From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edits by User:Namiba[edit]

User:Namiba, please explain your edits on these two occasions (but particularly the second one) as they do not appear to agree with what you wrote in your edit summaries.

  1. 12 March 2011, 8:53 – removal of text recounting the June 2002 massacre of the Shabo family. Your edit summary indicated "cleanup," and indeed some of the changes you made qualify as cleanup; however, you removed the June 2002 paragraph despite its being sourced in the next paragraph. Assuming good faith on your part, I would advise that in the future you indicate in your edit summary something to the effect of "removed unsourced material" and also that you more thoroughly review the sources provided before concluding that nearby material is unsourced.
  2. 12 March 2011, 14:20 – removal of text relating to victims' ages. Your edit summary indicated "expansion," and indeed some of the changes you made qualify as expansion; however, your removal of the victims' ages most certainly does not qualify as expansion. Pending a clearer explanation for your edit, the changes you made to the Violence section have been reverted.—Biosketch (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


As no one has been arrestd and no definite supects identified as yet, is it not too early to label the perpetrators as Palestinian?

Surely this is merely opinion at the moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the line to reflect what is said in the footnoted article quote "Officials have blamed Palestinians.."

The article, in line with NPOV, now reflects this —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: [1], per WP:LABEL the term is better to be avoided. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

While a valid point, in this case the text in question isn't about an organization or an individual. No identifiable person is being labeled a terrorist but rather the perpetrator of a terrorist act. So I have to question the applicability of WP:LABEL in this instance, though I'm certainly open to other ideas.—Biosketch (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a value-laden label and the spirit of th guideline would still apply if your reading of it was spot on. However, your reading of it seems off since it says nothing about an identifiable person. Not using "terrorist" but instead something similar to "assailant" would improve NPOV but a fine addition might be putting in something like "The event was described as a terrorist act by x,y, and z." or even "The attacker has been called a terrorist".Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not know yet whether it is a single or multiple attacker(s), or whether or not he/they are part of any terrorist organization according to JP, the IDF thinks not because of the weapons used). "Assailant", "attacker" or "murderer" is more appropriate until identity is established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MizzR (talkcontribs) 08:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Per User:Cptnono's reply re WP:LABEL and pending consensus on the matter, I have seen fit to revert's change of the text from "assailants" to "arab [sic] terrorists." The Jerusalem Post reference cited by the IP contributor also does not label the attackers "terrorists." It variously uses the expressions "perpetrators," "suspected terrorists," "attackers," "people," and "killers." Only at the end does it use the word "terrorists," but then it is attributed to a Major General in the IDF, not to the Jerusalem Post reporter.—Biosketch (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This applies, of course, to anyone named in the article (e.g: Moshe Zar). "terrorist" is a word to avoid. We don't use it to describe Yasser Arafat or Osama bin laden, and there no reason to use it here. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Moshe Zar is related to this article. I can understand not using the term terrorist, but he was in fact convicted of terrorism charges in Israel itself. See this, where he plotted to kill the Mayor of Nablus and received time served. I think if a person has actually been convicted on charges of terrorism, it is appropriate to call him a terrorist.--TM 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, very, very interesting[edit]

When Israel attacks on Gaza in 2008-2009 resulted in 300+ children dead, no one referred to them as terrorists, yet a Palestinian committing the same exact thing, HE IS ALREADY A TERRORIST . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkewan (talkcontribs) 13:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is so absurd! How can you compare someone who uses a knife to slaughter parents and babies in their sleep, with a war in which while shooting at militants or terrorists or whatever you want to call them - some other people are killed too. A war is a war and has casualties but purposely attacking a sleeping family in their house is clearly a crime and a act of terror. Editorprop (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder: WP:NOT#FORUM --ElComandanteChe (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Personaly I'm a great fan of uniformity in one and the same article. If some victimes get their age mentioned and a ref, all of them should get the same treatment. And I suggest, additions to the March 11 attack should be made in the article there, not here. Ajnem (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. According to User:Namiba, the victimes of the March 11 killings are not even entitled to having their names mentioned. Does anyone agree? I don't.

No one is "entitled" to anything on Wikipedia. Including the names and ages of all of the victims is inappropriate in this article, though it is more appropriate in the article on the incident itself. As far as this article is concerned, we need to shortly summarize it and not give undue weight to what has just happened.--TM 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As evident further up on this page, User:Namiba could be said to have something of a history of questionable edits in the Itamar article. But, assuming good faith in this case, User:Ajnem's argument for uniformity should still take precedence. It's true that the article is not about the victims, but the section is; and there is no issue of WP:WEIGHT, because it's just adding a digit or two after the name, which is standard reporting. However, for aesthetic reasons, rather than having a ref after each victim's name, consider listing the refs together at the end of the sentence. It's cleaner that way, visually – less cluttered looking.—Biosketch (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Including the names and ages is completely unnecessary on this page. The people in question are not notable and the individual names add nothing encyclopedic to article. That level of specificity is better left for the article on the incident itself.--TM 16:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Noted, especially seeing as articles about places don't generally list their fallen residents. However, these argument merit attention:
  1. Itamar is noted for its history of terrorist attacks, in which case briefly elaborating on them is not WP:UNDUE.
  2. The attacks are an integral component of the settlement's history/legacy.
  3. There aren't articles that expand on each attack, and conceivably readers who search for information on Itamar will want information on them (WP:ENC).
  4. Gilad Zar could be considered notable, as could the Shabo family and even more so the Fogels.—Biosketch (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose exporting parts to more appropriate articles[edit]

These two passages don't belong in Itamar:

  • In October 2002, settlers, believed by B'Tselem to be "most likely" from Itamar, "fired at Palestinians who were harvesting olives near the village of Aqraba, killing one and wounding another."[1]
  • In 2010, two Palestinian teenagers from the nearby town of Awarta were shot to death while they collected garbage near Itamar.[2]

The second item is already at Awarta. It serves no use duplicating it at Itamar. Jenin, by analogy, does not mention the Matza restaurant suicide bombing. The same logic applies in the first case as well: the victims were from Aqraba, and it would be more reasonable to include the information there. If no one objects, I'll proceed with moving the material, or someone else can do it if they prefer.—Biosketch (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it belongs. The paralell with Jenin is shaky, as Jenin is quite significanly larger than Itamar. Itamar is just a small village. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course it belongs, more of the same to come, by the way, I have just started to collect the incidents. It has a name, too, it's called “settler's violence”, no use trying to deny the fact, that the Itamar-plus-outpost-settlers are no angels. And dear Biosketch, if you start removing everything that is duplicated, triplicated or more in Wikipedia, you are in for a full time job, Ajnem (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Frederico1234, I appreciate the constructive input. Until a more elaborate response can be formulated, the controversial section has been flagged with Template:Undue and Template:Coat rack. I fear that what began as good-faith editing has deteriorated into a case of plain axe grinding by this point. In light of fatigue and dehydration from a long day of hiking, contributors are asked to refrain from removing the UNDUE and COATRACK flags for the next day or two.—Biosketch (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Coatrack: The template says "A significant amount of this article or section's content may actually relate to an entirely different subject". That is patently not the case. The content is directly related to the subject of the article, Itamar, an Israeli settlement in the Palestinian Territories. I don't think there is any coatracking.
Undue: As WP:UNDUE says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." So, we should treat each aspect of Itamar with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. The most significant aspect of Itamar by a long margin that is apparent from reliable sources is the trouble faced by the people living there and the surrounding areas. We shouldn't give undue weight to aspects of the topic that aren't related to the most significant aspect by reducing coverage of the most significant aspect evident from reliable sources. That would create a false balance. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The Template:Coat refers the reader to WP:COAT where it says, "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject" (emphasis in the original). In consideration of this diff here, where a contributor characterized the edits made as "settler's violence" and revealed a personal attitude toward the nature of the edits indicating that their purpose is to malign the collective image of the Itamar settlers, the Coatrack template is valid:
nominal subject→Itamar, a settlement in the West Bank
biased subject→"no use trying to deny the fact, that the Itamar-plus-outpost-settlers are no angels" (note also the collective attribution of guilt)
As for the Template:Undue-section, the key word is disproportionate. Whereas the article was once about the settlement of Itamar, giving more-or-less equal weight to various aspects pertaining to the settlement, including the circumstances of its establishment, issues of land ownership and history of violent incidents, that equal weight distribution no longer exists. One aspect is being disproportionately represented to the exclusion of all others: violence relating (or presumed to be related) to the Itamar settlement and/or its residents. In effect, this is no longer an article for which the name Itamar is an appropriate title. Considering the excessive weight of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" section, an appropriate name for the article now is Violence relating to the Israeli settlement Itamar, since that is what the article is overwhelmingly about.
Here is a proposal to consider as a way to resolve the Coatrack and Undue issues: verify that the edits made have not been to promote a personal agenda (and removed the ones potentially qualifying as POV pushing) and shrink the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" section so it is less heavy in relation to the article's other sections (or else vastly expand the other sections).—Biosketch (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The section is too long in relation to other sections, agreed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully it's a little better now. I moved some geographical data to a new Geography section and took out some stuff on nonfatal injuries and the Shabo house burning down. And as prose, at least the section now has some structure rather than reading like a bulletin board where everyone thumbtacks anything they've googled that sounds interesting. If it's still too bulky for the article, perhaps splitting the section into two subsections would help. Or – though this is admittedly a long shot – we could establish a consensus on criteria for what's crucial to the section and what belongs elsewhere. For my part, I can live with the way the article is now, especially if some of the other sections get developed.—Biosketch (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It is better indeed. I particularly like the new geography section. Good work. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the lead[edit]

Ajnem (talk · contribs), I'd appreciate if you could explain the rationale behind your changes in the lead today. What was wrong with the erstwhile status quo and how is the new arrangement an improvement? Thanks.

Also, about Rabbi Goldsmith being the mayor or the secretary of the Local Council, as far as the English sources go, there's certainly a majority labeling him "mayor." But as I understand the term, "mayor" applies to much larger towns and to cities. For a community of a thousand people, "mayor" feels like poor translation on the part of the English website. In Israel, "mayor" is rosh 'ir, 'ir meaning "city." Since Goldsmith is not a rosh 'ir, there's no sense calling him "mayor." Do rural communities with a thousand residents elsewhere in the world have mayors?—Biosketch (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Biosketch, if your question concerning the lead means that you don't think that it is an improvement, my answer is simply that I think it is, or rather that it makes more sense this way, but I may be wrong. If I knew what it is you object to, I could give you a better answer. Actually, all I did, was take out what could be put in another section in order to “develop” it, as requested above, rearranged the rest and added the conflict related sentence, which, in my opinion, belongs in the lead and was missing.
As far as the term “mayor” for Rabbi Goldsmith is concerned, I agree with you, that “mayor” is a ridiculous name for whatever Rabbi Goldsmith's function is, but that is what the English language media call him. But the question is, wether Itamar has a “local council” or not, in my opinion, it doesn't have one, but again I may be wrong. However, if I'm right, according to Wikipedia standards, we have to call him, what the media call him. Personally I think that he is just a spokesperson for the settlement, particularly in and to the US, because he is an American, same as his wife, who also seems to be very active. The simplest way to deal with it would be to just leave it out. But I admit, that I don't have the faintest idea how these settlements are “governed”, particularly one like Itamar which consists of as much if not more outposts as settlement proper and includes the outpost of Giv'ot Olam, also known as “Avri Ran Farm”, but that's another issue, Ajnem (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. If we're going to let the English sources dictate what Rabbi Goldsmith's title is, then mayor can stay, I guess. Like you say, Itamar may not be a local council, in which case it's not clear what Goldsmith's function is in English. Whatever – it doesn't make that big a difference, and I don't intend to cavil over it.
However, the reason the edits to the lead were puzzling is that, before, there was a clear thematic division between the paragraphs: location, legal status, land ownership, outposts. Now it's location+status+outposts, legality+land, and violence. The old division felt more intuitive and natural.—Biosketch (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Not really, things that earlier were “history” (creation of outposts) and “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” (barrier/green line, private land), now are “geography”. The lead takes that into account. But I'm sure that it could be improved, Ajnem (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's ok now after your latest edit. Maybe the second paragraph could use some tweaking to make it sound less accusatory, which is what the "Area C" sentence kind of did originally.—Biosketch (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Selective insertion of "Israeli"[edit]

Owain the 1st (talk · contribs), welcome to Itamar. If I might extend a friendly suggestion regarding these edits, if the word "Israeli" is lacking as a qualifier before the word "settlers" in the article, then it would be helpful to add it not only to the instances that portray the settlers in a negative light but elsewhere in the article as well. Editors are expected to contribute in a WP:NPOV spirit.—Biosketch (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? I added it to all the instances where the word settler was used.If you can find one where the word settler was used that I missed then I would be glad to add it there as well.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, I've read the article. The edits were not exclusively "to all the instances where the word settler was used." Had that been the case, it would have been fine per WP:NPOV. One of the insertions of the word "Israeli" in the second diff was before the word "residents" in the sentence "Residents of Itamar have been blamed for killing Palestinians." Yet the word "Israeli" was not inserted before "residents" in the sentence "Residents of Itamar who were killed in attacks outside the settlement." That indicates suggests selective insertion.
Where do you see that I "have no problem with portraying the Palestinians in a negative light"?Biosketch (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Please show me where I missed one then? I cannot see where I have frankly. All the words settler now have Israeli in front of them. I have also changed the residents one that you mention above.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The edit summary said, "added Israeli to settlers." I demonstrated that the addition of "Israeli" to the article was not performed in a balanced manner, whether deliberately on your part or owing to an innocent oversight. You've added "Israeli" to the instance I cited where it was lacking. I now consider the matter closed.—Biosketch (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I have made some changes to the Israeli-Palestinan-conflict section, and I have removed Owain the 1st's addition of “Israeli” to “settler”. The reason is, that, although it is correct - the settlers are Israeli citizens - it is not really pertinent, the correct attribute would be “Jewish” not “Israeli”, as these settlements are reserved for Jews, not Israelis, as far as I know. But I'm not going to insert “Jewish” were it could be inserted, and I don't think it is necessary. Maybe my other changes, including the sentence I added under “history”, will help - the titles are suggestions, somebody may come up with something better. Ajnem (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Superficially looking over the changes, the additions look fine to me. Splitting that section in two gives the article more symmetry, makes it easier to navigate. I also agree with your removal of the "Israeli," both for purely esthetic reasons but also for the reasons you cite above. I still think I'll move the "Area C" sentence back into the second paragraph of the lead at some point, but I can't really concentrate now and probably won't get around to it until tomorrow.—Biosketch (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted it back to Israeli.As these people are Israeli citizens.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No you haven't, you have reverted all my changes, so I'm going to revert. If you want to add “Israeli” as an attribute to settler, go ahead, even though correctly it should read “Jewish”, not “Israeli”, or rather “Jewish Israeli”, but please dont't do it by reverting. Ajnem (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Itamar's residents have been the target of several deadly attacks by Palestinian militants, and the UN and NGOs report an extensive number of violent acts by Israeli settlers from Itamar and its outposts against local Palestinians e.g. is more than just unesthetic, by the way. Owain the 1st, why do you consider it necessary to specify that West Bank settlers are Israeli? What else could they be? Jordanian? Ajnem (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
and you reverted my changes, twice now.I am putting them back in.Why should we use Palestinian militants? Who else are they going to be? Same same.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Owain the 1st, you are misunderstanding me, I did not object to your inserting “Israeli” to settlers, I objected to your reverting my edits which had nothing to do with this issue. So please do not revert, but just insert “Israeli” where you want it added, and then we will have to discuss, wether it stays or not. Personally I think that it is enough to say it once, who these settlers are. Your version on the other hand creates misunderstandings, besides it being bad style, it implies that there are Israeli inhabitants of the settlements and others, who are not Israeli and not included, which is nonesense. The West Bank Jewish settlers being Israeli citizens is imo one of their lesser qualities, many of them are newly religious new immigrants anyway and come from the US, South Africa, Australia and so on. So my question to you: What is the reason for your adding Israeli to settlers? It has nothing to do with “same same” - if you want it to be “same same”, you have to replace “Settler” by “Israeli”. Is it that what you want, have the term “settler” removed from the article and have it replaced by “Israeli”? Ajnem (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I got what you said.I stated that you reverted what I posted about the Israeli settlers and then complain when I reverted it back.I understand that you added other stuff as well but you seem to be upset that I reverted that but unconcerned that you reverted what I posted.These settlers are Israelis and that being the case I changed it to Israeli but now I have had a change of heart and being as the change I made in the first paragraph is still there stating that they are Israeli settlers I will not bother to change the others back.I will leave it at that. Owain the 1st (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Never mind my being upset or not, but I would still like to know, why you want(ed) the settlers to be called “Israeli settlers”? Ajnem (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm because that is what they are.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Impartial language[edit]

Have just ammended some of the wording to make it a bit more impartial. Spefically including "alleged" for cases where insufficiant proof is available. Will attempt to not use too much legalese and keep it simple — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Contains Mythical Anti-Arab Violence[edit]

This article mentions an incident where Arabs falsely accused a Jewish resident of Itamar of murder. Since there was no basis to the allegations, the Israeli was released. This article reports the incident as though it actually happened. This is a recurring theme in anti-Israel propaganda. Arabs invent incidents that never happened, Leftist activists aggressively report these incidents as fact, a certain percentage comes through to mar Israel. The whole section of "violence against Palestinians" should be removed. It's propaganda at it's purest form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Events in Nablus at Joseph's Tomb are appropriate for that article, not for Itamar[edit]

I've removed this from the article. It does not directly bear on the topic.

Several Jewish holy sites and tombstones have reportedly been desecrated, and worshippers have noted that according to agreements, it is the Palestinian Authority's responsibility to safeguard the holy places.[3] In September 2000, Palestinians targeted the site of Joseph's Tomb, burning the yeshiva to the ground, incinerating its books and painting the dome green, the color of Islam.[4][5] The tomb was handed over to the PNA on 8 October 2000 after Border Police Cpl. Madhat Yusuf (19) died of gunshot wounds sustained in a gun battle at the site. It was pillaged and torched by Palestinians hours after its evacuation.[6] The next morning, the bullet-riddled body of rabbi Hillel Lieberman (36), a cousin of Senator Joseph Lieberman, was found on the outskirts of Nablus, where he had gone to check damage to the tomb.[7] On 1 February 2012, the Tomb of Eleazar was found spray-painted with abusive slogans in Arabic praising the perpetrators of the Fogel family massacre. The vandalism was discovered by over 500 Jewish worshippers and their IDF escorts during a pilgrimage to the site. Soldiers and worshippers then covered the tomb with white paint to mask the graffiti.[3]Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Before checking the rest, Arutz 7 is of course a totally unreliable source for anything but what settlers put over. It's a megaphone not a reliable source. I removed none of the sourcing in my initial review because the immediate problem was that the article sounded like a tourist brochure for the settlement, using a unilateral focus on events mostly circumscribed by the Al-Aqsa Intifada to make out it is some sort of innocent victim of the people whose lands it systematically thwarts from being cultivated or directly expropriates by menacing behaviour. The argument in defense of Joseph's Tomb material is hopelessly inadequate. Joseph's Tomb is in Nablus, not Itamar. The article deals with the latter, not the former.Nishidani (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

IST7 has effectively made a mass revert without responding to the query I placed here. The article deals with Itamar. It cannot use a massive blob of material about incidents within Nablus, related to Jopseph's Tomb, as part of the main body. If a precedent is set for mentioning on every settler's activities outside the settlement, re events or realities outside its sphere (Toulouse, Nablus), it subverts the purpose of these articles.
  • This article is rife with unacceptable language (can an illegal Israeli settlement have municipal boundaries', extending over land it seized by settler intiative, including illegal outposts?
  • Can land expropriated by force by settlers be described as 'annexed' which is a legal term for a country's official act of taking land?
  • Sources are systematically exploited to paint a skewed picture, and not provide the relevant facts neutrally.
  • What Giulio Meotti is doing here is not clear. He is considered to habitually plagiarize sources, by pasting and copying often without acknowledgement 'stuff' from all over the net.
  • The lead breaks NPOV by the recent edit that suppresses the results of the 2006 survey, indicating the possibility that Itamar in part may lie on privately owned Palestinian land.
  • The two indicted for the murders have names, they are mentioned in the next paragraph, but these have been suppressed when first raised.
  • Haaretz is, against the sources, cited in order to smear it, whereas the court documents, as Zero show, demonstrate the case has nothing to do with Itamar but with the Shomron Council, and with Haaretz, but remarks made on a TV channel by a journalist who occasionally has contributed to Haaretz. It's massive POV pushing, and worse still, partial or mass reverts are being conducted without troubling to respond to issues raised on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • From my understanding, Joseph's tomb is close to Itamar and frequently visited by its residents. I can see the justification for removing that part, but there isn't any for removing a report about Itamar residents finding a Jewish holy site covered in graffiti praising the Itamar massacre.
Proximity to another town is not an argument for entering details, readily available by links, to events in that town. It's frequently visited by people from all over Israel and the world, but not for that reason do we have to note who visited it, and enter the details in pages related to their city of provenance. Graffiti all over Jerusalem mocks Arabs and Christians. That does not mean that we must therefore put mention of this on all pages dealing with Arabs and Christians who visit Jerusalem. Got it? In any case, you restored all of the text, and now acknowledge my argument even in your view, is in good part correct. Which only, means, you did a revert without examining the reason for the original editor's edit.
  • Whatever the argument is about Meotti, the source can just be replaced.
It's not my job to replace all sources that are disreputable. Editors are obliged to remove disreputable sources, not find others that might substitute for them.
  • The legality of Itamar is a subject of dispute and should be treated as a disputed subject. The language seems to come from the sources, so just add quotation marks.
I didn't discuss the legality. Itamar is illegal in international law, and fine in Israeli law. I edited in the notice that some of it is said to be on privately owned Palestinian property. See below. This is obligatory for the lead, to parallel the claims Itamar makes there.
  • The source you provided regarding the 2006 survey appears to be a dead link. In any case, the Peace Now report says that the Civil Administration does not mention the ownership of that part of the land; it is an assumption to say that it is all privately owned Palestinian land. It is also already covered in the article.
See Report: Itamar settlers to build Fogel outpost
Maan News 14 March 2011:'Itamar, according to a 2006 survey done by Israeli peace group Peace Now, covers 4.7 dunums of land in the West Bank municipality of Nablus. Some 43.8 percent of that land is privately registered to Palestinian owners.' Don't misrepresent what I edit or write. I nowhere said it is all privately owned Palestinian land. It is all occupied enemy territory, another thing altogether.
  • Saying so and so murdered someone and got away with it is POV when there was no indictment and the alleged killers were, according to the source, "released after five days on the grounds of insufficient evidence".
  • The lawsuit is against Livneh, not Ha'aretz. If you want to be more specific, clarify that Livneh's remarks were not made through Ha'aretz. --1ST7 (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Misrepresentation again. The source named the two people charged. It is not POV to say two people were charged and then released on the grounds of insufficient evidence. It's called reporting what the relevant RS say.
I don't want to be more specific. You shouldn't be editing an article, in full view of sources which dissociate Livneh's remarks from Haaretz, and editing in despite that disinformation from an unreliable source, attributing the suit to Itamar and not to the relevant Shomron council etc. You evidently edit out information without examining the relevant sources on the page, which would have required you to change what you left. You can't expect other editors to keep running after you to clean up the mess.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
One more thing: if the part about Joseph's tomb is removed, the part about Yitzhar in the lead should be also. If the fact of being located near Itamar is not enough justification for the inclusion of one of these, they should both be removed. --1ST7 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you please keep the replies directly under the previous instead of mixing it in with others? That makes them much easier to read.
No. It's harder to read if they are moved out of context.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it means I acknowledge that there are two arguments that should be considered. And, like I said, if the part about Joseph's tomb is removed, the part about Yitzhar should be also.
  • Jerusalem covers a much longer time period and a much wider scope, so graffiti would not be particularly notable in that article. Itamar, which is smaller and newer, is a different story. I repeat, Itamar residents finding a holy site spray-painted with abusive slogans praising the Itamar massacre is relevant to an article on Itamar.
That is not an argument, any more than it would be for me to cite in an article on Bethlehem, the disgust of Bethlemites at the anti-Christian graffiti they see sdprayed on their Jerusalem churches (when they are permitted to go there).Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Meotti is no longer an issue, anyway. I've already replaced that source.

"This article is rife with unacceptable language (can an illegal Israeli settlement have municipal boundaries', extending over land it seized by settler intiative, including illegal outposts?

  • Can land expropriated by force by settlers be described as 'annexed' which is a legal term for a country's official act of taking land?"
  • It certainly sounded like you were talking about the legality of Itamar.
Itamar is illegal in international law. Even in Israeli law its establishment was not planned under government authority. The text you removed from the lead indicates the other POV, i.e. that it is built partially or otherwise on privately owned Palestinian land. Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is POV to say that the two people murdered a man, as you did in your edit, as if there were no question in the matter when there evidently is. I said nothing against mentioning that they were charged; I was referring to this text: "Farid Musa Issa Nasasrah from Beit Furik was murdered near Itamar by two settlers".
  • Please learn to construe English correctly before either editing or engaging in a discussion. What you are doing is [T misrepresenting my edit.] The names indicate suspects. There is no way in the wide world that this can be read as meaning they are murderers. If you can't distinguish elementary points like this, I suggest you are wasting your time editing here.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I said in my response to Zero that I am working on the Livneh problem, but I wanted to see if there were any more sources to be considered before making further changes. I had fully intended to finish altering the section after being certain that there were no more references on the issue, because the current text is accurate according to Arutz Sheva, but said that he/she was welcome to make the changes sooner if he/she wanted to. Please stop making assumptions. --1ST7 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source. You've been told this several times. If there is a problem in the wake of an edit you made, and others tell you, you should correct it, and not sit round waiting for them to fix it. It is not courteous to be notified one has made an error, and turn round to tell other editors to fix it.Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It complies with Wikipedia's General notability guideline.
  • You said that you were not talking about the legality of Itamar. I only pointed out that you were.
  • The most NPOV way to go is to say the man was shot to death and that two settlers were suspected, rather than that he "was murdered by two settlers". And see here.
  • I'm not arguing to keep Arutz Sheva. I said I would fix it (and I have) but wanted to see if there were any more sources to be considered first. --1ST7 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


1ST7's summary of the lawsuit from this source bares little relation to the original. Itamar did not sue Livneh, some committee did. The crucial information that the judgement was a default finding based on "the journalist failed to file a defense statement in time" is curiously omitted. Also, identifying Livneh as a Haaretz journalist without noting that the alleged slander was not in Haaretz is a further distortion. In general, 1ST7's edits are in severe breach of WP:NPOV. Zerotalk 08:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to fix the source problem and am still looking for more details on this case. The Jewish Press report does not have all the details of the Arutz Sheva one, and I altered the some of the details that needed to be changed to fit the source (such as the quote) before taking a break from it for a while. You are welcome to fix the issues you mentioned. --1ST7 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


  • .

    The predominantly Orthodox Jewish community with a population of 1,032 (2009) is within the municipal jurisdiction of the Shomron Regional Council.[1]

     ::Well, that's not true, if you take all the area Itamar claims as under its jurisdiction. In a recent incident, the Shomron council refused to apply its administrative powers to a dispute among settlers, because the several hilltop outposts fall outside of its remit, technically. See my edit now in a section I will add. So, evidently, this lead generalization has to be tweaked for nuance.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In December 2011, an agricultural area in Itamar was infiltrated by Arabs from the village of Aqraba, who came armed with stones, sticks, metal bars, and other items. They attacked a group of shepherds grazing a flock of sheep, injuring several of them, and threatened to come back later with guns. The infiltrators also attacked IDF soldiers who came to the shepherds' aid. Two attackers were arrested.[citation needed]

I don't think, on particularly difficult articles in this area, that unsourced statements, that are not even phrased neutrally, should stay in the article until they are provided with proper RS backing. I have therefore removed the above. It can be reinserted when the appropriate source is supplied.(ps. Could some one remind me if, in this chaos, I disturb 1R? I don't understand it and never will, and will revert if I have erred, if editors could supply me with the proper indication of what to do. Thanks)Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In March 2012, three children and a teacher were killed in a terrorist attack at Otzar Hatorah school in Toulouse, France.[30] Three months later, Tamar Fogel, a survivor of the Fogel family massacre, and a group Bnei Akiva youth visited France "to help strengthen the local Jewish communities".[31] Yigal Klein, director of counselors for Bnei Akiva, said, "Many members of the Jewish delegation in France thought they would strengthen the youth of Itamar during their visit, but the opposite was true. The Itamar delegation demonstrated faith and spiritual strength that surprised many of the adults and youth whom they met."[31]

Again, what has this to do with Itamar, other than connecting the Fogel murders with foreign terrorism? At best it should be on the Itamar massacre page. Use this as a precedent, and you can 'finesse' the natural expressions of solidarity of settlers on the West Bank with any antisemitic event in the world as part of their respective villages' profile.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Itamar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Itamar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Major NGOs like ARIJ should be cited with attribution. Wikipedia cites Israeli NGOs all over the place and there is no reason to treat Palestinian NGOs differently. I.e., no good argument has been provided for just deleting them. 07:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a highly polemic source. It also doesn't provide any reference for said confiscation - which I believe is also not so accurate - as in Itamar's case there was no confiscation of land actually registered in the Tabu to an individual. There might be some land claim. In any case - if we use such information - it should be attributed (according to ARIJ) - and placed in the body of the article before being placed in the lead (where it may or may not merit inclusion - but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body).Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Israeli and pro-Israeli NGO deleted quite frequently I think there should be some general guideline about that.--Shrike (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that NGOs (at least those engaged in political activism, which is most of them) should be attributed. I also agree that most of the time their attributed claims should be in the article body rather than the lead (hard to be prescriptive here as circumstances vary). I just don't agree that calling an organization polemic is a reason to delete it. Everyone who writes about land expropriation can be called "polemic" and we can't just apply excuses like that in a cherry-picked fashion to keep stuff we don't like out of Wikipedia. We also don't need to adopt the ruses of the occupier (thanks for the example "no confiscation of land actually registered in the Tabu to an individual") as a standard by which to judge other perspectives. Zerotalk 08:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Again why citing ARIJ is OK and not Camera or NGO-Monitor which is frequently deleted?In my opinion if the claim is not reported by WP:NEWSORG or scholarly source it shouldn't be included per WP:DUE.--Shrike (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I would expect a more orderly discussion of what was confiscated - and how. There are actually examples of outright confiscation (though - in most cases - these were pre-existing Jordnanian era confiscations for military bases). This one - is different in many regards - I believe ARIJ is possibly referring to land that was supposedly used for grazing by the villagers but not registered anywhere - in any case they do not make this clear (who, how, why, and what was confiscated) in their two-liner. In post 1980 settlements, following an Israeli supreme court case (on Beit-El, I believe) - Israeli authorities have been methodical in choosing or allowing "state land" use - at most inhibiting access to possible non-state lands (that become surrounded) - but not using them outright.Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


  • Firstly, I think it is disappointing that some editors enable a racist troll, like User:AndresHerutJaim (Yes, that Buenos Aires IP is with 99,99% certainty him)
  • Secondly, it is not like we have banned, or, for that matter, there are hundreds and hundreds of those links on wp. Check for yourself with
  • Thirdly, and this is what is most important for what ARIJ writes true? And it is really not rocket science to look at a map, and find that Itamar stand on what was land belonging to the juristriction of Awarta, Beit Furik and Yanun earlier. That Israeli construct of "state land" isn't bough by anyone. No, land didn't just drop from heaven and was given to the settlers...If socalled "state land" was given to Itamar, then that socalled "state land" was either a part of the municipalities of Awarta, or Beit Furik, or Yanun earlier. What Israel decides to call the land is really completely irrelevant.
  • If necessary, Ill go to RfC, or to the NPOV board, for this. Is it necessary? Huldra (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
For information: in the mandate-era topocadastral maps, the present location of Itamar's built-up area lies in the village lands of Awarta, near the border with the village lands of Rujeib. However, Israeli treats "village land" as "state land" and is happy to give it to settlements. That's why Icewhiz had to write "registered in the Tabu to an individual", and why it is perfectly reasonable to include the Palestinian perspective that the village land was stolen. Incidentally, I don't accept Icewhiz's statement as factual either; time after time such claims have proven to be false. Zerotalk 23:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Another trick that is common (including at Itamar, which should be mentioned) is that the army declares areas of Palestinian land to be closed security zones and then pretends to not notice when the settlers cultivate it. Zerotalk 00:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think there should be RFC on various organisation and NGOs and how we treat them as a source.--Shrike (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Zero - The situation here is more complex than an outright confiscation. If we do use ARIJ - it has be attributed to them. Ottoman land usage rights (which is effectively the regime still in the West Bank - as the British, Jordanians and Israelis did not apply a different system) are a rather arcane topic with many different kinds of land (though IIRC, grazing land did not actually build a land right - only actual cultivation would confer a right to continue to cultivate). If we want to state Israel confiscated so and so, we should be more precise on the how and what. State land is not village land - it actually excludes land which was cultivated (land cultivated for 10 years would acquire a right) - it is un-allocated land.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The "Wild, Wild West Bank", as they call it in Israel, where land magically fall from the sky into the hand of settlers....Lol! Huldra (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Allocation is not always accompanied by expropriation, and many tracts of land in many countries are public - even in the US (see Federal lands). The source is entirely unspecific in the what (original legal land right), how (legal instrument), and why (legal cause). I will note that following the letter of law does mean that whomever is doing so is acting justly and fairly - that is a separate matter (as is, of course, the actual legality of the ongoing occupatio bellica).Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You don't want to see the obvious: that even, say national parks, are always within the border of some municipality, or county, or whatever the local juristriction is called. You seem to want to believe that there was some Terra incognita, outside every juristriction, just waiting for some Israeli settlers. Lol! (Actually, I come from a small county, which has (part of) a large national park, as part of the county. And yes, the local leaders can do very little with it...except make sure that all the strict rules governing national parks are upkept. But if the government gave that land to, say...well, anyone outside the county.....we would have a revolution...or/and what you would call terrorist cells would pop up like mushroom after rain...) Huldra (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
State lands are not terra incognita, but rather owned by the state. Obviously one might argue about the justness and legality of the occupation and armed resistence thereof - regardless of whether land was actually expropriated.Icewhiz (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, you are do not want to see the obvious. An example: assume that Joshua Tree National Park is state land; that doesn't mean that Joshua Tree National Park isn't a part of California! Of course it is...The same way that it doesn't matter if Itamar was on state land or not (though I know at least some of it was literally stolen from private owners in Awarta...), if it was part of, say Awartas juristriction earlier, and now isn't, then that is a valid information to put into the article,
Not to mention that all of the inhabitants of California has access to Joshua Tree National Park. Imagine what would happen if, say the authorities would close off all of the land of Joshua Tree National Park for people of California, and order that hereafter, only people from Canada will have access to it? I suspect if anyone did that, you would find a sizeable number of Californians studying The Anarchist Cookbook, etc... Huldra (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Clearly there are many possible reasons for resistence. However, as an encyclopedia, we should be specific in regards to statements we make regarding the previous legal status of the land in question. In this case ARIJ is both a highly biased polemic source, and entirely unspecific regarding its claims. What, how, when, why, cotations - it is all missing from ARIJ.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have answered this on the RS noticeboard, but just let me add that I don't get your statement to add up to the facts at all. When ARIJ writes "Israel has confiscated an area of 2,450 dunums from Awarta village for the establishment of Itamar settlement" ...isnt that specific enough? Do you want it down to square meters? And a lot has been written about how Israel manipulate its census date, by including Israeli settlers etc. We still use the Israeli census data. AFAIK, nobody has been able to point to mistakes in the Palestinian census data, (which ARIJ is built on, among other info)....still that is a "highly biased polemic source"? Before you throw such accusations around, you better bring some proof. We cannot disregard a source just because you_dont_like_it. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
You are misleading on so many levels, the most serious being the outrageous claim that matters in the WB are conducted according to the rule of law. But I don't come to Wikipedia to discuss the subject. Zerotalk 08:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


I don't mind a RfC on this, I would expect the ARIJ to be a heck more reliable than, say Camera or NGO-Monitor (none of which have funding from anyone official body, AFAIK). So if I start a RfC, it will be for all 3 organisations, ok? Huldra (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be general RFC do we allow think tanks as source in ARPBIA area and if yes what should be the criteria.--Shrike (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
ARIJ is not a think-tank. It is an environmental and development NGO. On the other hand, Camera is 100% devoted to arm-chair propaganda, while NGO-monitor is a one-man operation. A more similar organization on the anti-Palestinian side of the fence would be Elad. Zerotalk 08:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
ARIJ is a Palestinian propaganda agency under disguise of "environmental and development NGO"--Shrike (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
But even if I agree with you how "nvironmental and development NGO" be reliable source on land ownership?--Shrike (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)