 travellers (who mentions inhabitation of places) say nothing about people in Susya, British census doesn't even mention it and the only researcher who studied the area deeply say it was used temporarily 2 years before the initial eviction. Regavim is a side in the legal process currently taking place so they are as reliable as RHR. Settleman (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Just found an article on al-monitor which says "Israeli anthropologist Yaakov Havacook dates their presence in Susiya back to the beginning of the 19th century". This 1830 is completely bogus and should not be on Wikipedia. Settleman (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You are POV pushing on a mighty scale against sources. You have no right as an editor to make personal judgements about claims being 'bogus'. The source you asked for says:

The Palestinian village of Susya has existed for hundreds of years, long predating the Jewish Israeli settlement of Susya, which was founded in its neighborhood in 1983. Written records of the existence of a Palestinian community in its location exist from as far back as 1830, and the village is also found on British Mandate maps from 1917.

Your crap about no mentions in 3 traveler accounts of inhabitants is both an argumentum ex silentio, and a demonstration of your unfamiliarity with 19th century Muiddle eastern travelogues. Western travellers looked for antiquities, not people, giving rise to the kind of nonsense that Palestine was empty. They aòlso travelled seasonally mostly in summer, through areas where transhumance pastoralism was practiced in winter. There are very detailed multivolumed Arabic histories of Hebron and its Hills going back centuries: none of them are ever harvested in Western source4s except in obscure monographs etc.etc.etc. Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

1830 was sort-of near the beginning of the 19th century, to the accuracy typical of newspapers. I don't think that article adds or subtracts anything. Zero^talk 09:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Henry Baker Tristram was there in February and he does mention the page before that Semua was inhabited. so both your claims are wrong. 'Settlers organ' Arutz 7 contacted the different organizations asking for the historical documents they base their claims on but no one could provide any such evidence. As I mention, Al-monitor claims Havakook is the source but I read the book and he doesn't say that. Settleman (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this, too many sections on this talk page to keep track of. The al-Monitor source saying "beginning of the 19th century" seems consistent with 1830, doesn't it? 1830 is in the 19th century. I don't see why that article is relevant. As a general matter, I do not oppose including "seasonally" in the lead, correctly attributed to Havakook, as long as there is no implication that the village didn't exist prior to 1986. This bit about censuses and so on, is WP:OR from WP:PRIMARY sources, and not admissible. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

French translation

Can someone please translate this for the "Ottoman era" section. Settleman (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing there for the Ottoman period. He sees a church with three absides facing east, caverns and cisterns, and indulges in some philological speculations over the name. That's all.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This source is very relevant to the archaeological site and is used in different villages in the area such as al-Karmil (#15) and Beit 'Amra (#3).

This article is (currently) about both types so it is relevant. Settleman (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman era - 19th century sources

@Settleman: I see two sources used, both were published in the 19th century? The general consensus here is that such sources are not reliable. See the essay (it's not a policy, but offers useful guidelines) WP:HISTRS). This is the same reason that for instance, British colonial sources are not used for articles on India. Recent scholarship should be used, which interprets such old sources. Also, I am not sure what exactly those sources are supposed to prove. I have for the moment removed them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I didn't look at the details of this example, but in general I only partly agree with you. 19th century, or even earlier, writers are usually considered reliable for their personal observations. That's especially true for the scholarly writers of the 19th century such as Robinson, SWP and Guérin. We can quote what they saw at a place, and do so in very many articles. On the other hand, their hypotheses about a place that are not a simple matter of observation are not treated as reliable, such as their guesses regarding the ancient name of a site. But even those can be mentioned as attributed opinions if they are interesting, to be contrasted with the findings of modern scholars. Zero^talk 00:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: You might have a point, I do not know about these sources in detail to say anything definite. Generally, my feeling is that these sources should be used with caution, because they are first-hand accounts, and use of WP:PRIMARY sources is discouraged in historical matters, if only because many primary sources are fragmentary, contradictory and so on. These are matters on which trained historians are better suited to judge the reliability and relevance, rather than WP editors. On this topic, there is so much propaganda and myths, that I tend to treat such sources with extreme caution. Anyway, as I mentioned in my earlier edit, it is not clear to me what these sources are supposed to show here, or why they are important. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources are definitely usable. My point that two 'Ottoman' sources saying what was known for a millennium, that as khirbet implies, it was a ruin, don't throw much light on the issue at hand, the population's history. I wrote up the ruin's history in great detail, and what struck me as noteworthy is that travelers passing through never mention people there: that was not what they were looking for, much like modern archaeologists. Aside from the fact that I'm feeling extremely lazy.Nishidani (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I have self-reverted for now, because people more knowledgeable than me think otherwise. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Split again

Settleman Whoa, wait a second. There is no consensus to split this article yet. I have reverted this right now. Actually policy is unclear. I asked about this here on Sandstein's page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A no consensus to delete is effectively the same as a keep result, as it maintains the status quo. The main difference is that a second discussion on the articles would be accepted sooner than that which had resulted in a keep result. Number 57 08:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: The key question is "what is the status quo"? Is the status quo "one article discussing all 3 sites", or is the status quo "the spinoff articles should not be deleted", as usually happens in AfDs? Because it can be only one or the other. Either the spinoff articles should be deleted, or this one should be made a disamb/redirect, and I don't see consensus for either one. I have opened a discussion here about this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete the spinoff articles, therefore they remain in existence. Number 57 09:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thank you for telling me that, but I already said this above. What should be the scope of this article, then? Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As the two articles that were up for discussion were the settlement and Palestinian village, that would leave this one as the archaeological site. Number 57 09:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: I am afraid that is totally unacceptable. That would essentially endorse the split, for which no consensus (indeed no discussion) exists. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable to you, but perfectly acceptable to some other editors. Number 57 16:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: Sorry if I was not clear, but I was not asking for editors' opinions, I was asking for policy clarification (since you are an admin as well, I thought you might enlighten me). It is obvious to me that policy can't require something like this, which implements a non-existent discussion and consensus. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Some editors want a nice clean archaeological page so that googlers visiting the area don't have to read about the dispossessions, but can enjoy this Jewish site. That's the only visible reason for hacking the article into three pieces. Creating a comfort zone for tourists.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Um, Nish, the thing is, Wikipedia separates archaeological sites the world over in just this way, for efficiency and user friendliness, I assume. I mean, when you want to link through and read about Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium you don't want to have to go through an article on modern or 19th century Cologne. Individual ancient houses of worship are treated the same way. It would make no sense to propose to fold Burqin Church into the article on Burqin.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not only an archaeological site. It is one of continuous use and habitation by the wrong ethnos, who now, as opposed to the practice of centuries, can't put foot there, though it appears they may well have title to the land (this should be shortly clarified when the court rules on Moshe Meiri's work, if it does).The Cologne analogy misses the peculiarities here. Cologne celebrates the differential culture of a persecuted minority, and lays out its presence in the heart of a German city, and the groundwork is massive. This is one small but distinctive synagogue/mosque ruin which has been transformed by the governing power into a monument of the Jewish past exclusive of its Muslim past and its Muslim presence in modern times. The Israeli courts have just ruled that Palestinians must be accorded a right to the ruins of Shilo, from which they have hitherto been excluded. Since, as numerous Israeli monographs document in great detail the progressive destruction of Palestinian/Muslim attachments to the land, and this is an informal but persistent policy governing sites like Susiya, Wikipedia should be sensitive, as should comprehensive editors, to any mimcry of the same process, aiming to strictly separate the multicultural realities of a site by forking to maintain an image of 'Jews'(Susiya), 'Arabs' (Susiya). Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Then why do we have so many separate articles on depopulated Arab villages that have been built over by modern Israeli localities? The insistence on a single article here seems to be rank hypocrisy on the face of what exists elsewhere in this topic area. Furthermore, unless there is some bizarre quantum phenomenon that I am unaware of, the Palestinian village and the Israeli settlement cannot occupy exactly the same physical location, and therefore are separate places with a shared name. And even if they were adjoining places, they are still separate administrative areas - the settlement has its own municipal borders, which are clearly visible on Google Maps and do not include the Palestinian village. The idea that the split is somehow an attempt to deny the dispossessions is really quite silly (especially given the aforementioned separate articles on depopulated villages); if Susya were to become an article only about the archaeological site, it will have a hatnote at the top of the page that clearly mentions the alternative articles on the Palestinian village and the settlement. Hardly hiding the dispossession issue.

But anyway, I think what we need is some outside views from unbiased editors and hopefully an RfC will do this. If it comes to it, I could live with a combined article on the archaeological site and the modern Palestinian village (as they are in the same physical location), but the settlement is quite clearly not in the same location (as anyone can see from the maps). Number 57 16:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

'Then why do we have so many separate articles on depopulated Arab villages that have been built over by modern Israeli localities?' Because these depopulated villages are in Israel, and are mainly the concern of Israeli editors anyway. I don't touch that. I'm interested in villages in the West Bank, which, you should remind yourself, is not in Israel and per NPOV has to deal with two ethnic realities, and not try to extend the Israeli precedent for its own past on contemporary history. Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should I remind myself that this is not in Israel? I'm fully aware it's not in Israel. If you had any idea about the history of editing in this topic area, you would know that I was one of the editors who was instrumental in getting rid of the "in Israel" classification for Israeli settlements that pro-Israel POV pushers insisted on using in the early days of Wikipedia (and copped rather a lot of flak for it at the time, including disruption of my RfA by a bloc of the aforementioned editors). I do not need any lessons in NPOV from yourself. As for depopulated Arab villages being "mainly the concern of Israeli editors", I suggest you also get yourself up to speed on who is creating/editing those as well. Number 57 04:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the article in an hostile environment. No complaints, absolute silence, as I did the hard yakka of writing the synagogue history. As soon as I touched on the Palestinian presence I was subject to a three (four if you count the usual sockpuppet)-pronged revert battle on the most spurious of issues. Since then 2008, the article has had 7 years of stability. All of a sudden, note the coincidence with the High Court decision to demolish the last traces of Palestinian Susiya, editors are activated to try and rid the article itself of its Palestinian history. Coincidence? Sure, yeah, pull the other one. The only rationale for splitting a comprehensive multifaceted article on this one site into three is to make the Palestinian history of attachment to the ex-synagogue/mosque invisible, make them disappear from the site, and have a nice comfortable article about our Israeli heritage Sysia, free of them. It's ethnic cleansing applied to articles.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: I won't go into the details too much here, but in fact there is no need for "quantum phenomena". The reason is simple, as this UN factsheet details, and I mentioned at the AfD as well. The Israeli settlement's borders are actually 5 times bigger than the actual built up area, which intersects, encroaches upon and denies land to the Palestinian area. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains that they cannot exist in exactly the same place. Plus, even in cases where we have contiguous urban areas administered by two separate political entities, we have split articles (e.g. Nicosia/North Nicosia. Number 57 04:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge mess. As Wikipedia:Splitting says, in case of contested or controversial splits, discussion should have been carried out before the split. I have asked on the AfD page about relevant policy, depending on the replies, I will open a formal RfC here in a few days to decide whether this article should be split. After that is concluded, hopefully the status and scope of the articles will be clear. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nishdani, the Romans were not a "persecuted minority" at Cologne, they founded, owned, ruled the place. And it should not be necessary to point out that ethnic change is hardly unique to Susiya. In Burqui, for example, the Christians were the dominant group before they became a persecuted minority. My point, however, is that the separation of significant archaeological sites is normative on Wikipedia, subsuming the Burqin Church under a small town like Burquin would make little sense, which is why it is usual to separate significant archaeological sites both from major cities like Cologne, and from a rural hamlet like Susya.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct in writing that 'the Romans were not as ' persecuted minority'. You are absolutely off-the-planet in making this a remonstrative argument against me, since I referred in that phrase to Jews, not to Romans:'Cologne celebrates the differential culture of a persecuted minority' (meaning, if I have to construe further, that the German city of Cologne celebrates by its contemporary excavations the historical roots of a Jewish minority Germans once persecuted. Got that?Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is normative in Wikipedia based on one or two instances. Articles are worked by consensus.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

How about moving this article to something like Susya archaeological site and making Susya a redirect for all 3 articles? This will make it very easy to find Khirbet Susya as well. One thing we can all agree about, the article as it is, doesn't help a reader understand the situation and the legal complexity. Settleman (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that "we can all agree about...". In fact, I think a single article is essential to help the reader understand the complexities involved. However, I will leave detailed arguments to the RfC if and when that happens. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't agree the article right now is terrible? there is no structure to it. It doesn't mean it should be splitted but for a long article which got over 400 edits it is by far the worse I've ever seen on wikipedia. Settleman (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

These are just considerations of dislike, and have no objective merit.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nishdani, you wrote: "Cologne celebrates the differential culture of a persecuted minority, and lays out its presence in the heart of a German city, and the groundwork is massive." You seem to see every group as a "persecuted minority." Even the Romans. The Cologne example is simply not what you describe it as being. But while I am giving these two examples, my point is that across Wikipedia it is entirely routine to have separate pages for significant archaeological sites. I am simply suggesting that we treat this archaeological site exactly as we would treat any other archaeological site in the world about which there are significant sources to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I wrote what I wrote and you misread it. Susiya is (a)an archaeological site of Jewish and Moslem interest (b) an historic hamlet from which (I) Israel destroyed part of the history by destroying the contiguous cave dwellings and (2) dumping its inhabitants far away and then (3) stealing against its own documentary records land that on two occasions experts said is under Palestinian title. You chaps think that we need an article on the synagogue shorn of any mention of this Palestinian history. Your only argument is a theoretical wiki practice. Well, I live in the richest archaeological country in the world, and nearly all articles on Italy have the town and its history and the archaeological remains described in the one article. There is nothing to make the Jewish Susiya more than a stub. Had I not taken the trouble to write the synagogue article we wouldn't be having this argument. Be grateful it's there, and don't resent the fact that for comprehensiveness there is also the history of Israeli attempts to destroy the Muslim realities attached to it. They are part of the one story. Were there no synagogue there would be no illegal attempts to expel the local pastoral folks.Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nishdani, you really should try to check your impulse to make sweeping statements before doing the research, such as, "nearly all articles on Italy have the town and its history and the archaeological remains described in the one article." You misunderstood or misstated. In fact, WP is filled with separate articles about individual old and notable churches, synagogues and temples, such as Temple of Bellona (Rome). Look at enormous number of articles in the WP categories: (Temples in Italy), (Places of worship in Italy), (Ancient Roman buildings and structures in Italy). , , This applies, of course, not exclusively to houses of worship, but to ancient sites of all kinds, which routinely get their own pages, see . An argument against separate articles is an argument that this synagogue be treated differently than archaeological sites and old, notable temples, churches and synagogues in Italy (and elsewhere) are treated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that participants save their metaphorical breath for the RfC if and when that happens? This discussion is pointless, because it will solve nothing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, my point of view is to have :

• A disambiguation page: Susya directing to 3 articles (in chronological order):
  • Susya archeological site
  • Khirbet Susya
  • Susya Israeli Settlement

I can argue during the RfC, if any. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• I concur with Pluto. And said so in the previous AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are right about me getting to the article after reading about the High Court decision but nobody is trying to "ethnic cleanse" the article. The way I proposed it, Khirbet Susya was at the top and in Modern era section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settleman (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Odd sentence

I removed this odd sentence : "No excavations have uncovered undisputed evidence for synagogues before the 2nd century CE in Judea, when Rabbinic Judaism became ascendant due to the destruction of the Second Temple." for two reasons. It ignores the synagouge at Herodium. a\And it does not really seem to serve any purpose in this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• User:Nishdani let's rethingk the sentence you just replaced. It makes the sweeping statement that "No excavations have uncovered undisputed evidence for synagogues before the 2nd century CE in Judea" when, in fact, there is just such a one in Herodium in Judea. The sentence as you left it should be changed to reflect that reality. Perhaps the dig post-dates the source you cited?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(a)It's in the source (b) the key word is 'undisputed'. I don't know the truth. I transcribe sources. Given your reservation, the obvious nsolution, to avoid your WP:OR temptation, is simply to add attribution. The whole point of that introductory note is to emphasis the post-classical, yet uniquely conservative (Jerusalem-usage reflective) character of the late Judean tradition.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in question is not footnoted. Mentioning the pre-year 70 synagogue at Herodion in Judea is hardly original research. Kindly stick to verifiable facts rather than unsources assertions like "undisputed" and, if you insist on replacing a prima facie untrue assertion (such as the absence of synagogues in this region in that period) , at least cite it to a specific source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The footnote is in the succeeding sentence. On Wikipedia, if you wish to contradict a scholarly source re A, you need a scholarly source mentioning A and controverting it.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Which of the citations are you referring to? To support a statement that is sweeping, specific, (and incorrect).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Images

Wikimedia commons has an excellent array of photos, a photo gallery should be added - to this page or, better, to a separate page about the ancient town and synagogue. It is a remarkable physical array of surviving structures for a town of that antiquity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should Susya article be split and become a disambiguation page?

Should Susya article be split and become a disambiguation page redirecting 3 different articles about the archaeological site, the Palestinian community and the Israeli settlement? Settleman (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Send alerts to all participants of deletion discussions. Huldra, Oneiros, Debresser, Igorp lj, Number 57, Kingsindian, Nishidani, E.M.Gregory, Zigzig20s, Pluto2012, Johnmcintyre1959, W1i2k3i45,

• Yes - The Israeli settlement is over a km away from the archaeological site. The Israeli settlement is different then the Palestinian community (and both sides wish to leave it this way). The Palestinian community current legal battle isn't about returning to the original site but about building a village nearby. This is similar in many ways to the Huqoq/Yaquq/Hukok situation. Settleman (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Because as I explained above, it is common Wikipedia practice to give significant archaeological sites pages of their own.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• No - The main point is that they are not separate. The facts are in this UN factsheet which contains a map. In 1986, Israel declared the Palestinian residential area as an archaeological site and expelled the inhabitants. The residents then moved a few hundred meters away. (Some Israeli settlers now live in an outpost on the archaelogical site). The Israeli settlement, built in violation of international law, (in 1983), on the other side, has since expanded to five times the "built up" area. On the map, you can clearly see the intersection of the Palestinian area with the "area denied to Palestinians". Due to settler intimidation and violence, the Palestinian village is denied access to 2000 dunums of land, which is two-thirds of their farming and grazing area. This WP article split will artificially separate out things which are inseparable, and legitimate what B'Tselem accurately termed a "land grab" more than a decade ago. This is not related to Yaquq/Huqoq case because that is a depopulated village (during the 1948 war) while this is an ongoing matter. Finally, if this article is split, the articles will forever remain stubs, just as all the articles on most of the settlements are. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  The usual practice is to give separate pages to notable ancient sites. For example, Saint Anne Church, Trabzon, is a separate page from Trabzon. Jews' Court, Lincoln is separate from Lincoln. The Ostia Synagogue is not rolled into the page of the Ostia Antica archaeological park. The Delos Synagogue has it's own page, as do many of the ancient Greek Temples on Delos. St. Anne's Church, Trani, with a history of conquest and conversion similar to Susiya, has it's own page, separated from Trani. I would be happy to expand and improve the sourcing, detail on this notable ancient building. Wikipedia has hundreds of pages on notable ancient buildings, archaeological finds. In this case, it does not appear from your map, photographs or other reliable reports that the tents are actually located atop the ruins, but even if they were, the argument that they are "on the same site" is not persuasive since separate pages for notable ancient sites are a Wikipedia convention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That partially proves my point: in all of the articles you link to, the separate synagogue/church articles are stubs. I have no idea why you think the persecution of Jews (in the case of Trani) in the 14th century is relevant here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Kingsindian, if you are concerned that the article would be too short, I personally undertake to read the dig reports and secondary scholarly literature and create a proper article. The sources on this dig/site/ancient house of worship are extensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No, because that is only one of my points. The other points remain in place. Anyway, nothing is stopping you from adding these extensive sources to this article. It has existed for 7 years. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The stub claim is simply not true. Khirbet Susya is currently 37k and with the additional work desperately required, it will probably go even higher. Archealogical site is about 23k. So both are not stubs any more. Susya, Har Hebron, though the article is still short, it is its own place which makes it important enough to get an article. Settleman (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Background comment.

This article has been relatively stable, despite occasional efforts to editwar out a variety of documented facts outlining the Palestinian community, since 2009. This year, the Israel Court, led by a judge who happens to be a settler, ordered on May 5 the eviction of the historic community of Palestinians in Susiya, and transferring them to an area outside of Area C, which, though Palestinian in international law, is under Israeli military rule. The community had lived in caves in Susya from the 19th century until 1986, when they were evicted from the site, and they reconstituted their village on their own contiguous lands at that date, refusing to budge. They have, on Israel’s own internal expert advice and internal documentation, title to the land, where the archaeological site was found, and its surrounding area, since Ottoman times (1881).

After the court made this decision, pro-Israeli editors moved to split this article, mirroring on wikipedia what the court has proposed to accomplish, i.e., rid the archaeological site of any trace of the community that had lived there on its own property. In particular User:Settleman, who behaves – perhaps it is a coincidence - identically to the banned user User.Ashtul, and User:E.M.Gregory, whose major work has been to frame articles underlining Palestinian violence (Palestinian stone-throwing, backing it by an attempt in a new article to conflate Israeli law with international law (Criminal rock throwing)), have tried to press for the splitting off of any mention of Palestinians in the old article, which covered three realities in the one location of Susiya. An article that was stable for several years, of reasonable length, and comprehensively covering all three realities, should not be eviscerated idly into three stubs, particularly when it looks like an attempt to make one half of the I/P equation disappear from sight on the main article where the synagogue/mosque is located.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• None of Nish's rant has anything to do with the simple, routine practice of having separate pages for separate towns, and separate pages for notable archaeological sites.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Although I am open to the Palestinian village and archaeological site articles being combined as they are in the same place, the Israeli settlement article should definitely be separated for the following reasons: Firstly the two sites are in different locations as quite clearly shown in this map. Secondly, the two locations are under different jurisdictions; the settlement is part of Har Hebron Regional Council and the village is part of Hebron Govornate. We have numerous examples of contiguous places under separate jurisdictions having separate articles, eg Nicosia and North Nicosia. Thirdly, there are also numerous precedents in this topic area for having separate articles, many of which have already been cited in the discussions above.

Contrary to the above inference that the split is solely the wish of pro-Israel editors, I also support it, and it also appears to be supported by one editor in the pro-Palestinian camp. On the other hand, the only opposition to splitting the article (to date) has come from pro-Palestinian editors. The idea that the split is somehow an attempt to hide the illegal settlement is rather desperate as the DAB will list it prominently. Plus the whole land issue will still be covered in both the village and settlement articles.

Finally, I must take some blame for this whole mess. I started the article (I think in 2007) solely as an article about the settlement when I was completing the set of all registered Israeli localities (both in Israel and the Occupied Territories). However, around 2008 I removed them all from my watchlist as I was tired of fighting the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors, and of seeing their petty edit wars on my watchlist. As a result, I missed the widening of the article's scope, which I would have attempted to stop at the time. A couple of years ago I added all the articles I had created back to my watchlist in order to keep an eye out for vandalism, and got annoyed enough with the poor quality if arguments made here that I felt compelled to join the discussion. Number 57 11:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: While I appreciate the detailed explanation, the point about Nicosia seems rather far-fetched to me. I do not know much about it, but it looks like it was partitioned in 1963. This is rather like saying India and Pakistan have separate articles. In Susya's case the entities are not just contiguous, but overlapping, once you consider the area denied to the Palestinian village, which has no approved master plan (because Israel denies them all). This is clearly indicated in the UN map I gave. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, which was that the two are under separate jurisdictions, not how the situation arose. Another example is Texhoma, which isn't even split across a national border, but has two separate articles for the Texan and Oklahoman-run sides. Number 57 12:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: You are factually wrong about "separate jurisdiction". Susya comes under Area C, which is under Israeli control. Israel almost never allows building permits in Area C, this is one of the main issues under conflict here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not. Even if the village is in Area C, it is still not under the jurisdiction of Har Hebron regional council. Number 57 13:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a distinction without a difference. What is important is Israel controls it, not what name it chooses to give it. Israel has been quite open that it wants to expel people from this part of Area C into Yatta, which is in area A under Palestinian control. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That Israel controls the whole area is wholly irrelevant to the jurisdiction issue - there are levels of jurisdiction below the national government - ie the regional council. One of these places is under its jurisdiction, the other is not. Number 57 14:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is my last comment on this matter. This "different jurisdiction" stuff was in relation to Nicosia and North Nicosia. North Nicosia is under Turkish occupation, Nicosia is not. This kind of difference cannot be finessed away by appealing to "different levels of jurisdiction below the national government". Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are obsessed with the occupation issue with Nicosia as it was simply an example. If its really a big deal for whatever reason (I suspect trying to avoid the real subject), then forget I ever mentioned Nicosia and focus on the Texhoma example instead, or perhaps Bristol, Tennessee/Bristol, Virginia or perhaps Union City, Indiana/Union City, Ohio. There are plenty more to choose from. Number 57 09:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It was an example, and I tried to argue that it didn't apply here. There is no obsession, I was simply replying to your points. The rest of your examples are "twin cities", which is the opposite of partition, as in the Nicosia case. In these cases, cities in proximity grow into each other over time. However, that is not what is happening here. In this case, one entity is taking over the land of the other entity. Nobody is suggesting that Palestinian Susya is growing into Israeli Susya; that would be absurd. I have already gone on too long on this issue, so I will shut up now and let other people discuss. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point again (deliberately?). These are all contiguous or adjacent cities with the same name but split across two jurisdictions, and all of which have two articles. It's that simple. Number 57 14:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The settlement has a council which is independent manages the settlers. Not sure what the Palestinians have there but it is most defiantly different. Settleman (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Examine this

According to others, Khirbet Susya didn't exist as a permanent village before 1986. Travelers from the late 19th century report finding ruins (while nearby Semua is reported as inhabited), British census from 1945 doesn't mention Susya and a reseacher, Yaakov Havakook who stuied the area between 1977-1982 writes Khirbet Susya was used seasonally during the grazing months for the winter and abandoned again in the summer.

Nearly everything here is editorializing. Regavim is not RS Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The only sentence I might change is 1986 -> 1984. All the rest appears in Regavim document. As for it being RS, please see next discussion. Settleman (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• According to others, Khirbet Susya didn't exist as a permanent village before 1986

They were evicted in 1986 from the archaeological are, and reconstituted their township a few dozen metres off. It is sleight-of-hand to define Susya now as built in 1986 when it was rebuilt after a prior eviction. If they were evicted in 1986 they must have been there before hand - this is obvious to anyone.

The rest is original research and synthesis, making deductions from the absence of evidence. Cave-dwelling communities don't show up in aerial maps; transhumance pastoralists maintain dual residencies, based on seasons; foreign travelers came through in the summer, precisely after the winter-sown crop had been gathered in, and pastoral work kept men in the hills (not 'abandoned'). We simply lack so far detailed information on the caves, which, now that Israel has destroyed many of them, comes from the occupying power's destruction of significant evidence. All this ignores the simple fact, which no one is replying to, that numerous sources now attest that the Civil Administration has in its possession documents attesting the purchase of 740 acres on that site from ottoman times in Susiyan hands. Title is everything in these legal cases, residency means nothing, no more than the fact that the European elites lived in the capital in winter, and their country manors in summer. These considerations on my part in any case are as pointless as your inferences, deductions and arguments. We go by sources, and sources do not justify anything you wrote above (yet)Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your sophisticated explanation about transhumance pastoralists should defiantly get into the article but to present them as a regular village is a lie. Settleman (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Regavim source

This removal of information is an attempt to hide the Israeli narrative of Khirbet Susya history. (It was done before here.) Regavim is a side to the legal proceedings currently taking place in Israeli high-court (and the winning side so far). Their document is full with references and copies of documents which can be verified. RHR on the other hand, make an empty, unsupported claim and couldn't provide the evidence when asked for it. Mention one but not the other is politically motivated. Settleman (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You are again confusing WP:RS. Reliability is always in context. The RHR source is simply used to attest that written records about the village existed since 1830 at least, and this is also supported by the book source (published by Routledge). The succeeding paragraphs expand upon this matter, with sources from ynet and Haaretz. Against this, you add a statement stating that it is the "Israeli narrative", by a party to the conflict, one of whose main aims is to prosecute "illegal Arab construction". That is not good enough. This is not pomo Wikipedia. You need to find multiple independent sources which support this "narrative". By the way, one can never cite Arutz Sheva for anything Palestinian-related, especially if it involves settlers. Their bias and inaccuracy is simply too large. They can perhaps be cited for internal settler matters, that's it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If Regavim goes, then RHR should go as well. They represent the Palestinians in court. There are other devoted activists and organizations that should not be in the article then such as B'tselem and David Shulman. Settleman (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

E.M. Gregory first started out trying to frame Palestinian rock-throwing as a criminal act not only in Israeli military law but in international law after User:ShulMaven created that article. He did so by creating a parallel article Criminal rock throwing, and then linking it into the other article. The same has just happened here. Regavim is a pro-settler ethnic purification pushing 'NGO' set up by a functionary in the Mateh Binyamin Regional Council, and fails every criterion for WP:RS, since it has an extreme activist ethnic cleansing agenda. But by creating 3 days ago Regavim, the idea appears to be that a wiki article can then cite it, as was done here. That article as drafted is by the way a POV farce ('is an Israeli NGO dedicated to ensuring the legal, responsible, and environmentally friendly use of land. . .' Ha!Ha!Ha! ). Equating a rabbinical movement to defend human rights, with a settler NGO body whose purpose is to demolish human rights, except when they are defined as 'Jewish', will get you nowhere. Regavim's POV on Susya is demonstrably counterfactual, since it insists against the Civil Administration's own internal documentation that Palestinians have no historic right there.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nish you are a fool who has obviously never had a rock thrown through your windshield. It is scary as hell. True, it happened to me in Providence, Rhode Island, but it sure as hell made me change how I understood that thing Palestinian "kids" do when they throw rocks at Israeli cars. It is beyond horrifying to be in a car when a rock hits the windshield, the car swerves out of control, and you..... I can't believe I'm having to explain this to an idiot who thinks I am "framing" this horror by calling it criminal!!! I survived. Many people do not. Or they are maimed for life. I worked out some of the horror at Interstate 80 rock throwing, Darmstadt American rock-throwing incident, Death of Chris Currie, Criminal rock throwing - because it is a CRIME!!! People get killed!!! Then you go around bowdlerizing articles and pretending that it is some sort of non-violent political statement. If you think those kids on that Providence street corner were anything other than dangerous hooligans committing a crime when they hurled that rock at me you are out of your mind. Hooligans who throw rocks at moving cars should be locked up. Period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: That is not how it works. As mentioned already, please read WP:RS. Reliability is always in context, and this information is supported, in various ways, by various independent sources. This kind of tit-for-tat removal/addition which you suggest has no basis in policy. If you can find reliable independent sources which support this "narrative" which you think should be included, you are free to add it. While you are of course not responsible for this, I remind you that the other material which you point to, was added by a sock of serial offender NoCal100. It does not even require any justification to remove it, per WP:BLOCKED. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, the regavim source doesn't even make up any facts. It points to historical documents that can be viewed by everybody. You pointed Regavim is a side to the legal conflict but the same is true for RHR. Coloring them with flowers and calling them 'human right NGO' is nice but doesn't change the facts. They both stood before Israeli High Court and the court sided with Regavim. Pretending the Palestinians and NGOs are peaceful is false. Example. The article is cleaned systematically of the Israeli position. That is not OK.

Shabbat Shalom. Settleman (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Regavim's procedural strategy is identical to Yehuda Glick's on access to the Temple Mount. Glick says denying Jewish access is a violation of human rights: he casts this in a general issue of human rights. Behind it all, his supporters use this front to take over majority control of the site, and almost all are known deniers of Palestinian rights. As I added to the Regavim article, Regavim is noted for coming up with a copy-cat human rights argument, 'legality' and mirroring everything that Human Rights NGOs did, reversing only the terms. Thus Palestinians are 'settlers', and their villages are 'outposts' built without permission on 'Jewish land', and thus infringe Jewish rights. when David Dean Shulman, or Arik Ascherman go out of their way to write books, draw up legal documents, and represent Palestinian rights under the conventions of international law, they are not doing so to defend a personal interest. Personally, it makes no difference to their material lives how cases work out. When Regavim et al. draw up legal documents, they do so for an express political and community interest, to nab more land, and drive Palestinians off. To equate the two is as absurd as saying Human Rights Watch is a lobby like any other NGO, say Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah). It is striking how closely your approach, your handle, and reasoning follow the Regavim/settler template. Settler bodies and their wiki reps have a WP:COI issue which obviously does not apply to the numerous NGOs that have a verifiable record for independent human rights monitoring. We no more allow regavim that we do Arutz Sheva, for that reason. Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: This is my final reply, because I do not see any purpose in simply repeating my points over and over again. I will simply give one example. The RHR source is not used for any controversial facts. They are primarily used to provide marginal details, to flesh out the situation. For instance, nobody disputes that Israel expelled the residents in 1986, but that is not what the RHR source is used for: it is simply used for the statement the Palestinians moved to what is called "Rujum al-Hamri". This is a straightforward, trivial, and wholly appropriate use. If RHR is used for a non-marginal claim, it is easy to find reliable, independent third party sources, like the UN, the book, or Haaretz stating the same thing. This is in no way identical to using the Regavim source for a very contrafactual and not widely supported claim. I suggest that you take the Regavim source to WP:RSN, if you really wish to include it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: One final comment: the version is so well-documented, that even if you removed RHR totally, the article would barely change. You might want to review the section Talk:Susya#Blind_removalism, where two sockpuppets, now both banned (I am not accusing you of anything) tried to WP:wikilawyer a Mondoweiss and Haaretz reference, using the same arguments as you. With 2 minutes Googling, I was able to find other WP:RS sources, without changing an iota of the article. I am pretty sure an editor who is good faith interested in improving sources can do the same here, if they wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Like you suggested, I'm taking it to WP:RSN.

A note about RHR, it referenced 7 times in the article.

And, what do you think about this source. It isn't an opinion piece and it was publish in Maariv (newspaper). Settleman (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid, I cannot read Hebrew, so I don't know what it says. I did a quick Google Translate, but I don't know what it adds which is not already present. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Regavim is referred to by NYTimes, Jewishpress, dailymail and is very common in Israeli reporting. It is unquestionally biased and therefore attribution is required. But beyond that, by default they are RS and if someone claims they aren't, they need to prove it, not the other way around. Settleman (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Regavim is not usable for facts, because many of its critics consistently affirm that it ignores the factual record or uses it in a highly selective fashion to make distorted generalizations that, in their view, are blatantly counterfactual. One example is the Bedouin of the Negev: the Zionist survey of 1920 stated quite clearly that Bedouins had significant and widespread title, and purchased from Bedouins land according to Ottoman laws. As soon as Israel became a state, this was forgotten except by historians, and the state starting asserting a different principle, denying what the Zionist founders accepted. That the NYTs cites it does not automatically qualify it as RS for facts. This is elementary. Reread WP:RS.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Regavim is quoted by the NYT does not mean that they are WP:RS. NYT is WP:RS, this just means that Regavim actually said whatever is written there. It says nothing about the reliability of Regavim. Also, one has to see what the NYT is quoting them for. In this case, it is just quoting them on their opinion of some deal with the Bedouins. It is not quoting them on historical matters. Actually, it is not even quoting them for facts, just a political matter. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

RHR is also very selective. Do you see them talk about the census or the fact no traveler has a record about the place? About Havakook who lived in the area for years they just say, we don't agree. All the facts I took from their report are verifaiable (I linked the primary sources they refer to). Their bias is obvious and thus an attribution is due but beyond that. I challenge you to bring an objective source who claims Regavim isn't credible. Settleman (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

RHR has set forth detailed arguments about where Regavim gets things arse about. It is a considered argument. If you wish, find a Regavim document that responds to those criticisms. Asserting that there are two sides, one is biased, therefore the other is biased by disagreeing is puerile. Here we look at RS, and paraphrase their arguments, with attribution, collating them in thematically relevant sections. That is all we do. I might add that both this article and the Susya are becoming rapidly unmanageable because of edit-warring in which all reasoned policy based approaches are ignored. Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Like other NGOs, Regavim can be cited on facts as long as we say, "According to the NGO Regavim..." E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Regavim is not going to answer any argument a pro-Palestinian organization is putting out there. If you have certain concerns I can try to answer those. The 5.4 figure for Bedouins are pure playing with numbers. Each side crunch them is a way that look better. The indigenous argument of RHR is completely stupid - they were there 150 years ago. Just like the Aboriginal Australians or Native Americans, right? The Bnei Shimon Regional Council area is a manipulation since the villages don't own or even control much of the area. The Bedouins claim OWNERSHIP. A clear oranges to apples misleading argument by RHR.

For Susya, you keep repeating the internal opinion of Moshe Meiri about ownership. Regavim doesn't speak about ownership but permanent village and indicates the land is for agricultural purposes so a new village requires permits.

As I presented, both sides color reality in the color that fits the side they chose. You identify with RHR, I'm sure it makes you feel like you are a good person. So far, in court, Regavim is winning RHR is losing so making the later RS but not the former, is BS. Settleman (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman land law granted usufruct rights that confuse individuals like Arik Ascherman who grew up in common law countries. Under Ottoman law, land use rights can expire if the land is not put into continuous use for the purpose for which the rights were granted, and the right to use a piece of land for a specified purpose such as seasonal grazing or running an inn, ceases when the specified use lapses. Nor does the right to use a piece of land to plant gain confer the right to use that land to build a town or an inn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Another 19th century reference

Charles William Meredith van de Velde published several editions of a very detailed map of Palestine in the mid-19th century. I have the editions of 1858 and 1865. Both show "Susieh". I've known that for months, but I only just realised that these maps use a different symbol for a village and a ruin. Villages are shown as solid circles and ruins as dotted circles. Ruins also have the notation "r." on them. There are many ruins shown in the Hebron hills region, but Susieh is shown as a village in both editions. You can view the 1858 map here. The legend is in Section 3 and Susieh is in Section 7. A summary of van de Velde's sources is in Section 1. It might be worth looking at the writings of the people mentioned there. Zero^talk 09:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

An 1850 map that also apparently shows Susieh as a village in distinction to a ruin is here. I have to say "apparently" as I can't find the legend to verify that the dark and light circles mean what they appear to mean. Zero^talk 10:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This 1859 map also shows it as a village rather than a ruin. (You need the Mr Sid version to see it properly.) I'm restricting my search to maps made by people claiming to have used their own observations in addition to those of others. Of course they don't indicate exactly which places they observed, but I want to exclude the many map makers who sat in London or Berlin and copied from other peoples' maps. Zero^talk 10:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is fascinating! I would look deeper into it.

I looked at the Palestine Exploration Fund map referenced on different Arab villages in the area (here) and if I read it correctly, the red color symbolize inhibited places and doesn't exist in Susya. Settleman (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The map legend (not at that site?) does not say what the red color means, but I always took it as indicating a living village. There are errors though and it is good to consult the text. In this case there is no mention of a population. Thinking aloud: if the population was seasonal, what visitors saw would depend on the season. Zero^talk 11:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But there is a strict resistance of including the seasonality. Settleman (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't access Zero's evidence, and it looks of a complexity that I'd only trust him to synthesize and edit in neutrally. I've no objection to 'seasonality'. It's attested. I objected to statements saying they have been 'seasonal' since 1830. Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edit on Regavim (NGO) made it clear that you won't recognize neutral even if it stared you in the face. Putting opposing criticism in the first sentence is exactly what I got to expect from you. Settleman (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at your edit at Regavim. Examine the farcical text, a hilarious mockery of NPOV.

Regavim (רגבים) is an Israeli NGO dedicated to ensuring the legal, responsible, and environmentally friendly use of land.Regavim monitors and reports on illegal construction,[2] and prosecuted cases of illegal construction through the judicial system

That was a completely fraudulent statement and you found nothing objectionable. Regavim, as everyone knows and numerous reports clarify, run by people who live in outposts that are unauthorized or illegal, and it specializes in petitioning to destroy any Palestinian building that shows the same chutzpah Regavim people display, i.e. building illegally or petitioning Israeli courts not to demolish illegal Israeli construction in the West Bank. The page was a whitewash, and now, edited per sources, you see what Regavim claims to be, and what its critics claim it actually does. Two sides.Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I simply added a few lines somewhere else. What is your problem? Settleman (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nishdani, please do not fling about accusations ("completely fraudulent statement") when in fact an editor was using the self-description found on this NGOs web site, it is neutral, carefully parsed wording. This is, after all, an organization that has as its core mission such activities as filing lawsuits over illegal Arab construction on park lands and in forest reserves, and illegal Arab grazing of flocks in nature reserves.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please integrate new material with what we have when the topic is identical

A mosque was built atop the courtyard of the former synagogue. It featured a mihrab in the southern wall, a second mihrab between two columns in the southern portico, and "crude" stone benches along the walls. Magness, assessing the evidence uncovered by the several archaeologists who dug at the site which includes an inscription, dates the mosque to the reign of Caliph Al-Walid I, in the early eighth century.

This edit is misplaced, though invaluab le, E M Gregory. The text already supplies details of the mosque further up the paragraph, and the addition should have been integrated into that text, which runs:-

The abandoned synagogue, or its atrium or courtyard, was converted into a mosque around the 10th century.[15] A niche on the northern wall used as a mihrab/mahrab dates to Saladin's time,[46] according to local tradition.[47] In the 12th–13th centuries Crusaders garrisoned at nearby Chermala and Eshtemoa, and, in their wake, a few families, moved into the ruins to exploit the rich agricultural land.[14]Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

For the nth time

'since the 1830s, seasonally for part of the time, down to'

(a) 'seasonally+for part of the time' is plethoric, since seasonally by definition is part of the time (of any one year). Horrible phrasing. (b)We know as yet nothing substantial about Susya's community before 1948. A lot of things happened in the 1830s, since us the Egyptian invasion which had massive effects on the area around Hebron. We have no authrority to justify retrojecting the 'seasonal' (transhumance) livelihood observed in the 1970s-80s back to those early periods,(1830/1881 when for some reason they acquired title by formal purchase of land/1948 etc.) writing that they have been seasonal since 1830s is WP:OR. All one can say so far is that the modern communities engaged in seasonal habitation.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So find a phrase that you are fine with. How about "only seasonal for an unknown period of time". Try to be part of the solution instead of just deleting it. Settleman (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So let's write something like: "Although 19th century settlement patterns in the southern Heron hill country is poorly documented, it is clear that in recent decades Arab habitation of this site has been seasonal."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I see this as a yes. Settleman (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

'permanent' in 'permanent village'

According to the NGO Regavim, Khirbet Susya didn't exist as a permanent village before 1986.

looks like WP:OR. Regavim is in any case making a counterfactual claim.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• you lost me, what counterfactual claim?15:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. Nishidani believes an office clerk like Albeck who probably visited the site once, which might happened during the winter, is more reliable than Havakook who lived in the area for years and hang out with the locals. Go figure! Settleman (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Havakook is quite specific about the fact the different Khirbahs were satellites of the mother towns. The specifically says the cave dwellers were NOT Bedouins. The part about "system of transhumance" is defiantly not havakook. Settleman (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass tagging by EM Gregory

@E.M.Gregory: I had ignored your first 1RR violation, but you did it again. You cannot randomly remove sources like this and this the latter is a partial revert of this, making it 3 reverts now in the last 24 hours. Please desist and discuss on the talk page first. The first source is for an undisputed fact, which nobody denies. You can find it in a UN factsheet here. There is no rule that 972mag must be removed on sight, especially for claims which nobody disputes. WP:1RR exists for a reason: in contentious areas, one cannot behave like a bull in a China shop. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• sigh. Those were not reversions, mere removal of a political blog being used to source facts, and tagging of NGO statements as primary sources. And while I don't know what "mass tagging" is, I looked at every citation and tagged the ones with NGOs used at primary sources. Not all of them. This debate grows tedious and I gave up after a while. The useful action ot take her is to find better sourcing form the article. I just added a couple of article from broadcast and paper mews media. I don't know who added the bad sources and I don't care; in articles about controversial topics, you have to find multiple, preferably reliable - sources for volatile assertions. Some of the personal essays and books published by very small presses should probably also be tagged, removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

KingsIndian, i don't know what "undisputed" fact you refer to and I don't much care. What WP requires are reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If you do not recognize that you performed a revert, I am afraid you will have a lot of problems in the future. Let me spell it out for you: if you undo another edit, even partially (here you removed a reference), you are performing a revert. Please read WP:REVERT. Secondly, the undisputed fact is exactly the part for which it is cited: that Israel expelled the villagers from the "archaelogical site" in 1986 and they settled a few hundred meters away. This is given in the UN factsheet I linked to, and nobody, not even Israel disputes it. Thirdly, there is no rule that 972mag must be reverted on sight. Reliability is always in context, your attitude that "I don't care about the facts, I don't like this source, it must go" is not grounded in any policy. All I am asking is you to slow down and follow the rules as we all are forced to follow. It is not fair that you can go around merrily without care for WP:1RR, while others have to tread carefully. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the following "primary source" tags.

• The expulsion in 1990. This is mentioned in the NYRB source, Shulman cites RHR here. I have added "According to David Shulman".
• B'Tselem source for " by 2010 settlers were cultivating roughly 40 hectares". I have no idea why it was tagged, the UN factsheet which talks about settler violence and denial of Palestinian grazing area, it actually gives higher figures (they might be talking about different categories, or slightly different time periods). In any case, there is no obvious reason to doubt the source here.
• Expulsion in 2001. Added the UN factsheet here.
• Local villager to Amnesty International. This is direct testimony to a reputable human rights org. This is precisely the place where primary sources are useful. The tag makes no sense.
• "Palestinians live in tents" sourced to B'Tselem. Is there any doubt about this? This is uncontroversial and plainly true. It is attributed to B'Tselem.

I have left the tags for:

• "centuries old village" sourced to RHR.
• "Dahlia farm" stuff. It is plausible, but I couldn't find any alternate source.
• another place where jfjfp is used.

Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any of the "non-primary source needed" tags as appropriate. There is no rule against the use of primary sources. If you want to claim a source is unreliable for a claim, this is not the right tag. Zero^talk 13:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RHR and b'tselem as RS

I called RHR to ask them about their source for the 1830/early 19th century claim. They pointed me to a book by David Grossman (not the writer) named הכפר הערבי ובנותיו page 226. I want to the libarary and here are photos of the 225 & 226. It may come as shocking to some of you (some will say 'we told you so') but the page mentions Susya, mentions 19th century but doesn't say Susya is since the 19th century. It mentions Susya in 1986 and Khirbet Zanuta from early 19th century.

Regavim give sources to each of the sentence I took from their report which were confirmed but somehow aren't RS, not even with attribution. RHR (and the rest of the 'humaniterians') provide a source that doesn't support their statement. But they are fighting zionists so lying is not only acceptable but apparently encyclopedic. Settleman (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)