Talk:Elon Moreh

Settlements

Tewfik, please explain your latest edit. Elon Moreh is a settlement, outside Israel's recognized territory (by Israel's own definition, too), and so should be in the settlements category - this is the only way for the reader to find a list of settlements.

(You said it was discussed - can you refer me to the discussion?)

okedem 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forget it. I saw the "Shomron Regional Council" category covers it. Sorry... okedem 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how its establishment is a violation of the Geneva conventions. When was Israel's population deported or transferred into this area? shlomo2000 — Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles based on published reliable sources, policy and guidelines (see WP:TALK). Please also read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Historical details

Can anyone confirm this edit [1] by anon adding some historical details. It seems plausible, but don't know. --Shuki 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

confiscated source in lead

Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. The article contains material on what village the land this settlement was built on was confiscated from. That merits mention in the lead. nableezy - 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Summarization would be “Elon Moreh was founded in confiscated Palestinian land”. How it reads now is pure repetition.

Furthermore, 99% of other settlement articles don’t include this info in lead...don’t encyclopedias standardize reporting practices? Regarding settlement articles, is that not a perfect test case, as much info is repetitious In Different forms? ( Israeli occupation illegal, Israel has confiscated this much territory from local village, yada yada) Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Please indent your posts with (see WP:INDENT for why and how). I dont really care what 99% of settlement articles look like, if they are all wrong there is no reason for this one to be wrong. And no, it is not repeated. The body has

According to ARIJ, Israel confiscated land from nearby Palestinian villages in order to construct Elon Moreh:

*659 dunams from Deir al-Hatab,

* 639 dunums from Azmut.

The method of proclaiming West Bank village lands to be "state lands" was subsequently used to create many other West Bank settlements. In this, too, Elon Moreh was a precedent-setting case - a positive one in the eyes of some Israelis, an illegal one according to international law.

The lead has

Elon Moreh is located on land confiscated from two Palestinian villages: 639 dunums were taken from Azmut, while 659 dunums were taken from Deir al-Hatab.

nableezy - 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

ARIJ is not a RS and can't be used as a standalone source. You throwaway any pro-Israel NGO, if you are going to use ARIJ, you need to attribute it to ARIJ in the sentence, not as a RS. Further, this information is already in the article, one sentence below and does not need to be in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@nableezy, your underlying argument here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zarcademan123456#edit-warring) is consensus building. Doesn’t adding information in a place not present in 99% of articles, regardless of right or wrong, go against consensus building?

To make less repetitive and more summaritive (yes I think I just invented a word), can we make lead say “Elon Moreh seas build on land confiscated from two Palestinian villages”?

Under history, very next sentence, it specifies land confiscations... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OSE, what other articles have or do not have has absolutely no bearing on what this article has or does not have. That is a non-argument here. nableezy - 16:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You quoted an essay, not necessarily representative of normative views. I’m going to change to just say “Israel confiscated land from two Palestinian villages” ok? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Nvm now moot Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of RS by SJ under the specious assertion that it is a thesis

See here Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why Nableezy feels the need to reinsert the disputed content before the discussion at WP:RS/N is completed. That is disruptive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear, what is disruptive is removing sources that are reliable per WP:RS. nableezy - 01:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not 'disputed content'. It is content you alone removed with a, to put it politely, misleading edit summary, since WP:Scholarship gives no one any ground (to the contrary) to excise material simply because it is a 'thesis'. To assert 'thesis' ergo in violation of the rules and to be removed is a POV judgement done in the face of policy that stipulates Phds can be acceptable, particularly this one which is not only published in an academic book series, but was supervised by one of Switzerland's foremost legal scholars (stringently peer-reviewed).Nishidani (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Could someone explain me why this source needed at all?As it use btzelem as source that already in the article? Shrike (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that for you. You complained at the RSN board that Mais Qandell's book was a primary source and thus not acceptable. There it was explained to you that Qandell's book was a secondary academic source synthesizing primary sources, and therefore RS. Now you ask why the secondary source, Qandell, is used instead of B'tselem, her primary source for the data on the Elon Moreh road.

Shrike, do you realize what you are doing on two different pages regarding the same book? You protest it is a primary source on one, and then complain it is a secondary source on the other. And thirdly, you are confused. Our page doesn't use the B'tselem source Qandell cites ('Expel and Exploit: The Israeli Practice of Taking over Rural Palestinian Land,' B'tselem December 2016). Our page uses another text from B'tselem ('West Bank roads on which Israel forbids Palestinian vehicles,' B'tselem 27 January 2017)

So you are utterly confused on three counts. The meaning of two policies, and on the differences between two different texts which you take to be the same. really, c'mon. Concentrate on what is cited, read, and argued. Otherwise this querulous argufying is just cunctatorial funny business.

I'll put Qandell's source in as well. It's always good practice to give both a primary and a secondary source for controversial data. The reader can check if the secondary source, which is superior in any case RS-wise, is accurateNishidani (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

B'Tselem is not a RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Undid revision 957435642 by Nishidani (talk)B'Tselem is not a RS and must be attributed to b'tselem but can't be used as a ref by itself.

(a)This is, grammatically, unintelligible. Propositionally SJ is saying

• B'tselem is not a reliable source
• (Therefore B'tselem) must be attributed to B'tselem (???!!!!)
• However, B'tselem can't stand alone as a reference.

I've taught English as a second language to Russians, Japanese, Chinese etc, but I've rarely come across garbled stuff like that even in those situations.

(b) The assertion in so far as it may mean something is so blatantly contrafactual, it would be reportable in any reasonable system of arbitration. Its author, a longterm editor familiar with RS process, must know, despite asserting the contrary. B'tselem is cited on virtually every other I/P wiki page and has been for donkey's ages. It has rarely been claimed to be unreliable, except back in 2010 when challenges to it were knocked down ([2] March 2010)

(c) Ergo, if you have proof that it has a record of being identified as not qualifying as RS, give it, or take it up again at RSN.

(d) One more point. The edit summary and revert is utterly irrational because it takes out my recent addition of a further B’tselem source, while leaving in the earlier one. In other words, SJ says B’tselem can’t be used as a ref, but can stay in as a ref. Jeezus, First Shrike saying Qandell’s book is a primary source, and as such should be removed, and then switches tack and argues it is a secondary source and as such should be removed since we have a primary source. Now SJ says B’tselem can’t be used as RS, and must be removed, but in reverting it out he leaves in an additional B’tselem source below the excised part, meaning B’tselem, for SJ is not okay, but it is okay. Get your acts together. This is farcical POV messing up, pure specious stonewalling or sand-in-your eyes fiddling with wiklipedia process.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not Shrike, B'Tselem can't be used in Wiki's voice. It must be an inline citation, as in "According to B'Tselem..." That is nothing new and WP:RS/N has said that repeatedly, including the very diff you posted. It must be funny for you, because we're not a tag team so that is something new to you I guess. Bottom line, if you want to use it in Wikipedia, it can't be in Wikipedia's voice, it must be attributed and in inline form. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ill be restoring B'tselem, that has been repeatedly been found to be an acceptable source at RSN. Sir Joseph's understanding of what is or is not a reliable source is not dispositive here. nableezy - 23:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

At RS/N it says to use inline, not in Wikipedia's voice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thats a partial reading of both RSN and the article, as, hello, that sentence has more than B'tselem support it. Most people said it was reliable, but due to the topic they would attribute it. It emphatically did not require that or say, as you repeat ad nasuem, that B'tselem is not reliable. nableezy - 03:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Still hasn't been repeatedly found to be RS. The consensus at RS is to use inline. It's an NGO that has a POV. It should not be used in Wikipedia's voice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you noticed the other source there? nableezy - 03:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither you, SJ, nor anyone else here is invested with a unique authority to determine what is and is not RS, and that is particularly true in making a revert that, to your certain knowledge as a long term editor here, removes a source like B'tselem which has been cited endlessly over I/P articles without challenge for more than a decade. If, therefore, seeing it lately on one page, you are 'concerned' (as opposed to just seeing which editor added the source and making the usual automatic 'revert-Nishidani' gambit so popular here in certain circles), the only option, seeing that your 'concern' reflects an extreme minority opinion, is to take it to the RSN board and try to convince third parties you perceive what almost no one else perceives.It's as simple as that. Otherwise, the revert looks like dislike of the contributing editor rather than a reasonable policy-and-practice based judgment. You've been warned. Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Put name section at the top

Name: In the Bible, Elon Moreh is where God told Abraham, "To your descendants will I give this land" (Genesis 12:7). Jacob, the son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham, purchased land near Elon Moreh and Shechem (Genesis 33:19). The name of the village comes from a passage in the Torah relating to the first location where Abraham settled after crossing the Jordan River.

This is big in Israel, because it feels historically significant. This is important and should be at the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:7491:A582:A5F1:A9D0 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)