Talk:Israeli settler violence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tagged POV

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

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

Renaming back to "Settler violence"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Useful article(s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli army mutinies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect information

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

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

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

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

Funding of illegal settlements briefly halted in 2008

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

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

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

Drive-by tagging of Israeli settler violence

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

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

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

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

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

(removed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

settler claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unnecessary/weasley sentence of clarification in intro

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

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

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

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

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

-- External Links --

Settler attacks statistics

2008

Jan

Feb

2009

...

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

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

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