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

Naming conventions for the record[edit]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank). Sean.hoyland - talk 13:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


The Template:Israel-geo-stub was removed in this edit, the reason being, "Geographically Revava is not in Israel, but in the West Bank." Without getting into whether or not that statement's true, it isn't a valid reason for the template's removal. To wit, the template doesn't assert what the edit summary is arguing against, i.e. it doesn't assert that Revava is in Israel. What it does is it relates the article Revava to the article Geography of Israel, which covers (with the consensus of multiple editors) Israel's settlements in the West Bank.—Biosketch (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a stub so perhaps it doesn't matter in this case. However, what's the basis for your statement "with the consensus of multiple editors" ? I don't see that at Talk:Geography of Israel although I can imagine that discussions may have taken place elsewhere and the article is perhaps the product of a merge or split that happened at some point. Either way, the title Geography of Israel isn't accurate. I think that is probably the bigger issue, perhaps the root cause of these kind of issues, that needs to be resolved one day. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I would think that reasonable people would simply allow vague and explicitly ambiguous descriptions like 'of Israel' and 'Israeli' to avoid WP conflict and strife which might occur with using 'in Israel'. The article is not a stub so the removal was legitimate regardless of the editor's POV. --Shuki (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. Someone or something that made decisions based entirely on reason alone probably wouldn't call that article 'Geography of Israel' because it isn't just about that. I like vague terms to solve these kind of issues but 'of Israel' isn't vague enough for me to work well. It's specific and exclusive. Israel and Palestinian territories would probably be an imperfect step in the right direction. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think there are many geography sites which are related to a certain country even though they are not within the area of that country like Puerto Rico (of the United States and not in the US, and anything Taiwan (both of the PRC and RoC). --Shuki (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but if someone submitted a report in an multinational oil company about gas fields in the West Bank and called it 'Gas fields of Israel' or a report about prospects in Western Sahara and called it 'Prospects of Morocco' they would probably just be fired. I think the article is related to Israel (defined by the green line) and some other not-Israel areas. I'm not sure how best to deal with that but I do think its a problem that needs to be fixed at some point, somehow. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
They wouldn't be fired at all. Guantanamo is a US naval base and a naval base of the US. It is misleading only to ignorant people around the world who might think it is in Florida or near San Diego. Is WP guilty of that? This is pure NPOV. --Shuki (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Who owns the land?[edit]

The paragraph commencing Doubts to the real ownership of the land of the village implies that everyone now agrees with the decision of the Israeli Court as to ownership of the land of the village.

I suspect not everyone accepts the jurisdiction of the Israeli Court in the matter, certainly anyone who challenges the legality of the occupation of the West Bank. Further we don't know whether any individual Palestinians were given the opportunity to present a claim at the hearing.

Apart for the reason given by Nableezy, I agree tha the whole paragraph shopuld be deleted as unhelpful. Trahelliven (talk) 9:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your POV. The paragraph can be edited and reworded to increase the NPOV instead of removing an important fact. In the meantime, it is a legitimate part of the article to say that the Israeli court system (which often declares the opposite but in this case) ruled that the land was 100% Israeli owned. If you want to add issues about the legitimacy of the Israeli court system (which is viewed internationally as responsible for this area as long as Israeli controls it and the status does not change), it would be more beneficial to WP to take it to that article. --Shuki (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Peace Now[edit]

Can somebody provide an actually reliable source about Peace Now? I am not opposed to including such material, but I would like to see it without the typical settler spin that Arutz7 adds to seemingly every "news" story they publish. nableezy - 21:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Try to leave you battleground mentality off every article you touch. It would have been collaborative to start a discussion before taking unilateral action. And just a word of advice, you are just drawing attention to a small article that will now grow larger and with more RS so thank you. --Shuki (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You neglected to respond to my request for an actual reliable source. nableezy - 21:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Also Shuki, given that we have had this very conversation in the past, you should know that while you may cite to a non-English source, you need to provide quotes and translations of the material that backs what you are inserting into the article. nableezy - 21:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, I am not opposed to including the material, I would just like to see reliable sources for the claim. Shuki, can you please provide quotes of the relevant portions from the articles you cited and translations of those quotes? nableezy - 21:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. In the near future, a lot more will be added. If you can find anything specific in Arabic, that would be beneficial as well to expand this and other articles. --Shuki (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added an additional source for the Peace Now issue. --User:ShmuelGoldstein —Preceding undated comment added 10:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC).


I dont know Hebrew, so I cant search for Hebrew sources that associate the name of the settlement with the Bible verse. In my brief search in English I could not find anything. This needs to be sourced. I added a couple of other tags to unreferenced paragraphs. nableezy - 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added an additional source for the name of the town. User: ShmuelGoldstein —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC).


This article is an apology to this settlement. Sources used to write this are not RS. (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to be specific about proposed fixes or problematic sources. I reverted your edit about the legality by the way because the wording was agreed after long discussions, (see WP:Legality of Israeli settlements) and is standard for all settlement articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 22:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the information. We should add a pov-tag on that consensus. It means that the point of view of the international community is given the same weight as the one of the Israeli governement. This is in contradiction with WP:UNDUE.
But that is noted.
For the other pov concerns : everything that is written from no reliable sources (ie partisan sources) should be whether removed OR it should be attributed and other points of view on the matter also given... (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)